PDA

View Full Version : people are already carrying with ccw's from other states/Nordyke


gunsmith
04-26-2009, 5:13 PM
Noted activist Jim March has an interesting thread over at
thehighroad
http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=409008
I cant get PDF on my crappy laptop but
it seems he is already carrying in CA and believes its "OK"
Any comments from our stellar legal team?
I have a NV ccw and I'm ready to carry.

Liberty1
04-26-2009, 5:24 PM
Noted activist Jim March has an interesting thread over at
thehighroad
http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=409008
I cant get PDF on my crappy laptop but
it seems he is already carrying in CA and believes its "OK"
Any comments from our stellar legal team?
I have a NV ccw and I'm ready to carry.


Maybe DOJ will file on him by complaint (using his self incriminating statement) and we will get to find out if he is correct or not?

The fact that someone carried concealed in CA and was not caught by the police doesn't surprise me. I've carried concealed lawfully for about 9 years (without much concern for big time printing or the wind blowing my shirt open) and have never been stopped. And I've OCed (off duty no badge shown) in heavily populated areas with the same result.

I wish Jim luck and hope the right people have some influence over him. CA criminal trial courts are not the place for this fight.

rabagley
04-26-2009, 5:24 PM
Jim March, et.al. believe it's "OK"
The CA DOJ believes it's not "OK" and can actually quote CPC.

Who is going to win? (Where win means "not in jail" and "not in prison" while the constitutionality of the law is debated).

It's not legal.

AEC1
04-26-2009, 5:36 PM
I sure hope he doesnt screw the rest of us...

hoffmang
04-26-2009, 5:36 PM
Challenging gun laws in criminal matters is a very, very bad idea.

-Gene

CitaDeL
04-26-2009, 5:37 PM
I think Jim would be on more stable legal ground open carrying. There is no license required and is available to anyone who is not a prohibited person whether or not they are a citizen or resident of California.

ilbob
04-26-2009, 5:57 PM
I sure hope he doesnt screw the rest of us...

My guess is he only screws himself.

You guys are so close that it is just idiotic to do this kind of thing.

kermit315
04-26-2009, 6:24 PM
he isnt from here......he sees it as kicking sand in DOJ's face after nordyke came down.

Not to say his heart isnt in the right place, but he doesnt have the vested interest, or know the inner workings of what is going on here.

ilbob
04-26-2009, 6:59 PM
he isnt from here......he sees it as kicking sand in DOJ's face after nordyke came down.

Not to say his heart isnt in the right place, but he doesnt have the vested interest, or know the inner workings of what is going on here.
I am guessing only a very few people know the "inner workings".

I am not sure his head is in the right place.

This amateur lawyer crap is fun to play with but it makes no sense to ruin your life over. Even real lawyers often have no idea what the outcome of a case is going to be.

hoffmang
04-26-2009, 7:04 PM
he isnt from here......he sees it as kicking sand in DOJ's face after nordyke came down.

Not to say his heart isnt in the right place, but he doesnt have the vested interest, or know the inner workings of what is going on here.

He was from here and he fought for Californians a few years back.

However, some of his tactics are not the most effective and that's the main reason to ask folks to be careful now that we have a set of excellent strategists and tacticians. Doing it right only takes two weeks longer than doing it badly...

-Gene

kermit315
04-26-2009, 7:16 PM
never knew he was from here before, only that he was in AZ now.

Like I said, I am sure his heart is in the right place, but damn I hope he doesnt make anything worse.

gunsmith
04-26-2009, 10:14 PM
Jim did brilliant work as an activist, both for us gunnies and blackbox.org.

bulgron
04-26-2009, 10:24 PM
As a gun rights activist from a few years ago, I think he may have actually hurt us more than helped, in the end. I've heard stories about him getting escorted from offices in Sacramento. Don't have the details, but apparently he didn't make a lot of friends.

He certainly tried, HARD, to get some CCW reform going in this state. But it all happened before Heller so ultimately he was tilting at windmills.

I'm sorry to see Jim engaged in illegal activities. He's only going to hurt himself, and badly, in the end if he keeps it up. Especially now that he's gone public on what he's doing. Talk about asking to get arrested .... and doing that will, at best, lose him his AZ CCW.

