For reasons I can't get into on an open channel, I'm now *very* confident I'm going to get a copy of the Cal-DOJ central database of CCW data. Of course, my copy will be purged of the social security numbers, street addresses, phone numbers, criminal history data, gun make/model/SN info and the like, and that's fine.
What I'll get is the permitholder name, issuing agency, city and county of residence, year of birth, date of CCW issuance/renewal, issuing agency, type of permit (judge/reserve cop/normal), and "occupation". The "occupations" will probably be screened to look for any that might give away too much "safety information", such as "jewelry transporter" or "counsellor at a battered women's shelter". It's unlikely there'll be very many of these, I'd guess under a couple dozen out of about 39k permits.
I may have this as soon as the 30th of this month, the date of the next court hearing. I'd call it better than 50/50 odds.
Therefore, I think it's time we gave some thought as to what to do with this haul (in an electronic spreadsheet format, mind you!).
What I am NOT going to do is publish it, or allow it to be published. The majority of those permits were issued legitimately.
What I will do:
1) I'll make the "raw data" available to legitimate pro-RKBA researchers. Chuck Michel will get a copy within minutes of me scoring it. Others who might be interested include our own Clayton Cramer, maybe Kopel, lord knows who else. Nobody has ever had this much data on California CCW issuance
.
2) In at least some counties, we should look for corruption. Sheriff Blanas of Sacramento has refused at least three lawful attempts to access this data; I'm willing to bet that running his permitholder list against his campaign contributors will turn up massive correlations. There is no donation limit for Sheriff in Sacto county; the quick scan I did of his contributor logs showed simply enormous amounts of money. Up to $50,000 a year from *individual* donors...and many in the five digits a year range. Bet good money there's permitholders there. Others we should check: Santa Clara, San Mateo, Sonoma, Solano, Napa, Monterey, LOS ANGELES, Alameda, many others. Anybody who is known as a pro-gunnie and wants to run the permitholder list past the campaign roster for your Sheriff, I'd be willing to hand over your county's data in exchange for a no-publishing-names promise. I'll do Blanas myself, probably Santa Clara too...but there's more than I can handle alone.
3) "Black demographics analysis": in 1986, a California legislative research group found that in the counties with higher black populations, the CCW issuance rate was lower than in "whiter" counties. I've done a more recent check into the same thing, using 1997 CCW issuance data: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/ccwdata.html - I want to repeat that with newer data. Note that I cannot easily ID black permitholders from the data.
4) It IS possible to look for individual Latino issuance based on last-name analysis. This will give us the breakdown on Latino CCW issuance per county and for the whole state. The last time anybody did this was 1995 in Fresno County, where the Fresno Bee found a 3% Hispanic permitholder rate in a county that is over 40% Latino. I expect that to hold statewide.
In addition, there is one group that can be easily IDed, that generally has an easy time obtaining CCW: Judges. It is very rare for THEM to be discriminated against, hence we can look at Latino *judge* percentage and see if it's significantly higher than Latino issuance to "regular folks".
5) It's also possible to ID the ladies based on names. In many jurisdictions, CCW is literally handled on a "good ol' boys" basis, with emphasis on the "boys". True, female CCW issuance is always lower (reflecting how few are into shooting recreationally) but we can maybe correct for this by looking at how many of the lady permitholders are gov't employees versus otherwise, and comparing that ratio to the male ratios. What I've noticed informally in the urban counties is that virtually the only lady permitholders you see are gov't connected - people who would normally score such as assistant DAs, Judges, etc.
Am I right in thinking that if the ratios of gov't/non-gov't issuance is severely off by gender, it's a sign of trouble?
6) Ages: DOJ doesn't want to give me the full birth date of each permitholder, but they seem less concerned with just years. Not a problem. Based on year of birth, I can ID counties that have an abnormally high average permitholder age. That in turn is a sign that CCWs are being handled on a "tenured basis" and/or there's corruption going on, as the older/richer/better connected folk score. (Yes, there are poor old folk, but people's peak earning power at higher income levels happens around age 45 to 50.)
7) Does any of this same gender/Latino demographics data exist from any of the shall-issue states, such as Texas? If the TX CCW issuance rate to ladies is 10% of the total, where it's 1% of the total here, that would be a VERY interesting thing to know. Any idea where I could look for that? Texas would be perfect, or AZ which also has a fair number of Hispanics. Latino discrimination, once confirmed, may be what finally forces reforms here.
----------------------
All: does anybody see any fundamental flaws in the above?
Can anybody suggest improvements or other things to look for?
I can handle the initial data analysis and report writing myself...but then I would hope some genuine scholars might be willing to volunteer to check my work and attach their names as having done so. Clayton? Got any contacts?
