Posted on 01/31/2020 2:23:16 PM PST by lowbridge
““It is a journalist’s job to investigate trends, and we do not intend on publishing personal information of private citizens,” Cooper said.......”
So why does the “journalist” need names for a trend?
Maybe the media wants to know who in their crazed employ is packing.
Hey editor Audry Cooper.
You should not be deeply concerned that we are releasing you and your spouse’s credit report with detailed account numbers in the media!!!
No reason to be concerned. /s
Yep!
Well, suck it up, buttercup . . .
Keep voting democrat Cali.
Yes, you must sign a form acknowledging that your information is a matter of public record. You must also agree that that information can be given to any legally entitled entity.
well if they have no intention of releasing names or personal information, why do they want the list? And the media is ‘deeply disturbed ‘that “the sheriff” would notify the public that the media is demanding personal information? ha! Sing it from the rooftops Sheriff. SFC are a bunch of commies anyway.
SF Chron May (which I doubt) have zero intentions, but bet they do a story on it being released on Wikileaks.
What business is it of the newspaper who has gun licenses? That’s the danger in getting on any registry.
How about a freedom of information request for an equal amount of information on all people in that area who DON’T have concealed carry permits???
Only seems fair to me.
I think doing that to the entire reportial staff of any news operation doxing concealed carry license holders would be appropriate. tit-tat
If it’s a “Concealed Carry” license, should the name of the holder also be “Concealed”?
No right to privacy. No expectation of basic decency in California. Got it.
Enemy territory until taken back. It operates as a foreign country so it should be treated that way.
People in CA don’t like to leave the state because they know how hated California is. Not its people so much as its government and ideology.
Oh my!!
Good argument for constitutional carry.
Sounds like it needs to happen again.
Interesting Point!
Sheriff needs to ask as many legal “experts” as he can about this issue and then take the average of the responses. /semi-sarc
Note that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment indicates the very real possibility of unconstitutional state laws.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I'm deeply disturbed that young Audrey isn't dancing the Spandau Ballet on the nearest handy tree or lamppost...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.