CCWFacts
04-26-2009, 10:25 PM
I like Jim, but he has some funny legal ideas, and this one in particular could have bad consequences for him personally, and for all the rest of us.

It's one thing if someone is ok with taking personal risk to himself to back up his beliefs, but what he is doing could be dramatically bad for all of us. Not one single law in California changed due to Nordkyke and I wish Jim would get with the program here and fit his activities into the well-conceived legal strategy that is being launched here.

bwiese
04-26-2009, 10:26 PM
Jim did brilliant work as an activist,

Well, he was helpful in the SF Gen Hospital/MMM stuff.

If he's indeed trying unpapered CCW post-Nordyke without "knowledgable appropriate preplanning" he can end up screwing us all in Silviera/Gorski fashion.

N6ATF
04-27-2009, 12:21 AM
What if those of us without handguns (either due to age, financial situation, or personal preference towards long arms) all claimed we were CCWing, sort of a like an "I am Spartacus" thing?

Would the DOJ bury itself making complaints without ever being able to produce evidence that we had handguns to CCW in the first place?

jhaselton
04-27-2009, 12:23 AM
If he's indeed trying unpapered CCW post-Nordyke without "knowledgable appropriate preplanning" he can end up screwing us all in Silviera/Gorski fashion.

What case was that? Can I get a link? I'd like to read it.

oaklander
04-27-2009, 12:29 AM
What case was that? Can I get a link? I'd like to read it.

An analysis is here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200309230925.asp

The "take-away" is that you don't do pro 2A stuff in California without a clear strategy. This strategy includes working WITH the NRA and The Right People. That wasn't done in Silveira.

DDT
04-27-2009, 12:45 AM
Doing it right only takes two weeks longer than doing it badly...

-Gene

Is that your new license plate Gene?


TWOWKS
2WEEKS

ETA: Just checked, both taken.

gunsmith
04-27-2009, 2:00 AM
Jim discovered the million mom march was doing all kinds of illegal stuff and was a major part of their decline, they were all set to become a non .gov entity( like M.A.D.D ) that passes laws without the consent of the governed.
We owe him a huge debt, he is a brilliant original thinker.
I don't know enough one way or the other to decide who is right/wrong- which is why I bought it up.
I have a NV ccw and am sick and tired of risking my life in Oakland while gangbangers roam free

gunsmith
04-27-2009, 2:03 AM
Unread Today, 01:12 AM #23
Jim March
Senior Member


Join Date: 12-24-02
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 9,085

Gene,

Because my carry gun was bought in Cali and is still DROS-listed, I'm not looking at a felony.

Second, read the Ward v. Maryland cast if nothing else. Note it's support in Slaughter-house - which Nordyke says is still good case law. It's absolutely dead clear that California can't discriminate against out-of-staters.

I think the legal situation for out-of-staters who have their own state's CCW is if anything even more solid than the case a Cali resident can make for discrimination.
__________________
Jim March
TFL Alumnus
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
http://www.equalccw.com
Airplane Pictures

Well, what do you think?

press1280
04-27-2009, 3:29 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but is he trying to get standing by carrying in CA with an out of state CCW(and getting caught)?
Can't anyone just get standing by applying for a CCW and getting denied?
I read what he's planning on doing, it seems he'd help himself with a denied application, so if he is caught, he can say he tried to legally get a CCW.
What he's doing seems to be trying for CA to accept out of state CCWs instead of CA shall issuing residents and non-residents alike.

ilbob
04-27-2009, 6:20 AM
Jim is one of the many people who think the law is about truth, justice, and the American way. It isn't, nor has it ever been. You have to get past that fallacy if you want to win in court.

ZRX61
04-27-2009, 7:17 AM
If he does get charged with anything & the outcome is he wins the "out of state" discrimination deal it's going to make Utah CCW's VERY desirable...

Liberty1
04-27-2009, 7:20 AM
If he does get charged with anything & the outcome is he wins ...

99% chance he would loose this fight in a CA trial court (there's alway the 1% of less chance of getting one of us on the jury)

He really needs to attempt to apply for a Ca state license and win that residency argument first.

Python2
04-27-2009, 7:27 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but is he trying to get standing by carrying in CA with an out of state CCW(and getting caught)?
.

I believe that was the intent. If I remember correctly through his tons of post and researches prior to Heller and Nordyke I think he went to court in CoCoCo but was thrown out due to lack of standing. In my phone conversation with him, he said he would have had standing if he was a minority. At the time he and BJ (both have knowlege of my GC) believe I have a good case when I was denied CCW in my county.

BigDogatPlay
04-27-2009, 7:27 AM
I think it's a virtual certainty he would loose this fight at trial, and likely not get very far on appeal. While the damage to all of us might be mitigated to a degree, if he tries to force the issue on the state it's going to be a lot of bad press for us.

I should also think he would almost certainly lose the carry permit in his own state. Would the 10 year prohibition carry over as well?

Gray Peterson
04-27-2009, 8:25 AM
99% chance he would loose this fight in a CA trial court (there's alway the 1% of less chance of getting one of us on the jury)

He really needs to attempt to apply for a Ca state license and win that residency argument first.

Agreed wholeheartedly, not to mention the fact it would be civil and you can fight on YOUR terms rather than sitting in a jail cell.

CCWFacts
04-27-2009, 11:57 AM
Second, read the Ward v. Maryland cast if nothing else. Note it's support in Slaughter-house - which Nordyke says is still good case law. It's absolutely dead clear that California can't discriminate against out-of-staters.

I think the legal situation for out-of-staters who have their own state's CCW is if anything even more solid than the case a Cali resident can make for discrimination.

He may well be right. What he doesn't get is this:

Being a criminal defendant means he doesn't get to pick the terms of the engagement, meaning, someone else is charging him, so someone else is defining the battlefield.

He also doesn't understand the difference between being a pro-se criminal defendant and a well-represented civil plaintiff who is executing a carefully-planned strategy.

Also, he's a fool if he thinks it's a misdemeanor. "Woops! I didn't see the school across the street!" shifts it into felony zone. And what actually happened and what's written in the police report can be quite different. I'm not sure if he's aware of that. He may end up facing felony charges.

I really hope this goes nowhere and he doesn't get his day in court on this.

yellowfin
04-27-2009, 12:18 PM
I guess we need out of staters to start applying for non-resident CCW's before this goes the wrong way.

DDT
04-27-2009, 12:24 PM
Apparently some folks are missing the point that Jim is NOT a CA resident. He's a resident of another state. How can he apply for a CA CCW? Now, he could presumably gain standing by writing a letter to the CA DOJ asking for permission to use his out of state CCW to carry in CA. If he gets a denial letter he could file claiming his intent to travel here and carry gives him standing. But, this would be a weaker case if he is trying to break the entirety of the CA CCW system because if he's arrested there is the chance that he can avoid the whole residency discrimination issue and make a mere discrimination against bearing arms issue.

CCWFacts
04-27-2009, 12:29 PM
Apparently some folks are missing the point that Jim is NOT a CA resident.

No, we understand that perfectly. That's related also the case he cites, where some state was discriminating against non-residents, and the court found that to be unacceptable.

He's a resident of another state. How can he apply for a CA CCW?

Easily, just the same way any of us would apply. He's not a resident of any county, so he could just pick any county, fill in the application and hand it in. I would recommend he apply in SF, so there's absolutely no chance of being issued.

Now, he could presumably gain standing by writing a letter to the CA DOJ asking for permission to use his out of state CCW to carry in CA. If he gets a denial letter he could file claiming his intent to travel here and carry gives him standing.

The DoJ has no authority to grant such permission, and they wouldn't send him a denial letter, it would be more like a, "WTF are you talking about" letter. The DoJ isn't an issuing authority so being "denied" by them wouldn't give him standing.

highpowermatch
04-27-2009, 12:29 PM
When I took the Utah CCW class the instructors offered the opinion to leave California CCW law the way it is. They said once you actually get one you can go almost anywhere with it short of Fed buildings. They said if Ca law is switched to shall issue that they will restrict access to the point of making it useless. What are all you're thoughts on this?

thanks

DDT
04-27-2009, 12:38 PM
Easily, just the same way any of us would apply. He's not a resident of any county, so he could just pick any county, fill in the application and hand it in. I would recommend he apply in SF, so there's absolutely no chance of being issued.