Feel free to forward, nothing here is confidencial.
Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw
What I'll get is the permitholder name, issuing agency, city and county of residence, year of birth, date of CCW issuance/renewal, issuing agency, type of permit (judge/reserve cop/normal), and "occupation". The "occupations" will probably be screened to look for any that might give away too much "safety information", such as "jewelry transporter" or "counsellor at a battered women's shelter". It's unlikely there'll be very many of these, I'd guess under a couple dozen out of about 39k permits.
I may have this as soon as the 30th of this month, the date of the next court hearing. I'd call it better than 50/50 odds.
Therefore, I think it's time we gave some thought as to what to do with this haul (in an electronic spreadsheet format, mind you!).
What I am NOT going to do is publish it, or allow it to be published. The majority of those permits were issued legitimately.
What I will do:
1) I'll make the "raw data" available to legitimate pro-RKBA researchers. Chuck Michel will get a copy within minutes of me scoring it. Others who might be interested include our own Clayton Cramer, maybe Kopel, lord knows who else. Nobody has ever had this much data on California CCW issuance
.2) In at least some counties, we should look for corruption. Sheriff Blanas of Sacramento has refused at least three lawful attempts to access this data; I'm willing to bet that running his permitholder list against his campaign contributors will turn up massive correlations. There is no donation limit for Sheriff in Sacto county; the quick scan I did of his contributor logs showed simply enormous amounts of money. Up to $50,000 a year from *individual* donors...and many in the five digits a year range. Bet good money there's permitholders there. Others we should check: Santa Clara, San Mateo, Sonoma, Solano, Napa, Monterey, LOS ANGELES, Alameda, many others. Anybody who is known as a pro-gunnie and wants to run the permitholder list past the campaign roster for your Sheriff, I'd be willing to hand over your county's data in exchange for a no-publishing-names promise. I'll do Blanas myself, probably Santa Clara too...but there's more than I can handle alone.
3) "Black demographics analysis": in 1986, a California legislative research group found that in the counties with higher black populations, the CCW issuance rate was lower than in "whiter" counties. I've done a more recent check into the same thing, using 1997 CCW issuance data: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/ccwdata.html - I want to repeat that with newer data. Note that I cannot easily ID black permitholders from the data.
4) It IS possible to look for individual Latino issuance based on last-name analysis. This will give us the breakdown on Latino CCW issuance per county and for the whole state. The last time anybody did this was 1995 in Fresno County, where the Fresno Bee found a 3% Hispanic permitholder rate in a county that is over 40% Latino. I expect that to hold statewide.
In addition, there is one group that can be easily IDed, that generally has an easy time obtaining CCW: Judges. It is very rare for THEM to be discriminated against, hence we can look at Latino *judge* percentage and see if it's significantly higher than Latino issuance to "regular folks".
5) It's also possible to ID the ladies based on names. In many jurisdictions, CCW is literally handled on a "good ol' boys" basis, with emphasis on the "boys". True, female CCW issuance is always lower (reflecting how few are into shooting recreationally) but we can maybe correct for this by looking at how many of the lady permitholders are gov't employees versus otherwise, and comparing that ratio to the male ratios. What I've noticed informally in the urban counties is that virtually the only lady permitholders you see are gov't connected - people who would normally score such as assistant DAs, Judges, etc.
Am I right in thinking that if the ratios of gov't/non-gov't issuance is severely off by gender, it's a sign of trouble?
6) Ages: DOJ doesn't want to give me the full birth date of each permitholder, but they seem less concerned with just years. Not a problem. Based on year of birth, I can ID counties that have an abnormally high average permitholder age. That in turn is a sign that CCWs are being handled on a "tenured basis" and/or there's corruption going on, as the older/richer/better connected folk score. (Yes, there are poor old folk, but people's peak earning power at higher income levels happens around age 45 to 50.)
7) Does any of this same gender/Latino demographics data exist from any of the shall-issue states, such as Texas? If the TX CCW issuance rate to ladies is 10% of the total, where it's 1% of the total here, that would be a VERY interesting thing to know. Any idea where I could look for that? Texas would be perfect, or AZ which also has a fair number of Hispanics. Latino discrimination, once confirmed, may be what finally forces reforms here.
----------------------
All: does anybody see any fundamental flaws in the above?
Can anybody suggest improvements or other things to look for?
I can handle the initial data analysis and report writing myself...but then I would hope some genuine scholars might be willing to volunteer to check my work and attach their names as having done so. Clayton? Got any contacts?
Feel free to forward, nothing here is confidencial.
Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw