[HN Gopher] Gun owners' private information leaked by California...
___________________________________________________________________
Gun owners' private information leaked by California Attorney
General
Author : Acrobatic_Road
Score : 196 points
Date : 2022-06-28 17:45 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thereload.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thereload.com)
| at_a_remove wrote:
| I recall the Journal News, of New York, making an online map of
| locals who held gun permits, back around 2012. Of course, someone
| published the addresses of _those_ journalists who were --
| unsurprisingly -- all _boo-hoo-hoo_ about it.
|
| I wonder just how "accidental" this leak was.
| kristjank wrote:
| Epic fail, it's pretty hard to discern if it's malice or
| incompetence that caused this. Either way, the jackasses
| responsible for this should have been mopping the floor in a
| grocery store by now, not explaining how this whole operation was
| to elevate trust.
| jonas21 wrote:
| And these are the folks responsible for enforcing the California
| Consumer Privacy Act. Sigh.
| hobz22 wrote:
| It's hard to avoid the obvious conclusion of this article.....gun
| owners need more guns, clearly. :)
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| Is it a crime when the government doxx someone?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| not a crime when equifax does it
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| This is made possible - ultimately - by the absence of criminal
| and statutory civil penalties for exposure of confidential data.
| Congress (gotta be federal) needs to jump on this for domestic
| and national security reasons, but the tech/data/corporate lobby
| will fight this to the bitter end.
| mikestew wrote:
| Good job, jackasses, now this will get trotted out as an example
| against anything that ties a name to a firearm (i. e.,
| registration). And though I might fall in with the "if not Sandy
| Hook, then what is it going to take?" crowd, I can't say it's an
| invalid argument. I mean, a government is unlikely to be so bold
| as to just outright _publish_ the PII. But what if we suffered a
| "data breach"? If it's the way _I 'd_ do it, is it really a
| conspiracy theory? :-)
| topspin wrote:
| > Good job, jackasses, now this will get trotted out as an
| example against anything that ties a name to a firearm (i. e.,
| registration).
|
| We're way past that phase. New York has been playing this game
| for years[1]
|
| [1] https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-
| map/in...
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| It's no body else's business, especially the power hungry
| federal government, to know if I own a firearm. If you want to
| see what happens when you disarm citizens there are plenty of
| examples through history. You can look at Australia during
| covid and the camps they setup. The citizens could do nothing.
| The government should always be kept in check and having armed
| legal citizens is a wonderful thing for freedom.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| What are you doing to keep the government in check currently
| or is this pretty much how you like it rn?
| spiderice wrote:
| There is a large gap between "I like what the government is
| doing right now" and "time to keep the government in check
| with guns".
|
| In other words, just because guns aren't being used to keep
| the government in check right now doesn't mean there aren't
| valid situations where they could be. I'm not entirely sure
| if your comment is insinuating that. If it's not, sorry for
| misinterpreting it.
| missedthecue wrote:
| If your government had wanted to set up covid camps, who
| exactly would you be shooting to fix that?
| kbd wrote:
| Gun advocates: "registration is problematic for many reasons as
| the data can be abused/leaked"
|
| _prediction comes true_
|
| Gun control advocate: "good job now they'll use this as an
| example"
|
| Yep.
| jstarfish wrote:
| No, this was no accident. California has been leveraging gun
| regulations as a foil to anti-abortion movements elsewhere in
| the country, including discussions of dissemination of lists of
| abortion recipients, providers, and facilitators for targeting
| by bounty hunters.
|
| Now we have an accidentally-disseminated list of gun owners.
| "Oops," indeed. Turnabout is fair play?
| mulmen wrote:
| That's a very serious allegation to throw around when regular
| old incompetence is a viable explanation.
| jstarfish wrote:
| I'm not afraid to make it; there's no burden of proof
| online.
|
| It's too conveniently timed--and too specific in content--
| to be coincidence. They didn't leak a list of everybody on
| food stamps during a slow news cycle.
|
| Everything other states have threatened to do regarding
| abortion, California has responded to by doing the exact
| same thing, only replacing the word "abortion" with "guns."
| peter422 wrote:
| California has banned all guns?
|
| Some states have actually banned all abortions so it
| seems like you should be able to point to a single
| statewide official suggesting all guns be banned.
| Otherwise you might be guilty of exaggerating just a bit.
| quarantaseih wrote:
| Days after the most significant SCOTUS gun decision in over
| a decade (Heller)?
|
| Arguably the second most important one in 2A jurisprudence?
| olyjohn wrote:
| Yeah... still likely just incompetence, dude.
| tomohawk wrote:
| Yep. This is an established pattern and practice by
| California.
|
| Here's a famous one:
|
| > Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, Inc., for the
| 2009 fiscal year was publicly posted; the document included
| the names and addresses of hundreds of donors.
|
| https://reason.com/2021/03/04/californias-requirement-
| that-n...
|
| The law they were using to sabotage groups they didn't like
| finally got ruled unconsitutional.
| dontbenebby wrote:
| Hi. I'm from Appalachia and am a fan of the second amendment.
|
| Please don't call me a jackass.
|
| Now that we have that out of the way: Gun owners have brought
| this kind of thing on themselves. I've observed them for years.
|
| Most of the demands for "privacy" for gun owners stem from the
| fact if you did a fair and accurate background check... they
| wouldn't be able to own them.
|
| I don't own one, but they took me out on Pearl Harbor day when
| I was sixteen and showed me how to shoot a 1911 at the local
| range. Prior to that, I learned on BB guns, then at the archery
| range in Cub Scouts, then finally on bolt action .22s in the
| Boy Scouts. I can't hit a target accurately with a pistol more
| than 10 yards out, but I know enough if someone gives me one I
| can make use of it.
|
| Anyways, the ugly truth is most gun owners in America...
| shouldn't. They're obsessed with movie plot threats and movie
| plot guns, when if you truly want to have a militia geared at
| ovethrowing fascist oppressors, you want to take a look at how
| they handled such things in places like occupied Prague or
| Amsterdam.
|
| Hint: they didn't run up on the Nazis with deagles or AK-47
| clones with drum clips so large they jam sooner than if you
| stuck with a 30 round banana clip -- they walked up with a .22
| revolver so quiet you can't hear it from the next apartment
| over, emptied it into the skull of some local party official,
| dropping no casings, because it's a revolver, not a deagle with
| a dick extender, then dropped it in a canal or whatever and
| never spoke of it again, and slit the throats of those who felt
| otherwise as they slept.
|
| The second amendment was about maintaining arms for hunting
| and/or a small guerilla force to hold off invaders until an
| organized militia could provide reinforcement, not so every tom
| dick and sally could replicate the National Guard armory.
| pyronik19 wrote:
| >now this will get trotted out as an example against anything
| that ties a name to a firearm
|
| As it should be, "I told you so" all day long.
| cpwright wrote:
| Except in NY, where before the SAFE act they did. Westchester
| county responded to a FOIA request. Putnam county told the
| Journal News to pound sand.
|
| https://www.rcfp.org/journals/wake-journal-news-publishin/
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| OK, that's two ways it could leak - data breach, and honoring
| an FOIA request. And that makes me think of a third way -
| improperly redacted evidence in a court case.
|
| Paranoia about my data in government databases wasn't on my
| radar 15 minutes ago...
| int_19h wrote:
| In WA, we had a similar problem with bump stocks.
|
| See, the state banned them before the feds did. But unlike
| the feds, the state did the right thing and compensated the
| owners who surrendered theirs to the State Patrol (which
| required filling a form with a bunch of PII). That program
| was put together rather hastily due to the impending
| federal ban tho, and they didn't really consider the
| privacy angle.
|
| Then they got two FOIA requests for all the submitted
| forms, one of which explicitly stated that it's to compile
| and publish the registry of former owners. The legislature
| actually had to scramble to pass another law to specify
| that data as private before the response was due.
| chucksta wrote:
| You've never seen DMV leaks?
| https://www.autoinsurance.org/worst-states-for-dmv-dot-
| data-...
|
| The government in most forms is my biggest fear for my
| personal data security
| mulmen wrote:
| > Paranoia about my data in government databases wasn't on
| my radar 15 minutes ago...
|
| Wait, really?
|
| If you really want to be scared check this out:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
| kerblang wrote:
| Just googling around (not sure about accuracy)
| https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/k-gun-permits/
|
| > Licenses and applications to carry firearms are public. CBS
| Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal. 3d 646, 652-53, 725 P.2d 470, 230 Cal.
| Rptr. 362 (1986). However, certain information contained in the
| application is expressly exempt. Cal. Gov't Code SS 6254(u)
| (information indicating when and where applicant is vulnerable to
| attack, information concerning applicant's mental health, and
| home address and telephone number of prosecutors, public
| defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and
| magistrates set forth in the application and license is exempt).
| The agency must segregate the exempt from non-exempt material.
| See Cal. Gov't Code SS 6253(a).
| kyrra wrote:
| Last year, SCOTUS ruled that California could not collect donor
| information from non profits. A large part of this was that
| California did a poor job of securing this information. They
| accidentally posted over 1700 Schedule B forms online for anyone
| to access over the last 10 years.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1004062322/the-supreme-court-...
| [deleted]
| Ekaros wrote:
| And this is why there should be no registry and no limitations on
| ownership. Just get rid of all limitations and it will be for
| better.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Would there be any noise ordinance issues if I'm practicing
| with my 25-pounder (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_25-pounder ) between
| 10pm and 6am?
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Firearm/weapons safety dictates that you wouldn't be
| practicing with your 25-pounder anywhere near people's homes.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Shall not be infringed. Ofc, night time practise is necessary
| for security of free state.
| quarantaseih wrote:
| Agreed. And feel free to do so in your country home.
|
| Like the 1A, 2A isnt absolute, even conservatives say it
| isnt. You cant shoot guns for fun in a patio in NYC (but
| you should be allowed to own a mortar!). Not absolute but
| unconstitutionally stifled for decades.
| int_19h wrote:
| You are allowed to own a mortar in US.
|
| You just have to pony up $200 for the mortar itself, and
| then $200 for each shell, to register them with ATF as
| destructive devices. Well, and find someone to willing to
| sell them for you. Or make your own.
| [deleted]
| aliswe wrote:
| Just curious, would this be able to be used as material for
| conspiracy theorists on both sides?
| jmspring wrote:
| A friend grabbed most of the data. I plan on looking through to
| see just how obvious / easy it is to draw conclusions once I see
| it.
| sigzero wrote:
| According to the article:
|
| The leaked information includes the person's full name, home
| address, date of birth, and date their permit was issued. The
| data also shows the type of permit issued, indicating if the
| permit holder is a member of law enforcement or a judge.
|
| So that is "easy to draw conclusions".
| jmspring wrote:
| Well, mapping between the databases. If DROS data is
| available, yet the individual doesn't have a CCW, what does
| the DROS info have? Given what I understand, if an individual
| has a CCW and the info exposed there, mapping to what
| firearms they own may be relatively straight forward. If they
| don't, then what info is available?
| smm11 wrote:
| Broadcasting you have guns is about as smart as broadcasting you
| have $15K of tools in your garage, or $15K of jewelry, or $15K of
| bicycles.
|
| The difference, though, is if any of the above is stolen, the gun
| owner will say "SEE?" and buy more guns for protection.
| throw7 wrote:
| SMH. Idiots.
| snsr wrote:
| _-david-_ wrote:
| That would be like saying "Post Jan 6th I don't think anyone
| should have free speech.". Removal of a right because of abuse
| by somebody else is ridiculous.
| voz_ wrote:
| bowsamic wrote:
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| The comment is pretty confrontational and hostile though
|
| I guess I could see an argument going either way for allowing
| it. There can only be a flame war in response to it, but
| maybe that flame war needs to play out?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| If there can only be a flamewar in response to it, then
| it's definitely against site guidelines.
|
| If there needs to be a flamewar, let it play out somewhere
| else. Not on HN.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| It's not a question of agreement or disagreement, the comment
| is just unrelated ragebait. I'd love to read an analysis of
| the costs and benefits of modern air travel, but if this were
| article about a United Airlines data breach and someone
| commented "That's good because I wish airplanes had been
| banned after 9/11", I'd flag that too.
| sokoloff wrote:
| This surely doesn't seem like the way to go about creating that
| change, particularly since it increases the risk that these
| guns will become stolen.
| snsr wrote:
| option wrote:
| they didn't break any laws, why shouldn't they?
|
| Also, there is no lack of historic precedent when one group
| not willing to live next to the other. How are you
| different?
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Maybe we should have public voting so people can know who
| they live next to. Why do voters deserve privacy?
| suitcase wrote:
| Some of the people on the list are victims of stalkers and
| domestic violence.
|
| Everybody on the list deserved better data handling
| practices from the CA DOJ, regardless of any political
| posturing.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| I don't see why people of a different religion need privacy
| either, we should make a list of them so that I can ensure
| that I am not living near anyone who might have different
| values. /s
|
| If yours is a sincerely held view, I think you need to take
| some time and meet new people.
| [deleted]
| cryptophreak wrote:
| Are you saying that you would like for bad things to happen
| to firearms owners at any cost, _including_ their firearms
| being distributed to thieves for nefarious use?
|
| In other words, you aren't trying to solve a social issue,
| you're trying to punish your ideological enemies?
| smoldesu wrote:
| > Are you saying that you would like for bad things to
| happen to firearms owners at any cost, including their
| firearms being distributed to thieves for nefarious use?
|
| That already happens. Negligent firearm ownership is
| responsible for a shocking number of mass shootings and
| tragedies here in America. I really do take every effort
| to stand up for individual freedoms, but with every
| passing day the Second Amendment looks increasingly
| antiquated. I shouldn't be hearing about local shootings
| on a monthly basis, it's simply not worth the effort
| defending anymore, to me. The solution seems clear.
| Either gun owners need greater accountability for their
| actions, or we need to start cutting back on the density
| of firearms in densely-populated areas.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Because everyone deserves privacy?
| krapp wrote:
| Do they? We're currently entering an era of strict
| Constitutional textualism, and a right to privacy is
| mentioned nowhere in it. If women don't have a right to
| privacy regarding their own bodies, why should gun owners
| get to keep their guns secret?
| sokoloff wrote:
| As your example amply illustrates, "deserves" is not the
| same as "is directly Constitutionally protected".
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"If women don't have a right to privacy regarding their
| own bodies, why should gun owners get to keep their guns
| secret?"
|
| This isn't a zero sum game. To lose a right to privacy
| somewhere doesn't mean it deserves to be lost everywhere.
| If you are upset that privacy is being violated you
| shouldn't be happy this happened.
| vkou wrote:
| Unless, of course, they want to get a medical procedure.
| (Because you somehow don't have an inalienable right to
| body autonomy, but you do have the inalienable right to
| own a gun.)
| HideousKojima wrote:
| If you murder someone in private, your right to privacy
| doesn't protect you from murder charges. The same logic
| is being used with abortion laws, your euphemizing it as
| "a medical procedure" notwithstanding.
| vkou wrote:
| Nobody else is entitled to occupy space in, or take
| nourishment from my body. It's their problem if they
| can't survive outside of it.
|
| Just like it's not murder to refuse to have your organs
| transplanted to save a life, because of your right to
| body autonomy, it's not murder to evict someone living
| inside it. Refusing help to someone isn't murder, even in
| a life-or-death situation - and if it were, I've got a
| long list of impositions for you.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >Nobody else is entitled to occupy space in, or take
| nourishment from my body.
|
| If you have a newborn baby and refuse to feed them and
| they die, you'll be tried for murder. The baby being
| inside or outside of the body doesn't change the
| responsibility the mother has to it.
| vkou wrote:
| The mother can give up that child any time she wants.
| Nobody's forcing her to take on those responsibilities.
| If the child fails to survive as a ward of the state,
| it's no longer her problem. The child doesn't have the
| right to make this imposition on anyone in particular,
| whether via money, or via blood.
|
| Speaking of blood, I need a kidney, you have two. Can we
| cut you open against your will, and take one, for my use?
| I'll die without one. Surely, my _right to life_ is more
| important then your right to your own person. After all,
| that right isn 't enumerated anywhere in the
| constitution...
| closingcoffee wrote:
| Neither would I you. Perhaps a peaceful separation is best.
| golemotron wrote:
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| When seconds matter, police are minutes away (Or being
| complete cowards).
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >(Or being complete cowards)
|
| And actively stopping non-cowards from intervening in their
| stead.
| yardie wrote:
| For those that don't understand the implication of this:
| Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery. By included such
| detailed information on who's a registered gun owner, where they
| live, etc. It makes the gun owner a lucrative target.
|
| I'm staunchly pro regulation but this even I can't understand.
| Like someone just did SELECT * FROM GunOwnersDB and pushed is
| straight to the web.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| I wonder if any of the gun owners will file suit for Doxing,
| that is illegal in CA AFIK.
|
| Also, this is why I dislike government databases.
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| It's already in the works.
| jmspring wrote:
| Do tell.
| todd3834 wrote:
| The article was updated to include:
|
| > The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA)
| slammed the leak and said it was looking into potential
| legal action against the state.
| sigzero wrote:
| The article indicates that a suit is following.
| jmspring wrote:
| Know a good Doxing lawyer? I know people who would happy be
| at the start of things rather than part of a class action
| that results in $0.33 and free credit monitoring for a year.
| falcrist wrote:
| This seems like a reason to dislike _all_ databases that hold
| this kind of information. These days, your personal info is
| at the mercy of your bank, your ISP, and a number of other
| entities who could leak data at any time just by being
| slightly complacent with security.
|
| It's not like the old days where an attacker would have to
| haul tons of paper around and go through it manually.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >This seems like a reason to dislike all databases that
| hold this kind of information
|
| Yeah, we wouldn't want the ability to pay people what
| they're owed, or what they've given to Social Security when
| it's time for payouts, or what people have criminal
| convictions for various crimes, or who owns what license
| plate, or who is registered to vote, because we want all
| those things to be as wild, wild west as possible. right?
| No need to track how much money you have in the bank, you
| can just trust them. No need to track how much you've paid
| off a loan, you can trust them to tell you when they feel
| like it. No accountability, no tracking, complete ignorance
| on everyone and everything...
|
| Or we can have databases because they are extremely useful
| for a modern, well functioning society, and try to mitigate
| negatives as much as possible.
|
| >It's not like the old days where an attacker would have to
| haul tons of paper around and go through it manually.
|
| You mean longer ago than most people have been alive? When
| things were vastly slower, making them unusable with the
| numbers of people we serve now? When you paid more for most
| things since the slowness and overhead of every was also
| people having to go through all the records manually to get
| things done?
|
| Good idea. We can set mankind back nearly 100 years, or if
| we really try, let's push us back before any automation.
| falcrist wrote:
| Why are you coming at me with strawman arguments.
|
| Did I say we should stop using databases altogether? No.
| I said this is a reason to dislike them.
|
| Did I say we should go back to using paper recordkeeping
| for everything? No. Again, that was never argued.
|
| Have you considered that _maybe_ there 's a middle-ground
| between collecting, trading, and analyzing every possible
| scrap of data we can squeeze out of people... and the
| Butlerian Jihad?
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| Also a strawman. Every database I listed is not the
| "Butlerian Jihad," they're all simple databases to keep
| track of identities for very reasonable reasons.
|
| >Did I say we should stop using databases altogether?
|
| Claiming this is a reason to dislike all databases
| coupled with your wistful statement "it's not like the
| old days..." sure looks like your advocating for the old
| days.
|
| >Have you considered that maybe there's a middle-ground
| between collecting, trading, and analyzing every possible
| scrap of data we can squeeze out of people... and the
| Butlerian Jihad?
|
| Yes, which is why I mocked your dislike of all such
| databases (including as you wrote, banks and ISPs) and a
| weird reference to ancient systems as if they were a
| better option.
|
| If you thought middle ground was a good solution, you
| could have simply written that instead of writing two
| extremes. But you chose the extremes.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Yeah but the impact of somebody knowing I have a gun is
| higher.
|
| 1. People can come target me for stealing
|
| 2. If the steppers pass a law targeting something then they
| know I have to turn it in or they come kick down my door
| and shoot my dog. I really don't want a database of e.g. AR
| pistols or braces so if the govt decides they are illegal
| they can't try to force me to turn them in.
| propernoun wrote:
| Sure, but not all databases have equal impact. Also, the
| relationship between an individual and the government is
| fundamentally different than that of a business
| relationship. I expect much more of my government,
| _especially_ when considering if such a database is even
| needed.
|
| To the parents post, litigation and firearms training are
| two things the NRA does well, which includes suing
| California over privacy issues such as this.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "the relationship between an individual and the
| government is fundamentally different than that of a
| business relationship"
|
| yeah, to government you are a voter, but to Equifax and
| Facebook you are a product,
|
| you have as much influence over them as a barrel of wheat
| has over the farmer.
| falcrist wrote:
| It's true. Not all databases have equal impact, but you
| have to admit that we all have some incredibly sensitive
| information exposed to various different kinds of leaks
| and breaches.
|
| And on one hand, your relationship with your government
| is not the same as your relationship with private
| entities. However, at some level it doesn't matter who
| leaked a particular piece of information. If your
| favorite gun store gets hacked, and your collection is
| exposed along with your address, the effect is
| essentially the same as if it were the government of
| California getting hacked.
| chmod600 wrote:
| Are you saying gun stores keep electronic records of all
| their sales? They keep the forms (until they can be
| shredded), but I doubt they keep detailed electronic
| records beyond what's needed for accounting.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| Even the old paper databases were a terrible idea.
|
| There was a registration list of every person and what
| religion they were for tax purposes, everyone was fine with
| it. Then 1941 happened.
| lettergram wrote:
| It's funny, because in Illinois there was a fight over making
| the list of gun owners public.
|
| https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-officials-spar-ove...
| xdennis wrote:
| If you're wondering how that ended, they passed a bill to
| keep the names private.
|
| https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-house-approves-
| bil...
|
| One thing I dislike about the news is that every article
| drops you into a situation, but you don't know how it ended
| up like that or what happened afterwards. It would be nice if
| some modern news site placed stories on a timeline.
| 31835843 wrote:
| There are so many guns in this country (far more than people)
| that criminals don't need this database and don't need to rob
| someone to get a gun.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| _> It makes the gun owner a lucrative target._
|
| Doesn't it do the opposite though? It gives criminals a map of
| exactly who they _shouldn 't_ rob, lest they risk getting shot.
| I imagine criminals will go after the softest, easiest targets,
| not the hardened, well-armed ones.
|
| _> Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery._
|
| Are you sure about that? I thought it was more via buying guns
| in states where they're easy to get and which don't keep
| registrations or records, then illegally, covertly transporting
| them across state lines, and then sometimes removing/filing
| serial numbers and other identifying info.
| [deleted]
| mywittyname wrote:
| Firearms are nice targets for thieves because they are have a
| high profit-to-size ratio, are easy to fence, and are
| untraceable (unlike, say electronics that have built in
| tracking devices).
| jstarfish wrote:
| > and are untraceable (unlike, say electronics that have
| built in tracking devices).
|
| That much doesn't really matter. It's still lucrative to
| steal iPhones and fence them at those "recycle your device"
| kiosks.
|
| Even if the owner calls the police and leads them to the
| box, there's nothing they will do-- by the time they get a
| warrant, the phone will be on its way to Brazil.
| googlryas wrote:
| Depends on the criminal. Some are after goods they can
| quickly sell - others are after guns they can use to help
| commit more crimes. I imagine most criminals will not consult
| this document, but of those who do, some will be avoiding
| those houses and some will be directly going to those houses.
|
| And yeah, you risk getting shot if you just barge into a
| house with a strapped owner, but all you need to do is ambush
| him when he's going to his car, or just enter his house when
| he isn't at home.
| WaxProlix wrote:
| Not at all, because, as OP mentions, the guns themselves are
| especially lucrative targets.
| noah_buddy wrote:
| In the city I reside in, trucks are targeted specifically
| because many truck owners have guns in the glove box. Just
| because you have a gun doesn't mean you're always around to
| use it.
| jmspring wrote:
| Just because you own a gun, using it is not without
| ramifications.
|
| In high school, my driver's ed instructor (here in
| California) said (jokingly) if you screw up and hit a
| person, you better hope they die. The implications of a
| death on your hands is a bounded lawsuit / jail problem.
| Someone surviving is a much less constrained problem. While
| crass, it made a point.
|
| If you shoot someone in self defense and they are killed,
| you are dealing with voluntary manslaughter as the most
| likely charge, argue accordingly. If they survive, they get
| the opportunity to muddy the waters.
| supercanuck wrote:
| that's comforting to know.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I imagine organized criminals would say hmm, let's wait until
| they're gone away for the weekend, bet they're not taking all
| those assault rifles with them.
| OedipusRex wrote:
| If I'm looking to steal guns and I know you've got them, then
| I'll just wait outside your house for you to leave and then
| go in and get them. Or worse.
| blktiger wrote:
| >Doesn't it do the opposite though? It gives criminals a map
| of exactly who they shouldn't rob, lest they risk getting
| shot. I imagine criminals will go after the softest, easiest
| targets, not the hardened, well-armed ones.
|
| I'd say thieves generally want to rob when _nobody_ is home
| so it doesn't matter if they are armed or not. Knowing that
| there are guns stored in the house is just advertising
| something specific they might be able to steal.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| They'll know the places to target and then go after them when
| they aren't home or look for little old ladies etc.
| jstarfish wrote:
| > It gives criminals a map of exactly who they shouldn't rob,
| lest they risk getting shot.
|
| This is the mythos the gun owners fashion for themselves, but
| in reality, they don't live in forts camped out behind
| sandbags. They only have two hands, work day jobs, own
| cookie-cutter houses in the suburbs, drink at night, have
| kids and bitter ex-spouses, follow predictable routines, and
| are as bad at security as everybody else.
|
| There are plenty of opportunities to get the drop on a gun
| hoarder. Being brazen has its rewards.
| jstarfish wrote:
| Plenty of them already out themselves by slapping NRA stickers
| on their cars and refusing to STFU about their stockpiles.
| chmod600 wrote:
| Databases facilitate planned crimes. Stickers prevent crimes
| of opportunity.
|
| Apples and oranges.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Surely you can see a difference between someone choosing to
| announce "I own a gun" and a state published database of gun
| owners?
| jmspring wrote:
| And some are just 2a and happen to have voted for Bernie. But
| yes, there are many that like to brag.
| brandonmenc wrote:
| About a third of adults own a gun. Does every third car you
| see have an NRA sticker?
|
| Not even close. Because most people aren't trying to
| advertise it.
| quarantaseih wrote:
| The vast majority of us are quite shy about our guns. The
| stats are obvious.
|
| About half of households in the US have guns. Do half of cars
| have NRA stickers? A quarter? One in ten?
|
| Gun owners are shy. Thats why we prefer concealed carry
| instead of open carry.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Not all gun owners are shy. I see lots and lots of gun
| stickers. Not just NRA, but "Glock Perfection" is another
| one that stands out. Lots of people with "Protected by
| Smith and Wesson" or whatever their preferred choice is.
| This is probably not the majority, but a LOT of people
| advertise that they have or like guns. So it would make me
| curious to know if people with stickers are more or less
| likely to get robbed for a gun. Likely we will never know,
| and everybody will continue to argue whether the sticker
| helps or hinders without any real info to back it up.
| splintercell wrote:
| > About half of households in the US have guns
|
| I was not able to find a good state on this one. Some stats
| are reporting a stat from 30 to 40% of ownership with data
| jumping up and down every alternate year, whereas others
| are porting 20-something percent ownership. About half of
| households in US having guns means gun control issue being
| totally dead.
| quarantaseih wrote:
| Good comment! I was hesitant to put a number. Thats why I
| chose "household". But its pretty close to the right
| figure (probably closer to the low to mid 40s).
|
| No one knows how many guns there are in America (more
| than one per person though) and who owns them. We know
| its mostly men, with a significant, increasing, number of
| women. Minorities are also increasing their share of
| legal gun ownership.
|
| About 20%-30% of the adult population owns a gun, but
| many women don't say they "own a gun" if their husbands
| own one - guns are, for many reasons, very much
| "personal" property. It's the husband's gun or the
| house's gun, not necessarily hers [1]. However, in my
| experience talking to other gun owners, the wives support
| or encourage their continued ownership. Hence "household"
| ownership estimated somewhere about a third to half.
|
| (Its actually probably closer to the mid to low 40s, _but
| varies regionally_. Chicago has very little legal handgun
| ownership, Kennesaw GA has basically universal gun
| ownership.)
|
| Furthermore a lot of Americans own a gun without
| considering themselves a "gun owner". The single shot
| .22lr they got for their 12th birthday. The Ruger 10/22
| that was passed down. An emotional relic they cling to
| that is still very much a firearm. Then there is the "shy
| conservative" who will lie on a survey. This to say,
| there is a significant amount of people with guns who
| will answer "no" to a survey question about gun
| ownership.
|
| I think the best way to gauge this, an to your point
| about gun control, is its electoral significance.
| Democrats aren't really affected at the pols for failing
| to deliver gun control, but Republicans are demolished if
| they waver a little bit (note every GOP senator who voted
| for bill is retiring or not up for election). I think
| this hints that gun ownership and tolerance is widespread
| among the GOP and independents.
|
| [1] imagine 250 lb hubby has a double stacked 10mm and is
| married to a 90lb petite. The physics doesn't work. Even
| myself, Id love for my wife to come to the range one day,
| but Ill have to rent her a smaller pistol - the 92 has a
| very large grip even for me.
| bb88 wrote:
| I feel conflicted on this.
|
| > It makes the gun owner a lucrative target.
|
| I mean, on one side they're saying that owning guns is
| necessary to protect their property. But now they're saying
| that owning guns makes them a target for crime? To me it seems
| like they're trying to have it both ways on this.
|
| > Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery.
|
| Private transactions are still legal. The gun show loophole is
| still around. Buying a gun and gifting it is legal.
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| What is a gun show loophole? To purchase a firearm at a gun
| show you must go through a background check.
| alkaloid wrote:
| In Texas private sellers can rent a booth at a gun show and
| sell without performing a NICS check.
|
| https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-show-laws-by-state-721345
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| And the laws still apply to them. They are not allowed to
| sell to anyone not allowed to legally own a firearm, e.g.
| under 18, felon, out of state. If they do they are
| committing a crime.
|
| And they will need an FFL if they make a business of
| selling privately.
| wyager wrote:
| > But now they're saying that owning guns makes them a target
| for crime?
|
| They're saying that the government _leaking their personal
| information_ makes them a target for crime. Is this comment a
| joke? I 'm having trouble believing that anyone could
| seriously view this as somehow indicating that gun owners are
| hypocritical. I guarantee you that no gun owners wanted
| California to track and subsequently leak their personal
| details. If you're being serious, this is some of the
| (unintentionally) funniest sophistry I've seen in a while.
|
| > Private transactions are still legal.
|
| If you can't legally buy a gun at a store, you can't legally
| buy a gun privately.
| chmod600 wrote:
| Generally you don't want to give more information to
| potential attackers.
|
| The reason is because it allows improved matchmaking of
| criminals and victims, and allows criminals to improve the
| efficiency of their crimes. A criminal that's looking for
| guns could go outside your house, wait until you leave,
| then rob you looking for the guns and getting out quickly
| (with a fence ready to buy them). A criminal looking for
| something else could see that you're not on the list, break
| in with their gun while you _are_ home, and do who-knows-
| what to you.
|
| Sure, there are exceptions. Maybe you want a "beware of
| dog" sign or a "closed-circuit camera" notice that might
| push the criminals to keep looking for their next victim.
| These notices are best to prevent crimes of opportunity,
| and probably better posted on the house than in a leaked
| database online.
| jasonladuke0311 wrote:
| > If you're being serious, this is some of the
| (unintentionally) funniest sophistry I've seen in a while.
|
| Almost without exception, every discussion with anti-gun
| advocates is predicated on this kind of attitude, in
| concert with an astonishing ignorance of the subject they
| wish to further regulate.
|
| Kind of like conservative men and their beliefs on women's
| reproductive rights.
| seadan83 wrote:
| > They're saying that the government leaking their personal
| information makes them a target for crime
|
| Why is this? Are we talking about burglars who want the
| valuable guns? That does seem odd as the number two
| deterrent to burglary is knowledge that the home-owner has
| a gun (the number on apparently are large dogs).
|
| If the above is the case, the idea is that a burglar will
| scan this list for nearby homes and target them? On the
| basis that they have a gun alone (which again, is the
| number two deterrent to burglary). Plus, there is a lot of
| precedent that it takes almost nothing to use deadly force
| against an intruder and have zero consequences.
|
| > I guarantee you that no gun owners wanted California to
| track and subsequently leak their personal details.
|
| I'm guessing that California gun owners are perhaps amongst
| those who particularly do not want their personal details
| leaked. There are all sorts of reasons to not want that for
| anyone. This argument though of "we're now bigger targets
| for crime", when they have guns to "prevent" that crime, I
| can't reconcile that. So is the gun a deterrent, or not?
|
| I can think of a lot of other things that would make
| someone the target for burglary, like having a 4 car garage
| and gated fence.
|
| > If you can't legally buy a gun at a store, you can't
| legally buy a gun privately.
|
| While that is the case, if there is no obligation to run a
| background check (gun-show loophole) - then how do you
| prevent these people from purchasing guns?
|
| The loophole is not that it's legal or illegal, the
| loophole is that someone is obtaining a gun that shouldn't.
| jakebasile wrote:
| Having a gun allows you to protect your life and property
| with force. Owning valuable property like guns can make you
| more of a target. It is ideal not to have the ownership of
| that property broadcasted. The vast majority of gun owners
| hope never to have to use their weapon except to put holes in
| paper from a distance.
|
| The "gun show loophole" doesn't exist. It is still a crime
| for a prohibited person to possess a firearm no matter how
| they get it. In many states including California, it is
| illegal for a private sale to occur without a background
| check. Somehow, many prohibited persons still acquire them,
| and their info wasn't just leaked by the California AG.
| drc37 wrote:
| If I were the bad guys, I would look for the houses without the
| guns first. Much easier targets.
|
| I feel like this puts everyone without a gun at risk. I hope
| every gun owner in CA sue him up and down.
| ejb999 wrote:
| not if you are hoping to steal guns.
| albertopv wrote:
| So you are safer if you don't have a gun? Did I understand
| correctly?
| quarantaseih wrote:
| No.
|
| My anonymous gun ownership make me and my neighbors safer
| because I:
|
| 1. Can protect myself and my family.
|
| 2. Gun seeking criminals (e.g. Mexican drug cartels) that are
| better armed for the occasion do not know to target my house
| for my rifles, shotgun and handgun.
|
| 3. Burgling my very (yet cool) progressive neighbors is risky
| since every other house in America has a gun (I found a
| corner of swing state America that looks down on lawn signs).
| Widespread gun ownership significantly lowers the EV of
| committing crime.
| threeseed wrote:
| > Widespread gun ownership significantly lowers the EV of
| committing crime
|
| Be useful to post evidence of this claim.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| Imagine you have a safe at your house to keep your important
| documents protected.
|
| Now imagine that the government requires you to register your
| safe because a child could be trapped in your safe.
|
| Now imagine that the database was leaked.
|
| Your important documents were safer because you had a safe,
| now they are less safe because thieves know exactly what
| houses have home safes and thus where they should go to steal
| from.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| what is a random thief gonna do, wipe his ass with my birth
| certificate? Do people without a safe have no birth
| certificates?
| kelnos wrote:
| I'm pretty sure "important documents" in the average
| person's home safe have very little value to thieves.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Sure but that's always been the case. People with guns at
| home shoot themselves, their spouses, or are shot with their
| own gun by burglars, at a rate obviously greater than that of
| people without guns at home. People with guns at home kill
| themselves at triple the rate of normal people.
| servercobra wrote:
| You're being downvoted (or were when I commented) but that
| last part is absolutely what the data say, and I've seen
| data that say the rates are much higher than triple vs non-
| gun owners. Lots of suicides are in the heat of the moment
| and when there isn't an easy, painless way to kill
| yourself, you don't (e.g. if you take a lot of pills, you
| have a window where you can realize you don't want to die
| and call 911). Of course there will be people who plan it
| out and go through with it in other ways.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| CDC report under Obama demonstrated those with guns at home
| have much less physical injury during home invasion than
| those without guns.
|
| >People with guns at home kill themselves at triple the
| rate of normal people.
|
| Those studies are widely known to have serious statistical
| problems since those with suicidal tendencies also may
| purchase a gun, completely breaking the independent
| variable requirement to make such a claim. [1] for example
| at least addresses that these are real issues.
|
| Also, Japan's suicide rate, without guns, is larger than
| the US suicide and homicide rates combined.
|
| I think you're pushing as true things that are not
| demonstrated, and may well be untrue.
|
| [1] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-
| policy/analysis/essays/fir...
| foolfoolz wrote:
| got a link to that cdc report?
| HideousKojima wrote:
| https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3
| slowhand09 wrote:
| Women have abortions at a much higher rate than men. That
| is the logic you just used.
| doitLP wrote:
| "Normal people"? Your bias is showing. 42% of US households
| have at least one gun.
| supercanuck wrote:
| 25 percent of California adults live in households with
| firearms.
| sha256sum wrote:
| > Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery.
|
| Cool do you have any evidence or a citation to back up the
| claim. I'm surprised, seems more likely they would buy off the
| black market.
|
| Edit: Instead of downvoting, provide the source.
|
| Edit2:
| https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/g...
|
| > An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says
| that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun
| owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10%
| to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they
| want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too
| long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _" Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns
| used in crimes,"_
|
| 3.6 roentgen per hour? That's actually significant...
| randyrand wrote:
| it's about to be higher than 10-15% in california!
| mulmen wrote:
| And where do you think black markets source their wares?
| [deleted]
| sha256sum wrote:
| Wow, broad question. I know for pharma it's skimmed off the
| supply chain. But I have a hard time believing all black
| market guns, or even the majority, are stolen from
| residences. I imagine this is a case for low-level
| criminals, sometimes, but again some proof would clear it
| up.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _But I have a hard time believing all black market
| guns, or even the majority, are stolen from residences._
|
| Many are likely stolen from cars. Leaving a gun in the
| glove compartment isn't terribly uncommon in America, nor
| are car break-ins.
| mulmen wrote:
| Of course they aren't all stolen. Why would that absolute
| be implied or necessary?
|
| The question is if _any_ guns are stolen and the effect
| of publishing this list on the number of stolen guns.
|
| I'm not sure how that is controversial. There can be
| other sources of guns. That doesn't make this less bad.
| sha256sum wrote:
| Well the comment was in response to a claim that
| criminals get guns through burglary. Being a diligent
| person, I asked for a citation because it seemed like
| someone was making a claim out of their ass. I was right:
| https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/proco
| n/g...
| mulmen wrote:
| Your link doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Gun
| theft is not the _main_ way criminals get guns but it
| doesn 't matter because it is still _a_ way. Specifically
| it is the way that _this_ data leak can contribute to the
| number of stolen guns.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| dying by getting tangled in bedsheets is not the Main way
| to die, but its still a way, so we should get rid of
| bedsheets.
|
| if some contrived scenario represents less than 1% of the
| problem we are discussing, it's not a real problem.
|
| there are 8 billion people in the world, and it is always
| possible to find someone who has done something, no
| matter how ridiculous.
| mulmen wrote:
| The leak of gun owners isn't likely to contribute to the
| number of straw purchases. It could directly lead to gun
| thefts.
| falcrist wrote:
| As has been stated elsewhere, straw purchases are probably
| a major source. Smuggling is possible too. I couldn't say
| how these compare to theft, because I've never seen any
| solid data on the topic.
| SkinTaco wrote:
| falcrist wrote:
| By "a lot of opinions" you seem to mean that I gave two
| suggestions of _possible_ sources of firearms, and then
| openly admitted I don 't know how they compare to theft.
|
| Would you rather I have simply stated those two sources
| and omitted the part about not having the data to compare
| the quantity of firearms obtained through those sources?
|
| Do _you_ have access to data we could use to make this
| comparison?
| mulmen wrote:
| I don't understand this line of thinking. Regardless of
| other sources of black market guns publishing this list
| increases the number of stolen guns. At _best_ it
| accomplishes nothing.
| falcrist wrote:
| You misunderstand my statement. I was answering your
| question, not arguing that the leak was good.
|
| I don't subscribe to the argument that firearms serve as
| an effective deterrent to robbery, so it almost certainly
| can't _help_.
|
| But you asked where the black market gets it's
| merchandise. Theft, smuggling, and straw purchases
| immediately spring to mind. It would be interesting to
| see data comparing the effectiveness of each.
| mulmen wrote:
| > I'm surprised, seems more likely they would buy off the
| black market.
|
| Reads to me as:
|
| "I'm surprised [criminals steal guns] seems more likely
| they would buy [stolen guns] off the black market."
|
| The suggestion guns are sourced from a black market is
| not a compelling argument against those items being
| stolen. Invoking the black market itself establishes the
| incentive to steal.
| falcrist wrote:
| You seem to have responded to me in error. I didn't make
| the statement you quoted.
|
| I merely responded to the question regarding where else
| the black market could have acquired those guns.
| mulmen wrote:
| I made no error. You seem to have lost track of the
| context in this thread. I replied to a comment (not
| yours) that essentially said guns come from the black
| market instead of being stolen. I pointed out through a
| rhetorical device the possibility that the black market
| sells stolen products and so both are true. You then
| replied to that rhetorical.
| falcrist wrote:
| I haven't lost track of anything. You asked a question
| and I replied to that.
|
| As far as your rhetorical device, I'm sorry but theft
| isn't the only way firearms get into that market.
|
| You're trying to attribute arguments to me that I never
| made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.
|
| Thanks.
| mulmen wrote:
| > You're trying to attribute arguments to me that I never
| made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.
|
| I explicitly did the exact opposite of that.
|
| You are clearly confused but at this point I don't think
| I can help you.
| infamouscow wrote:
| The ATF literally gives guns to criminals.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
| jonny_eh wrote:
| "gave", past tense.
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| Most criminals get guns through straw purchases. This is still
| a big screw up, but overall, the best way to keep guns out of
| the hands of criminals is to better regulate sales.
|
| https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/g...
|
| > An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says
| that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun
| owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10%
| to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they
| want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too
| long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.
|
| > In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to
| fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the
| list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get
| guns is through straw purchase sales.
| turdit wrote:
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| That's how criminals get guns they actually intend to use.
| You're forgetting though that guns, like espresso machines
| and other machinery involving high pressures and tight
| tolerances, tend to be quite expensive, and their handheld
| nature makes them an extremely lucrative items to fence.
| bluedino wrote:
| Sure, new guns are expensive. But some guns are pretty
| cheap. Keltecs, revolvers, shotguns.
| xbar wrote:
| This is irrelevant.
| usrn wrote:
| 10-15% is enough to be concerned IMO.
| desmosxxx wrote:
| This is irrelevant. OP didn't say "most" and the primary
| concern is that it makes gun owners potential targets, which
| is true.
| foerbert wrote:
| I disagree. It's a useful clarification. The OP didn't say
| "most" but neither did they say "some" or use any language
| to that effect. A naive reading could even take it as an
| implicit "all."
| jaywalk wrote:
| Straw purchases are already illegal. There is no regulation
| that can actually stop it.
| mrunkel wrote:
| So is stealing from people's homes? I don't get your point.
| pc86 wrote:
| I think they're asking how regulating sales will prevent
| straw purchases when straw purchases are already illegal,
| so presumably additional regulation won't do anything
| more. If you're convicted of a straw purchase you won't
| be able to legally purchase anymore.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| And also the vast majority of straw purchases and lying
| on background check forms are not prosecuted in the first
| place, despite there being clear evidence for a slam dunk
| case. Hell, if you're the president's son you can lie on
| a 4473, have your girlfriend steal the gun and throw it
| in a dumpster, and then _write a book about it_ and you
| won 't get prosecuted.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Sure there is, you can't sell a gun without requesting a
| state background check, and if it turns out you did you're
| liable.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >There is no regulation that can actually stop it.
|
| As a gun owner, sure there is. If your gun shows up in a
| crime, you get indicted as well. That would put a big dent
| in people being willing to buy guns for others.
|
| Also making sure there are no secondary sales without
| background checks, which is supported by (I think?) the
| majority of Americans would help.
|
| Repeat offenders at losing guns lose the right to any guns.
|
| All of these would stop repeat offenders, and if I recall,
| the majority of straw sales are repeat offenders knowing
| they don't get in much or any trouble buying guns this way.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >Also making sure there are no secondary sales without
| background checks, which is supported by (I think?) the
| majority of Americans would help.
|
| It's only supported by the majority of Americans until
| you ask them about specific situations and policy
| implications. Instead of a generic "Do you support
| universal background checks?" question they should try
| asking "Should you have to perform a background check to
| loan a gun to your roommate to take to the range?" or
| "Should you have to perform a background check to loan a
| gun to your next door neighbor who is worried her violent
| stalker ex-boyfriend has figured out where she lives?"
| and you'll find much lower levels of support.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > "Should you have to perform a background check to loan
| a gun to your roommate to take to the range?" or "Should
| you have to perform a background check to loan a gun to
| your next door neighbor who is worried her violent
| stalker ex-boyfriend has figured out where she lives?"
|
| Yes to both. It takes 30 seconds to run the check.
| They're not required to interview kindergarden classmates
| or something crazy.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| It takes a trip to your nearest FFL willing to run a
| background check, and who will usually charge for it. And
| oops! Your next-door neighbor's name matched a different
| person who has a criminal record, and she now has to wait
| three days to transfer the gun. And oops again! She
| already got raped and beaten to death by her ex in the
| time it took for NICS to clear her.
| mindslight wrote:
| The idea that a seller/gifter of a gun should be
| responsible for doing a full background check on a
| recipient seems preposterous.
|
| As far as I know, in Massachusetts anybody who has a
| license to carry has already passed a background check.
| If the recipient has an LTC, then you know they're okay.
| And as the transferer, you most likely want to be
| entering the transaction into the state's database of
| ownership ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h transfers so that if
| something nefarious is done with the gun, they don't come
| looking at you.
|
| Of course the waiting time (and possible hoops, depending
| on city/town/class/race/etc) to originally get your
| license to carry dovetails right into your (hyperbolic)
| point. And I don't particularly enjoy having to register
| personal property with the state, nor needing a license
| to possess personal property. And overall Massachusetts
| is known as one of the most restrictive firearm regimes
| in the nation. Still I just feel its worth looking at how
| existing regimes tackle the problem, to see where their
| pain points and loopholes are. I feel electronic
| databases would be a lot less onerous in general if they
| were built with foundational cryptographic privacy, with
| a public audit log for every access.
|
| Overall I feel like we'd be better off focusing on fixing
| our society's pervasive mental health problem rather than
| turning the whole country into a padded room by
| myopically focusing on inanimate objects. Mentally
| healthy people don't want to shoot up
| schools/trains/churches.
|
| (I'm aware my comment is full of non-partisan nuance.
| Downvote away)
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings,
| single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by
| people that should have been blocked.
|
| For every person you cherry picked getting raped that
| would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more
| are killed under the current system.
|
| Instead of picking outlying events and trying to put them
| forth as common, why not look at common events to start
| with? You'll get much better policy and understanding
| from that.
| xienze wrote:
| > Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings,
| single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by
| people that should have been blocked.
|
| Sounds possible in theory, but not so much in practice.
| Let's say I live my whole life as a model citizen, then
| one day buy a gun with the intent to kill a bunch of
| people. No background check in the world would deny my
| purchase. What now?
| tristan957 wrote:
| > For every person you cherry picked getting raped that
| would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more
| are killed under the current system.
|
| The CDC disagrees with you. In the study that is fairly
| well known at this point, the CDC estimates 500k
| defensive gun uses every year in the US. Note that I am
| giving you the lowest number in their range. However
| there are about 40k deaths due to gun usage every year.
| 75% of all deaths due to gun usage are suicides. In
| actuality, there are 10k deaths due to gun usage we need
| to look at during discussion of gun regulation in the
| United States.
| notch656a wrote:
| The most 'common' event for someone buying a gun is that
| the shoot it at the range a few times a year, maybe hunt
| with it occasionally or put it in their waistband as a
| means of self-defense. If you want common to the
| exclusion of the less common, there it is.
|
| If you're not involved in gang banging / drugs then in
| the extremely uncommon chance you die by firearm, it's
| most likely it was a choice of suicide. In Europe and
| many other developed nations with harsh firearm laws,
| suicide via physician is an option so a more comforting
| and society-approved solution rather than firearm becomes
| more favored for suicide.
| kelnos wrote:
| That's a bit of a straw man. Even closing loopholes
| around private sales would improve the situation
| somewhat, and a majority of Americans definitely support
| that.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >That's a bit of a straw man.
|
| Not at all, the current state-level bans on private sales
| only make exceptions for immediate family members and a
| few other specific groups/situations, they would make the
| behavior in my questions a felony.
|
| Here's Washington State's exceptions (note that c would
| not apply to my violent ex scenario because the violent
| ex would need to be actually present at the time of the
| transfer and threatening harm):
|
| (4) This section does not apply to: (a) A transfer
| between immediate family members, which for this
| subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic
| partners, parents, parents-in-law, children, siblings,
| siblings-in-law, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces,
| nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona
| fide gift or loan; (b) The sale or transfer of an antique
| firearm; (c) A temporary transfer of possession of a
| firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent
| death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the
| firearm is transferred if: (i) The temporary transfer
| only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent
| such imminent death or great bodily harm; and (ii) The
| person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
| prohibited from possessing firearms under state or
| federal law; (d) A temporary transfer of possession of a
| firearm if: (i) The transfer is intended to prevent
| suicide or self-inflicted great bodily harm; (ii) the
| transfer lasts only as long as reasonably necessary to
| prevent death or great bodily harm; and (iii) the firearm
| is not utilized by the transferee for any purpose for the
| duration of the temporary transfer; (e) Any law
| enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the
| person is acting within the course and scope of his or
| her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or
| corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the
| armed forces of the United States or the national guard,
| or federal official; (f) A federally licensed gunsmith
| who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service
| or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by
| the federally licensed gunsmith; (g) The temporary
| transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic
| partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the
| firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting
| range authorized by the governing body of the
| jurisdiction in which such range is located; (iii) if the
| temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession
| of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized
| competition involving the use of a firearm, or while
| participating in or practicing for a performance by an
| organized group that uses firearms as a part of the
| performance; (iv) to a person who is under eighteen years
| of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational
| purposes while under the direct supervision and control
| of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from
| possessing firearms; (v) under circumstances in which the
| transferee and the firearm remain in the presence of the
| transferor; or (vi) while hunting if the hunting is legal
| in all places where the person to whom the firearm is
| transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom
| the firearm is transferred has completed all training and
| holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting,
| provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this
| subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the
| firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing
| firearms under state or federal law; (h) A person who (i)
| acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of
| law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or
| (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death
| of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding
| sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the
| person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol
| or must have contacted the department of licensing to
| notify the department that he or she has possession of
| the pistol and intends to retain possession of the
| pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws; or
| (i) A sale or transfer when the purchaser or transferee
| is a licensed collector and the firearm being sold or
| transferred is a curio or relic.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >they would make the behavior in my questions a felony.
