SB 568 now law, designed to allow California to prosecute gun business website owners - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: SB 568 now law, designed to allow California to prosecute gun business website owners

  1. #11
    What I've had the time to read so far is interesting. Some of it's a little hard to understand. When it comes to security keys and such on the commercial web site I manage, I do manage to muddle through it, but it pretty much makes no sense to me. I
    Do Not Meddle In The Affairs Of Dragons ~ For You Are Crunchy And Good With Ketchup

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Peggy Reist View Post
    I thought the state of Kalifornia was broke, bankrupt. Just where are they going to get the money to prosecute all these web sites? It amounts to censorship and historically it's taken some really deep pockets to take on major web sites and even then they rarely win. But if I remember right, that idiot Feinstein is trying to get rid of the 1st Amendment along with the 2nd. So we'll see.
    *mutters incoherently about the Feds being shutdown but all the Congressional elite are getting paid while so many others are furloughed*
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,556
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    *mutters incoherently about the Feds being shutdown but all the Congressional elite are getting paid while so many others are furloughed*
    I don't support any working individuals being used as pawns for political purposes where they end up with no income to provide for their families.
    Having said that, I think it is great that the regular Gov't workers are furloughed. I THINK IT IS BEAUTIFUL IRONY! These regular Government wage earners supported Barry O' in large numbers because he would certainly take care of them with taxpayer $$$$$. It's amazing that he is alienating part of his core supporters. They are getting what they deserve for voting for Der Leader! The question is will they overlook this little "bump" in their road and continue to support this administration and the rest of the Democrats that by their inaction and lack of speaking out support this extreme over reach of closing things such as the WWII Memorial, trying to inflict maximum pain and discomfort.
    I can only come up with one word for such actions by the "Chosen One" and his Apostles>>>>>TYRANNY!

  5. #14
    So sue me.
    Stop, Drop, and Roll won't work in Hell.
    The truth about the former Republic of the United States of America:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Ioz...ayer_embedded#

  6. #15
    "Proposed CA DOJ regulation 11 CCR 4210 et seq" doesn't seem to have anything to do with Verizon.

    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4
    Time to add FireMarshall Bill to the block list.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    326

    I don't normally do homework for others, but here it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbirds View Post
    "Proposed CA DOJ regulation 11 CCR 4210 et seq" doesn't seem to have anything to do with Verizon.

    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4
    Hi,

    I don't normally do homework for others, but here it is.

    You can replicate this yourself...

    Google search the following: 11 CCR 4210 verizon

    If you don't like google, you can go to duckduckgo.com and enter the same search term(s).

    Some results will come up. Click on the one that says 'Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" from the link list.

    You will probably end up finding one of the following files as a result:

    https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...osed_rulem.pdf

    or

    http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/ag...osed_rulem.pdf

    Great, so you are there. It's a PDF file. Now keyword search it for Verizon or alternately, verizon with no caps.

    Got it? Good.

    Now search the same document for the following term: Title 11
    Notice it will be in a paragraph which mentions (amongst other things) section 4210.

    If you bother to actually read the document you will notice that one of the things that this rulemaking sought comment on was the contract with Verizon (which has been implicated in unconstitutional spying on the American public), see, for example, the part where it says, "current contract with Verizon ends on December 31, 2013..." etc.

    Will the contract be renewed by the State of California? Oh, I think it will, no matter how many people comment to or scream at the State about it. It's just more opportunity for the State to get their hands on your data. But that doesn't mean you have to keep giving your money and time to Verizon.

    Glad to be of service.

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Hi,

    I don't normally do homework for others, but here it is.

    You can replicate this yourself...

    Google search the following: 11 CCR 4210 verizon

    If you don't like google, you can go to duckduckgo.com and enter the same search term(s).

    Some results will come up. Click on the one that says 'Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" from the link list.

    You will probably end up finding one of the following files as a result:

    https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...osed_rulem.pdf

    or

    http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/ag...osed_rulem.pdf

    Great, so you are there. It's a PDF file. Now keyword search it for Verizon or alternately, verizon with no caps.

    Got it? Good.

    Now search the same document for the following term: Title 11
    Notice it will be in a paragraph which mentions (amongst other things) section 4210.

    If you bother to actually read the document you will notice that one of the things that this rulemaking sought comment on was the contract with Verizon (which has been implicated in unconstitutional spying on the American public), see, for example, the part where it says, "current contract with Verizon ends on December 31, 2013..." etc.

