NRA files suit to defend gun owners' privacy in California

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action filed a lawsuit against California on Wednesday, Jan. 5, challenging a law that allows the state to disclose sensitive personal information about law-abiding gun owners to universities and any “bona fide research institute.”

“California must be held accountable for its near-constant, unconstitutional assaults on law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “This law strips privacy rights from anyone who has ever purchased a firearm, transferred a firearm, purchased ammunition, or obtained a concealed-carry license. This is an outright violation of our rights and must be reversed.”

The bill, Assembly Bill 173, allows for the disclosure of highly sensitive information, including a gun owner’s name, address, place of birth, phone number, occupation, driver’s license or ID number, race, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and even their social security number and types of firearms that they own. This information was gathered from law-abiding gun owners with the understanding that it would only be used for legitimate law enforcement purposes.

“This information is a person’s identity. And it’s being handed over to organizations that have no duty to safeguard it. This will do nothing to prevent crime – it will only serve to put law-abiding gun owners at risk,” Ouimet said. “Gun owners are entitled to the same privacy rights as all law-abiding citizens. They should not be ‘doxxed’ for exercising their rights.”

This is only one of the cases that NRA-ILA has filed in recent years to curtail California’s efforts to burden the Second Amendment. NRA-ILA is also challenging California’s draconian restrictions on ammunition purchases and transfers, magazine bans, and the closure of gun shops and ranges. NRA-ILA will continue opposing California as long as it continues to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

This case is captioned Doe v. Bonta.