|
| They would also stop of lot of existing homicides, which
| are also felonies already being committed. Your cases are
| honestly quite contrived and rare, especially against the
| number of homicides and other crimes using straw
| purchases.
|
| I think most people would trade common case homicides for
| rarer cases you pick. The stats are pretty clear on which
| cases are most common. That is why the support for such
| laws is so widespread and bipartisan.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >It's only supported by the majority of Americans until
| you ask them about specific situations and policy
| implications.
|
| It also seems you're trying to stack the deck in your
| favor. If you're going to ask questions designed to pull
| support away with cherry picked circumstances, then you
| should also ask cherry picked questions leading the other
| way, like pointing out how many mass shootings are done
| with guns that bypassed background checks.
|
| So cite your poll please. I'd like to see the questions.
|
| Or you can ask a fairly neutral question, like [1], a
| poll with the question "How much do you support or oppose
| each of the following? Requiring background checks on all
| gun sales"
|
| 73% strongly support, 15% somewhat support, 4% somewhat
| oppose, 4% strongly oppose, 5% don't know/no opinion.
|
| That's a pretty neutral question, has massive support.
|
| Let's see your data on your split questions.
|
| [1]
| https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-fe72-d0c2-a9ae-
| ff725...
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > [...] like pointing out how many mass shootings are
| done with guns that bypassed background checks.
|
| Can you name some? Better yet, can you point to data on
| how often this has happened?
|
| Off the top of my head, I can think of several instances
| where the guns were legally purchased and the shooter
| passed the background checks. I can think of a couple
| where they were stolen, and one where they were taken
| from a family member after that family member's murder. I
| can't think of any where the firearm(s) were acquired
| exclusively through private sale.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| I hate to be the one, but he's right: more background
| checks is _hilariously_ unpopular outside of blue cities
| and states. A lot of people in red states, even in
| cities, think that the gun regulations we have are too
| strong.
| tristan957 wrote:
| Anecdote: I know many gun owners who are fine with
| universal background checks if they can be performed at
| home for free in a reasonable amount of time. I don't
| understand why people who want gun regulation aren't
| pushing for this. Free, easy, and fast background checks.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| > If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as
| well
|
| so, someone breaks into my house while I am on vacation
| for three weeks, ignores the alarm, rips open the gun
| safe, takes a gun, kills someone...I go to jail?
|
| but even in the case of actual straw purchases, the buyer
| is often victimized by the ultimate intended user...gangs
| browbeating vulnerable people etc. doesn't excuse the
| crime, but imprisoning a mule won't stop much
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >so, someone breaks into my house while I am on vacation
| for three weeks, ignores the alarm, rips open the gun
| safe, takes a gun, kills someone...I go to jail?
|
| Not if you report it or demonstrate it was stolen. And I
| didn't write "go to jail" - indicted means they're going
| to investigate you, just like they do now when a gun
| registered to someone shows up in crimes. And those
| people don't "go to jail" if they didn't have the gun.
|
| What it does curtail is people buying guns to give away,
| because at some point enough guns will show up having
| been registered to them then used in crimes, and that
| should be prosecuted. That behavior is what is going to
| bring even stricter regulations if it is not curtailed by
| some set of laws.
|
| I'd prefer a decent background check on firearm transfers
| - I already pass them with zero problem, but it would
| hinder people that should be banned from working around
| such measures.
| Hellbanevil wrote:
| jaywalk wrote:
| > Also making sure there are no secondary sales without
| background checks, which is supported by (I think?) the
| majority of Americans would help.
|
| How would it help at all? They've already proven willing
| to break the law with the straw purchase.
|
| > All of these would stop repeat offenders, and if I
| recall, the majority of straw sales are repeat offenders
| knowing they don't get in much or any trouble buying guns
| this way.
|
| You don't know what you're talking about. It's a felony,
| and precludes you from purchasing or even possessing a
| firearm ever again. It's not possible to be a repeat
| offender.
| lokar wrote:
| Republicans have ensured that the ATF is not able to
| really enforce these laws. They are setup to be
| ineffective.
| tristan957 wrote:
| The ATF is a horribly corrupt organization. They should
| be disbanded for their roles at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
|
| What does a firearm have to do with alcohol and tobacco?
| alkaloid wrote:
| And here I thought the other party runs the United States
| government.
|
| I did a quick Google, and -- sure enough! --
|
| "Biden nominee for ATF Director says he's never owned a
| gun"
|
| https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/biden-nominee-
| for-a...
|
| And I'm also pretty sure it's not "Republican" DAs and
| AGs refusing to prosecute crime.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| I did a quick Google search and found
| https://nyti.ms/3edFGs8. Lo and behold, the Biden
| administration is fixing what can be fixed in ATF.
|
| "At the N.R.A.'s instigation, Congress has limited the
| bureau's budget. It has imposed crippling restrictions on
| the collection and use of gun-ownership data, including a
| ban on requiring basic inventories of weapons from gun
| dealers. It has limited unannounced inspections of gun
| dealers. Fifteen years ago, the N.R.A. successfully
| lobbied to make the director's appointment subject to
| Senate confirmation -- and has subsequently helped block
| all but one nominee from taking office."
|
| I'm pretty sure no DA is refusing to prosecute violent
| crime. One party is limiting the gun crimes that DAs can
| prosecute. https://www.salon.com/2022/06/06/us-laws-are-
| causing-mayhem-...
| dangerboysteve wrote:
| Those same people getting the guns are more and likely
| removing serial numbers.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Removing serial is a lot harder these days bc the
| compression of stamping alters the metal and makes it
| hard, "filing off" does not work. Old guns maybe
| depending on how it was done, but new ones there is
| specific regulations (I think pressed to 0.003 inch?) so
| chemical etching will show different densities.
|
| These days they can even catch over stamping, I heard
| about some cases using xray to do it. So it's more
| trouble than it's worth to remove serials on new guns
| usually. For some reason I hear about almost no instances
| of peening to hide it, which is probably because you need
| to know the right size and pressure so it mostly makes
| sense at scale.
|
| It's funny the number of criminals that run around with
| literally filed off serials and get themselves literally
| 10x the time on the gun charge as whatever else they
| caught for.
|
| You can instead get a shitty gun bc some have badly done
| serials (speshul wepunz has done this before, but ofc
| then you have to shoot one lol), you can get an old gun,
| you can finish an 80% lower. But most criminals just
| steal or straw buy, or buy smuggled guns (the philippines
| is notorious for this).
| double_nan wrote:
| Not true for the new guns either. For example Glock's
| serial number is a small metal plate embedded into the
| polymer.
| collegeburner wrote:
| True, glocks are an exception bc the frames are plastic
| so they can't serialize them easily other ways. I seen
| other plastic guns (like hipoints and polymer80s) do the
| same. There's safeguards against this though, I know
| there's a place you can cut on a hipoint to find a hidden
| serial even if they remove the plate. Smith & Wesson
| actually got sued to add an extra hidden serial to their
| guns. A bunch of plastiguns have this kind of stuff for
| exactly this reason.
| wyager wrote:
| > If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as
| well.
|
| This is A) obviously nonsense B) does not incentivize any
| positive behavioral changes C) equivalent to banning re-
| selling your guns.
|
| We already have the ability to prosecute people who
| perform straw purchases.
|
| > the majority of straw sales are repeat offenders
|
| Sounds like the problem lies with straw purchase
| enforcement, not with the entire concept of gun resale.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| It doesn't ban sales, it bans unregistered, non
| background checked sales. I don't see what is nonsense
| about it, the same law already applies to cars.
|
| If you loan your car to someone and they commit a crime
| with it, you can face charges for it. If you sell your
| car without a termination of interest notice filed with
| the state and the new owner doesn't file the signed
| title, it is still legally your car and what the new
| owner does with it can get you in legal trouble.
| xienze wrote:
| > As a gun owner, sure there is. If your gun shows up in
| a crime, you get indicted as well. That would put a big
| dent in people being willing to buy guns for others.
|
| Buying a gun "for" someone else is a very gray area. For
| example, if I bought a gun and ten years later sold it to
| some guy who committed a crime, should I be indicted? Was
| this a straw purchase with a looooong time window? Or if
| I truly did buy a gun for someone else (as in, purchased
| and delivered the same day) and he waits ten years to
| commit a crime, was this also a true straw purchase? How
| can you tell?
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >For example, if I bought a gun and ten years later sold
| it to some guy who committed a crime, should I be
| indicted?
|
| No, because for you to sell it to him, you'd have done
| the background check, and transferred it to him. That is
| the point.
|
| Same as car titles, or mortgage deeds, or others items in
| society that transfer ownership.
| xienze wrote:
| > No, because for you to sell it to him, you'd have done
| the background check, and transferred it to him. That is
| the point.
|
| In most (all?) states there's no need for a background
| check or any kind of record keeping when two individuals
| are selling/transferring to one another [0]. Between
| states it's another story.
|
| > Same as car titles, or mortgage deeds, or others items
| in society that transfer ownership.
|
| There's no constitutional right to any of those things,
| which is what makes the situation different.
|
| 0: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-
| ccw-law/f...
| mywittyname wrote:
| > "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used
| in crimes,"
|
| Sounds like a BS statistic: what about all the crimes people
| got away with committing? How do they know the status of the
| guns used in those?
|
| The real answer is probably that stolen guns are probably
| used by more sophisticated criminals (i.e., the ones that
| elude the police). And straw purchases are used by the people
| who keep getting caught, hence the need for the straw
| purchase to begin with.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Why? The sophisticated criminals will definitely use
| resales of straw purchases, that way they are in no risk in
| the actual purchase, and they can get any gun they like
| without having to rely on the luck of the draw.
| slowhand09 wrote:
| Straw purchases... when someone else purchases a gun for you.
| Illegal in every state, and federally.
|
| Please search the FBI and ATF online data for people arrested
| and or convicted of straw purchases.
|
| Then tell me how serious they are about stopping it.
| LMYahooTFY wrote:
| It's not illegal to sell a gun to someone as a private
| citizen, so what are you talking about?
