PDA

View Full Version : CCW: SAF, Calguns Challenge Arbitrary Denial of Right to Bear Arms In California


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

hoffmang
05-05-2009, 12:56 PM
BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and three California residents today filed a lawsuit seeking to vindicate the right to bear arms against arbitrary state infringement.

Nearly all states allow qualified law-abiding citizens to carry guns for self-defense, but a few states allow local officials to arbitrarily decide who may exercise this core Second Amendment right. In the action filed today, Plaintiffs challenge the policies of two California Sheriffs, in Sacramento and Yolo counties, who reject the basic human right of self defense by refusing to issue ordinary people gun carry permits. Of course, violent criminals in the impacted counties continue to carry guns without police permission.

State scientist Deanna Sykes believes her sexual orientation and small stature makes her an appealing target for criminals, particularly as she often transports firearms as a competitive shooter and firearms instructor. “I am highly qualified to defend myself against the sort of crime that the Sheriff cannot, despite his best efforts, completely eradicate,” Sykes said. “Violent crime is a real risk in our society, but happily, we enjoy the right to defend ourselves from it.”

Andrew Witham has over 15 years experience as a police officer in Britain, and is licensed to carry a firearm while working as a private investigator and campus public safety officer. But despite having been the target of death threats stemming from his work in security, Sheriff John McGinness saw to it that Witham’s license to carry a gun while away from work was revoked upon Witham’s relocation to Sacramento.

“I’m allowed to defend other people,” said Witham, “so why can’t I defend myself, where the Bill of Rights guarantees me that right?”

Adam Richards, a Northern California attorney, would also exercise his right to bear arms in self- defense. But the Yolo County Sheriff’s policy on gun permit applications is: don’t bother. “How can the Sheriff tell whether I am capable of responsibly exercising my Second Amendment rights, when he doesn’t even acknowledge that these rights exist?”

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, said, “It’s a shame that these Sheriffs don’t think that self-defense is a ‘good cause’ to exercise the right to bear arms, but we’re confident the Second Amendment reflects a better policy.”

Added co-counsel Donald Kilmer, “The California carry licensing system is being abused by some officials who are hostile to self-defense rights. The police can regulate the carrying of guns, and that includes preventing dangerous people from being armed. Complete deprivation of the right to bear arms, however, is not an option under our Constitution.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision last year in the Heller case shows that there is both a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “In most states, authorities do not deny a license to carry an operable firearm to any law-abiding applicant that completes training and a background check. This is also the practice throughout much of California. These two Sheriffs must respect the constitutional rights of their citizens to bear arms.”

“California is often a leader in so many ways, but our state lags badly in streamlining its firearms laws,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “We need 21st century gun laws that respect our Constitutional rights, and adopt modern, widely accepted practices that work well throughout the United States. Hopefully this action will serve as a wake-up call to our legislators, and to those officials who stubbornly resist accommodating Second Amendment rights. If they don’t reform, reform will come through litigation.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a non-profit legal defense fund for California gun owners. The Calguns foundation works to educate government and the public and protect the rights of individuals to own and lawfully use firearms in California.

A copy of the complaint (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf) is available:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf

Case progress will be available on the case's wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness).

-Gene

Gray Peterson
05-05-2009, 12:57 PM
First post! Good job on getting Sykes on board.

tmuller
05-05-2009, 12:58 PM
Whoa!!! This is great....feels like a flood of activity lately. Thanks and keep up the good work! Donation inbound.

DDT
05-05-2009, 12:59 PM
Congrats!!

I'm very excited to see CGF stepping in front of the parade. Some of the folks threatening to challenge this in the criminal justice system scared the bejeezus out of me.

hoffmang
05-05-2009, 1:00 PM
You all may remember Ms. Sykes from this story (http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1720695.html) in The Sacramento Bee.

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2009/03/22/20/494-1M23CONCEALED.standalone.prod_affiliate.4.JPG

-Gene

SigShooter
05-05-2009, 1:00 PM
When it rains... IT POURS!

Look out America, California wants back in!

yellowfin
05-05-2009, 1:03 PM
Holy shnikies! I guess it will be easier for CA to write them one big massive check instead of 3 or 4 at once for the Roster challenge and others, eh? :jump:

Standard
05-05-2009, 1:03 PM
Great news!

lioneaglegriffin
05-05-2009, 1:09 PM
so were working the handgun bag for all its worth i see. i'll be turning 21 soon and i appreciate all your efforts.

HunterJim
05-05-2009, 1:09 PM
Gene,

Requesting that 12050 be declared unconstitutional is way cool!

This action is keeping my April 20th 2nd Amendment in California smile going on my face. ;)

My May contribution is on its way to you guys, and keep up the good work.

jim

Prc329
05-05-2009, 1:12 PM
Wow, talking about picking the right plaintiffs. This case and the safe handgun case are very well planned and thought out. I would love to be a fly on the wall in Gene's office.

PatriotnMore
05-05-2009, 1:12 PM
Beautiful, great news. CalGun is on my monthly donation list, I hope everyone else will do the same by donating what they can, each month.

lazyworm
05-05-2009, 1:15 PM
Very happy to see us on the offensive. AWB next? :)

CCWFacts
05-05-2009, 1:15 PM
EXCELLENT! A classic Gura and team nuclear strike, especially in the plaintiffs selection.

I'm glad this is being done so quickly because it's plain to me that there will be a bunch of pro se CCW cases coming up also, and the last thing we need is to have someone like Gary Gorski making CCW case law in this state.

DDT
05-05-2009, 1:15 PM
That just sounds sooooooo.... sweet.

Defendants are propagating customs, policies, and practices that violate Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

bwiese
05-05-2009, 1:15 PM
Wow, talking about picking the right plaintiffs. This case and the safe handgun case are very well planned and thought out. I would love to be a fly on the wall in Gene's office.

Um, Gene keeps an eye out for insects and bugs of all kinds.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
05-05-2009, 1:15 PM
I'm manic-giddy.

hoffmang
05-05-2009, 1:17 PM
I hope I don't have to remind everyone that freedom isn't free. Please donate (http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate).

"Good Cause" and "moral character" means not prohibited. This document from 1789 says so.

-Gene

spyderco monkey
05-05-2009, 1:18 PM
You guys rock! As soon as I can find another job, I'm sending in a donation :thumbsup:

adamsreeftank
05-05-2009, 1:18 PM
WOOT WOOT



:79:

Hopi
05-05-2009, 1:21 PM
When it rains... IT POURS!

Look out America, California wants back in!

LOL.

+1.


