Where exactly is the "doxxing"? This data appears to have come from individuals who willingly filled out government forms in a state with a FOIA-style law (the PRA) that includes all government information not explicitly excluded.
This is consistent with how FOIA and CCW laws interact in most states. For example, here's NY's explanation of how SAFE and FOIL interact[1].
First of all, WIC and Section 8 are Federal programs/statues.
Their state counterparts are explicitly excluded. Why? Because there's no obvious public interest in them. This is in contrast to firearms, where I have a public interest in knowing whether my neighbor has the ability to shoot me the next time I make a complaint about him.
Is there a compelling public interest? What percentage of shootings in California in the past, I dunno, decade have involved someone with a CCW shooting a neighbor over a complaint being filed against them? Is it nonzero?
If the number of shootings where a CCW holder has shot a neighbor over a complaint is substantially smaller than the number of cases where a CCW holder has not shot a neighbor over a complaint, doesn't this just serve to make holding a CCW intimidating in a way that most CCW holders neither want nor need? Most directly relevant to your public interest argument, is the rate of people shooting neighbors over a complaint substantially higher among CCW-permit holders than non-CCW-permit holders?
I think I would love concrete numbers as much as you would. Until then, "California neighbor dispute shot" gives me about 6.3 million results on Google. When I add "concealed carry" as a mandatory term, it reduces to about 1.7 million.
It seems like the California Attorney General's office would have numbers on exactly that, though, as it records the identities of both shooters and people who hold CCW permits.
Is the claim you're making that 1.7 million CCW permit holders have shot another neighbor over a dispute?
The first result I got from your search query was this
> Neal fired eight rounds into a Ford F-250 occupied by a mother and her son who were headed to school. The boy suffered non-life-threatening wounds, but the mother was seriously injured, Johnston said. The mother, who had a concealed carry permit, pulled out her own handgun but was unable to fire it before Neal drove away, Johnston said.
No, that would be ridiculous. My point, a very weak one, was that shootings between neighbors are not unheard of. It stands to reason (at least to me) that knowing about my neighbor's gun is likely to incentivize me to de-escalate the situation.
Sure. He can also bash me over the head with a big rock, or spray me with bear hormones and dump me in the woods. Like everything else in our society, we balance potentials with exigency, immediacy, and scale. A gun trumps a knife in all of these regards.
The gun owner is the fearful person. Not owning a gun in this country requires bravery considering our neighbors may be armed to the teeth. This comment takes no side in the issue of the leak. Just stating the fact that many purchase guns out of fear for their own safety.
These are all examples. You can do some cursory background on me and determine that I don't live in California, and that my neighbors are extremely unlikely to own guns.
See above. The law makes reasonable exemptions, particularly when the information is either universally obtained (nearly everybody has a state ID) or is a consequence of privation and not in the public interest (welfare programs).
CCW permits are neither of these: you opt into them, and they reflect no amount of privation while being entirely in the public interest.
Not any right, this specific one. Your right to own a gun is not coextensive with your right to privacy (a right, I may remind you, that has been significantly weakened by SCOTUS this week.)
See above for the public interest: people engage and escalate disputes all the time, believing that the other party is unwilling or at least incapable of conveniently murdering them. CCWs change that calculus; it's in my best interest as a member of the public to know whether my neighbor might murder me rather than merely being angry at a dispute.
People deliberately run people over with cars all the time. It is in my best interest to have a list of every car owned by my neighbor along with his DOB, how many times he failed the driving test, when he got his license and whatever other information related to vehicles and licences.
People engage and escalate disputes all the time, believing that the other party is unwilling or at least incapable of conveniently murdering them. Cars change that calculus; it's in my best interest as a member of the public to know whether my neighbor might murder me rather than merely being angry at a dispute.
Carrying a gun in public is “bearing it”, so you are completely wrong according to at least three Supreme Court decisions and easily readable text of the constitution.
If you are pretending you want constitutional open carry, we’ll, that’s pretty funny I suppose. Because you definitely don’t.
This is an extremely tortured reading of "bearing." SCOTUS has never determined that "bearing" means that any disposition of a firearm is acceptable; they have repeatedly determined that the Second Amendment does not extend a universal right to brandish (or not brandish) a firearm in any way you please.
Scalia is extremely explicit about this in District of Columbia v. Heller[1]:
> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
>SCOTUS has never determined that "bearing" means that any disposition of a firearm is acceptable; they have repeatedly determined that the Second Amendment does not extend a universal right to brandish (or not brandish) a firearm in any way you please.
Carrying is not brandishing. Hot take there!
Did you really just try and cherry pick Heller vs DC to pretend carry is not protected? Read the words you posted...
prohibitions have been upheld.
And the hilarious next sentence Scialia uses that restores the context to tried to omit:
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.
Yes, a state can prohibit for felons, mentally ill, etc. If you stopped reading the rest of the opinion, and didn't go on to read McDonald v Chicago 2010, this still implies that a state will allow concealed carry for law abiding citizens.
The two options are:
1. You are hard-line and wrong, where all the states with concealed carry now including CA, HI, NJ, MD that will issue permits are respecting civil rights.
2. Everyone has it wrong but you!, in which case, this is surely frustrating.
Either way... Concealed carry exists and shall-issue is now the minimum law of the land. More states going to constitutional carry every year.
Turns out your desire convince people using frantic posts and omissions doesn't actually change anything. Crazy huh?
EDIT: Here is a cool gif that shows states over time. It'll now need to be updated to remove all the may-issue states.
I think it would behoove you to read this entire thread again. I'm not particularly interested in defending some kind of absolute prohibition against firearms from a constitutional perspective, because I know of no such argument.
Here are two points I've made, both of which I think are defensible:
* SCOTUS has repeatedly recognized that the Second Amendment does not reflect an absolute right to either own or employ guns however individuals would like. In particular, SCOTUS has recognized that both the states and the Federal Government have rightfully and reasonably regulated concealed firearms, and that there is no constitutional threat to such regulation as long as it does not constitute prohibition. The Federal precedent for such regulation goes back to 1897 and is not meaningfully adapted by either McDonald 2010 or Bruen 2022 (which both preserve "shall issue," like you've mentioned).
* There is a reasonable public interest in knowing who receives a CCW permit, one that is not impeded by the current "shall issue" standard. That public interest complements the current privacy standards under most states' FOIA/FOIL-style laws. You can see above and adjacent comment threads for why I think this is.
