CRPA, GOC,  and our legal team were made aware of a massive leak of personal information of CCW holders in California. The disclosure of all CCW holders in California is unprecedented and unconscionable. The leak included personal information including addresses, birthdates, driver’s license information, and information from DROS documents.

CRPA staff and lawyers are working to make sure the AG and DOJ incompetence is objectively investigated, make sure those responsible are held accountable, make sure this can never happen again, and supply all legal and other options to those who had their confidential information revealed. This page should serve as the clearinghouse to collect information about this data leak and your rights.

How To Determine If Filing A Lawsuit Is Right For You



THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS PENDING. This means that individuals that wish to pursue legal action should investigate what their best courses of action are at this point. You should seek out an attorney and discuss what option is best for you. Our template lawsuit (linked below) is pre-prepared with arguments and legal authority for individuals to use and a step by step how-to-sue DOJ guide. Please feel free to share this with your attorney.

It would be poetic justice for the Attorney General to face tens of thousands of lawsuits by DOXED individuals.

10/19/22-DOJ Leak Memorandum from Attorney Team

 11/18/22- GOVERNMENT CLAIM FORM- Deadline December 27, 2022- DATE TO FILE HAS PASSED

Sample Complaint for Individual Lawsuits– Attorneys may use this sample for their own clients seeking to file a complaint. (Additional Doncment will be added as the case progresses)

VIDEO- Discussing options people have after receiving their denial of claim form from the state.

PLEASE BE AWARE OF YOUR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS! If you received a denial within 45 days of filing a government claim form- you have 6 MONTHS to file a lawsuit. If you did not receive an official letter of denial from the state within the 45 days-you have up to 2 YEARS to file a lawsuit.


Small claims are all the monetary lawsuits that fall under the category of payments worth $10,000 (if the claimant is an individual or a single person). A small claims action can either be filed by you as the individual plaintiff at the nearest courthouse or by completing an online form for your statement of the claim.

The process of a Small Claims Case is rather simple and straightforward, especially in California. The form consists of questions regarding the details of the claimant, that is you, the details of the defendant (individual or a group of individuals), an account of what happened, when it happened and why it happened, and the amount you require from the defendant. You, as the plaintiff, are required to either fill the statement of claim or statement of complaint at a clerk’s desk or through the internet. Online forms are easily available, and the process is thoroughly explained.

Once you have submitted your claim, the defendant (the state in this case) will be notified of the claim. They have to respond within twenty days of issuing. During this time, in case the claim is resolved, the procedure will not be moved to court. If the defendant fails to respond, you will automatically win the case, and the defendant is required to pay damages.

If the state does respond to within the 20 days, then a court date may be set. Make sure to pay special attention to dates and times so you can appear when the court determines your trial date. At the court trial, you and the defendant present their arguments, without the presence of any lawyer, in front of the court clerk or a judge, depending on the circumstances. You should bring any documents that you have including your denied government claim form.

You should make sure that the claim you made demands no more than $10,000 if you’re a single party filing the claim. The claim is supposed to fall within the statute of limitations period, according to the laws of California. You, as a claimant or a defendant, must be able to efficiently recall the events of the mishap and be precise during the documentation, as well as the court trial in California. The fee to file your claim will also apply.

Forms from the court for filing can be found at this link.

Information about small claims actions can be found here: Steps to Filing a Small Claims Case

If you missed the deadline for submitting a claim form to the State of California, you can submit a late claim. 

PLEASE BE AWARE OF YOUR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS! If you received a denial within 45 days of filing a government claim form- you have 6 MONTHS to file a lawsuit. If you did not receive an official letter of denial from the state within the 45 days-you have up to 2 YEARS to file a lawsuit.



C. THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES (please note that there may be additional theories that should be investigated depending on your individual situation)


Can the government be held liable for losses, damages, injury, or death that directly resulted from this leak?

If someone can prove they were harmed by the leak, there are a few legal theories which they could pursue to attempt to recover damages. While this is not intended to be a comprehensive legal analysis, CRPA will attempt to briefly describe the three of the main legal theories and their relative odds of success.

1. Federal Right to Privacy: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution & 42 U.S.C. § 1983

A claim brought based on the federal right to privacy is a tenuous theory of liability. Unless more information as to the reason for the leak is revealed which shows the leak to have been an intentional act (i.e., the person or persons at the DOJ who caused or facilitated the leak did so with the intent to publish gun owners’ personal information), a Section 1983 action based on a negligent leak of the data would likely be unsuccessful. This is because “negligent conduct by a state official, even though causing injury” is not grounds for finding the deprivation of a constitutional right.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). We are aware that the leak itself was “intentional.” What the investigations should determine is whether the leak of the street address and other private information was “intentional.” If evidence comes to light which shows the leak of the sensitive private information was intentional, we will update this section accordingly and advise everyone who has contacted us.

2. Right to Privacy Under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution

The California right of privacy protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion and it is “much broader than its federal analog”. American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal. 4th 307, 325–26 (Cal. 1997). California courts recognize a constitutionally protected interest in a person’s name, address, and phone number.

To establish a violation of privacy rights in California, a plaintiff needs to establish three things: “(1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy. In this circumstance, people with conceal carry permits do have a legally protected privacy interest under California law, and they also have a reasonable expectation that their data will not be accidentally leaked out for no reason. Whether the invasion of privacy is “serious” or not in a legal sense will likely vary based on the individual.

Such a claim may thus be viable, and if you believe you have been harmed by the leak you should seek to consult an attorney as you may need to file what is called a government claim to preserve your right to sue in state court. That said, whether or not money damages are available remains an open question. While one case has said that “courts, exercising their authority over the common law, may, in appropriate circumstances, recognize a tort action for damages to remedy a constitutional violation”, Katzberg v. Regents of University of California, 29 Cal.4th 300, 325 (2002), what constitutes an “appropriate circumstance” is up for debate, and it would be quite risky to assume money damages are available from the government in such a lawsuit.

3. The Information Practices Act (California Civil Code section 1798, et seq.)

California’s Information Practices Act (IPA) broadly protects people’s interest in the confidential and private information stored in government files.  While an extensive analysis of the IPA is outside the scope of this FAQ, whether a claim for the DOJ’s data leak is viable likely depends on whose privacy interest is being pursued. An IPA claim will require arguing that a plaintiffs’ privacy interest is greater than the public’s right to know, even though the leak was not intentional (as far as we know). In addition to actual damages as well as attorney’s fees and costs, a successful plaintiff under the IPA can recover $2,500 in exemplary damages if they prove the leak was intentional.

4. Public Disclosure of Private Facts

This claim requires a Plaintiff to prove that (1) a defendant publicized private information concerning the plaintiff; (2) that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would consider the publicity highly offensive; (3) that the defendant knew, or acted with reckless disregard of the fact, that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would consider the publicity highly offensive; (4) that the private information was not of legitimate public concern [or did not have a substantial connection to a matter of legitimate public concern]; (5) that the plaintiff was harmed; and (6) that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. (from jury instructions)

In addition, caselaw precedent holds that in order to be actionable, the information revealed must itself be offensive to the reasonable person. The California Supreme Court has stated that the published facts must be so offensive as to shock the community’s notions of decency. (4 California Torts § 46.03 (2022).)

One of the immediate challenges to a lawsuit making this claim is that a purely accidental divulsion may not be found to satisfy all of the legal elements to constitute an invasion of privacy under the law. One of the elements cited above is that “the defendant knew, or acted with reckless disregard of the fact, that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would consider the publicity highly offensive”. If the leak was indeed accidental as the Attorney General currently claims, then there was no real intention behind the leak. They didn’t act knowing the information would be offensive to the people who had their information leaked, or with reckless disregard of that fact, instead, they just didn’t mean to leak this info at all. Of course, this calculus changes if it is later discovered the leak was intentional.

