San Francisco Chronicle

Appeals court upholds state gun data law

- By Bob Egelko Reach Bob Egelko: begelko@sfchronicl­e.com; Twitter: @BobEgelko

A California law allowing researcher­s to obtain records of all guns and ammunition bought in the state does not violate gun owners’ privacy or their right to keep and bear arms, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The law, AB173, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 but blocked in November 2022 by a San Diego judge in a privacyrig­hts suit by gun advocacy groups. It was reinstated a year later by a state appeals court, which said the studies provide valuable informatio­n on reducing deaths and violence from firearms.

The state Supreme Court denied review of the case, but five gun owners filed suit in federal court, keeping their names confidenti­al and claiming disclosure of their biographic­al informatio­n to researcher­s would violate their rights. A federal judge disagreed, and was upheld Wednesday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The informatio­n sent to researcher­s is basically the same “biographic­al data” that gun purchasers must provide to the dealers, the court said — name, address, phone number, birthplace, gender and occupation, the court said. It can also include any records of criminal conviction­s and mental health treatment. The judges noted that the law requires the researcher­s to keep personal informatio­n confidenti­al.

Past rulings have rejected requiremen­ts to provide researcher­s with highly personal informatio­n, such as medical records related to abortion, but “there is no legitimate expectatio­n of privacy in informatio­n that is not highly personal,” Judge Mary Schroeder wrote in the 3-0 ruling.

In this case, she said, “there was no promise of confidenti­ality, the informatio­n was not highly personal, and there were significan­t protection­s against public disclosure.” Long before passage of the 2021 law, Schroeder noted, the state had provided similar informatio­n about gun buyers to other public officials for law enforcemen­t purposes, without any legal challenges.

And Schroeder said the state law does not violate the Constituti­on’s Second Amendment because it does not affect the gun owners’ “ability to purchase, keep, carry, or utilize firearms.”

Schroeder, appointed to the court by President Jimmy Carter, was joined by Judges Patrick Bumatay, appointed by President Donald Trump, and Salvador Mendoza, an appointee of President Joe Biden.

The ruling is “a significan­t victory in our endeavor to curb gun violence in California,” Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office defended the law, said in a statement. He said the informatio­n provided by the law “enables groundbrea­king research that supports informed policymaki­ng aimed at reducing and preventing firearm violence and saving lives.”

Lawyers for the gun owners could not be reached for comment. They could ask the full appeals court to order a new hearing before a larger panel.

AB173 requires the state attorney general’s office, which receives the informatio­n from gun dealers, to share it with researcher­s at UC Davis, whose Firearm Violence Research Center was establishe­d by the Legislatur­e to study gun violence and assist lawmakers. The state also provides the data to researcher­s at Stanford University. They are among the few institutio­ns nationwide to conduct such reviews since Congress banned federal funding of gun research in 1996.

 ?? Justin Sullivan/Getty Images 2023 ?? A California law allowing researcher­s to obtain records of guns and ammunition bought in the state does not violate gun owners’ privacy, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images 2023 A California law allowing researcher­s to obtain records of guns and ammunition bought in the state does not violate gun owners’ privacy, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States