Assuming that Jim isn't working here a substantial amount of time but is on vacation or short business trips, what gives a Sheriff/CoP the right to issue to him?

CPC 12050
(a)(1)(A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) (D) For the purpose of subparagraph (A), the applicant shall satisfy any one of the following:
(i) Is a resident of the county or a city within the county.
(ii) Spends a substantial period of time in the applicant's principal place of employment or business in the county or a city within the county.

The DoJ has no authority to grant such permission, and they wouldn't send him a denial letter, it would be more like a, "WTF are you talking about" letter. The DoJ isn't an issuing authority so being "denied" by them wouldn't give him standing.

I worded that poorly. I meant that he could write a letter to the DOJ/AG and ask if a non-resident may carry within California under the aurthority of a CCW issued by their state of residence. A letter back from DoJ stating that doing so would violate 12050 and isn't a covered exemption per 12027 would probably give him standing.

1BigPea
04-27-2009, 12:41 PM
When I took the Utah CCW class the instructors offered the opinion to leave California CCW law the way it is. They said once you actually get one you can go almost anywhere with it short of Fed buildings. They said if Ca law is switched to shall issue that they will restrict access to the point of making it useless. What are all you're thoughts on this?

thanks

Not in CA though right? Utah CCW is no good here...

CCWFacts
04-27-2009, 12:48 PM
Assuming that Jim isn't working here a substantial amount of time but is on vacation or short business trips, what gives a Sheriff/CoP the right to issue to him?

CPC 12050

CPC 12050 does not allow a sheriff to issue to someone who is not a resident of CA. Jim will be denied. The sheriff would have no choice in the matter; a sheriff can't violate PC 12050 like that. I assume that would give him standing and let him challenge this in civil court, where it belongs, on his terms. Doesn't Sun Tzu talk about how important it is to choose the battlefield? Or something?

He could then sue, saying, "look, the only way to carry in CA is with a 12050 permit, so give me that permit." That's different from saying, "the law doesn't let me get a permit, so you should honor my out of state permit!" Those are very different types of claims, and he's trying to make the later of them (in criminal court!!!!) instead of making the first claim. And I think the first claim (non-residents should be able to get 12050 permits) is more reasonable and courts will wonder why he didn't try to do that.

bulgron
04-27-2009, 12:58 PM
When I took the Utah CCW class the instructors offered the opinion to leave California CCW law the way it is. They said once you actually get one you can go almost anywhere with it short of Fed buildings. They said if Ca law is switched to shall issue that they will restrict access to the point of making it useless. What are all you're thoughts on this?

thanks

Since I have zero chance of getting a CCW in the county where I live thanks to our crappy, unconstitutional laws, I'm all for changing California's CCW laws even if it means the permits become a bit more restrictive. Those privileged few who actually managed to get a California CCW will probably vehemently disagree with me. But then I point out that they're just one indictment away from the pain that Orange County CCW holders are feeling right now. In other words, the only way to truly protect that permit is for it to become shall-issue. If that means taking hits on where it is valid, so be it. I'd rather fight the fight of loosening a CCW permit system, than fight the fight of trying to get them to issue permits in the first place.

DDT
04-27-2009, 1:05 PM
CPC 12050 does not allow a sheriff to issue to someone who is not a resident of CA. Jim will be denied. The sheriff would have no choice in the matter; a sheriff can't violate PC 12050 like that. I assume that would give him standing and let him challenge this in civil court, where it belongs, on his terms. Doesn't Sun Tzu talk about how important it is to choose the battlefield? Or something?

He could then sue, saying, "look, the only way to carry in CA is with a 12050 permit, so give me that permit." That's different from saying, "the law doesn't let me get a permit, so you should honor my out of state permit!" Those are very different types of claims, and he's trying to make the later of them (in criminal court!!!!) instead of making the first claim. And I think the first claim (non-residents should be able to get 12050 permits) is more reasonable and courts will wonder why he didn't try to do that.

Yes, they are different claims. Well, I'm pretty sure that most states don't issue non-resident CCWs but most states do recognize out of state CCWs. I would think that you are much more likely to win a federal case forcing recognition of out of state permits than one requiring the issuance of permits to out of state residents. Plus, unless you actually challenge discretionary issue it doesn't matter. The legislature could delegate non-resident permit issuance to the AG without ever addressing discretionary issue. If he did apply and get denied for being a non-resident the only thing he could really sue for is the right to be treated to a different 12050 denial.

If he sues for recognition of out of state permits that's a much bigger win for residents of 49 other states.

He really should leave the discretionary issue case to those who are most effected by it and already working to kill it.

CCWFacts
04-27-2009, 1:07 PM
I worded that poorly. I meant that he could write a letter to the DOJ/AG and ask if a non-resident may carry within California under the aurthority of a CCW issued by their state of residence. A letter back from DoJ stating that doing so would violate 12050 and isn't a covered exemption per 12027 would probably give him standing.

Perhaps. Fine, then he should do it, and then file a civil suit.

What he is doing now is madness because:


He's not doing this in a way that is sure to give him standing
He's doing it in a way that will wind him up in criminal court
The "enemy" gets to pick the battles in that case. Maybe he'll be able to beat the CCW charge but not the school zone charge? Or who knows what. He's lost control of the situation when someone else is writing the charge, instead of a plaintiff writing a complaint.
He is not just risking a misdemeanor, he is putting himself at risk of felony charges, depending on what gets written in the police report
The financial difference between criminal and civil court is huge. There's bail, for starters. Then, with civil cases, if the gun guy runs out of money, he can usually settle it and walk away at any time. Obviously that is not possible in criminal cases. Or rather it is possible, but it's called a plea bargain.


This is just madness. I like Jim and I truly appreciate him being an early pioneer in making the CCW fight a public fight. I also feel like he's a good guy, with lots of persistence and a "never give up" attitude. But right now he needs to take a deep breath and pop a "common sense" pill.

yellowfin
04-27-2009, 1:12 PM
He does need to play with the team, though I suppose as he sees it he's been in the game before there was a team.

DDT
04-27-2009, 1:14 PM
What he is doing now is madness because:


On this I think we can agree; no good shall come of this.

ilbob
04-27-2009, 1:25 PM
There is an even worse case being brought by a guy from CT who is trying to claim his RV is a residence.

CCWFacts
04-27-2009, 1:28 PM
Ultimately, there is no way for the NRA to control all these "lone wolf" legal heroes. The only thing to do is to get the good cases in the pipeline ASAP, before there are dozens of nuts who have filed their pro-se legal masterpieces which could yank defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm sure the NRA and the "right people" are aware of this and are working overtime to be first in line with good cases.

1JimMarch
04-30-2009, 12:59 AM
Somebody pointed out this thread, so I'd best comment.

As a gun rights activist from a few years ago, I think he may have actually hurt us more than helped, in the end. I've heard stories about him getting escorted from offices in Sacramento. Don't have the details, but apparently he didn't make a lot of friends.

Well that would be news to me. Which office, and where? I can assure you, I was never tossed out of any office anywhere in California, before during or after my tenure 2003-2005 with CCRKBA.

I was arrested in the summer of 2005 in San Diego while observing an election. The situation wasn't RKBA-related at all and all charges were dropped one week later. The moment Debra Bowen got into office as Cali SecState, she implemented the exact reforms I had pressed for prior to getting arrested. California law gives all voters the right to observe the counting of the vote. Go down to your county's election HQ on election night or just prior and you'll see extra monitors showing what the voting system central tabulators are doing, just a couple of inches the other side of a window.

You can thank me for those monitors.

He certainly tried, HARD, to get some CCW reform going in this state. But it all happened before Heller so ultimately he was tilting at windmills.

Well not quite. IF I had ever been able to find a minority lead plaintiff, we'd have had a chance. Basically, there's a recipe for overturning a racist law:

1) You have to prove that the law was passed with racist intent in the first place. With PC12050-54, that's easy: a California appelate court already ruled to that effect in 1972 (People v. Rappard) and threw out a portion of the original 1924 statute limiting carry rights for green-card holders. Check out the Rappard case where the same law as contains the CCW system was described as racist:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/rappard.txt (as far as I know that's the only copy available to non-lawyers online)

2) You have to prove the law is having a racist effect - done:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/CCWDATA2003.html

3) You have to have an affected minority plaintiff. I couldn't find one willing to go up against a sheriff.

This three-part recipe is described in detail in Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing, 1977 USSC. It was used successfully in another later USSC case, Hunter v. Underwood.

Most of this is moot now, BUT adding this kind of attack is still very feasible and should be added to a post-Nordyke/Heller attack on CCW if at all possible. It's not critical like it was, but it couldn't hurt.

I'm sorry to see Jim engaged in illegal activities. He's only going to hurt himself, and badly, in the end if he keeps it up. Especially now that he's gone public on what he's doing. Talk about asking to get arrested .... and doing that will, at best, lose him his AZ CCW.

First, if you haven't read the cases on this I cite at:

http://tinyurl.com/motiontodismiss (click "download" from there)

...you're missing quite a bit.

Second, I won't quote it but somebody in this thread mentioned "you don't get to pick your battleground in this scenario - you're in California criminal court".

Not so fast.

First, if Cali authorities wanted to try and charge me here in AZ, they have to extradite me. I can fight there.

But better yet, I have grounds to file an immediate Habeas in Federal court based on the cross-border jurisdictional issues. If they try and fetch me out of AZ I can appeal the extradition to Federal court.

Look, if you read just ONE case related to this, read Ward v. Maryland 1872 USSC:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/79/418/

My circumstance is (post-Nordyke) 100% identical to the circumstances faced by Mr. Ward...who sued in Federal court to challenge the cross-border discrimination.

I'd get to do the same thing.

Better yet: the Nordyke case specifically called Slaughter-house good case law, and Slaughter-house specifically approved of (and cited at length) Ward. See, Ward found a use for the 14th Amendment P&I clause in which it limits cross-border discrimination by a state against another state's visiting residents. Slaughter-house then came along and said that's ALL it's good for. But in my situation, that's all I'd need!

If I'd been arrested in Cali it would have been more difficult but still possible to get into Federal court.

As stated, I'd only be looking at a misdemeanor because my carry piece is like me a Cali refugee and DROS-registered to me, bought brand new at a gun shop near Sacto.

Finally, let's be real clear: I spent a total of TWO HOURS in Cali and have no plans to return any time soon. OK? We ain't exactly talkin' "huge risk" here. I drove from Tucson AZ to a point an hour's deep into Cali to do some paperwork, racking up about 650 miles round trip in one day. Stiff legs was the biggest "risk".

yellowfin
04-30-2009, 1:06 AM
:popcorn: Interesting.

Sinixstar
04-30-2009, 1:21 AM
There is an even worse case being brought by a guy from CT who is trying to claim his RV is a residence.

That's actually something i've wondered about quite a bit. There are a lot of people with no permanent structure residence. What about how CCW laws effect them?

It's an interesting thing to think about, and hopefully somebody makes the case - but hopefully they do it in the right way.

bwiese
04-30-2009, 1:22 AM
That's actually something i've wondered about quite a bit. There are a lot of people with no permanent structure residence. What about how CCW laws effect them?

It's an interesting thing to think about, and hopefully somebody makes the case - but hopefully they do it in the right way.


Yes, the homeless and addressless have RKBA.

Sinixstar
04-30-2009, 1:42 AM
Yes, the homeless and addressless have RKBA.

When I go fill out my little yellow paper though - I have to have proof physical residence. How's that work?

1JimMarch
04-30-2009, 7:54 AM
When I go fill out my little yellow paper though - I have to have proof physical residence. How's that work?

There's a variant of this question being fought in the courts right now: what about the rights of US citizens living permanently abroad? This has actually been filed by SAF I believe, based on plaintiff ex-pats living in Canada.

The outcome of that will be eagerly viewed by the RV and nomad crowds in basically a similar boat. (Actually, often IN boats literally.)

scr83jp
04-30-2009, 8:11 AM
Noted activist Jim March has an interesting thread over at
thehighroad
http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=409008
I cant get PDF on my crappy laptop but
it seems he is already carrying in CA and believes its "OK"
Any comments from our stellar legal team?
I have a NV ccw and I'm ready to carry.
Published info ca doesn't recognize any other states ccw's .

1JimMarch
04-30-2009, 8:57 AM
Published info: nobody has to obey an unconstitutional law.

:rolleyes:

Yes, there's risks in challenging them like this, but the risk drops when the underlying case law is as dead clear as it is here.

nicki
04-30-2009, 11:46 AM
It appears that Jim March is hitting on dual issues,14th amendment and second amendment.