Even in that circumstance, there would still be the problem of establishing that the information leaked was itself “highly offensive”, as having a CCW permit does not shock the community’s notions of decency – although the leak of the street address might be considered offensive.









07/25/2022- List of Information Actually Released in DOJ Leak  


06/29/2022 Timeline of the DOJ Breach

Sample Individual Litigation Document- Please see “Individual Legal Action” section below



Independent Law Firm Hired by DOJ to Investigate

07/22/2022- Republicans Call on State Auditor to Conduct Independent Investigation of CA DOJ Leak

11/30/2022- DOJ Releases Report on Investigation of the Leak


CRPA Investigation is Ongoing

07/21/2022- CRPA Public Records Request to Department of Justice

07/13/2022- CRPA Public Record Request to Department of Justice

      10/19/2022- DOJ Leak Memo



11/30/2022- DOJ Releases Report on Investigation of the Leak

07/21/2022- Letter that Senators Received From AG Referencing Data Leak

07/11/2022- DOJ “RESPONSE” LETTER TO VICTIMS OF THE DATA RELEASE (Redacted copy of an actual letter)  

NEW!!! 06/30/2022- Before Leak- DOJ Attorney Promised Court No Gun Owners Info Would Be Leaked


06/29/2022- CA DOJ Alerts Persons Who Had Data Exposed

06/28/2022- DOJ Announcement on Website



11/30/2022- CRPS Reports that DOJ Blames Lack of Training for Data Leak

07/20/2022- Cal Matters, Concealed Carry Fiasco Hangs Over Capitol

07/12/2022- Daily Caller- Rob Bonta California AG Apologizes Gun Data Leak

07/11/2022- NRA-CA Targets First and Second Amendments with Advertising Ban

06/30/2022- Dana Loesch talks to President Chuck Michel About DOJ Breach

06/30/2022- The Reload- California Plans To Alert Gun Owners

06/29/2022- KTLA News- CA Sheriffs Concerned About Data Breach

06/29/2022- The Trace- CA DOJ Leak Exposes Gun Owners’ Private Data

06/29/2022- California Globe- CA AG Leaks Names and Addresses of State’s Legal Gun Owners Following SCOTUS Gun Ruling

06/29/2022- California Sheriffs Public Alert on Data Breach

06/29/2022- Cam & Co- Data Leak with Chuck Michel

06/28/2022- L.A. Times- Data Breach Affects All California Concealed Carry Permit Holders

06/28/2022- Blaze Media- California Leaks Gun Owners’ Names, Home Addresses in Massive Privacy Breach

06/28/2022- Daily Caller- California AG Leaks Names, Addresses of Gun Owners In The State

06/28/2022- The Truth About Guns- Intimidation: California AG Posted the Names, Personal Info of Carry Permit Holders After Bruen Ruling

06/28/2022- Bearing Arms- CRPA: California “Data Breach” Exposes Personal Details of Concealed Carry Holders

06/27/2022- Reddit Discussion

06/27/2022- Calguns Forum Discussion



You can help CRPA help you by taking the following actions:


Its free, even if you aren’t a CRPA member. KNOWLEDGE is the first step to power.


We don’t care if you join under your real name. Many folks have even bought memberships for their pets. Feel free. It’s ironic though, because CRPA has NEVER had a data leak, and the information about our members and donors has never been sold or shared.



Volunteers are CRPA’s most powerful weapon!


Have fun, meet good people, and increase your influence locally. We can make a SUBSTANTIAL difference in local elections and politics.





  1. CRPA says:

    This is the place to leave all of your questions regarding the DOJ leak of personal information. We will attempt to answer as many questions as possible and we will have a frequently asked questions update coming out next week.

  2. Unknown says:

    2 Questions:

    1. Is there any language in any of the lawsuits regarding the data breach that would make the CA DOJ/Atty Gen. Office liable for losses, damages, injury, or death as a result of criminal use of any CCW holders’ private information? We have already received the information regarding the IDX cyber security measures, but what about our physical property, possessions, and bodies?

    2. In regards to the SCOTUS ruling casting out the “Good Cause” requirement for CCW, what can be done to prevent CA and other “May Issue” states from adding other more stringent requirements to CCW applications or further barring the right to carry concealed firearms in more locations?

  3. Unknown says:

    Have all the victims been notified by CA DOJ?

  4. John Smith says:

    Hello I had a CA ccw for a few months in 2021 before moving out of CA, I am not sure if my info was leaked but will I still be able to participate in this lawsuit?

  5. Unknown says:

    At this point I would like to know conclusively if my information was leaked. I have applied for a permit but it has not been issued yet, so I may be clear. I do however own firearms and I believe this information was also leaked. Is there a way for us to know exactly what information about Us was leaked? (While maintaining the privacy of others- I only want to know about my information)

    Also, in addition to seeking damages for the plaintiffs, is this suit going to address the fact that the state maintaining this data and forcing residents to register is not constitutional? I would like to see these lists deleted and mandatory registration stopped.

    Thank you

  6. Ed says:

    Why are Republican legislators not demanding an outside DOJ entity/person or a special prosecutor to investigate who is responsible for this egregious violation of our privacy and why are they not conducting hearings on this so-called “data breach”! This was a deliberate act by the anti-2A Marxist in the Marxifornia government! I have not heard one single word about any investigation! I’m certain the DOJ is in full coverup mode.

  7. Unknown says:

    What information was contained in the FSC database leak? I have reviewed copies of the CCW, DROS, and AW database leaks, but have not seen what was in the FSC database leak.

  8. Unknown says:

    @Jason C – if you join the Facebook group “California Concealed Carry-CCW” and ask this question, one of our members that have access to the leaked CCW database will be happy to confirm if your info is contained within it or not. FYI, the CCW database contains information up until 12/31/2021 and nothing dated later than this.

  9. Unknown says:

    Some of the potential leaked information regards gun ownership and particularly “assault” weapon registry. Given that the state is keeping these lists like some would-be despot monitoring which citizens to target after the coup, what rights do we have if the state decides to actually come confiscate them? Or demands they be turned in? What measures can we take to refuse to submit to unconstitutional laws? Do we get an attorney and meet them at the front door, denying entry? Or do we just refuse and have them take us to jail, and then have to fight it from a wrongful imprisonment angle? I don’t believe if we turn them in willingly, we’ll ever get them back.

  10. Unknown says:

    If I were to become a plaintiff in this lawsuits, what would I be required to do?

  11. Unknown says:

    I received my notification from the CADOJ about their release of my personal info. In that letter they offered ID protection, through a third party. My question is, if I do accept this protection, does it let the CADOJ off the hook for releasing my info? I DO NOT the CADOJ and think this is a trick.

  12. John Doe says:

    Thinking about joining as a party to the class action suit against the state.

    Can one join anonymously as a “John Doe” as a way of safeguarding against further/ongoing media attacks/smears? If yes, how secure is that information held?

  13. Unknown says:

    I received a letter from the California Attorney Generals Office. Regarding their release of my personal information. In that letter they offered ID protection. At no cost for 1 year.
    My question, if I do accept this protection, does it let California off the hook?
    Will an acceptance of ID protection, be taking a settlement?
    If I accept the ID Protection, will this eliminate me as a future plaintiff?
    What do you recommend? Accept Id protection, or do not?

  14. Unknown says:

    The letter I received from AG Bonta notifying me of the release of my personal information was patronizing and offered little in terms of what the AG’s office is willing to do about the matter. Merely offering a “credit protection” service is a slap in the face to all of California’s law abiding CCW holders and gun owners! The main concern is for our physical safety from criminals who now have a shopping list of potential victims. It’s just a matter of time before criminals take action. Yet AG Bonta did not acknowledge this risk or offered any solutions on how we can protect ourselves physically. Instead they want to limit where we can now legally carry!? Really?? I was planning on selling my home in the next 2-years but now, what potential buyer would consider buying a home from a person whose personal firearms information, including my address, was leaked to the public. Do you think they may be concerned about being harmed due to mistaken identity? Should I be immoral and not mention the breach to the potential buyer? Is the state of California willing to buy my now un-sellable home? It sad to think the one-thing I had to protect me and my loved ones from harm (my CCW) is now the very thing that could be bring real harm to my doorstep. Thanks AG Bonta and Governor Newsome who I’m sure spear-headed this unconscionable act against law abiding citizens in effort to garner political gain at our expense and safety.

  15. Unknown says:

    Correct me if Im wrong, but as I understood it they not only leaked CCW holders info but also anyone who registered a weapon too? Many law abiding gun owners were forced to register their LEGALLY homebuilt weapons, since the state turned them into felons with a vote and stroke of a pen.

  16. Unknown says:

    I just received a letter from the DOJ apologizing for what happened and offering free credit monitoring. They also said I should monitor my own accounts as well. This is not acceptable as my biggest worry is now criminals will be coming to my house to take what I own. I’m sure if Bonta got doxxed there would be more outrage. I want the settlement to be as large as possible to make sure this never happens again!

  17. Unknown says:

    What about firearms safety certificate holders and everyone that purchased a firearm the past 10 years? They said that info was possibly leaked also.

  18. CRPA says:

    For all the questions on how do I know if my information was on the list?

    The database has been removed from the website and there is no way to check if your individual information was part of the leak. If you received a letter from the Attorney General alerting you to the leak, then your information was released and you are part of the group that the leak impacts.

    It looks at this point that the leaked data included all CCW holders in the state and those that applied for a CCW prior to the leak.

  19. CRPA says:

    The letter from AG Bonta alerting those whose information was leaked was lacking. We understand that this is a requirement for any leak of personal information of this magnitude. They were checking off the box of formally alerting the public, but more should be coming.

  20. CRPA says:

    Not sure who runs this group, but you need to be careful about sharing of information known to be leaked. This too is a violation that carries a hefty penalty.

  21. The leak exposed the private information of all gun owners who applied for a concealed carry permit between the years 2011 and 2021. The information exposed included the names, date of birth, gender, race, driver’s license number, addresses and criminal history of the gun owners. Information was compromised from the contents of five other gun registries, including the Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Certificate Safety and Gun Violence Restraining Order. The social security numbers of those on the list were not leaked, according to the DOJ.

  22. CRPA says:

    We know that California is planning on following the New York example of looking at “good moral character” and “sensitive places.” They plan on taking this up after the July recess. CRPA and other groups will be fighting this in Sacramento, but Governor Newsom has promised to sign every single piece of gun legislation brought to him regardless of the constitutionality of that legislation. This leaves the courts as the only option to fight these laws. Unfortunately, the state has our tax dollars to fight in court, we must support cases from donations from gun owners and members. It is unfair to say the least, but if we are to protect our rights, we cannot let these laws stand.

  23. Unknown says:

    I am a member of CRPA and have a CCW permit. If I follow the sujestions in the DOJs letter will that jeprodise my standing in a class action?

  24. CRPA says:

    They are. There is a letter that was sent by the Senate Republican Caucus regarding this on the page at the top.

  25. Registration is already being challenged. CRPA has has challenges working their way through the court for several years now.

    There is no way to know conclusively what specific information was leaked on an individual. There are some out there that will share that information but it is illegal to do so if they have the information.

  26. Unknown says:

    My fear is that the “People” that are against guns in general will use this information to falsely make red flag accusations against gun owners, hoping to have them confiscated. How are we protected against this happening? What are your rights to protest, prior to confiscation?

  27. Unknown says:

    It is a Violation for Information to be leaked in the Medical field. I see no differrence in this situation .I am outraged and would like to know if recourse is possible .If a class action lawsuit is filed , please add my name .
    I have and feel violated on many levels and have more fear of future problems because of this leak .My home information , Drivers license , and all other information is exposed.It looks intentional and I would like to see Justice in this egregious attack on “We the People “

  28. Unknonw says:


  29. Ian says:

    How can I be a part of the class action lawsuit?

