PDA

View Full Version : DOJ Reply regarding CCW Opinion


Bill_in_SD
02-25-2009, 9:14 PM
Back when the CCW shenanigans started with Orange County and Sheriff Hutchens I had submitted a question to the Attorney General via the ca.gov website. I had asked for a review and (hopefully) an updated opinion of the AG's opinion regarding CCWs.

I don't recall my exact wording, but I received a letter today from the office in San Francisco. Attached is the reply.

I am pleasantly surprised that they actually replied to my email. I am NOT surprised, however, by the response.

And shouldn't the office be in Sacramento, anyhow?

Added: I went back and the AG opinion in question was 77-030 from 1977. Does anyone know what the opinion she cites is? The ca.gov website only goes back to 1986.

Sam
02-25-2009, 9:45 PM
This is evidence that the government does not truly care if a peasant lives or dies, very troubling, but then again I'm preaching to the choir.

Librarian
02-25-2009, 9:47 PM
Back when the CCW shenanigans started with Orange County and Sheriff Hutchens I had submitted a question to the Attorney General via the ca.gov website. I had asked for a review and (hopefully) an updated opinion of the AG's opinion regarding CCWs.

I don't recall my exact wording, but I received a letter today from the office in San Francisco. Attached is the reply.

I am pleasantly surprised that they actually replied to my email. I am NOT surprised, however, by the response.

And shouldn't the office be in Sacramento, anyhow?

Added: I went back and the AG opinion in question was 77-030 from 1977. Does anyone know what the opinion she cites is? The ca.gov website only goes back to 1986.

The one the letter refers to is described The California Attorney General has opined that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy as to the names of persons holding concealed weapons permits. (62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 402 (1979).) An earlier statute specifically provided that permit records were open to public inspection.

...

The California Supreme Court later reached the same conclusion that how a sheriff exercises discretion in issuing such permits outweighs concerns about exposing applicants to danger. (CBS v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646.)

AlexBreya
02-25-2009, 10:09 PM
at least she was sincere in her flouting of the 2A

Bill_in_SD
02-25-2009, 10:11 PM
So it looks as though she was looking at the WRONG opinion.... argh.

Well, I was not explicit enough in my request, so time to write a new one.

For the 1977 Opinion.

Thanks for the info Librarian!

WokMaster1
02-25-2009, 10:14 PM
would be bad or good if we ALL write letters & emails in to the AG's office pleading JB to reconsider the "good cause" clause. I mean 5-6K letters & emails.

KWA-S
02-26-2009, 12:01 AM
It would be alright, Wok, but I think we have a better shot with AB357 doing that. The AG, I believe, couldn't care less if everyone in the state sent in such a letter. Additionally, the AG doesn't write nor enforce the law. He just prosecutes offenders.

Bill_in_SD
02-26-2009, 6:30 AM
He may not write law, but his interpretation (or former AG's) gets thrown in our face by the likes of Sheriff Hutchens.

That plus the whole false idea of liability just weakens our position. Look at what the Grand Jury in Orange County said regarding her policies. They relied on the same things.

CCWFacts
02-26-2009, 6:46 AM
Added: I went back and the AG opinion in question was 77-030 from 1977. Does anyone know what the opinion she cites is? The ca.gov website only goes back to 1986.

Edited: Oh, someone else identified that as the wrong opinion. I'm going to request the right opinion. I would like to see it.

Paladin
02-26-2009, 6:53 AM
So it looks as though she was looking at the WRONG opinion.... argh.

Well, I was not explicit enough in my request, so time to write a new one.

For the 1977 Opinion.

Thanks for the info Librarian!

Went to the TBJ website (www.californiaconcealedcarry.com), clicked the link for "Legal" and found the germane part of the opinion:

The (1977) Attorney General's Opinion on Good Causes
OPINION NO. CR. 77/30 I.L. 'the issuing authority must determine whether the threat to the applicant (or other causal situation) is as real as the applicant asserts (e.g., is there a clear and present danger to the applicant, his spouse, his family or his employees)? Finally, if the danger is manifest, the authority should determine whether that danger cannot be significantly alleviated by alternative means of security and whether in fact can be lawfully mitigated by the applicant's obtaining a concealed weapon license.'

This decision was rendered By Attorney General Evelle J. Younger, August 23, 1977.

http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/cag_opinion.html

IMHO, if I were you, I would merely thank her for her time at this point and mention that you will do further research and get back to her after the Nordyke case is decided. :43:

Paladin
02-26-2009, 7:02 AM
The one the letter refers to is describedHmm. Since AB 357 removes only the discretion of sheriffs, CBS v. Block might no longer apply. But if AB 357 continues to allow CoPs to exercise discretion, CBS v. Block might continue to apply. Question is, would it only apply to CoPs or also to sheriffs in re. to CCWs? If the latter, this might be another reason AB 357 should encompass CoPs.

Either way, the quote from Librarian that "[a]n earlier statute specifically provided that permit records were open to public inspection" shows that we must make sure that the earlier statute would no longer apply to CCW permits if and only if AB 357 (or another "Shall Issue" bill) becomes law.