California lost a 14th amendment case on welfare benefits in the Saenz case in front of the SCOTUS in the early 90's.

Basically what happened is Ca tried to give lower welfare payments to people who just moved in here from other states.

I like Jim's reasoning, but I hope he would contact the "right people" before taking action and line up adequate resources before engaging in battle first.

Jim is very methodical, he has learned alot and he is very seasoned.

He is a professional activists, he deals alot with courts. He is responsible for voter reform and lawsuits in many parts of the country.

He is not a "Pro Se" lone puppy. He definitely is a big wolf.

Jim btw has built alot of bridges on the left. It is probably because of him that many Democratic activists are starting to re evaluate their views on guns and change over to our side.

"Heller" was not the "right case" and many of the "right people" tried to sabotage it in it's early stages.

We are on borrowed time. We should not be "reckless", but we need to be "aggressive".

Nicki

Untamed1972
04-30-2009, 12:01 PM
Yes, the homeless and addressless have RKBA.

Yes....just like the courts recent ruling about how homeless people have a right to vote, and can use a "bus bench" number as an address on their voter registration card.

There is nothing in the constitution that says you are only entitled to your constitutional rights if you have a physical residence/address that is permantly affixed to a piece of ground.

Under 4A grounds an RV (even a tent), if parked and setup for living is considered a residence under search and seizure rules. If the RV is driving on the road it can be treated like a vehicle. Looks like even vehicle searches are getting more restrictive though too.

DDT
04-30-2009, 12:05 PM
Yes....just like the courts recent ruling about how homeless people have a right to vote, and can use a "bus bench" number as an address on their voter registration card.

How does one get a utility bill for a bus bench? ;)

Untamed1972
04-30-2009, 12:39 PM
How does one get a utility bill for a bus bench? ;)


Why would you need one? If you have current ID with an address on it, that's all you need.

DDT
04-30-2009, 12:50 PM
Why would you need one? If you have current ID with an address on it, that's all you need.

Not for a handgun.

From BoF FAQ Question #3 http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php:

Purchasers of handguns are also required to provide proof of California residency, such as a utility bill, residential lease, property deed, or government-issued identification (other than a drivers license or other DMV-issued identification).

(PC Section 12071)

Untamed1972
04-30-2009, 1:03 PM
Not for a handgun.

From BoF FAQ Question #3 http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php:

Well I think perhaps you have just stumbled upon the next lawsuit just waiting for someone who has standing. Esp. now post heller/nordyke.

Should not a homeless person have the right to defend themselves? Prolly of anyone needing protection it would be them since they don't have the security of a home to reside in.

Don't need the 2nd ID in AZ, just an ID with an actual street address on it. Recently found out over there too, if you have an AZ CCW, when you buy a gun they don't even have to call you in for the instant background check. You fill out the 4473, show your ID and CCW, they ring you up and you walk out, hi-cap mags and all! Just that simple, no muss, no fuss, no waiting period. And you can buy more than one gun at a time even!!! OMG Oh how sweet real freedom would actually be!!!

1JimMarch
04-30-2009, 1:46 PM
I hope people from this thread will join me in this one:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2401416

LG1980
04-30-2009, 1:56 PM
Well I think perhaps you have just stumbled upon the next lawsuit just waiting for someone who has standing. Esp. now post heller/nordyke.


I've always wondered, especially in a state like California with it's reputation for lawsuits, why there weren't more lawsuits about a host of gun related issues.

Is it a matter of money or strategy or a "stacked" court and waiting for a change of justices or something else?

One thing I'm confused about, is why the CA DOJ still features the wording "all AK/AR series" not limited to those described in category 2, since Harrot v. County of Kings case was supposed to have changed that language, based upon my understanding of the decision.

Untamed1972
04-30-2009, 2:03 PM
I've always wondered, especially in a state like California with it's reputation for lawsuits, why there weren't more lawsuits about a host of gun related issues.

Prolly because gun rights were not in the CA state constitution, and w/o a good 2A ruling from the Feds and incorporation from the recent court rulings it was a tougher fight because gun ownership was not a guaranteed right in this state.

bwiese
04-30-2009, 2:06 PM
One thing I'm confused about, is why the CA DOJ still features the wording "all AK/AR series" not limited
to those described in category 2, since Harrot v. County of Kings case was supposed to have changed that
language, based upon my understanding of the decision.