  30. MAPC says:

    This is a mandatory offer that they must make for these types of leaks. It does not preclude you from being a part of legal action.

  31. David Webb says:

    I had a CA CCW. I moved out of CA in 2019. My CCW expired in 2020. My information was leaked according to the IDX people. I took the free monitoring service because my personal information was compromised, and identity theft is a complicated, long, nasty process to clean up.

  32. S. R. says:

    This leak is not the first one. Remember when
    all the instructor’s names were released.

    We are now afraid to leave the house unattended. One of us always stays home. I would think that among damages are the costs we now must bear of hiring someone to stay here if we are both away. We certainly do not like the feeling of being on someone’s shopping list. I think I’ll send Bonta our next bill for a house sitter! I won’t be hiring any teenaged girls, think about it, it’s too risky.

    Will there be a place for us to share incidents related to this data grab, should they (God forbid) occur?

  33. JP says:

    I heard word that California was going to make plaintiffs pay if case is lost? The legislature is trying to change the law? Have you heard anything about that?

  34. James Mercer says:

    My letter from the DOJ is dated July 8, 2022. What is the time limit for a government tort claim in this type of case?

  35. Frank Van Sant says:

    How many law firms (in California) have filed a potential lawsuit regarding this breach of sensitive personal data by the CA DOJ?

  36. T B says:

    This was not a breach of information. Breach implies a break in. This was freely given.
    Google AB173 and read the bill.
    The amount of private information provided by the DOJ into the portal is staggering.
    Info is provided to UC Davis but may be provided to any other qualified institution. The bill does not require background checks to gain access to our private information.
    I have requested the DOJ provide all my data, specific & detailed, which was released from the Firearms Dashboard Portal to the public and is contained within the DOJ Firearms Dashboard Portal database.

    You may want to look at this site too.

  37. Kevin says:

    Why hasn’t a judge issued some kind of restraining order against any further release of this information until a full investigation has been completed? The entirety of the bill that allowed this in the first place is unlawful as far as I’m concerned, and it should be overturned.

  38. J. A. says:

    I am a CRPA life member and am interested in item “C” (Individual Lawsuits). Is there an expectation of when the templates will be available?

  39. fed up says:

    I sent a FOIA request for IP addresses that accessed the information, to the AG office and received a letter that they needed more time to process the request and gave a date of 10 days. Four days after the expiration, they sent me another letter stating they retained counsel and that it would take months to complete a forensic investigation to determine how it happened. They also stated “At this time, as the investigation is ongoing, the public interest in disclosure of the records you requested is clearly outweighed by the public interest in facilitating an accurate and thorough investigation.” Lots of word salad.

  40. Michael Trotter says:

    What do I do? On disability with my wife live on $2397.00 a month can’t afford an attorney.
    Fixed felony August 2014. Life scan cleared me to get 03 ffl. Coe and more. Ca doj made me have the same case amended last year in June. I have all the paperwork. Had my coe for 4 years, went to renew last August and got denied and revoked my current Coe and doj training certificate. Emailed them and talked on phone with operator 202 who has no power only points out the problem. Was just told I used the wrong life scan for the June amendment that was for the same case twice. The doj is lying. Why did I need to amendment?

  41. Greg Seifter says:

    If I have not already received a letter from DOJ, does that mean my info was not compromised?

  42. Walt says:

    How about an updated on this? This page has no updates by the CRPA since mid July? When are we suing them and if not why not. I have not even heard if Michel and associates is using any of us who signed up to be plaintiffs are doing anything. Not feeling good about our organization on this one.

  43. CRPA says:

    Thank you Walt. We have been waiting for the attorneys to respond to our public records requests since everything is shut down during their investigation. There is a class action that has been filed, but the class has not bee certified and we are unsure if that will be able to move forward because the attorneys do not seem to have considered the case properly.
    CRPA will be sending out more information on how to file an administrative claim form with the state. This is the first step in moving forward with legal action. Stay tuned.

  44. CRPA says:

    Unless they have an old mailing address for you, they sent letters out to all people who were exposed.

  45. CRPA says:

    Please contact Michel & Associates with this information. They cannot answer legal questions in this format that may be confidential. 562-216-4444.

  46. CRPA says:

    This is true. All responses are being held in light of the investigation.

  47. MAPC says:

    Very soon these documents will be out. The first step is to file an administrative claim that must be submitted to the state before filing a lawsuit. They will more than likely deny the administrative claim and then a law suit can be filed. More information on this coming soon.

  48. MAPC says:

    This is only on cases that challenge gun control bills. We have a case filed already on this issue.

  49. MAPC says:

    Update! New Documents added to the Individual legal action of this page. There is a Memo that explains where we are to date and how you can take action and there is a sample complaint that can be used to bring individual legal action against the DOJ. Make sure to read the section on filing a government tort claim in the memo. That is an important step.https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Draft-DOJ-Leak-Complaint-Public-Release.pdf

  50. CRPA says:

    Did you see the post that template for complaint and a detailed legal memo on process are up on the page? Take a look. There is a government claim that needs to be filed by December.

  51. Enrique Suarez says:

    I got to this page from the email I received from CRPA asking me to consider filing a Government Claim and pay the $25. I also see that you provide a redacted sample of what we should fill out. Your Long Beach attorney’s information is there also. By me filling this out and providing your attorney’s information, does that mean that in the future I would be part of your Mass Action lawsuit? Not that I would mind that, but I want to clarify it. Also how does SB1327 play into this lawsuit and what is the risk to the common folk?

  52. CRPA says:

    We won our case against 1327 so there is no longer a threat to that. There is NO Mass Action or CLASS Action moving forward. Please see the updates to the page for more details.

  53. GARY SHORT says:

    Where is the list of Points and Authorities that were said to be available to download? I cannot find a link.

  54. Chris Davis says:

    On the initial claim form, when does the 45 days start (post mark date I sent, cause how would I be able to tell when they received)? What stops the clock, the date they mailed the rejection or date received rejection? They also have a date on the front letter of the rejection, same as post mark date on envelope, but the back declaration from the person was weeks prior.

  55. Kevin says:

    IANAL but this seems like CRPA abandoning CA gun owners. The page above clearly lays out the States Defense while telling us CA CCW holders we are on our own. If we can not individually afford our own lawyer we are screwed. Every single person DOXed showed Good Cause for needing to protect their lives and families and the State willfully or through gross negligence put our home addresses on the internet. I feel CRPA and Michel & Associates should be fighting for their supporters, not laying out the states defense on the internet for them. I feel CRPA and Michel & Associates should be doing more to protect the people who have loyally supported them not drumming up business for other law firms and telling us that we only matter if we are privileged enough to afford our own defense and that if we are so privileged they will give our attorney tips. So once again the state harms the little people and we have no real recourse except small claims court. Sad and pathetic. I’m sure I’m wrong but that is how it feels.

  56. Joseph C. says:

    Having a very hard time finding an attorney who will even call me back, I’ve been reaching out to countless law firms over the past five months and now only have about 1 month left on my statute of limitations. I’m a law enforcement officer who obtained a CCW permit back in 2012 (I was a reserve officer at that time and was required to obtain a CCW to carry while off duty). Since then as a fully sworn LEO I’ve worked around convicted violent felons for about 10 years and now my personal information including my name and address is out there floating around. It seems that no attorneys want to even talk about this case with me. I personally feel the damages should be significantly more than the $10,000 limit in small claims court (heightened emotional distress, security concerns, etc), but I might be running out of time and options. Does CRPA have any updates regarding other members winning or losing in small claims court so far? I’m really trying to figure out if it’s even going to be worth my time. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.