| chiph wrote:
| A straw purchase is when a gun is bought for someone who
| is not allowed to own one (a "prohibited person").
| Commonly, one person supplies the money for the gun,
| while the person with a clean criminal history is the one
| who fills out the background-check form.
|
| Straw purchases can happen if you are selling privately
| too. You should take a few steps to make sure the buyer
| is legit. Ask to see a concealed carry permit or FOID
| card. Or ask for a driver's license, and put the info
| down on a bill of sale that you then both sign. Keep the
| bill of sale forever, in case the gun should ever be
| stolen or used in a crime - it can help get the gun back
| to the new owner if the ATF does a trace.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _for someone who is not allowed to own one (a
| "prohibited person")._
|
| The way it works with firearms, purchasing a gun on
| behalf of somebody else (not as a gift) is illegal
| regardless of that other person's legal status as a gun
| owner. If you and I are both allowed to buy and own guns
| but for whatever reason agree that you will give me money
| and I'll buy a gun for you, that's illegal.
| Syonyk wrote:
| > _You should take a few steps to make sure the buyer is
| legit. Ask to see a concealed carry permit or FOID card._
|
| I've known people who buy and sell quite a few guns, and
| even though there was no legal requirement for them to do
| so, this was their policy. Show them a matching permit to
| acquire or carry permit and driver's license, or they
| wouldn't sell a gun. Nothing was written down, but if you
| weren't willing to show matching paperwork and an ID,
| they wouldn't sell it to you. And I think in a few cases,
| if the buyer was being unusually squirrely and evasive,
| they didn't even get that far.
|
| Very, _very_ few gun owners have _any_ desire to sell
| guns to prohibited persons.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| It's a bad idea to check ID. If you check and get it
| wrong it may conceivably be used against you. The law
| does not require you to check and you should never check.
| Simply refuse to sell if they plainly state they are a
| felon or not a state resident and sell with no questions
| in every other case.
| Syonyk wrote:
| I find it hard to believe that one would be in more legal
| hot water for having checked as a matter of policy and
| having missed a high quality fake ID or something, than
| for not having checked at all.
|
| I know an awful lot of gun owners, and I can't think of
| one who would sell a gun to someone they suspected wasn't
| permitted to own one.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > A straw purchase is when a gun is bought for someone
| who is not allowed to own one
|
| Nope - it doesn't matter whether or not the actual buyer
| can legally purchase or possess it. A straw purchase is a
| crime regardless.
|
| > You should take a few steps to make sure the buyer is
| legit.
|
| Morally, yes. Practically, no.
|
| You're only committing a crime if you _know or should
| reasonably know_ the person you 're selling to is
| prohibited. You have no legal duty to ask, and asking
| only proves that you considered the possibility, and
| could be construed as evidence that you were suspicious.
| hellojesus wrote:
| Yes, this comes down to very specific state rules.
|
| In college I would find deals on guns on Backpage, buy
| them cheap, and then resell them at a much higher listed
| price.
|
| No background checks were required for private sales, so
| all I had to check was that the person had a driver's
| license for the correct state when I sold it, and even
| then no bill of sale or info was required.
|
| Make your selling process known, and you'll get some very
| sketchy buyers that are willing to pay high prices, and
| it's all technically legal as the seller as you don't
| even need to ask if the buyer is legally able to purchase
| a firearm, and it helps fund college tuition.
| SkinTaco wrote:
| This is not a gotcha question, and I'm asking because my
| answer would be no and I'm curious what you have to add
| to my thoughts.
|
| Do you ever feel bad about selling guns to people who
| have been convicted of a severe enough crime to not be
| able to buy one directly?
| mgarfias wrote:
| depends on the state
| refurb wrote:
| It's illegal (federal) to fill out the purchase form and
| run a background check on your name if you are buying it
| for someone else.
| robonerd wrote:
| Buying a gun for somebody else is legal _if_ it 's a
| gift. But if it's a "gift" in exchange for some favor or
| service, that doesn't count. No quid pro quo.
| LMYahooTFY wrote:
| The GP was stating that federal authorities aren't
| serious about stopping straw purchases.
|
| If I purchase for myself, and then sell it to someone
| else, when does that constitute a straw purchase?
| robonerd wrote:
| > _If I purchase for myself_
|
| If that is your earnest intent when you bought it, then
| ostensibly it would be legal. However...
|
| Laws aren't computer code; gray areas get hashed out in
| court. How often you've done this and the amount of time
| that passed between the purchase and sale would be
| considered, as well as any paper trail you might have
| left. Simply put, there is no firm answer to your
| question. Talk to a real lawyer if you think you're
| wading into a gray area like that.
| jpindar wrote:
| Or do the transfer via a licensed dealer. Most gun shops
| will do this for a small fee.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| True, but the ability to privately sell firearms creates
| plausible deniability for a lot of straw purchases. A
| seller could have claimed to lawfully sold it to some
| other resident in a state with no background checks. If
| the gun ended up in a criminal's hands it must have been
| that person who sold it, or maybe a whole bunch of
| intermediate buyers.
| tpmoney wrote:
| All transfer across state lines must go through an FFL
| and a NICS check by law. The only sale/transfer allowed
| without a NICS check is between two residents of the same
| state when the seller has no reason to believe or suspect
| that the purchaser is prohibited. Realistically that
| leaves a very narrow window of purchases that are
| unlawful but the seller has plausible deniability.
| chmod600 wrote:
| The jury isn't just there to protect you. It's also there
| to send you away when you are obviously trying to hack
| the system.
|
| "Oh, gee, I just bought the gun on Tuesday and sold it on
| Thursday for no particular reason. It just happens that
| the gun appreciated by 20% during that time and my friend
| really didn't want to spend so much gas getting all the
| way to the gun store anyway. Who would have guessed such
| a fine person would be a felon? Same for the other 14
| counts."
| collegeburner wrote:
| Buying with the intent of selling to somebody else is
| extremely illegal and taken very seriously. Go to your
| LGS you will almost certainly see a sign or notice
| warning it.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| No, it's not:
|
| https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/4/15/23025545/atf-gun-
| deal...
| kayfox wrote:
| It is, lying on a federal form, its this question on the
| 4473:
|
| 21.a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the
| firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation
| sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)? Warning: You are not the
| actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the
| firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not
| the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer
| the firearm(s) to you.
|
| If you answer No to this question, the transfer cannot
| continue.
|
| Cite:
| https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-
| trans...
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| There is an actual difference and legal difference
| between "Buying on behalf of someone else" and "Buying
| for the intent of resale". The latter may not (or may!)
| know the identity of the eventual owner in advance.
| Buying guns as a speculative investment is worthwhile. It
| is totally legal to know that "This collector/prop house
| is looking for $RAREGUN and will pay me $12k for it",
| find it and buy it for $10k, and purchase it. You know
| your buyer, you may even have gotten an explicit
| solicitation for the item in question, but the unsurety
| of when the second sale will be made (even if you're very
| confident of it) makes it not a straw purchase.
| SmellTheGlove wrote:
| If you're buying guns for resale, you may need an FFL. In
| the example you provided of buying a 10k rifle because
| you know some collector will pay 12k for it, I would
| think an FFL 01 is appropriate.
|
| It may not be a straw purchase, but it's also not
| primarily for your collection. The threshold of
| "business" or "dealing" seem intentionally vague by the
| ATF, but what you described can be interpreted as illegal
| without an FFL. My two cents anyway.
| chmod600 wrote:
| It really puzzles me why existing gun laws that everyone
| agrees on aren't enforced.
|
| How are there so many repeat offenders that are violent
| with guns?
|
| It seems to be some kind of trend to make guns a white-
| collar crime or something. Like, if you don't file the
| right paperwork before loaning someone a pistol at the
| range, then it's a crime; but if you mug someone its the
| gun's fault.
| eikenberry wrote:
| I'm curious about how they differentiate between guns
| bought as gifts vs straw purchases? I'd guess it would be
| intent but it's hard to google for.
| chmod600 wrote:
| Ultimately, the DA and a jury need to make that
| determination. Usually it's pretty obvious what the
| intent is.
| failTide wrote:
| A gift would still follow the state's laws on firearms
| transfers and eligibility, which can involve various
| forms and middlemen. With a straw purchase you're just
| handing the gun to someone else.
|
| It's more of a gray area when it's an intrafamilial
| transfer.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| It's a thoughtcrime and a terrible law because of it.
| There's a ton of these w.r.t. gun laws in the US. Say the
| wrong thing and you get ten, say something slightly
| different and you get zero.
| maxerickson wrote:
| We examine intent for homicide too.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| It isn't. Unless someone was operating a crazy and
| expensive free guns charity, you are not "handing the gun
| to someone else". You are _reselling_ the gun to someone
| else who could not legally purchase or is avoiding a
| paper trail to commit a crime.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| Generally by volume. One or two? Sure, you might be a
| really generous friend. Fifty? Probably a bit too
| generous - something fishy is going on. Of course,
| without a federal firearms registry, its difficult to
| quickly just flag people who are buying guns at an
| unusual rate.
|
| As far as actually catching perpetrators? Again, without
| a database its usually down to undercover work and tips.
|
| https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-
| areas/crime-g...
|
| https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/trafficking-
| straw-...
|
| https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/56-arrests-dozens-of-
| narco...
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| Do people give you money up front to buy gifts for them?
| Or do you buy the gift and then sell it to the recipient?
| Those are the differentiators.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| This is one of the areas where I've hyperfocused for
| years.
|
| A straw purchase is when a gun is purchased on behalf of
| someone else. The person buying the gun isn't using their
| own money, or the person they're giving it to has traded
| them something of value.
|
| A gift doesn't involve an exchange of reciprocal value.
| In other words, I can legally take you into a gun store,
| let you shop, buy the gun for you, then hand it to you.
| In practice, a gift purchase is almost always when the
| recipient isn't there, because it _looks_ like a straw
| purchase.
|
| Ironically, if you take someone shopping to buy them a
| gun as a gift, by law you're the one that's supposed to
| have the background check run - not the recipient. Almost
| all FFLs will deny the sale if you tell them that you're
| buying it as a gift for someone who is present at the
| time, and there is no easy and legal way to run a
| background check on the intended recipient.
|
| If memory serves, a cop was convicted a few years ago of
| a straw purchase after buying a "blue label" (police
| discount price) Glock for someone else. That person gave
| the cop the money, the cop bought it, then gave it to the
| person. The actual buyer in that case was not a
| prohibited person, and the straw purchase itself was the
| only crime committed.
| threatofrain wrote:
| I believe that American crime literature indicates that the
| presence of guns offers general protective effects against home
| robberies for the entire region, and that the visible presence
| of alarms offers very specific protective effects for that home
| alone (while pushing the crime to other homes), and that the
| presence of invisible alarms confers a modicum of protection to
| the region.
|
| I'm inclined to believe that this will push home robberies onto
| those without guns.
| jmspring wrote:
| It also enables the relatively easy cross compare with dealer
| record of sales (DROS) to know what the owners may have.
|
| This isn't good.
| zorpner wrote:
| lightlyused wrote:
| Ham radio ops have had their information public for years,
| lot's of expensive radio equipment to be had. I don't
| understand the issue here.
| jasonladuke0311 wrote:
| Do you think your average criminal would rather have a gun,
| or HAM radio equipment?
| chmod600 wrote:
| I think you just fundamentally misunderstand human nature,
| the criminal mind, and the overall practicality of running a
| criminal enterprise even if you assume well-informed rational
| actors.
|
| If you get burglarized, your ham radio equipment probably
| won't get stolen. And if it does, it's a crime of
| opportunity, not because someone found you in a database and
| somehow knew you had the good equipment.
|
| But sometimes criminals are desperate for guns, or the quick
| cash that guns can bring. You don't want desperate,
| potentially violent criminals finding out that your house has
| exactly what they are desperate for.
|
| If they want the cash, they could even prearrange a fence
| based on the database search. That's a little too convenient.
| hintymad wrote:
| Is this leak intentional, as in we can anything because we are
| righteous?
| jmspring wrote:
| There is a belief that this was intentional. There were
| "threats" by CA DoJ to release this information a few years
| back "in the public interest".
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| It's 2022. Every web dev knows you don't just spit out PII on
| your website. But everybody involved kept their mouth shut
| because they thought to themselves "this is dumb, but I'm not
| responsible for it and if I try and champion the cause of
| fixing it I will be" and so they took it to prod. These sorts
| of "incentive to not rock the boat" or "it will take me months
| to get clarification on this requirement" type failures are
| rife in government bureaucracy.
|
| Edit: Clearly I'm wrong and this is all malice from top to
| bottom /s Use your f-ing brains. You think someone is gonna
| risk their cushy government job to dox a bunch of gun owners
| and the managers are gonna risk their jobs signing off on it?
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| Thats complete speculation.
| [deleted]
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I don't think GP had any way to actually know or think the
| code involved did a "SELECT *", he was just using that as a
| clever jokey way of saying "looks like they published all the
| details they had on gun owners?"
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Whether they selected * is immaterial. The requirement
| probably said "publish all", or something along those lines
| and the person who did it had probably been burned in the
| past when they had tried to do anything other than
| implementing requirements like a dumb robot so they rolled
| their eyes and implemented requirements like a dumb robot
| while counting down the days to retirement. Somewhere
| there's probably a closed Jira ticket in which they covered
| their ass.
| lamontcg wrote:
| I think it is more likely the web devs didn't know or care
| what they were doing and they were just working on contract
| and they were told to put a button there so they put a button
| there. The middle management responsible for it probably
| fucked it up due to simple negligence and not carefully
| reading a stack of requirements and just not being at all
| engaged in the broader issues other than delivery. Someone
| who actual gave a shit probably got a few sentences into the
| requirements doc somewhere around access controls and PII
| concerns, but it was not called out clearly and just missed.
|
| But yeah whatever really happened I'm quite certain that "the
| government of California just DELIBERATELY and with MALICE
| doxxed all the judges with carry permit" is the argument
| which needs to be met with "that's a hilariously large load
| of speculation".
| de6u99er wrote:
| >the databases with detailed information were initially available
| for download via a button on the website's mapping feature
|
| This is unbelievably stupid!
| jonahbenton wrote:
| OMG the comments here are atrocious.
|
| I am personally entirely in favor of permit application data
| being public. It's not clear that's yet the law in CA, so there
| may unfortunately be some liability for the state here. But guns
| are effing dangerous and it is important to know where they are.
| jonahbenton wrote:
| And the downvotes by snowflakes begin. Totally ridiculous. Even
| less reason to engage with gun nuts like the commenters on this
| post.
| nomel wrote:
| > But guns are effing dangerous and it is important to know
| where they are.
|
| It might be important to know where they are, but it's
| definitely not important that _you_ know where they are.
| jonahbenton wrote:
| As a property owner in another state, I don't care
| specifically about CA but I do very much for my own locality.
| IMO a CC permit holder and owner who is not a member of a
| regulated entity is more dangerous than a sex offender.
| mbfg wrote:
| If you want to know, it's pretty easy to tell whether a household
| has guns, so not sure this is such a big leak. Sure it's
| incompetence, but big picture, probably doesn't change anything.
| xbar wrote:
| I don't think you are right. Can you list the names, addresses,
| and phone numbers of the judges in California that have guns?
| Because without this data, I'm curious how you are going to
| answer such a question.
| jaywalk wrote:
| > If you want to know, it's pretty easy to tell whether a
| household has guns
|
| Oh, really? How so?
| asdff wrote:
| If you want to steal a gun, just wait around outside a
| gunshop or gun range and tail someone then rob them for the
| gun:
|
| https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/houston-police-
| crime...
| hunterb123 wrote:
| That's a great way to get shot.
| failTide wrote:
| Bumper stickers, t-shirts, 2nd-amendment-related flags are
| probably a good place to start. Campaign signs, etc. Voter
| registration, political donations, etc. I'm guessing pitbull
| ownership is also correlated. Souped up trucks. Mailers from
| firearms-related organizations.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| This comment exposes your pre-conceived notions and is
| pretty offensive.
|
| I would like you to expand on your supposed pitbull
| ownership correlation as well.
|
| You'd be very surprised at the diverse demographics of gun
| owners.
| cobrabyte wrote:
| What if I told you there were millions of gun owners out
| there that don't subscribe to any of the cliche things you
| listed in your comment? Gun owners aren't a monolith
| caricature like you imagine.
| happyopossum wrote:
| Out of the ~120 million households in the US, somewhere
| around 50-80 million of those (depending on which
| polls/stats you look at) have a gun in them.
|
| Which of your incredibly classist and racist indicators
| above can you apply to that many households?
| jasonladuke0311 wrote:
| There are FAR more people like me, with none of that shit,
| than the caricature you described. I worked a gun shop
| counter for a few years and boy would you be surprised who
| has guns.
| abduhl wrote:
| I find this leak to be incredibly ironic in light of the recent
| California required political disclosure law that got struck
| down. One of the key arguments from the charities that challenged
| that law was that California has a history of leaking sensitive
| information and that they would likely leak this list of donors,
| and California's primary argument against this was "well, we've
| changed!"
|
| It's just funny to see it happen again.
|
| Here's from the transcript between Alito and the Solicitor
| General from California from
| https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-251 at around 1:19.
|
| Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
|
| All right.
|
| The brief filed by the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund says
| that we should regard your system as a system of de facto public
| disclosure because there have been such massive confidentiality
| breaches in California. And from the perspective of a donor, that
| may make sense.
|
| A donor may say: This is a state that has been grossly negligent
| in the past.
|
| No sanctions against anybody who's leaked this information.
|
| I have to assume that this may happen again. Why isn't that a
| reasonable way to look at this?
|
| Aimee A. Feinberg
|
| I don't think even the district court regarded it that way,
| Justice Alito.
|
| At 62a of the Law Center petition appendix, the district court
| said that the Attorney General's Office efforts to rectify past
| lapses and to prevent them in the future were commendable.
|
| Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
|
| It said your past record was shocking, did it not?
|
| Aimee A. Feinberg
|
| In the foundation decision, it did.
|
| Following the court's analysis of the evidence regarding the
| changes to the State's protocols, it called those efforts
| commendable.
|
| Its concern at the Law Center -- its concern at that point was
| that the State could not guarantee confidentiality.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The article just says that the information is private, without
| backing up that statement. These permits are public records in
| California.
| xbar wrote:
| The article was right and you are wrong.
|
| To be clear, the AG wanted to make public the elements of
| permits that are public.
|
| The AG made technical mistakes that led to private information
| being leaked.
|
| That's why the site is now offline.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Can I get a little more chapter and verse please? Your
| assertions are no more well supported than their assertions.
| xbar wrote:
| AG Bonta's office statement:
|
| "We are investigating an exposure of individuals' personal
| information connected to the DOJ Firearms Dashboard," his
| office said via email. "Any unauthorized release of
| personal information is unacceptable.We are working swiftly
| to address this situation and will provide additional
| information as soon as possible."
| supercanuck wrote:
| jaywalk wrote:
| Characterizing someone as "psychotic" for simply owning a
| firearm is pretty psychotic in my view.
| mulmen wrote:
| > The Reload reviewed a copy of the Lost Angeles County database
| and found 244 judge permits listed in the database. The files
| included the home addresses, full names, and dates of birth for
| all of them.
|
| How did this ever go live? Like, was it a bug or did they
| actually think putting this on the web was a good idea?
| cobrabyte wrote:
| Why is any of this database online in the first place?
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| That seems to be the question!
| ak217 wrote:
| Bug. Incompetence. It looks like they put a giant spreadsheet
| with all the PII into Tableau and then embedded a web view to
| serve a geo visualization of some of the columns. Except they
| made the full underlying table accessible by anyone in Tableau.
| bb88 wrote:
| > Bug. Incompetence.
|
| I'm thinking that we should have a MTBL (Mean Time Between
| Leaking) companies and government. The data they have in
| their system will only be safe for X number of years, on
| average.
| daenz wrote:
| Oopsie, we exposed our ideological opponents to potential
| vigilante justice! Harmless mistake!
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Also given how political the process of getting a CCW permit is
| in California (i.e. if you're not in a county with a sheriff
| willing to give a permit to everyone you either need to be rich
| or have connections) a disproportionate amount of cops, jail
| guards, celebrities, and wealthy businessmen (along with their
| home addresses) are going to be on that list.
| xbar wrote:
| It is a tremendously valuable list to convicts and gangs who
| want to know where all the judges and correctional officers'
| families live.
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Attorney General Bonta Releases Name, DOB, and Address of CCW
| Holders_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31903486 - June
| 2022 (77 comments)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-28 23:01 UTC)