Kudos CGF!

double_action
05-05-2009, 1:21 PM
Very nice!

nat
05-05-2009, 1:22 PM
Great news! Thank you for all the effort!

shirow
05-05-2009, 1:24 PM
Unleash the TSUNAMI!

You guys rock!

(I better get off my butt and DONATE!)

sierratangofoxtrotunion
05-05-2009, 1:26 PM
filed a lawsuit

In what court?

pwall
05-05-2009, 1:27 PM
$$$ inbound...

DDT
05-05-2009, 1:28 PM
In what court?

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

It's right on the cover leaf of the complaint. It's a good read, download it.

7x57
05-05-2009, 1:28 PM
Jumpin' Jehosephat, Gene, you guys really *were* clawing at the bars just waiting to be let out of the cage, weren't you? :eek:

This is item #2 on the agenda, and it has taken all of fifteen days. By extrapolation, and we all know that extrapolation is extraordinarily accurate, the challenge to the CA AW ban will be filed on May 12 or 13th. ;)

However, the first challenge took ten days and the second five days after that, so there may have been a five-day bit of overhead to get the ball rolling. If so, then it should only take five days to begin the AW ban suit. Since you can't file on Sunday, that means the filing will be Monday May 11th. ;)

While the term blitzkreig has already come up, I'd like to propose that this be termed the "Shock And Awe" campaign. :43:

:party:

:jump:

7x57

hoffmang
05-05-2009, 1:28 PM
In what court?

The complaint is at the bottom of the first post, but the answer is US District Court, Eastern District of California.

-Gene

wildhawker
05-05-2009, 1:29 PM
All I can do is smile and laugh... and donate.

Another great job, CGF. Lindz will be especially happy to hear ;)

Nodda Duma
05-05-2009, 1:30 PM
Awesome! Can't wait to see what's yet in store as part of your "blitzkrieg"!

:thumbsup:

-Jason

unusedusername
05-05-2009, 1:32 PM
Two Weeks! :party:

yellowfin
05-05-2009, 1:36 PM
:nuke: So we're calling this one Nagasaki? :nuke:

10001110101
05-05-2009, 1:37 PM
I hope I don't have to remind everyone that freedom isn't free. Please donate (http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate).

Another $200 on the way, bill paid this time so you don't have to share with PayPal. :D

timdps
05-05-2009, 1:38 PM
Donation sent.:thumbsup:

Get 'em guys!:26:

tim

DDT
05-05-2009, 1:38 PM
:nuke: So we're calling this one Nagasaki? :nuke:

Fat Man. Little Boy was the Roster.

SunriseF150
05-05-2009, 1:39 PM
Best of luck on the case. This is wonderful news. Thanks to all you guys for what you are doing.

7x57
05-05-2009, 1:40 PM
:nuke: So we're calling this one Nagasaki? :nuke:

Heh. Yeah, but then what are we going to call the third lawsuit (which, as I've infallibly calculated, will come no later than the middle of next week)? Ivy Mike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike)?

7x57

domokun
05-05-2009, 1:40 PM
:nuke: So we're calling this one Nagasaki? :nuke:

Fat Man. Little Boy was the Roster.

Nah....the real one is when the CA AWB falls along with the "large-capacity" magazine ban. :43:

peepshowal
05-05-2009, 1:42 PM
I hope I don't have to remind everyone that freedom isn't free. Please donate (http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate).

"Good Cause" and "moral character" means not prohibited. This document from 1789 says so.

-Gene
Thank you Gene, The Calguns Foundation, The Second Amendment Foundation, and all those involved!!! Will donate more as budget allows.

DDT
05-05-2009, 1:43 PM
Nah....the real one is when the CA AWB falls along with the "large-capacity" magazine ban. :43:

Codename: Dresden

Legasat
05-05-2009, 1:43 PM
Go get `em Gene.

I'll be donating as soon as possible.

GMONEY
05-05-2009, 1:44 PM
I wonder what the Orange County Sheriff is gonna do when she see's this! I love it!

vrand
05-05-2009, 1:44 PM
That just sounds sooooooo.... sweet.

Declaratory relief that the “good moral character” and “good cause” provisions of
California Penal Code § 12050 are unconstitutional either on their face and/or as applied to bar
applicants who are otherwise legally qualified to possess firearms and who assert self-defense as
their “good cause” for seeking a handgun carry permit;

yummy :thumbsup:

trilogy
05-05-2009, 1:44 PM
Once again thanks for everything :thumbsup:

--Matt

wildhawker
05-05-2009, 1:47 PM
Nah....the real one is when the CA AWB falls along with the "large-capacity" magazine ban. :43:

+1, and especially when we (eventually) go after "anal sex (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=175873)" NFA items.

GenLee
05-05-2009, 1:50 PM
:jump:

CHS
05-05-2009, 1:53 PM
When Gene says Blitzkrieg, he MEANS blitzkrieg!

I have never in my life been more proud to be a natural-born Californian.

(Even though I was raised in Arizona..)

Blackhawk556
05-05-2009, 1:53 PM
Excellent hopefully this all this is resolved in less than a year, that would be great. (May be a christmas present :) )

I know it won't but dreaming is the only thing free in this world.

jb7706
05-05-2009, 2:00 PM
Thank you for giving hope to the unwashed masses, esp. those of us in no issue counties.

Sac County currently puts a 1000 foot CCW no go zone around schools, not even a "reasonably should have known" clause. A CCW with that kind of "reasonable" restriction is nearly useless in urban areas. Will this suit seek to address that as well?

Thank you, from me and my family. With luck I will be able to have the tools necessary to defend them in public and regain that lost part of my responsibility. I'll be able to bring my boys up as free self reliant men able to defend themselves and their family, and that means the world to me.

Added monthly contribution via bill pay.

DDT
05-05-2009, 2:00 PM
no roster + good ccw law = Wesson bobtail (or CCO)

Hopi
05-05-2009, 2:00 PM
Wait a minute.....Is one of those plaintiffs our own Ohsmily?

Adam Richards, a Northern California attorney, would also exercise his right to bear arms in self- defense. But the Yolo County Sheriff’s policy on gun permit applications is: don’t bother. “How can the Sheriff tell whether I am capable of responsibly exercising my Second Amendment rights, when he doesn’t even acknowledge that these rights exist?”

unusedusername
05-05-2009, 2:01 PM
Excellent hopefully this all this is resolved in less than a year, that would be great. (May be a christmas present :) )

I know it won't but dreaming is the only thing free in this world.

Yeah, maybe we will get lucky and have the initial hearing before the end of this year :p

Nordyke took what, 12 years?

I'm hoping the we get CCW sometime in my lifetime.

7x57
05-05-2009, 2:04 PM
When Gene says Blitzkrieg, he MEANS blitzkrieg!


Heh. Clearly Nordyke was the breakthrough in the line, and the armored divisions are now pouring through the gap toward unprotected high-value rear-area assets. :43:

7x57

Hans Gruber
05-05-2009, 2:05 PM
Doesn't the nature of the suit (ie civil rights violated) qualify us for some sort of an expedited court schedule?

After all, if the state legislature passed a law to round up all of the redheads and stick em in internment camps, I'd think that they'd have an emergency injunction before all of the gingers go bye bye right?

[ETA: Holy crap! I forgot to mention ~ WOOT! Atta guys ;) ]

PolishMike
05-05-2009, 2:07 PM
Thanks guys!

petey
05-05-2009, 2:08 PM
I've been out of the country these past few weeks, taking in some of the sights of Europe, and visiting the battlefields where our soldiers gave there all.

I returned home, to find victory with Nordyke vs. Alameda, the upcoming challenge to the handgun roster, and now this! Once I get my credit cards figured out, another donation is in order (unless you take Euro's!)

HowardW56
05-05-2009, 2:08 PM
Gene, et al


My hats off to you.... Talk about taking a bull by the horns, you've got a couple of them there...:thumbsup:

I just made my third donation in the last week. They aren't large, business is terribly slow, but I'll keep adding as I can...

7x57
05-05-2009, 2:09 PM
Sac County currently puts a 1000 foot CCW no go zone around schools, not even a "reasonably should have known" clause. A CCW with that kind of "reasonable" restriction is nearly useless in urban areas. Will this suit seek to address that as well?

I can't see how, especially as it is mentioned nowhere in the complaint.

But that would be jumping the gun anyway. This suit, I think, is designed to establish the basic right to carry for self-protection, without such distractions. It will be needed for a challenge to such carry restrictions at some later date, I'd think.

This is moving at the speed of light, folks, let's not get ahead of ourselves (or more importantly, ahead of The Right People).

7x57

HowardW56
05-05-2009, 2:10 PM
I've been out of the country these past few weeks, taking in some of the sights of Europe, and visiting the battlefields where our soldiers gave there all.

I returned home, to find victory with Nordyke vs. Alameda, the upcoming challenge to the handgun roster, and now this! Once I get my credit cards figured out, another donation is in order (unless you take Euro's!)

Based on the current exchange rate, I bet they would take EUROs...

hoffmang
05-05-2009, 2:11 PM
Wait a minute.....Is one of those plaintiffs our own Ohsmily?

We have a sharp eyed winner!

Happy Cinco de Mayo. May California's gun laws play the part of the French.

Now I admit, it took us two weeks plus a day...

-Gene

Hopi
05-05-2009, 2:12 PM
We have a sharp eyed winner!

Happy Cinco de Mayo. May California's gun laws play the part of the French.

Now I admit, it took us two weeks plus a day...

-Gene

I was wondering why Adam had been so quiet lately....he held his tongue like a superstar!

Well done all around! Seriously. I owe you guys a round of drinks, or two.

DDT
05-05-2009, 2:12 PM
I would think that if 12050 is stricken the sheriff's right to levy restrictions on the CCW would also go away. We "should" end up with a standard CCW policy and law across CA.

GenLee
05-05-2009, 2:13 PM
Wait a minute.....Is one of those plaintiffs our own Ohsmily?

Well at least we know there won't be any GRAMMER errors.:thumbsup:

7x57
05-05-2009, 2:13 PM
Now I admit, it took us two weeks plus a day...


Slowpokes. Only two lawsuits in two weeks? Did you come here to litigate or just have drinks at the bar? :rolleyes:

7x57

DDT
05-05-2009, 2:14 PM
Well at least we know there won't be any GRAMMER errors.:thumbsup:

or speeling errors?

CaliforniaCarry
05-05-2009, 2:17 PM
Donation inbound as soon as I get paid. :thumbsup:

mossy
05-05-2009, 2:18 PM
whoo great news, keep up the fight and dont let up till we win

johnny_22
05-05-2009, 2:20 PM
I hope I don't have to remind everyone that freedom isn't free. Please donate (http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate).

"Good Cause" and "moral character" means not prohibited. This document from 1789 says so.

-Gene


$100 donated. Will try to do that more often.

CHS
05-05-2009, 2:21 PM
I like the fact that the suit is being brought against the Sheriff's in their official capacity, and their individual as well.

Is that common for a civil rights violation suit like this?


*STILL GIDDY!*

hoffmang
05-05-2009, 2:23 PM
I like the fact that the suit is being brought against the Sheriff's in their official capacity, and their individual as well.

Is that common for a civil rights violation suit like this?

Yes. That is how 42 USC 1983 works.

-Gene

N6ATF
05-05-2009, 2:24 PM
So it seems as if SAF & CGF found a nexus of plaintiffs to bring this suit in the closest district court (Sac. division) to their residences, and somewhat close to Kilmer's San Jose office.

The declaratory relief against 12050 would benefit all Californians.

darkshier
05-05-2009, 2:32 PM
This is just great. Go Calguns!

jb7706
05-05-2009, 2:33 PM
This is moving at the speed of light, folks, let's not get ahead of ourselves (or more importantly, ahead of The Right People).

7x57

I'm not trying to get ahead, more trying to understand what the limits of this case would be.

I am not bashing or being negative, so please don't flame me for this. I think that unless/until the "reasonable restriction" clause is either strictly defined or removed it will be used to make CCW's for we Sac County and other no issue county residents next to useless in the very places we need them most.

If 1000' is reasonable, who's to say the 2000' isn't? Why not add public buildings and parks to the list? It is just too easy for LEO to make that piece of paper useless while that language exists in its current form.

If this suit will not/cannot address that and later steps need to be taken that is OK and I am willing to contribute what I can to that fight. I just don't want to get my hopes up too high, if you catch my drift.

Mike Dicta
05-05-2009, 2:34 PM
Excellent work.

M. D. Van Norman
05-05-2009, 2:36 PM
Outstanding! Keep the pressure on, and the money will keep coming in.

7x57
05-05-2009, 2:38 PM
If this suit will not/cannot address that and later steps need to be taken that is OK and I am willing to contribute what I can to that fight. I just don't want to get my hopes up too high, if you catch my drift.

I can't see how it would affect it in any way directly--in fact, the complaint accepts the "sensitive places" doctrine so I think it specifically takes that off the table. I can guess why they need to do that.