    Will the contract be renewed by the State of California? Oh, I think it will, no matter how many people comment to or scream at the State about it. It's just more opportunity for the State to get their hands on your data. But that doesn't mean you have to keep giving your money and time to Verizon.

    Glad to be of service.
    Lol...... it's homework if California is your home. So..... not homework.

    I did search for the bill and found a number of credible websites that were discussing the increase in DROS fees. Not one mentioned Verizon, reading the documents that you do rudely provided I see that the California DOJ is currently contacted to use Verizon to collect the DROS information and payments.

    So don't understand your thinking. You are upset that the information you are forced to provide to the state government to buy a firearm, is collected by Verizon and that they may be stealing that information and providing it to the government, the same government that is collecting that information in the first place. And you are saying they will renew that contract even though the bill says they are going to save millions of dollars by not renewing that contract and collecting the data themselves. Then they will increase the cost and use that money to confiscate firearms in California.

    I will stick to the credible websites for providing information on bills in California, you are heavy on the conspiracy theory, light in the facts.

    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4
    Time to add FireMarshall Bill to the block list.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbirds View Post
    Lol...... it's homework if California is your home. So..... not homework.

    I did search for the bill and found a number of credible websites that were discussing the increase in DROS fees. Not one mentioned Verizon, reading the documents that you do rudely provided I see that the California DOJ is currently contacted to use Verizon to collect the DROS information and payments.

    So don't understand your thinking. You are upset that the information you are forced to provide to the state government to buy a firearm, is collected by Verizon and that they may be stealing that information and providing it to the government, the same government that is collecting that information in the first place. And you are saying they will renew that contract even though the bill says they are going to save millions of dollars by not renewing that contract and collecting the data themselves. Then they will increase the cost and use that money to confiscate firearms in California.

    I will stick to the credible websites for providing information on bills in California, you are heavy on the conspiracy theory, light in the facts.

    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4

    Well, I countered your misinformation with actual information, including the source document which you didn't bother to look up yourself before making your claim, and this is what I get. I wouldn't call providing source information to counter your original claim being "rude," but obviously you didn't want to see information that conflicted with your point of view, and here we are.

    I did not jump on this board to defend the California government, which has been really doing awful things to the State in which I reside and now appears to be willing to reach well beyond its borders to (attempt to) prosecute individuals who have public-facing websites that have material about, or are in the business of selling, firearms and / or ammunition.

    My guess is as good as yours with respect to whether or not the Verizon contract will be renewed. I suspect it will be because the State wants its data and because Verizon wants the State's business (and because Verizon has been overfriendly by sharing too much information with the federal government, something which I'm sure the State of California is perfectly happy to continue supporting).

    But regardless of what happens in December with that contract, you make a strange statement in suggesting that I am "upset that the information you are forced to give to the state government to buy a firearm, is collected by Verizon and that they may be stealing that information and providing it to (...) the same government that is collecting that information in the first place."

    Actually, no. I just don't think people should support Verizon in light of what we know about it, but I don't want to go on at length about that here, I think I've covered it enough, and if people want to do business with Verizon that is their business.

    With respect to where the information goes: the California DROS is a fee required to be collected in California, which, according to the State at least, covers the costs of the background checks and transfer registry. Whether it is truly necessary to cover background is dubious, because the checks run are transitory in nature, run through NICS, and are not retained. The transfer registry is another thing entirely, which is intended to track who has transferred the gun to another person.

    I personally don't think this registry is necessary. I do think that to the extent that the State maintains it that it should be solely responsible for the content that it records (and that it is the State that should respond to any citizens' lawsuits emanating from its use of any registry information) and should not expose this data to other entities, particularly not such dubious ones as Verizon. I also think the layers of obstacles and impositions to your rights that are being imposed not only in California, but in states across the United States, are already too much and are being further complicated when various corporations (who are subject to "data sharing" practices put in place by the federal government, and any requests that different governments may provide to them) are invited to, along with whatever States are doing this, become part of an increasingly complex and bureacratic legal scheme that deprives people of their rights. I also tend to think that people vote with their wallets and their feet, and if you need any evidence of that fact, you will see there have been studies confirming that people are leaving California in droves... and this outmigration is likely to increase, and grow. If you don't live in California, get ready to see one of us heading to a neighborhood near you. Like it or not.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast