WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

Something about "reasonable expectation of privacy" or inciting violence (placing a target on their backs) or equal protection

[–] 1 pt (edited )

Expectation of privacy in California mostly applies to the home or vehicle.

Official government documents... in an official government database? I'm unaware of precedent and harm would have to be proven.

Incitement of violence only applies during a riot or scenario where violence or destruction of property has occurred.

Equal protection would apply only if the list was based on sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.

The California Privacy Protection generally applies only businesses and generally only calls for disclosure of the data leak to the public, once it's occurred. The law is a total joke, actually. To fall within the scope of the CCPA, the business must also meet one of the additional three criteria: (1) Have $25 million or more in annual revenue; or (2) Possess the personal data of more than 50,000 “consumers, households, or devices” or (3) Earn more than half of its annual revenue selling consumers’ personal data.

But if you managed to find some precedentl it'd be something I'd look into pursuing.

[–] 1 pt

Just off the top of my head, it could be argued that the efficacy of carrying concealed was diminished by an assailant's potential foreknowledge of the victim's being armed...

Or a creative approach would be to sue on behalf of NON- carrying citizens, who are now identified as unarmed and thus at greater risk of being attacked.