PDA

View Full Version : Fear of LE Retaliation for Filing a TBJ Lawsuit: Still Legitimate?


Paladin
08-21-2008, 10:53 PM
I was over at "Billy Jack's" blog the other day and noticed his new posting dispelling the "common knowledge" that getting one of these suits to court takes years (see blog dated 2008-08-20 at: http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/). True, the verdict/judgment isn't in yet, not to mention possible appeals. But it got me to thinking about another fear that people raise re. suing your own CLEO, that they will have their henchmen (LEOs more loyal to them than to their oath of office), retaliate against you, just as Sheriff Gates did against BJ.

Question 1: Is this still a legitimate fear?

Decades ago, when BJ filed his lawsuit and Gates had his boys go after him, who could BJ turn to for help? The local media? But what if they were buddies w/Gates and/or got their own CCWs by their cozy relationship w/him? The NRA? Did they even have a legal branch back then that could come to his aid? CGF? Nope, that was decades before its birth. Rallying pro-2nd A troops to his aid? Nope, w/o the widespread use of the internet, he really did not have a way of letting us know of his situation. The courts were about the only recourse open to BJ and that is where he ended up going.

But times have changed. When one of our own has legal problems, let's say hypothetically, w/OLLs or w/UOC (;)), he can come here and quickly get the word out and rally support to his cause. We can flood whatever official's office w/emails, phone calls, and faxes. We can flood the local TV/radio/newspapers w/calls asking why they aren't investigating the story. We have a number of lawyers who might be able to offer some, if not all, the help that he needs. We have officials and volunteers from the NRA that regularly monitor this forum and the NRA now has a legal wing. And, of course, we now have our very own CGF to possibly help as well.

I'm just wondering if, due to these positive changes that have occurred over the past 20 years, the fear of LE retaliation is no longer valid.

Question 2: TBJ (www.californiaconcealedcarry.com) has already filed two lawsuits (Santa Maria and Torrance), and is about to file another one in the very near future against a city in Santa Clara County. Have any of these new plaintiffs experienced any LE retaliation?

yellowfin
08-21-2008, 11:17 PM
That may be determinable only in the aftermath, and perhaps not immediately. I also would not expect retaliation to be blatantly obvious, more like some low blows and late hits and acts of seemingly random trouble. Judging by what I see here, Santa Clara Co. might not play so nicely nor graciously shake hands afterwards.

nicki
08-22-2008, 5:29 AM
The risk of retaliation is always there, but then again, which is why we have to be well preparred so that the retaliation backfires.

Retaliation to mean spells witness intimidation, obstruction of justice and RICO.

Just a few thoughts.

Nicki

Matt C
08-22-2008, 11:42 AM
Not sure how much sympathy he will get after giving an anti-gun sheriff "two thumbs up"... and whining about how CGers had a bad attitude so he was going away and not coming back.

Glock22Fan
08-22-2008, 12:29 PM
I don't think that Paladin was worried about Billy Jack personally.

bulgron
08-22-2008, 12:47 PM
Yes, it's doubtful that a LEO office would go after BJ. Instead, they'll go after the people BJ represents, if they go after anyone.

In this day and age of ubiquitous voice recorders and video cameras, it's mind boggling to think that any LEO would be stupid enough to harass a citizen who has the balls to sue their own PD or sheriff's office. But, I guess arrogance knows no bounds.

chrisdesoup
08-22-2008, 1:18 PM
I don't think Santa Clara Co. Sheriff's Dept is a "good 'ol boy" department. smaller places...maybe that could happen at santa clara pd or campbell pd maybe even los gatos/monte sereno pd but larger departments like Santa Clara Sheriff and SJPD probably not.... Just my 2 cents.

Edit: I think for the most part SJPD does a great job.....I know, off topic

Paladin
08-22-2008, 1:28 PM
Not sure how much sympathy he will get after giving an anti-gun sheriff "two thumbs up"...Hopefully, CGN'ers are sophisticated enough to be able to distinguish between some personal positions of a lawyer, or in this case, a PI (BJ), and the plight of the client. Sure, that client has decided to take on a federal lawsuit for their own benefit. But since their success benefits all CGN'ers, I will support them to the extent that I can.

We're not strong enough to treat allies that we have disagreements with as if they were enemies. The success of TBJ federal lawsuits against anti-CCW issuance CLEOs in major urban cities and counties is an important, if limited, front in the fight for our 2nd A RKBA in this state.

Last, you wouldn't want CGN'ers to not help you out just because they had a difference of opinion with your lawyer, would you?

and whining about how CGers had a bad attitude so he was going away and not coming back.BJ's not the only one who's had bad experiences w/some CGN'ers. Remember, if only 1% of CGN'ers treat you like jerk (whether deserved or not), that's over 150 people. BJ left to do his work and Glock22Fan remains here as TBJ's official spokesman and point-of-contact, in addition to posting his own personal views.

nicki
08-22-2008, 2:23 PM
Legal action is something that should be done only as a last resort, unfortunately that is the only way we can deal with our out of control public servants.

TBJ has his methods and overall his actions should yield positive results.

Jim March tried to change things and while he did lose two lawsuits, the lawsuits were not total loses, in fact, I consider both lawsuits steps in positive directions because they educated us on what we need to do.

My view is you only fail if you fail to learn from your setbacks and give up.

The CCW issue opens up a Pandora's box of other issues which the Gun Community has not yet seized on, it is those other issues that we can use to build alliances with the general public because overall the general public, regardless of political ideology, wants honest government.

If the cost of having a honest sheriff is stripping him of his ability to use the ccw permit system for personal gain means that 1 to 2 percent of the adult population after training and background checks will have permits to carry guns for self defense, most people I ran into can "live with that".

Here is a question which gets most people's attention.

How can you have respect for law and order when the top law enforcement official abuses his authority for personal gain and everyone just looks the other way?

The public is tired of "Special People" who get celebrity treatment. Look at how much flak Sheriff Baca got when he tried to put Paris Hilton on home detention rather than having her sit in jail.

The concept of "Equality under the Law' is something the current ccw system turns on its head, it makes a mockery of "Rule of Law".

These emotional issues will turn people our way.

For what it is worth, when I did my interviews with 2 different sets of reporters in the SF Bay area, they were shocked that I didn't qualify for "good cause" for a ccw permit.

Very few people will say no one should carry, they will qualify and when that is done, the door opens and that is how we will win.

Many people want to play the game with "Good Cause". Quite frankly, I would like to see sheriffs have the guts to publically state that due to equal protection issues that they are going to follow their oaths of office and just issue to anyone unless there is a compelling public safety reason not to issue.

I will even state that if I could coordinate my schedule and cover costs, that I would stand up in public and let a sheriff blame me for going shall issue and take the public heat for them.

I believe many sheriffs look at the ccw system as a headache and a shall issue policy would save them alot of grieve and would make the system cost effective for them.

Their problem is what will the press say. I come in and he/she says that after viewing the ccw policies and the sheriffs core mission of serving everyone equally, that we worked to fix the system.

The press sees me and if they attack the sheriff, they attack someone for being LBGT. They go into tilt mode, hence the new policy gets neutral or no press.

Just my thoughts:D

Nicki

yellowfin
08-22-2008, 2:42 PM
Yes, it's doubtful that a LEO office would go after BJ. Instead, they'll go after the people BJ represents, if they go after anyone.

In this day and age of ubiquitous voice recorders and video cameras, it's mind boggling to think that any LEO would be stupid enough to harass a citizen who has the balls to sue their own PD or sheriff's office. But, I guess arrogance knows no bounds.It wouldn't be in the form of direct attack you could get on camera or tape and prove that way. It would be indirect catty stuff like high school revenge, subtle stuff they can do that you can't directly prove.

Possible examples:

1. Block renewal of business licenses. Anything you'd have to get approved they'd talk to whoever was doing the approving and suggest they look at you extra hard till they find something. Restaurant owner? Deny liquor license and/or the most hardcore nitpicky health inspection in the history of the Earth.

2. Zoning or building codes. Wanna build a new house, or even a deck on your house? Gotta get it approved and they can say no.

3. Maximum enforcement of whatever they can. Going a couple MPH over the speed limit means ticket 100% of the time, no warnings. Park an inch over the line = maximum fine.

4. Sic the press on you for smear campaigns. You know, their buddies that give them all the crime coverage when they want it and look the other way when something embarassing comes up. Don't believe for a second they don't have a few typewriters in their back pockets for whatever they want--they take down opposing candidates on command, so they can just as easily be told to take down you. If the trial goes forth, there will be coverage, and that coverage can be whatever THEY want it to be. Ex wives/husbands, former acquaintences either real or claimed, and bad bosses can have a VERY big mouth when they want to and someone's giving them the microphone asking them for dirt.

Sounds tinfoil hattish at the moment, I know, but this is politics for them and I don't think I have to make the case that politics is extremely dirty. This kind of stuff happens all the time in other examples and arenas so it's not Given that this is something they absolutely defend the status quo as if their life depended on it I would expect nothing to be beyond them.

singleshotman
08-22-2008, 3:00 PM
This sort of stuff is not new, when Florance Nightengale decieded to go to the Crimea to nurse british troop in 1856, she knew the commander in Charge
did not like the idea and would CUT OFF HER FOOD,so she brought her own.Nuff said.

CCWFacts
08-22-2008, 3:04 PM
It wouldn't be in the form of direct attack you could get on camera or tape and prove that way. It would be indirect catty stuff like high school revenge, subtle stuff they can do that you can't directly prove.

Absolutely. I would not expect a sheriff or CLEO to send a goon squad over to beat someone up (although there are cases of that happening). They have far subtler tools:


Even if the CLEO doesn't do anything this lawsuit shows up on any BG check or credit check the plaintiff needs, and your average employer, landlord, or lender is just going to see "so-and-so sued his sheriff because he wants to carry a gun", and he'll find a reason to say "no".
There are plenty of secret terrorism watch-lists these days. LEOs can put people on these, and the person who is on the list has no way of challenging it because the list, and all the evidence that put the person on the list, is secret. The person can't even find out who put him on the list, so there's no risk of the plaintiff finding out who did it to him.
If the person ever needs employment, contracts, permits, school choice for his children, or whatever from local government, you can be sure word gets around about "the guy who sued the chief for 2 years in federal court". Do you think the lady at the school board who makes decisions about school choice is going to have a positive or a negative opinion of a guy who sued the local PD to get a scary evil gun permit?
Then there are things like delayed emergency responses when the guy dials 911, that can't ever be proven, but certainly do happen. Of course every officer in Santa Maria recognizes the name "Kurt McCloud"
Employers and landlords especially look at people who file "unnecessary" suits and find reasons to say "no" to those people. You can always find a reason to say "no" that can't be challenged in court.

GuyW
08-22-2008, 3:07 PM
Fight back and win:

"The testimony of Clauser and Thetford played a pivotal role in persuading jurors to award Grassilli more than $4 million in punitive damages and $510,000 in compensatory damages.

Grassilli claimed he was repeatedly ticketed by [CHP] Officer Richard Eric Barr after he complained in March 1997 that Barr had illegally removed the catalytic converter from a pickup truck the officer owned."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20040502-9999-1m2chp.html

Glock22Fan
08-22-2008, 3:11 PM
"All that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing."

Sorry, can't remember the attribution.

CCWFacts
08-22-2008, 3:15 PM
Fight back and win:

"The testimony of Clauser and Thetford played a pivotal role in persuading jurors to award Grassilli more than $4 million in punitive damages and $510,000 in compensatory damages.

Well, that's what you gotta do in this situation, but then you end up being "the guy who spent a decade of his life fighting the cops in court". Many many people do not want to do that. I speak from personal experience; I have had some small taste of dealing with a personally motivated LEO and it was the worst year of my life and there was no reward or compensation for me in the end. It ended and I moved on, and that's all. BJ is in the company of Mr. Hatfill, Richard Jewell, and others who have had years of their lives taken away from them in painful fights against personally-motivated or deluded LEOs. I know all of the above (BJ, Hatfill, Jewell) got financial compensation for it, but that never undoes what they lost. I've been through maybe 0.1% of what those men have been through, and I sure didn't like it. I admire them for having survived it, but I would never want to experience the other 99.9% of it if I can avoid it.

I'm not saying we should all be afraid and shouldn't fight but we should go into the fight with eyes open as to the possible consequences and costs. When the 300 Spartans went to the fight at Thermopylae, they all knew what they were getting into and what the cost would be, and they did it anyway. That was bravery and heroism. In contrast, when American soldiers participated in 1950s exercises involving nuclear testing, and got exposed to a bunch of radiation without being told what the possible harm from it was, that wasn't bravery, that was being lied to by dishonest leaders. I'm ok with the Spartans who chose to die, I'm not ok with the troops who were exposed to dangers without being informed of them.

(I don't mean to be overly-dramatic here by invoking the Spartans who all died. The consequences for these suits may be minor or may be nothing, especially for a person who have assets or their own resources that are beyond the grasp of local LEOs, like a semi-retired investor or someone like that.)

Ok, a couple of real-world, recent, local examples of LE retaliation:


Ken Masse ran for sheriff against Sheriff Baca, and had his CCW endorsement removed the day after the election. Here's someone who is a good person, who has busted thousands of criminals in his own home area over the course of his career, and found himself unable to carry a gun after challenging the sheriff.
Bill Hunt ran against Sheriff Carona, and was demoted after the election


Both ended up fighting these issues in court. I don't know the end results, but both suffered from retaliation from recent, local sheriffs.

yellowfin
08-22-2008, 4:41 PM
As for the 8/20 TBJ blog entry, what strikes me more is the newly minted condescension from BJ. I didn't mind so much and actually respected when he said that it was the law as it stands, which he had to work within, that not everyone is eligible for a CCW in this state at this time, and that his response to people was not in that they were 3rd class citizens in his estimation necessarily but by dictum of the law which determines the results. However now he clearly unmasks those thoughts as his own, that he himself thinks that the average person "doesn't need" effective tools to defend their lives when outside the home in everyday life against the threat of the common criminal. To the back of the bus with you, you of the non-special class, is his statement to us. He has his, you don't have yours because you don't deserve it, so what's your problem? It was and is the stance of those he sues, but now it appears it is his as well.

That is simply intolerable. Come out from your hiding, you... What in the hades gives you or anyone some kind of superiority to determine for me or anyone what they do and don't deserve AS HUMAN BEINGS, irrespective of what the human slime who wrote and keep discretionary issue as law and the sociopathic gremlins who wield it without decency of conscience as some kind of god power to unilaterally deny status of worthy human life?!? Exactly who are you to tell me what I do and don't need, or my family does and doesn't need? And even if your opinion was valid, what right does anyone in this country tell me I can't have something because they don't think I need it or must be of some special class to have it? This is exactly the problem I have with any form of nannyism or do-gooders telling me what to do: you do not have free title to tell me what to do, in fact you have none, and I owe you no entitlement of power to do so and none shall I give you, nor have you right to ask it of me. To embrace the denial of rights of citizens because those in office prefer so for their political power to continue, is morally reprehensible and incompatible with even the most basic understanding of Constitutional principles.

Gray Peterson
08-22-2008, 5:02 PM
The situations that are stated here as to what can be done is a very good reason to have exclusively out of state plaintiffs for the coming battle over CCW/PC12031/PC626.9. It's very hard to do general LEO harassment when the plaintiff is over 1500 miles away sipping tea and surrounded by LEO agencies that as a general rule absolutely detest California politics. :)

Here's how a phone call from from the California sheriff that I would be suing down there to the PD chief of Lynnwood, WA would go down...

Cal Sheriff: Hi there, I'm Sheriff _______ from ______ County, California. First time we've talked, but I wanted to let you know about a potential problem in your neck of the woods.

Lynnwood PD Chief: Oh what's that?

Cal Sheriff: Well, we have a guy who's suing us down here in California, he resides in your city, his name is Lonnie Wilson. He's suing us in order to be able to apply for a license to carry concealed firearms here in California.

Lynnwood PD Chief: Oh, I've heard about him, he's a gun rights activist up here.

Cal Sheriff: Well, I believe him to be a dangerous person, wanting to apply for a carry permit without having to prove "good cause". Can you revoke his license to carry concealed?

Lynnwood PD Chief: Well, for starters, his license isn't issued by our department. He can apply for both the city PD or the Sheriff's office, and his license is issued by the sheriff up here. Second, we are a shall-issue state which means is that even if he had a license issued by our city and even if I wanted to revoke his license, which I don't, we can't revoke unless he commits and illegal act. We also have a right to keep and bear arms provision in our state constitution. On top of that, what you're asking me me to do is to violate the law, and coerce him to stop his lawsuit against you. Why should I do any such thing with the @#$^ storm that would be caused from that?

Cal Sheriff: I was asking you if you can, I wasn't asking you to do so.

Lynnwood PD Chief: That's BS, Sheriff, and you know it. Here in Washington State, any US resident can apply for a concealed pistol license, and open carry is legal here. Is that the case in California?

Cal Sheriff: No. It's concealed only with permit, and discretionary, and open carry is only allowed under limited circumstances (unloaded)

Lynnwood PD Chief: Well then you got a problem, dontcha Sheriff? If you were smart, you'd follow the US constitution and stop denying him his right to carry. You're lucky that he's suing to apply for a license rather than taking out the entire open carry statute down there.

Cal Sheriff: Actually, he's doing both.

Lynnwood PD Chief: Ha, well good luck with that. With Heller you might as well throw in the white towel and just give him the license.

Cal Sheriff: Well, that violates our state law.

Lynnwood PD Chief: Sheriff, what did you swear an oath too when you took your office as sheriff? If it's the same thing I probably did, and you swore an oath to defend the constitution of your state and the United States, am I right sheriff?

Cal Sheriff:.......yes.....

Lynnwood PD Chief: Then I suggest you do your duty under the US constitution and either his license or allow him to open carry. Have a good day, Sheriff.

CCWFacts
08-22-2008, 5:29 PM
The situations that are stated here as to what can be done is a very good reason to have exclusively out of state plaintiffs for the coming battle over CCW/PC12031/PC626.9. It's very hard to do general LEO harassment when the plaintiff is over 1500 miles away sipping tea and surrounded by LEO agencies that as a general rule absolutely detest California politics. :)

Excellent point there. Someone in, say, Atlanta GA who challenges our lack of carry options for a non-resident has little to worry about. Us locals who take on powerful and popular CLEOs should only do it knowing what we're getting into.

Cola King Martini
08-23-2008, 2:10 AM
Uh, Mr Hat Fantastic is now posting as if he is a Knight in third person, saying he does not favor shall issue, and praising the clearly restrictive CCW policy of Orange County's new sheriff. Is there any doubt left that he is NOT a friend of those who believe in freedom and liberty?

And how can G22 continue to carry water for him? I mean, there's loyalty and all, but blind devotion to a self serving agenda wrapped in a Navajo headpiece? Frankly the Hatmeister has moved beyond comic to just plain wacked.

Is anyone really giving him a pass because he's filing a few lawsuits, when by his own admission he can live with 'may issue' as a system to deny almost every Californian the ability to defend themselves?

You know, he's not even talking a good game anymore. At one time he had people fooled into believing that his namesake case was the savior of CCW. Exactly how many people have used this groundbreaking 9th Circuit decision as precedent to obtain a CCW? Are there any? Or are there just endless promises that this magical case will make sheriffs and chiefs issue fairly---which by Hatzilla's own admission need only fall somewhere between you won't get a CCW and you might get a CCW.

Is that really what people who support 2A are willing to accept?

artherd
08-23-2008, 12:59 PM
I've fought some bad LEOs. (to put it mildly.) Two are out of work, and a third is sweeping the floors.

Local PD kisses my *** now. Fight hard, and win. Nobody respects a coward.

zok
08-23-2008, 5:57 PM
I've fought some bad LEOs. (to put it mildly.) Two are out of work, and a third is sweeping the floors.

Local PD kisses my *** now. Fight hard, and win. Nobody respects a coward.

:) I Like Your Style......

Gray Peterson
08-24-2008, 9:20 AM
For those wearing tin foil hats that are afraid of law enforcement reprisals you have every right to be concerned. I have heard from tribe elders that in some jurisdictions applicants considering suing for a CCW have been kidnapped off the streets, fed into a chipper and never seen again. True these are just rumors but I am trying to track them down.

If this is even remotely true (which I have serious doubts of, this seems to be in a more mocking tone with "tin foil hat"), this is again why I think out of staters have a better chance. Not to mention that he keeps saying "Apply if you have good cause". Here's the problem: Only California RESIDENTS have access to the system. What about those of us who happen to live in Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Arizona? Simply put, we're screwed.

Not to mention his method is getting "fair issue", basically if the cronies can get permits for self protection, so should the common people. Unfortunately this ignores basic nature to control, and this is why Sheriff Hutchens is a backslide to where they won't issue even to "cronies".

The TBJ lawsuits, as his legal team, I think are on solid legal grounds in terms of equal protection. I don't view Billy Jack as an "enemy". Despite my own personal objections to his personality, I think his team has done good work thus far. Some people can't differentiate between the man and the team, and I certainly don't fault Glock22 in thinking that him and BillyJack are one in the same.

I do, however, think that 6 months from now, Billy Jack's equal protection suits are going to be a step behind the times.

ilbob
08-24-2008, 11:21 AM
My personal opinion is that he is in a big hurry to get lawsuits in the pipeline so he can get the money rolling in before it becomes a moot point. CA is going to have to change its CC law either so it is more widely available, or much more restricted. In either case, there is likely a very limited window where there is money to be made. Even the current cases in the system have the potential for becoming moot before the money stage is reached.

yellowfin
08-24-2008, 5:31 PM
I still don't see how he can argue that equal protection is only due to a few people. Did I miss something?

CCWFacts
08-24-2008, 5:44 PM
I still don't see how he can argue that equal protection is only due to a few people. Did I miss something?

Yes. The California law and AG opinion say that people who are at elevated risk can get CCWs. Some dept. policies go beyond that and say "significantly elevated risk that can't be mitigated in some other way", etc. Obviously, only 50% of us have above average risk. And significantly less than 50% have significantly above average risk. He's going for providing equal protection for people within that group, which will never include those of us with average or non-elevated risks (ie, most of the population). Limiting it even more, the risk needs to be documentable in some way, or else it's legally meaningless.

So this is equal protection, using a rational basis standard, but it only applies to a small subset of Californians. The rest of us must wait for deeper changes, which could well be on their way post-Heller.

GuyW
08-25-2008, 3:20 PM
Local PD kisses my *** now. Fight hard, and win. Nobody respects a coward.

Applause from here....

retired
08-26-2008, 12:49 AM
CCWFacts, I didn't know another knew about Capt. Masse. He is a good guy and was my sgt. years ago. Well respected then too.

Another thing that occurred during that election was that two others who ran against him and who are still on the dept. may have had their careers affected by opposing him.

Paladin
08-26-2008, 1:16 PM
So much FUD and so little facts in many of these posts. How to wash all the "mud" away?

First off, I notice how NO ONE has dealt w/my 2nd Q, the one that requires fact-based answers/responses. Rather, most everyone has whistled as they walked pass that graveyard (a graveyard for FUD), as they focused on the 1st Q which calls for musing/speculation. That alone speaks volumes.

Next, I'm not a LEO and have never worked in LE. But last I heard, there are things called police unions and if they are anything like unions in other fields, they organize "labor" (i.e., the workers, here, the street cops, detectives, etc) on the opposite side of the bargaining table from "management" (e.g., the CoP/sheriff and their command staff and perhaps others). You must either think that the CoP/sheriff and/or their command staff are going to follow you around their jurisdiction just waiting for you to forget to top off your parking meter or go 5 mph over the speed limit or you think that some street cops like their "management" so much that they'll target you for special attention. Pretty unlikely IMO.

Oh, this brings up one of the many factually irrelevant examples in this thread, that of an individual cop who had it out for CCWFacts and thus is supposed to support fear of LE retaliation. There is a big difference between one cop sticking his neck out to harass you because he doesn't like you for whatever reason, and him getting another LEO to do that for him. Why would the other cop possibly risk his career/benefits/retirement for something dumb like that? What's in it for him? Will the 1st cop pay him to do it? That brings up all sorts of new ethical/legal issues. In the case at hand, would it be for promotion possibilities? Hmm, that 2nd LEO, the street cop, now may have something with which to blackmail the CLEO. So, not only would the CLEO not get out of your lawsuit, he'd now have given someone he thinks is corrupt enough to do his bidding something that they might now use to blackmail him.

Plus, in my former field, if our clients had bad outcomes, lawsuits were not uncommon. If the outcome was merely "bad," the lawsuit was filed by someone we called "the patient." If the outcome was "really bad," the lawsuit would be filed by people called "next of kin." Our organization went out of our way to try to be friendly to these people, try to calm them down, make they feel sympathy and understood. We did not try to further aggravate them. True, we weren't a govt org so money lost came out of our bottom line, but even govt agencies have budgets and PDs/SOs don't directly tax the population, they have to ask and receive their money from elected officials.

Next, the idea that the CLEO will somehow magically get the building/other dept's "management" or "labor" to stick out their necks to change their behavior to punish you (someone w/the cajones to take on the CoP/sheriff and thus might be even more willing to take them to court), again raises the issue of what's in it for them and the associated risk of blackmail (both from this other party against the CLEO and vice versa). Again, IMO, it just ain't realistic. People, thank God, are just too self-interested. That's why the division of powers has worked, in general, so well in this country for 220+ years.

The idea that the CLEO thru some invisible means at a distance can make your life miserable reminded me of this video:
http://www.markstraining.com/2008/02/martial-arts-myth.html
Consider TBJ to be the MMA artist in that video. :D

Frankly, the amount of blind, speculative fear in many of these posts is unbelievable. When I first saw it I thought "What's next? Are these guys going to say that black helicopters might swoop down and snatch you out of your bed in the middle of the night and dump you off in the middle of Guantanimo or "Club Gitmo"? Then I saw BJ's blog where he spoke of the wood chipper. :D Sadly, someone actually thought he might not be joking. If I were a CLEO w/an illegal issuance policy/practice, I would love how I don't even have lift a finger for all these people to be in fear of me and too scared to do anything about me. How different we are from the Founders of our Country. :(

The idea that the press in LAC, Santa Clara Co, etc. is in the pocket of the CLEO and will undertake some sort of smear campaign against Joe Avg Applicant is . . . I don't even know how to politely say it. Let's just say we're talking about CA in the 2000s, not the Crimea in the 1800s (I can't believe I'll have to deal with that next. I couldn't even make up some of these posts if I wanted to! *shaking head* LOL!) What will the press say? That they caught you in bed in another guy? In CA in the 2000s, that would probably be considered good PR and help advance your career in the major urban areas of the state. Will they say you got caught smoking dope? tooting coke? What does a smear campaign in CA in the 2000s look like? What don't we tolerate? :confused:

Oh boy, the next issue, Crimea in the 1800s: Umm, let me just say can we restrict ourselves to what is likely to happen in this state in this country in this decade in this century? "Next!"

Don't know about whether court actions are on BG/credit reports so I won't comment. CCWFacts, do you have evidence to support your assertion that: "sued his sheriff because he wants to carry a gun" shows up on those reports?

Terrorism watch lists: Umm, yeah, right. CCWFacts, do you have any facts to support a CLEO abusing terrorism watch lists to get political/legal/personal enemies listed or is this merely blind fear?

OT: personally, I believe in homeschooling, not in government schools.

CCWFacts, any evidence/proof that due to CLEO's legal/political/personal vendetta that "delayed emergency responses when the guy dials 911, that can't ever be proven, but certainly do happen" as you assert?

CCWFacts wrote, you end up being "the guy who spent a decade of his life fighting the cops in court". There is a difference between setting precedent (BJ fighting for 12 yrs to get the Guillory opinion), and using precedent. Rather than spread FUD, why don't you wait until Nov to see how long these cases really take. There might not even be any appeals.

CCWFacts, the examples of Masse and Hunt are easily distinguishable from TBJ lawsuit plaintiffs. Masse tried to kick Baca out of office when Baca has, practically, absolute discretion over Masse's CCW. Not a smart thing if you plan on keeping that CCW. How does this relate to someone who does not have a CCW and has filed a TBJ federal lawsuit?

OT: Doesn't Masse qualify under that fed law for ex-LEOs?

If Masse had a OC CCW and ran against Baca and then Baca asked/pressured/blackmailed Carona to pull Masse's permit, now that could have supported your position.

Hunt tried to get his boss fired and take his boss's place. Hunt failed and the boss demoted him. What would you expect, his boss to promote him for his attempt? :confused: This would be the case in any organization. Again, unless you work for your CLEO, of what relevance does this FUD have to a TBJ lawsuit?

To all: BJ's personal opinion re "Shall Issue" RTC is OT. If you want to criticize BJ about that, feel free to start a new thread for that. Personally, I prefer VT Carry, but will be very happy for the PRK to join the majority of states that are "Shall Issue". Even if we disagree on this issue, we agree that the major urban anti CLEOs who in fact issue to friends/contributors/celebrities should be sued for violating the 14th A of the BoR.

LW wrote: this is why Sheriff Hutchens is a backslide to where they won't issue even to "cronies". While this is OT, I just want to say this was debated by yours truly w/BJ (either via PMs or posts) over at californiaccw.org about 1 1/2 to 2 yrs ago. Yes, the CLEO can tighten up issuance to where all permit holders must have "really good" (my term) GC, but they cannot not issue (violating Salute v. Pitchess). If the CLEO pulls their cronies' CCWs, those people will have to fight with us if they want to get another CCW. Bad for them, good for our side. I'll be the first to warmly welcome them to serfdom with open arms (and a NRA membership app).

LW wrote: I do, however, think that 6 months from now, Billy Jack's equal protection suits are going to be a step behind the times. Again, slightly OT, but . . . I agree w/you and I hope we can get to Shall Issue, either by the front door, the side door or the back door -- by whatever legal means necessary.

retired wrote: CCWFacts, I didn't know another knew about Capt. Masse. He is a good guy and was my sgt. years ago. Well respected then too.
OT, but see: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=31670 An oldie but a goodie.

Wow. What a waste of 1 1/2 hrs of my time. I doubt whether I'll be posting much from now until we get incorporation.

Hopefully, one of the plaintiffs (Santa Maria's or Torrance's), might learn of this thread and share w/us their experiences, esp re whether they have experienced any LE retaliation or not. Even if they can only reply "yes" or "no," that will help.

GuyW
08-26-2008, 1:26 PM
Wow, Paladin - a lot of FUD you posted.

Without wasting 1.5 hrs of my life, I'll just state that your position that LEO retribution is highly-unlikely-to-impossible, doesn't pass the smell test...

local
08-26-2008, 3:00 PM
Wow, Paladin - a lot of FUD you posted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_urination_device

GuyW
08-26-2008, 3:06 PM
FUD

Fear

Uncertainty

Doubt

a santized way of saying "bullstuff"

Paladin
08-28-2008, 10:28 PM
First off, when I use "FUD" I use it in re. to spreading "fear, uncertainty, and doubt," not as a euphemism for BS. But FUD that has no basis in fact or reason is BS. So, by definition, since my posts are minimizing/dispelling the FUD of filing a TBJ federal lawsuit, not only are they not FUD, but they are actually anti-FUD.

In re. Q1: Upon further reflection, I pity the CLEO that is hauled in front of a judge w/evidence that he tried to intimidate or harass someone to keep them from filing a lawsuit or because they filed a lawsuit. Judges don't like anyone encroaching on their authority as gatekeepers of the judicial system.

In re. Q2: Currently, there are only 2 people in the world who know whether filing a TBJ lawsuit in this century has caused them LE retaliation: the Santa Maria plaintiff and the Torrance plaintiff. Fortunately, one of them stepped forward and contacted me on Wednesday.

The Santa Maria plaintiff, after seeing this thread contacted me and authorized me to post the following:

In re. terrorist watch list: Although he said he hasn't been on any commercial flights since pursuing his CCW, he works at a highly secure facility that terrorist would love to hit. He's an "armed responder with high security clearance and it has not been affected.. Believe me if I was on a watch list I would have been flagged as soon as it came on a list."

"And out of respect of what you have said in the behalf of BJ the answer is NO. I have not received any [retaliation] at this time, Or do I fear any."

"Everything they are saying is a bunch of B.S. The sky is falling syndrome."

So, 50% of the people who actually know what they're talking about in re. to LE retaliation for filing a TBJ lawsuit came down squarely against having experienced any retaliation. Acc to BJ, his harassment began immediately.

If the other person who truly knows what he is talking about in re. to LE retaliation for filing a TBJ lawsuit (i.e., the Torrance plaintiff), should see this thread, I hope they will share their experience and opinion re. it by either posting themselves or via a TBJ member or myself.

*****

The reason I started this thread was because, IIRC, there are three main reasons why people are often told to be afraid of pursuing a TBJ federal lawsuit: (1) it would cost tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars; (2) it would take years of litigation; and (3) the CLEO would have his henchmen do to you what Gates did to BJ.

Well, IIRC, either BJ or Glock22Fan posted on CGN that the upfront costs were more like a couple to a few thousand dollars, depending upon the size of the department being investigated. So, that knocked off the first of the 3 fears.

On 20 Aug 2008, BJ wrote on his blog: "They have been telling fellow Kool Aid drinkers that you will spend years seeking a CCW via the courts. Well, we filed Santa Maria in September 2007 and we are going to trial November 18, 2008. Gee, that is only 14 months. We would have gone to trial sooner had the 'finest law enforcement defense litigator in the United States' not over extended himself trying to cover his Fisteris with his law degree.

After the Chief's Deposition is completed and all sides have processed the information obtained under oath the next step will be 'the trial'.

Now to Torrance. It will go to trial February 24, 2009. It was filed in June 2008. That would be 10 months from filing to trial. Where do the learned posters that predict years of litigation get their misinformation.."

So, it seems that BJ has been right re. what he had predicted as to the length of time to get to the trial. And the trial should be short: no need for a bunch of witnesses on both sides and expert testimony on both sides. While there could be appeals, why do people often assume the worst with respect to these lawsuits, esp when they don't have any factual reasons for that assumption? Anti-BJ bias? BJ doesn't think there's much chance of an appeal, and it seems that his predictions have been pretty good so far. So, the second reason/fear usually offered for not pursuing a TBJ lawsuit has been shown to be unlikely.

That made me question the 3rd fear and its legitimacy. With this post we pro-CCW people should now feel more secure in saying that LE retaliation from filing one of these lawsuits is also unlikely. Providentially, the very targets of these lawsuits (the double-standard issuance CLEOs), are in the major urban centers, the very places where multiple media sources and previous civil rights lawsuits (e.g., Rodney King), make CLEOs esp wary of pulling any schananagins (sp?). Thus, we should feel confident in encouraging people w/"really good" GC to contact TBJ if they live in one of the major urban anti-CCW strongholds.

*****

Supposedly, everyone here should be happy to hear all this because it will make it more likely that other potential plaintiffs will get in touch w/TBJ and "nuke" the anti CLEOs in major urban cities and counties. While, unfortunately, that won't make those jurisdictions go "Reasonable Issue" (that's the closest we can get to "Shall Issue" w/o a legislative or judicial change in the law), that will help Avg Joes/Josephines who do have a need for a CCW, yet aren't celebrities/big donors/"friends of the sheriff"/etc. Plus, it is a good public policy to punish those who abuse their authority and violate their oaths of office. IOW, supporting TBJ can be considered doing a civic good.

Let's not divide ourselves into "tribes" like on the TV show Survivor: those for TBJ and those against. We'll have to work w/each other in the future because you can be sure the antis in this state won't ever give up. Even if we get "Shall Issue" one way or another, what good is that if they ban lead ammo for even practice shooting? (Have any of you priced Corbon's DPX lately? :eek:) There will still be plenty fights ahead of us where we'll have to work together smoothly. Why let personal feelings about BJ get in the way? Let's focus on our common 2nd A RKBA goals and not personalities.

*****

Try to remember what it was like back in 1984, when the Guillory decision was delivered. For a little reminder as far as the CCW issuance nationally, this is what it is like today (no states have changed their laws since 2006):
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/maps/2006.gif

and this is what it was like back in 1986 (from what I understand, no states changed their CCW laws prior to this since the 1960s):
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/maps/1986.gif

BJ's federal case's opinion was delivered in 1984, 2 years prior to any improvement in CCW around the nation. When BJ started fighting for his CCW, many of us here weren't even born yet, and most of the rest of us had no idea that anyone could even get a CCW in CA.

The more I think about all this, the more respect I have for BJ and what he went through. Yet, I strongly disagree w/him re "Shall Issue" (that's my #1 public policy goal) and readily admit that sometimes he can be a PITA. Welcome to life.

Cola King Martini
08-28-2008, 11:49 PM
Um, the Brimmed One has stated he is against Shall Issue in California. Why is anyone still giving him the time of day?

Repeat--he is against Shall Issue. Against Shall Issue.

He doesn't want you to have a CCW. He wants you to have to sue.

I'm sorry, Paladin, but he is a tribe unto himself that is so far off the reservation of reason that one can imagine him twitching in his teepee, spinning wacked out third person narratives which convince him of his relevance. No doubt tomorrow he will respond to this post in his 'blog' with a screed about a mongoose and a dung beetle. But still he cannot explain how, in two decades, his miraculous namesake case has failed to open the floodgates of fair CCW issuance. You know why he can't, or won't explain that? Because it's a fantasy he's concocted to puff himself up. A faux image of importance about which he postures incessantly, hanging all on some schtick gleaned from bad 70's era cinema, until the 'braves' get wise and then he runs off to ensconse himself in the musky solitude of his imaginary sweat lodge--the back room of a single wide to you and me.

Well, roundhouse me to the head and call me unimpressed. Just because someone bought a hat on e-bay and spent the 80s doing some serious learnin' watching LA Law, that don't make him Darrow, much less a washed up paralegal with the shakes.

GuyW
08-29-2008, 11:32 AM
Cola King Martini - tell us what you have accomplished for gunowners in CA. Don't spare us - give us all of the painful minutae of your public and private battles to turn CA Shall-Issue.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(what? I don't hear anything...)
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah - just what I thought - an internet gasbag.
.

Cola King Martini
08-29-2008, 12:36 PM
Cola King Martini - tell us what you have accomplished for gunowners in CA. Don't spare us - give us all of the painful minutae of your public and private battles to turn CA Shall-Issue.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(what? I don't hear anything...)
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah - just what I thought - an internet gasbag.
.

One difference--I'm not hoisting my overblown namesake court case up every near vertical member in sight claiming it has done wonders for CCW issuance, while at the same time ADMITTING that I don't want good, decent people to have the right to a CCW.

Let's see, what was that again? The Mad Hatter is against Shall Issue.

Against Shall Issue.

He doesn't want you to have a CCW. He wants you to sue for a CCW.

How does that fit into a Pro 2A movement? It doesn't.

So, build your straw man argument up again and put a funny hat on it, because that and a federal filing fee MAY get you a CCW in the world that the big BJ envisions for gun owners.

Glock22Fan
08-29-2008, 1:08 PM
He's against Shall Issue because he thinks that there are too many idiots who would pass a background check. Some posters give me that thought too.

(for those who think I have to quote his exact words when I put thoughts into his head, Billy Jack does read this forum and would ask me to change anything he disagrees with. So far, he's never needed so to do unless I've put a wrong date in or something like that.)

Added after receiving email from Billy Jack:

John - Your post is most accurate.

yellowfin
08-29-2008, 6:07 PM
^ So perhaps Shall Issue with a training class and an exam at the end he wouldn't object to, if it screens out the idiots? Lots of states have that and don't have a problem.

Matt C
08-29-2008, 6:26 PM
He's against Shall Issue because he thinks that there are too many idiots who would pass a background check.

So, because there are idiots out there who might carry guns, none of us should be allowed to carry guns unless some government entity approves it... Where have I heard that argument before? :rolleyes:

RomanDad
08-29-2008, 6:47 PM
So, because there are idiots out there who might carry guns, none of us should be allowed to carry guns unless some government entity approves it... Where have I heard that argument before? :rolleyes:

Diane Feinstein; Charles Schumer; Sarah Brady; Rosie O' Donnell; Paul Helmke; Million Mom March; Handgun Control Inc; Brady Campaign; Adrian Fenty; Richard Daly; Michael Moore; Dick Gephardt; Carolyn McCarthy; Alison Merrilees; Jonathan Cowan; Tom Daschle; Bill Lockyer; Mike Feuer; David Dinkins.... Need I continue?

Matt C
08-29-2008, 7:33 PM
You know what else, I'm getting damn sick of "other" people coming on here to post "for" TBJ, if TBJ want's something posted on here let TBJ do it, and he can be answerable for what is posted, if not, he can stay away. No more of this post by proxy BS.

Glock22Fan
08-29-2008, 7:37 PM
You know what else, I'm getting damn sick of "other" people coming on here to post "for" TBJ, if TBJ want's something posted on here let TBJ do it, and he can be answerable for what is posted, if not, he can stay away. No more of this post by proxy BS.