1. They don't want to encourage us. It does in effect amount to undeground regulation by making folks confused.

2. The law is still on the books about "copies & duplicates" in PC 12276(e) and (f), and would require
actual legislation to take it off the books - but despite that it's on the books, it is irrelevant and not
enforceable due to Harrott v. County of Kings

AEC1
04-30-2009, 4:03 PM
Here's one for you. I am active duty military stationed in CA. My residensy is in FL. How do I apply for a CA CCW? SD sheriff? No I am not a resident of CA. I can get my FL resident CCW but CA will not honor it. I will gladly be the poster case if someone has the funds... PM me Right people.

DDT
04-30-2009, 4:38 PM
Here's one for you. I am active duty military stationed in CA. My residensy is in FL. How do I apply for a CA CCW? SD sheriff? No I am not a resident of CA. I can get my FL resident CCW but CA will not honor it. I will gladly be the poster case if someone has the funds... PM me Right people.

You would apply to your local sheriff as you fulfill 12050(a)(1)(D)(ii)

(D) For the purpose of subparagraph (A), the applicant shall satisfy any one of the following: (i) Is a resident of the county or a city within the county. (ii) Spends a substantial period of time in the applicant's principal place of employment or business in the county or a city within the county.


But, the sheriff will likely not issue and even if he did it is a 90 day license.

Sgt Raven
04-30-2009, 5:59 PM
Here's one for you. I am active duty military stationed in CA. My residensy is in FL. How do I apply for a CA CCW? SD sheriff? No I am not a resident of CA. I can get my FL resident CCW but CA will not honor it. I will gladly be the poster case if someone has the funds... PM me Right people.


Unless you're TDY, you are a resident of California.

kermit315
04-30-2009, 6:03 PM
Unless you're TDY, you are a resident of California.

not necessarily. I am an Illinois resident. I dont vote here, I dont pay taxes here, I dont register my cars here. As far as california is concerned, I am not a resident of california. I can buy guns because they recognize PCS orders as an exception to the residency requirement.

AEC1
04-30-2009, 7:08 PM
not necessarily. I am an Illinois resident. I dont vote here, I dont pay taxes here, I dont register my cars here. As far as california is concerned, I am not a resident of california. I can buy guns because they recognize PCS orders as an exception to the residency requirement.

Yep the orders are for Purchase only, dont work for the CCW

Sgt Raven
04-30-2009, 8:11 PM
Yep the orders are for Purchase only, dont work for the CCW

Have you tried? Won't know for sure untill you do.

Lone_Gunman
05-01-2009, 1:21 AM
Is that your new license plate Gene?


TWOWKS
2WEEKS

ETA: Just checked, both taken.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=22274&stc=1&d=1241166033

Still available. Better jump on it Gene!


EDIT: and with this I am now a member. WooHoo!

drclark
05-01-2009, 1:02 PM
Here is a question that may be able to apply in a lawsuit (or not).

Currently my right to own and posess a gun is largely limited to whether or not I own or lease property. (isn't this analogous to a POLL TAX?) I can CCW in my home/appt. I have the right to use said gun to defend myself in my home. CA has a fairly strong castle doctrine. I have to present some sort of proof of residence to buy a handgun and have to fill out address information on all the transfer forms.

If you are homeless (i.e. living on the street) and have no property, car, appartment, storage unit, etc; how do you buy and posess a gun?

Doesn't a homeless person have a constitutional right to free speech and to vote? Now that 2A is affirmed by Heller and incorporated by Nordyke, I would think that a person with no property or no address should be allowed to buy, own and bear a gun?

Would this essentially force loaded open carry ANYWHERE? At the very least is should eliminate the requirement to show proof of residence and being required to fill out an address on the paperwork when purchasing a gun.

drc

DDT
05-01-2009, 1:07 PM
one needn't only be indigent or homeless to have this problem. Retired folks who live in RVs or on Boats would have a similar problem purchasing a handgun in CA. The fact is that most people in these situations would find a better state in which to declare residency to manage tax liability and other issues.