If I had known how objectionable you could be, I would still have supported you, even though I had my doubts about some of the things found in your possession.

If you don't like what I post, then don't bother to read it.

Matt C
08-29-2008, 7:57 PM
If I had known how objectionable you could be, I would still have supported you, even though I had my doubts about some of the things found in your possession.

If you don't like what I post, then don't bother to read it.

Heh, I'm too "objectionable" for you eh? Well, no matter. I have held off directly criticizing TBJ/Preston Guillory for too long, and this latest bit parroting Brady/VPC on shall issue pushes it over the edge for me. Everyone in CA has the right to keep and bear arms, period. And everyone has the right to self defense, period.

Guillory talks about "ants and grasshoppers" (http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/index.php?title=the_ant_and_the_grasshopper&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) and implies that he is a wise and courageous "ant", but really he is the granddaddy grasshopper, the most hypocritical and condescending of them all. Just because we can't all afford a massive lawsuit to prove our good cause, or our good cause is not good enough for Guillory, does not make us undeserving of a CCW.

I repeat what I said earlier, if Guillory wants to post on here, let him do it himself.

GuyW
08-29-2008, 8:18 PM
You know what else, I'm getting damn sick of "other" people coming on here to post "for" TBJ, if TBJ want's something posted on here let TBJ do it, and he can be answerable for what is posted, if not, he can stay away. No more of this post by proxy BS.

Who died to leave you as Boss?

Matt C
08-29-2008, 8:37 PM
Who died to leave you as Boss?

I'm not the boss at all, thats just my opinion obviously.

Gray Peterson
08-29-2008, 10:54 PM
He's against Shall Issue because he thinks that there are too many idiots who would pass a background check. Some posters give me that thought too.

We certainly haven't had too many issues up here in Washington and we don't even require any training, about 5% of the age eligible population have one.

From a pure public policy perspective, I support shall-issue.

I'll repeat what I said before: Despite my personal misgiving about Billy Jack's attitude and behavior, the tactics of his legal team are fine in the pre-incorporation world that currently exists in California.

If California where like Delaware, where concealed carry requires a may-issue license but loaded open carry is completely lawful throughout the state, then from a purely constitutional perspective of the individual right to keep and bear arms, that would be perfectly within the constitution. However, California doesn't exist in that world. There still exists PC12031 and PC626.9 which prevent loaded open carry, the second law under pain of a felony within a 1000 foot buffer zone around school grounds, and so on. So....that leaves what? Unloaded open carry, which is not legal if you're knowingly within a 1000 foot K-12 school zone, and what is the response to this?

I know from what he's stated on a different forum that he possesses some form of BSIS Open Carry License for his PI work.

So...at least with open carry everyone else is served with a notice that one is armed. Concealment was historically the mark of a coward. Now, attitudes have changed and the idea of concealed carry is now considered the "Best way", but the laws and the constitutional provisions don't consider concealment to be constitutionally protected.

So the real question here is....does Billy Jack also support PC12031 and PC626.9?

Cola King Martini
08-29-2008, 11:39 PM
So now he's like the wizard behind the curtain, pulling strings so members of his posse jump. Do they get matching hats with secret receiving dishes hidden within to receive signals from the maestro? I imagine a constant stream of Sputnik-like beeps spreading from his Hatness to guide the posse in weeding out the 'idiots' who are undeserving. That's how it would work, right? In his vision of CCW issuance, I mean. Folks like him would decide who is worthy, and who is not.

If this wasn't so sad, it would be funny. I actually think Hatty McHathat has dreamed up a CCW issuance system that is WORSE than what we have currently. Impressive.

bwiese
08-29-2008, 11:41 PM
Discussion of shall-issue CCW is irrelevant (at least for now, pre-incorporation) since it's politically impossible in CA.

TBJ-style work is the only real 'out' in problem near-non-issue counties.

Paladin
08-30-2008, 1:49 PM
The Mad Hatter is against Shall Issue.

Against Shall Issue.

He doesn't want you to have a CCW. He wants you to sue for a CCW.That is a non sequitur. Just because BJ is against Shall Issue doesn't mean he's against a particular individual (e.g., the reader of this thread), either not to have a CCW or have to sue for a CCW.

But all of this is OT. This thread is about the "Fear of LE retaliation for Filing a TBJ lawsuit." It is not about BJ himself nor his position re. Shall Issue. Cola King Martini, please start your own thread if you want to discuss anything else.

Thank you.

Paladin
08-30-2008, 2:13 PM
I'm not the boss at all, thats just my opinion obviously.What is your opinion worth? Let's see.

You have as an avatar an image of the Bill of Rights (BoR), w/"VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW" printed in red diagonally across it. I assume it is meant to declare our rights are being restricted by unconstitutional laws. I further assume you use it as your avatar out of protest of these restrictions upon our rights.

The 14th A is part of our BoR. TBJ (that stands for "Team Billy Jack" and included BJ/Preston and Glock22Fan/John as well as others), has filed 2 lawsuits in federal court alleging violations of the 14th A and is about to file a third.

QUESTION ONE: What have you done to defend our BoR that is equal or better than what TBJ (lead by BJ), has done and is doing?

QUESTION TWO: If you care so much about the BoR, why do you attack the person and team that has done more in this state to defend our rights than probably anyone else on this forum (other than the NRA)?

I know this is OT, but, unlike the other attacks/insults/etc re BJ, I'd like to hear your response on this thread and then be done with it.

Sincerely,
"Paladin"

Paladin
08-30-2008, 2:15 PM
*****

Supposedly, everyone here should be happy to hear all this because it will make it more likely that other potential plaintiffs will get in touch w/TBJ and "nuke" the anti CLEOs in major urban cities and counties. While, unfortunately, that won't make those jurisdictions go "Reasonable Issue" (that's the closest we can get to "Shall Issue" w/o a legislative or judicial change in the law), that will help Avg Joes/Josephines who do have a need for a CCW, yet aren't celebrities/big donors/"friends of the sheriff"/etc. Plus, it is a good public policy to punish those who abuse their authority and violate their oaths of office. IOW, supporting TBJ can be considered doing a civic good.

Let's not divide ourselves into "tribes" like on the TV show Survivor: those for TBJ and those against. We'll have to work w/each other in the future because you can be sure the antis in this state won't ever give up. Even if we get "Shall Issue" one way or another, what good is that if they ban lead ammo for even practice shooting? (Have any of you priced Corbon's DPX lately? :eek:) There will still be plenty fights ahead of us where we'll have to work together smoothly. Why let personal feelings about BJ get in the way? Let's focus on our common 2nd A RKBA goals and not personalities.

*****

Too many posters seem to have missed this part of my post on 28 Aug.

Matt C
08-30-2008, 2:42 PM
What is your opinion worth? Let's see.

You have as an avatar an image of the Bill of Rights (BoR), w/"VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW" printed in red diagonally across it. I assume it is meant to declare our rights are being restricted by unconstitutional laws. I further assume you use it as your avatar out of protest of these restrictions upon our rights.

Exactly

The 14th A is part of our BoR.

So is the 2nd.


QUESTION ONE: What have you done to defend our BoR that is equal or better than what TBJ (lead by BJ), has done and is doing?

Oh, I've done my share, and more than most people on this forum even know about. Unlike some, I don't need to tell everybody about it.

QUESTION TWO: If you care so much about the BoR, why do you attack the person and team that has done more in this state to defend our rights than probably anyone else on this forum (other than the NRA)?

Because I think he is a conceited hypocrite who is only in it for the money and his own ego.

I know this is OT, but, unlike the other attacks/insults/etc re BJ, I'd like to hear your response on this thread and then be done with it.

Sincerely,
"Paladin"

That's what I think of your idol at this point, and if his ego can stand the risk of the possible negative comments he might see here, I'd be happy to have him here to argue to the contrary.

Paladin
08-30-2008, 3:29 PM
Since you refuse to reveal ("put up") exactly what you have done to protect our constitutional rights, you keep us from comparing your work to what TBJ/BJ has done. You forfeit the game. You've lost credibility by defaulting.

As far as BJ's personality, I'll be the first to admit that it has limited his effectiveness. But I am also sure that he has suffered for it as well (e.g., lost friendships, missed business opportunities, etc.).

As far as his motivations for what he's doing: I really don't care as long as what he is doing is in accord with my public policy goals. For example: If we should have a way to fight for or force "Shall Issue" and he started fighting for the status quo, then he would lose all my support and I would actively work against him.

As far as your assertion that he is my "idol": you are talking about what you know nothing about. As BJ and some TBJ members will readily attest, I don't worship him. You have lost more credibility.

I am smart enough to realize that we pro-2nd A people are too weak in this state to win what we want by dividing and attacking ourselves. We have to work w/each other as productively as possible where we agree, and where we don't agree we should be civil w/each other because, undoubtedly, we will need each other in the future in some other offensive/defensive action in this state. That's why I try to always focus on the goal and try to over look the personalities involved.

As I like to say, "In politics, you can never have too many friends or too few enemies."

But enough about BJ in this thread. Let's get back to the point of this thread which was to show that the fears of LE retaliation for defending your 14th A rights (with respect to CCW issuance) may no longer be the concern that they were 20+ years ago.

eta34
08-30-2008, 3:29 PM
If I had known how objectionable you could be, I would still have supported you, even though I had my doubts about some of the things found in your possession.

If you don't like what I post, then don't bother to read it.


Since you opened this can of worms, please explain your doubts about BWO. You can think he is a jerk or an idiot all you want. Personally, I don't think BWO and I would make great friends. However, I haven't and didn't question what he had in his possession.

If you are willing to make such a bold statement, you should be bold enough to back it up.

GuyW
08-30-2008, 3:35 PM
Because I think he is a conceited hypocrite who is only in it for the money and his own ego.

Well, I don't know how to quantify "ego"...but since you are so sure he's in it for the money, how about estimating for us how much money he "makes" doing this.

Oh yeah - how about backing up your charge that he's a "hypocrite" with some facts?

.

Matt C
08-30-2008, 3:55 PM
Since you refuse to reveal ("put up") exactly what you have done to protect our constitutional rights, you keep us from comparing your work to what TBJ/BJ has done. You forfeit the game. You've lost credibility by defaulting.

Umm, no.

As far as BJ's personality, I'll be the first to admit that it has limited his effectiveness. But I am also sure that he has suffered for it as well (e.g., lost friendships, missed business opportunities, etc.).

Yup.

As far as his motivations for what he's doing: I really don't care as long as what he is doing is in accord with my public policy goals. For example: If we should have a way to fight for or force "Shall Issue" and he started fighting for the status quo, then he would lose all my support and I would actively work against him.

Well, since he has made his position against shall issue pretty clear, that's how I feel already. His idea of the satus quo includes CLEO friends and contributors, but not those able to buy a CCW by hiring a legal team and fighting in court. Mine includes both.

As far as your assertion that he is my "idol": you are talking about what you know nothing about. As BJ and some TBJ members will readily attest, I don't worship him. You have lost more credibility.

Ok, I'll apologize for the idol comment, but you certainly seem biased toward him.

I am smart enough to realize that we pro-2nd A people are too weak in this state to win what we want by dividing and attacking ourselves. We have to work w/each other as productively as possible where we agree, and where we don't agree we should be civil w/each other because, undoubtedly, we will need each other in the future in some other offensive/defensive action in this state. That's why I try to always focus on the goal and try to over look the personalities involved.
As I like to say, "In politics, you can never have too many friends or too few enemies."

Ok, I'll agree with that one, but resources are limited and I would argue that saving money for a fight that matters is better than giving any more $$$ to TBJ at this point. If all you want is a CCW for yourself, and you have the money, than TBJ is probably the best place to go, but it has become clear to me that TBJ has no interest in forcing shall issue, which is what I think most of us want. I have in the past referred persons and even FFLs to TBJ because I thought we were on the same team, now it appears we are working at cross purposes, and I will no longer do that.

But enough about BJ in this thread. Let's get back to the point of this thread which was to show that the fears of LE retaliation for defending your 14th A rights (with respect to CCW issuance) may no longer be the concern that they were 20+ years ago.

The thread is a moot point since the concern for almost everyone on CGN is time, cost, and actually having bulletproof GC, not LE retaliation.

Matt C
08-30-2008, 3:56 PM
Since you opened this can of worms, please explain your doubts about BWO. You can think he is a jerk or an idiot all you want. Personally, I don't think BWO and I would make great friends. However, I haven't and didn't question what he had in his possession.


Aww, you just have not met me. I'm much nicer in person lol.

Gray Peterson
08-30-2008, 5:49 PM
As far as his motivations for what he's doing: I really don't care as long as what he is doing is in accord with my public policy goals. For example: If we should have a way to fight for or force "Shall Issue" and he started fighting for the status quo, then he would lose all my support and I would actively work against him.

Thus the question that I asked: Does he support PC12031 and PC 626.9?

RomanDad
08-30-2008, 10:37 PM
Guys... FWIW... I think I may be the ONLY person who knows the CVs of EVERYBODY posting in this thread. (with perhaps the exception of ETA34- Nice to meet you :)).

NOBODY here lacks the qualifications to comment on this issue, nor do they need to defend what "they've done" to further the cause... The fact that some remain more anonymous than others, speaks to the issue raised by this thread.


Do I agree with everybody in here all the time? Nope... Ive disagreed with ALL OF YOU on issues or tactics at one point or another.... But that doesn't diminish any of your opinions.

yellowfin
08-31-2008, 10:58 PM
Here's the question as it should be asked, pertaining to the topic: have any tBJ or independent CCW applicants tested just how unencumbered they are by having since applied also for business licenses, building permits, state or city jobs, etc. to where we would know whether or not the concern of subtle retaliation by influence and indirect mistreatment takes place?