I can think of two indirect effects, but don't know the magnitudes. One is that, especially if we win, the antis could turn to the "sensitive places" doctrine to replace the sticks that have been taken off the table, so we could see a lot more such things. On the other hand, if it is perceived that unreasonable use of "sensitive places" just leads to a losing lawsuit later, perhaps this could have some chilling effect on the people who so far have been hoping that the Brady's were right that Heller didn't, after all, mean much.

But maybe an actual lawyer could do a better job guessing than me. :-)

7x57

CCWFacts
05-05-2009, 2:39 PM
Yes (they can come after the sheriffs as individuals). That is how 42 USC 1983 works.

Unfortunately, I assume these guys have big personal liability policies, probably also paid by the taxpayers, so they have little risk of losing their houses over this kind of thing. I wonder if, someday, insurers will start telling LEOs that they want LEOs to start making sane decisions in this area.

I also assume that the big-city sheriffs will spend unlimited amounts of money fighting this issue, even if it means layoffs of deputies and so on. That's a bummer for the residents and taxpayers of their counties, but it actually helps us to establish this as binding case law.

The most common (dishonest) excuse for not issuing is "we don't issue because of liability". Ha ha ha ha.

wildhawker
05-05-2009, 2:43 PM
Why convolute and muddy the waters with issues better resolved in other cases/challenges? Many clear and simple wins will bring about comprehensive victory.

MP301
05-05-2009, 2:44 PM
Joining Calguns was in the top 10 best thing I ever did. We are in exciting times my friends. More money inbound as it becomes available! Game on!

7x57
05-05-2009, 2:47 PM
The most common (dishonest) excuse for not issuing is "we don't issue because of liability". Ha ha ha ha.

Two things: first of all, that could be good--it means that if there is some liability the other way, the dominoes just start falling of their own accord without knocking each one over with another lawsuit.

But I learned something interesting about the "liability" excuse once. It's not entirely an excuse. When one city CoP had it pointed out to him that under CA law he is entirely protected from liability in this matter, his response was that if he issued and there was a frivolous lawsuit about some incident involving a CCW holder, he would have to explain to the city council that he'd spent $$$ on the defense *even if it was a certain win.* On the other hand, if he didn't issue, that couldn't happen.

IOW, the brokenness of our legal system creates actual liability even where there is no formal liability for CLEOs just as it does for us. We have the problem that we can go broke asserting a right the law guarantees us--and CLEOs can get in trouble for something very similar.

The good news is that this too can work both ways. If there is significant risk that CLEOs will have to explain to the city council that they spent $$$ defending their "no issue" policy, again the dominoes start falling among all the many CLEOs who in fact don't care either way about our issue but want to keep the city council happy. That means we only end up having to sue a few of the hard-core antis.

And I have some hope that this lawsuit could in fact start knocking over all those dominoes. :43:

7x57

7x57
05-05-2009, 2:48 PM
Why convolute and muddy the waters with issues better resolved in other cases/challenges? Many clear and simple wins will bring about comprehensive victory.

Now that's wisdom for the ages.

7x57

PolishMike
05-05-2009, 2:48 PM
heres to you guys -

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=180962

Glock22Fan
05-05-2009, 2:51 PM
You all may remember Ms. Sykes from this story (http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1720695.html) in The Sacramento Bee.

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2009/03/22/20/494-1M23CONCEALED.standalone.prod_affiliate.4.JPG

-Gene

State scientist Deanna Sykes believes her sexual orientation and small stature makes her an appealing target for criminals, particularly as she often transports firearms as a competitive shooter and firearms instructor


Might do even better if she learned to keep both eyes open.

Congratulations to everyone involved!

hoffmang
05-05-2009, 2:51 PM
Unfortunately, I assume these guys have big personal liability policies, probably also paid by the taxpayers, so they have little risk of losing their houses over this kind of thing.


The County indemnifies them on things like this. It's a form over substance thing.

-Gene

7x57
05-05-2009, 2:55 PM
Might do even better if she learned to keep both eyes open.


Not if she's ambiguously dominant, center-dominant, or in any other way something besides totally dominant on one side or the other. And apparently that's much more common among women than men.

I'm ambiguously dominant myself, and it takes me too long to identify which of the images I should be using if I keep both eyes open. You have to be totally dominant for one of the images to be edited out by the brain.

7x57

Untamed1972
05-05-2009, 2:55 PM
I just wanted to give you guys a HUGH THUMBS UP!!! :thumbsup:

Barbarossa
05-05-2009, 2:56 PM
Please tell me that upon a positive outcome, you guys are looking at Alameda next.

(Where is the begging icon?)

Wish I could send financial support right now.

Hopi
05-05-2009, 2:58 PM
I just wanted to give you guys a HUGH THUMBS UP!!! :thumbsup:

oh...

http://www.etonline.com/media/photo/2009/04/88948/400_hjackman_090427_86255170.jpg

Davidoff
05-05-2009, 3:01 PM
I have been moved by the awesomeness of the latest events, so I have set up a small bi-weekly donation to the CGF (every TWO WEEKS!!). It's not much, but it will have to do until I'm done with school.

Thank you so much to all of those involved in this amazing effort.

kermit315
05-05-2009, 3:02 PM
Great work guys. It makes me proud to be associated with you guys, even if through a website only.

FreshTapCoke
05-05-2009, 3:03 PM
Wow, history in the making.

Gene and the Right People, you have literally brought tears to my eyes.


Thank you to all of those who also contribute to the CGF. Let's run these anti-civil rights policies and the people who prop them up out on a rail.

lobonegro
05-05-2009, 3:05 PM
Awesome news! Glad to know that we are filing winners before some loser muddies the water. Donation inbound!

DigitalAmmunition
05-05-2009, 3:05 PM
+1

The past month has been amazing!

Roadrunner
05-05-2009, 3:05 PM
I sure wish I knew what was going through the defendants minds. I would bet that they are wondering who's bank rolling this campaign, and how are they getting the funding.

In another thread I wondered where the next Concord bridge would be. Apparently, it's in Redwood City.

Oh By the way,

http://web.mit.edu/ryangray/Public/Gnus/thumbs_up.jpg

Glock22Fan
05-05-2009, 3:06 PM
Not if she's ambiguously dominant, center-dominant, or in any other way something besides totally dominant on one side or the other. And apparently that's much more common among women than men.

I'm ambiguously dominant myself, and it takes me too long to identify which of the images I should be using if I keep both eyes open. You have to be totally dominant for one of the images to be edited out by the brain.

7x57

I did say "might." I didn't realize that it was that common or that women were particularly prone to this. None of my students have ever had any problem determining which eye is dominant, though I do get a few who are cross-dominant (right handed, left eyed, or reverse) as is my wife.

RomanDad
05-05-2009, 3:14 PM
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

soundwave
05-05-2009, 3:17 PM
Donation sent.

Thank you to CGF!!!!!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

ohsmily
05-05-2009, 3:18 PM
I just wanted to give you guys a HUGH THUMBS UP!!! :thumbsup:

oh...

http://www.etonline.com/media/photo/2009/04/88948/400_hjackman_090427_86255170.jpg

Win.

DRM6000
05-05-2009, 3:19 PM
AWESOME! Good job guys!

Old Fud
05-05-2009, 3:19 PM
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.
To me, CCW is "The" core issue.
I am outraged that society believes I must
A) BEG my local police chief for permission to arm myself, and
B) In the process, PROVE that my need is extra-ordinary and makes me a SPECIAL person.

Both notions are beyond vile. They must end.
I'm so grateful that you have put this high on the list of things to be done.

I now know that I will be able to walk into that man's office and demand my right to do so in my lifetime.
I've lived with a sour stomach over this issue a long time. I can wait awhile longer, but is means so much to know the day will come.

I don't do paypal. As soon as I post this, I shall explore the "Mail a check" option.

RP1911
05-05-2009, 3:20 PM
I'm on the road this week. When I get back, another sizeable donation will be made.

Good work.

rips31
05-05-2009, 3:22 PM
or ess eff's! :thumbsup:

I wonder what the Orange County Sheriff is gonna do when she see's this! I love it!

rips31
05-05-2009, 3:22 PM
and her finger off the trigger (esp since this is for a promo shot).

great job gene & co!

Might do even better if she learned to keep both eyes open.

Congratulations to everyone involved!

Hans Gruber
05-05-2009, 3:25 PM
I sure wish I knew what was going through the defendants minds. I would bet that they are wondering who's bank rolling this campaign, and how are they getting the funding.


This... Hoffmang.
Where does he come from?
Who are his people?
These are the things I need to know.

http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/2004_The_Chronicles_of_Riddick/004TCR_Colm_Feore_008.jpg

Pardon my geek sidetrack...

fd15k
05-05-2009, 3:26 PM
donated!

sfpcservice
05-05-2009, 3:27 PM
Ahh, the one I've been waiting for!!!!!!! BIG HUGE thanks to Calguns and SAF!

guns_and_labs
05-05-2009, 3:27 PM
Another donation inbound.

Barbarossa
05-05-2009, 3:28 PM
I guess we should order a CCW holster before the rush? :thumbsup:

yellowfin
05-05-2009, 3:31 PM
So right now any sheriff candidate who isn't pro CCW can be marked as a serious financial liability for the counties...

Roadrunner
05-05-2009, 3:36 PM
So right now any sheriff candidate who isn't pro CCW can be marked as a serious financial liability for the counties...

I would say that's a big AFFIRMATIVE!

Someone said that the Chiefs and Sheriff's can't be held liable for issuing CCW's. So after this, can they be held liable for not issuing?

DDT
05-05-2009, 3:36 PM
If/when we win this one there should be no need to file a lawsuit in each county. 2 of the requests for relief are based on invalidating the “good moral character” and “good cause” portions of 12050. If these portions of the law are invalidated for Sacramento and Yolo Counties they are also invalidated for all counties as PC 12050 is a state law.

Now, I'm not saying there won't be suits necessary in some counties (Sf and LA come to mind) to force compliance or get them to actually make applications available and process them in a timely fashion but the relief against enforcement of “good moral character” and “good cause” will hold for ALL CALIFORNIANS.

JDay
05-05-2009, 3:37 PM
You all may remember Ms. Sykes from this story (http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1720695.html) in The Sacramento Bee.

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2009/03/22/20/494-1M23CONCEALED.standalone.prod_affiliate.4.JPG

-Gene

Whats up with her trigger finger? That's just the kind of example we need in the media.

7x57
05-05-2009, 3:38 PM
I did say "might."


So you did. :) I just assumed that since she's an experienced shooter she already knows how she shoots best.


I didn't realize that it was that common or that women were particularly prone to this. None of my students have ever had any problem determining which eye is dominant, though I do get a few who are cross-dominant (right handed, left eyed, or reverse) as is my wife.

This is a subject I would like to discuss with more instructors, and as I start to do instruction myself I'm going to pay close attention to. There is some extremely interesting discussion in my stock fitting book that insists that the simple left/right rule we were all told is far too simple, and that is the source of my statement that women and children are rarely completely dominant as (he says) men so often are. He mentions a *lot* of subtleties that I have never heard elsewhere--that for some people (including the author himself) dominance can change for certain shots and angles and conditions. So he cautions the reader particularly on trying to force youth and women to keep both eyes open without

I have a guess that this has to do with hemisphere separation--women have less hemisphere separation than men do, and my guess is that this goes along with that. I should find out when the greater hemisphere separation develops in men, that might help explain why he says youth tend to be like women and not like adult men in terms of dominance.

Anyway, sometime I want to closely question a completely dominant shooter on what they see, because I believe it is different than what I see. I am slightly right-eye dominant, but so slightly that I can make every test I know of come out either way with equal comfort. With both eyes open I will see either two front sights or two targets, depending on where I'm focused, and both are equally distinct and usable. It took a long time for me to really be certain that I have a slight preference for the right, and frankly it may not even matter for shooting purposes. I have slightly better vision in the right eye, and it's even possible that I am neurologically left-dominant but have learned to depend on the right eye because of the slightly better vision.

The upshot is that in every case I'm aware of I'm always better off closing one eye. I'm not a great shotgun shooter, however, and it's possible that there I can do the two-eyes thing.

Whoops, I forgot to add an icon:

:threadjacked:

Back to the real topic.

7x57

Roadrunner
05-05-2009, 3:39 PM
Whats up with her trigger finger? That's just the kind of example we need in the media.

Maybe she is getting ready to shoot and this picture was taken at a safe distance with a telephoto lens.

DDT
05-05-2009, 3:39 PM
Whats up with her trigger finger? That's just the kind of example we need in the media.

Did it occur to you that it might be a remote camera taking pictures while she is actually shooting?

Let's give firearms trainers the benefit of the doubt.

This thread should be about celebrating a big move to restoring our 2A rights, not about dumping on someone when you don't even know the whole story.

7x57
05-05-2009, 3:40 PM
So right now any sheriff candidate who isn't pro CCW can be marked as a serious financial liability for the counties...

Oh, I certainly hope so, I certainly hope so. It's up to Alan and Don to prove it. Well, them and James Madison.

7x57

RRangel
05-05-2009, 3:50 PM
Might do even better if she learned to keep both eyes open.

Congratulations to everyone involved!

That's useful for close combat, not long range target shooting. What she's shooting at we don't know, but I'm betting both eyes aren't necessary.

Stormfeather
05-05-2009, 4:05 PM
This... Hoffmang.
Where does he come from?
Who are his people?
These are the things I need to know....

Theres quite a few people, wearing shiny badges, sitting behind an oak desk in county offices all throughout the state, this very second. . . thinking the very same thing. . . . wondering. . . "who is he?". . . "what did I do to him to deserve this?". . . . . "and am I next in line for a lawsuit?"

Let The Fear Begin.

timdps
05-05-2009, 4:06 PM
I don't do paypal. As soon as I post this, I shall explore the "Mail a check" option.

I kind of like the irony of using anti-gun PayPal to bring down California's absurd gun laws...:thumbsup:

tim

bruss01
05-05-2009, 4:07 PM
Mrs. bruss01 says to Gene "Rock on!"

sorensen440
05-05-2009, 4:10 PM
This is the big one in my eyes
Woo hoo !!!

Cru Jones
05-05-2009, 4:10 PM
I kind of like the irony of using anti-gun PayPal to bring down California's absurd gun laws...:thumbsup:

tim

I never thought about that. Good point. Another donation inbound! Thanks CGF.

bruss01
05-05-2009, 4:17 PM
Mrs. bruss01 says to Gene "Rock on!"

Wife hijacked my keyboard LOL!!

Guys, I'm so impressed with the stellar work being done. You are costing me money, when I get paid day after next two TWO hefty donations will be headed your way. I'll be pretty broke for a while but guess what... it's well worth every cent. I love having problems like this when they come in such a BEAUTIFUL wrapper!

Glock22Fan
05-05-2009, 4:25 PM
I guess we should order a CCW holster before the rush? :thumbsup:

I ordered mine (TTGunleather.com) at the beginning of March. Hope to get it early July.

HowardW56
05-05-2009, 4:45 PM
I kind of like the irony of using anti-gun PayPal to bring down California's absurd gun laws...:thumbsup:

tim

Me too....

joe4702
05-05-2009, 4:50 PM
Excellent!

Gunaria
05-05-2009, 4:54 PM
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Go get em.

Gray Peterson
05-05-2009, 4:59 PM
Riddick: You made three mistakes. First, you took the job. Second, you came light. A four man crew for me? *#*+-@@ insulting. But the worst mistake you made... [Toombs darts for the gun rack which he finds to be empty while Riddick smiles]. Riddick: ...empty gun rack"

Toombs is McGinness. Whether Gene or Gura is Riddick is an open question...

Joe
05-05-2009, 5:01 PM
I cant believe I missed this thread until now. This is awesome news. Great job all involved parties! Thank you for your hard work.

Maestro Pistolero
05-05-2009, 5:12 PM
I've been meaning to chip in a bit, finally did, wish it could be more.
THANK YOU

pdq_wizzard
05-05-2009, 5:17 PM
$ sent thanks Gene :thumbsup:

not much but it is what I can do right now.

B Strong
05-05-2009, 5:17 PM
It just keeps getting better, thanks to "the right people" and the CGF.

Go get 'em Gene!

megavolt121
05-05-2009, 5:17 PM
Can someone please give me the address to the Brady Bunch and Alison M?

I'd like to donate two Costco sized bottles of Aleve to each of them :-D

sholling
05-05-2009, 5:20 PM
I hope I don't have to remind everyone that freedom isn't free. Please donate (http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate).

On the way.

blackberg
05-05-2009, 5:20 PM
again..
Sweet!

-bb

2009_gunner
05-05-2009, 5:21 PM
ho ho ho! It's Christmas EVERY week on calguns.net! This is too cool.

yellowfin
05-05-2009, 5:25 PM
I wonder what it's going to look like when Laurie Smith is being sued by 2-3 people every day of the week for 2-3 years straight.

Maestro Pistolero
05-05-2009, 5:26 PM
(IANAL) Is the complaint the opening salvo, so to speak? And then there are presumably opportunities for both sides to make their arguments, and supporting documents, etc?

The complaint is pretty much straight to the point and very direct about carrying in public, something that was outside the scope of Heller. Is there a gap there that needs to be bridged for the court, and is the 'keep and bear' definition in dicta from Heller going to be binding, admissable, and relevant?

JTecalo
05-05-2009, 5:29 PM
Good God Almighty...

this calls for the Walter Huston dance!!!

tube_ee
05-05-2009, 5:35 PM
I did say "might." I didn't realize that it was that common or that women were particularly prone to this. None of my students have ever had any problem determining which eye is dominant, though I do get a few who are cross-dominant (right handed, left eyed, or reverse) as is my wife.

It's more than just that. Not only am I strongly cross-dominant (very left-eyed, and so right-handed that I cannot shoot safely left-handed), but my eye dominance is distance dependent. The switchover point is about as far away from my head as a shotgun's bead.

If I shoot with both eyes open and unobstructed, I see two shotguns, pointing about 45 degrees off the line of sight, and crossing at about 2/3s down the barrel.

Back on topic, having an out lesbian woman, certified firearms instructor, and Pink Pistols leader, for a court case in California, is absolutely brilliant.

Plaintiff selection is proving to be one of the keys to victory, and Gene and the gang nailed it here.

Donations inbound as soon as I find a job... assuming that my wife doesn't lose hers first.... she's a teacher in a relatively poor district.

--Shannon

Swatter911
05-05-2009, 5:49 PM
Great work guys! My first donation will be incoming when I get paid Thursday. I have always believed that LEOs have nothing to fear from armed , law abiding citizens.

AlexDD
05-05-2009, 5:52 PM
Awesome news. :thumbsup:

I hope I don't have to remind everyone that freedom isn't free. Please donate...

-Gene

Love being part of Calguns. Setting up a monthly donation from my account.

Keep moving forward!

N6ATF
05-05-2009, 5:57 PM
Can someone please give me the address to the Brady Bunch and Alison M?

I'd like to donate two Costco sized bottles of Aleve to each of them :-D

I'd just let them suffer, a small fraction of the punishment they deserve.

RomanDad
05-05-2009, 6:02 PM
Can someone please give me the address to the Brady Bunch and Alison M?

I'd like to donate two Costco sized bottles of Aleve to each of them :-D

Lets not start gloating yet.....

Fjold
05-05-2009, 6:06 PM
Is there a way to get the bank account number so I can just set up an automatic transfer every month for donations without going through Paypal?

If you could PM me the info, I'll set it up when I get back from my business trip.

aileron
05-05-2009, 6:11 PM
Good news indeed, donated. :)

Librarian
05-05-2009, 6:17 PM
Sheesh. I go outta town for the day, and all Heaven breaks loose.

Quick update added to Wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/California_License_to_Carry_Concealed_Weapon_(CCW) #Legal_Challenge_to_effective_.27no-issue.27).

I'm gonna wear out my keyboard at this rate - worth it!

ke6guj
05-05-2009, 6:26 PM
Is there a way to get the bank account number so I can just set up an automatic transfer every month for donations without going through Paypal?
.

Wht many people have done is to set up an automatic bill-pay through their bank's website. I just have the bank send CGF a check.

We now have a new address (and a direct bank account) to accept donations to:

The Calguns Foundation
3200 Bridge Parkway Suite 202C
Redwood City, CA 94065

Now all you have to write on your check is "The Calguns Foundation." Please include your email address or Calguns handle so that we can send you thank you letter for your tax deduction once our 501(c) status is complete.

Alphahookups
05-05-2009, 6:32 PM
Awesome news. I am reading through the complaint and have reached my first question. It states, "Defendant X is sued in both his individual and official
capacities"...does this mean that he is being sued directly, so that any financial repercussions come out of his pocket?

If that's the case, this is awesome because if there is one thing the Sheriffs will respect, it's their money. If we can attack that, they will start issuing CCWs faster than a speeding bullet...pun intended :P

cousinkix1953
05-05-2009, 6:33 PM
The permits are valid state-wide! In that case one set of rules and standards should apply across the board. We don't need corrupt sheriffs (aka politicians) having the ability to reward their contributors with a CCW permit.

We don't need Hollywood movie stars packing guns; when ordinary people cannot do the same thing. Did Sean Penn lose his permit after thieves stole his car in Berkeley? This reckless fool provided those thieves with his 9mm Glock pistol and a .357 magnum revolver that were never recovered...

Fjold
05-05-2009, 6:36 PM
Wht many people have done is to set up an automatic bill-pay through their bank's website. I just have the bank send CGF a check.

Cool, thanks. I have to leave for LAX at 4:30 AM tomorrow morning. After I get home I'll set it up.

Quiet
05-05-2009, 6:39 PM
Excellent news.

Grumpyoldretiredcop
05-05-2009, 6:52 PM
Put a few $ in the kitty.

Saigon1965
05-05-2009, 7:13 PM
There's so much going on my head is spining - Go get em -

1JimMarch
05-05-2009, 7:17 PM
The complaint is pretty much straight to the point and very direct about carrying in public, something that was outside the scope of Heller. Is there a gap there that needs to be bridged for the court, and is the 'keep and bear' definition in dicta from Heller going to be binding, admissable, and relevant?

That "dicta" is backed by the 2A itself. Or to put it another way: how do you think a judge could separate the "keep" and "bear" portions of the 2A?

NO court has ever tried to create any such separation, in which somebody could "keep" but not "bear". Heller certainly didn't do so. Courts did try and say both rights were "collective" and that's now right out the window.

---

As to this case: first, I want to say well done. I do have some comments :).

In no particular order:

* I'd have preferred at least one minority plaintiff, stated as such, combined with a challenge to the racial discrimination aspects to CCW. That said, the GLBT angle will probably work almost as well.

* I love seeing that phrase "arbitrary and capricious" in there. That kicks in a HUGE body of case law.

* I think they picked the right courthouse - that Federal district is about the best choice you could get in Cali, Federal or state courts. In picking the county (and one city) defendants they chose very well within that geographic limitation: City of Davis is obviously sideways with the Salute v. Pitchess decision, Yolo County is a mess and Sacramento's sheriffs have a LONG history of outright corruption that might be brought into play. I'd be very interested in seeing if the Sacramento "Sheriff's Posse" system is still in place under Sheriff McGuiness.

* A claim might have been made that the security guard could boost his income via CCW, but in this particular case that won't work because when the guy had CCW, he didn't do that. A shame, but no criticism of the lawyers or case can be made on that basis.

For those not aware, under previous sheriffs the "Posse" in that county was still granted minimal law enforcement status, likely in violation of the minimum training requirements. And they used that as a smokescreen to keep about half of the permit roster's names secret, limiting the amount of CCW-linkable campaign contributions that could be discovered.

Sure looks the same as when I looked last:

http://www.sachorsemen.com/posse/posse.html

Note that Lobeer is an area attorney, and has the Posse membership roster. When I checked into this just before McGuinness took office, the Lt. in charge of the reserves didn't even have the Posse membership roster - yet I was given public records responses saying the Posse members were law enforcement therefore I couldn't have the names or other information of the Posse who held CCW.

That, folks, is a "secret police force" totally outside of any rational controls.

Even within that limitation I managed to track a hell of a lot of cash:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/sacmoney.pdf

What else...under Craig and esp. Blanas, there was a very high rate of CCW issuance to the local Greek community of which Blanas is a member. Some hay might be made out of that.

Major bonus points if they can get the Colafrancesco Papers into play:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/colafrancescopapers.pdf

:D

Liberty1
05-05-2009, 7:20 PM
Um, Gene keeps an eye out for insects and bugs of all kinds.

But does he conceal or open carry the fly swatter? Or is it OC with a BUS (back up swatter) in deep cover?!!

Nanook
05-05-2009, 7:21 PM
omgomgomgomgomg. As several have said, this is what I consider the Holy Grail of issues. A gun isn't much use if you can't have it on you. Thank you so much everyone involved.

And thanks to those who reminded me that I can cut checks from my bank's web site. While I appreciate the irony, I'd rather not give PayPal any more money than necessary. And look at it this way. Not only am I saving the 3% or whatever cut PayPal takes, to go to the people I want it to, I am saving ¢.42 on the stamp. Win win! Another donation sent, of course.

If someone with some knowledge has the time and inclination, would you explain in English what the hoped for results of this would be, and an imaginary timeline? For instance, if we win, would the counties involved have to change their policy to "shall issue?' What next steps would need to be taken in those or other counties to get to an effective "shall issue" state? And I am thinking specifically of Los Angeles, selfishly, of course... ;)

redneckshootist
05-05-2009, 7:26 PM
this is great news. yolo county ftw sweet

CCWFacts
05-05-2009, 7:34 PM
Awesome news. I am reading through the complaint and have reached my first question. It states, "Defendant X is sued in both his individual and official
capacities"...does this mean that he is being sued directly, so that any financial repercussions come out of his pocket?

Yes, but... his own pocket is also insured by the county, so everything he loses on that will be paid by the county's insurance policy. Too bad.

Looking at their choice of defendants, I can imagine why they picked Yolo. Yolo is probably quite politically conservative pro-RKBA, and Yolo's voters and supervisors will not be thrilled at the idea of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to deny someone his permit, when that money should be going to putting deputies on the street. So I imagine that Yolo will want to quit this suit, in other words, they will desert Sacramento. That's good, it makes Sacto's position seem weaker. "The other guy settled by agreeing to the demands, why don't you do it?"

At least that's my imagination.

I know that if they wanted some "we will never quit under any circumstances" defendants they would have sued against SF. My feeling is they want to get some victories. They bundle up one push-over (Yolo) with one moderate fighter (Sacto) to get those two counties to go shall-issue. That's a foundation for then hitting the tougher counties: LA and SF.

If that's the case, this is awesome because if there is one thing the Sheriffs will respect, it's their money. If we can attack that, they will start issuing CCWs faster than a speeding bullet...pun intended :P

I wish, but it will be the insurance company's money. However, a) the insurance companies might pressure their customers to change their practices to avoid being sued on this and b) the harder these guys fight, the more the premiums will go up. Budgets are tight for everyone these days, and ultimately that money comes from taxpayers, and is being squandered to fight against civil rights when it should be spent on public services.

1JimMarch
05-05-2009, 7:37 PM
Now let's ask another question:

Will Yolo cave in? Will they see the expense of this turkey of a case (from their point of view) and voluntarily reform?

Sacatomatos won't fold, but Yolo? They don't have pockets all that deep.

And...why not name the Davis PD Chief as a defendant? THEY might have folded up like a wet rag...

tombinghamthegreat
05-05-2009, 7:40 PM
OMG THIS IS AWESOME NEWS. The offensive is on....

nick
05-05-2009, 7:43 PM
Heh. Yeah, but then what are we going to call the third lawsuit (which, as I've infallibly calculated, will come no later than the middle of next week)? Ivy Mike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike)?

7x57

Not sure, but I'd love to live to see USS Missouri :)

yellowfin
05-05-2009, 7:48 PM
Couldn't the CGF site just use CashBox?

rtlltj
05-05-2009, 7:51 PM
Wow you guys are creating a tidal wave.:thumbsup: They are never going to know what hit them.

Liberty1
05-05-2009, 7:51 PM
I hope I don't have to remind everyone that freedom isn't free. Please donate (http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate).

"Good Cause" and "moral character" means not prohibited. This document from 1789 says so.

-Gene

Gene,

It would be great to have a visual of what is given to CGF (kinda like the Ron Paul money bomb idea). I think it would aid the fund raising effort.

Pledging $200 in the mail for this month on behalf of the TWO 2nd A. Lawsuits against California Tyranny!

Thank you ALL from the bottom of my heart. The lives of this peace officer's wife and children will be safer when I can 't be with them due to this effort (and mine too when my wife and all of you can back me up)! :thumbsup:

N6ATF
05-05-2009, 7:54 PM
Budgets are tight for everyone these days, and ultimately that money comes from taxpayers, and is being squandered to fight against civil rights when it should be spent on public services.

I don't see why they wouldn't just raise taxes by any means necessary, to further screw the taxpayers they rendered defenseless.

ke6guj
05-05-2009, 7:58 PM
Couldn't the CGF site just use CashBox?for what reason?

2009_gunner
05-05-2009, 8:02 PM
That "dicta" is backed by the 2A itself. Or to put it another way: how do you think a judge could separate the "keep" and "bear" portions of the 2A?

NO court has ever tried to create any such separation, in which somebody could "keep" but not "bear". Heller certainly didn't do so. Courts did try and say both rights were "collective" and that's now right out the window.


My reading of http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
is that the SCOTUS agrees with you that there is no separation. Thus my sig line from page 13 (pdf page 16) of the document.

swhatb
05-05-2009, 8:04 PM
That's GREAT!

BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and three California residents today filed a lawsuit seeking to vindicate the right to bear arms against arbitrary state infringement.

Nearly all states allow qualified law-abiding citizens to carry guns for self-defense, but a few states allow local officials to arbitrarily decide who may exercise this core Second Amendment right. In the action filed today, Plaintiffs challenge the policies of two California Sheriffs, in Sacramento and Yolo counties, who reject the basic human right of self defense by refusing to issue ordinary people gun carry permits. Of course, violent criminals in the impacted counties continue to carry guns without police permission.

State scientist Deanna Sykes believes her sexual orientation and small stature makes her an appealing target for criminals, particularly as she often transports firearms as a competitive shooter and firearms instructor. “I am highly qualified to defend myself against the sort of crime that the Sheriff cannot, despite his best efforts, completely eradicate,” Sykes said. “Violent crime is a real risk in our society, but happily, we enjoy the right to defend ourselves from it.”

Andrew Witham has over 15 years experience as a police officer in Britain, and is licensed to carry a firearm while working as a private investigator and campus public safety officer. But despite having been the target of death threats stemming from his work in security, Sheriff John McGinness saw to it that Witham’s license to carry a gun while away from work was revoked upon Witham’s relocation to Sacramento.

“I’m allowed to defend other people,” said Witham, “so why can’t I defend myself, where the Bill of Rights guarantees me that right?”

Adam Richards, a Northern California attorney, would also exercise his right to bear arms in self- defense. But the Yolo County Sheriff’s policy on gun permit applications is: don’t bother. “How can the Sheriff tell whether I am capable of responsibly exercising my Second Amendment rights, when he doesn’t even acknowledge that these rights exist?”

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, said, “It’s a shame that these Sheriffs don’t think that self-defense is a ‘good cause’ to exercise the right to bear arms, but we’re confident the Second Amendment reflects a better policy.”

Added co-counsel Donald Kilmer, “The California carry licensing system is being abused by some officials who are hostile to self-defense rights. The police can regulate the carrying of guns, and that includes preventing dangerous people from being armed. Complete deprivation of the right to bear arms, however, is not an option under our Constitution.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision last year in the Heller case shows that there is both a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “In most states, authorities do not deny a license to carry an operable firearm to any law-abiding applicant that completes training and a background check. This is also the practice throughout much of California. These two Sheriffs must respect the constitutional rights of their citizens to bear arms.”

“California is often a leader in so many ways, but our state lags badly in streamlining its firearms laws,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “We need 21st century gun laws that respect our Constitutional rights, and adopt modern, widely accepted practices that work well throughout the United States. Hopefully this action will serve as a wake-up call to our legislators, and to those officials who stubbornly resist accommodating Second Amendment rights. If they don’t reform, reform will come through litigation.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a non-profit legal defense fund for California gun owners. The Calguns foundation works to educate government and the public and protect the rights of individuals to own and lawfully use firearms in California.

A copy of the complaint (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf) is available:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
05-05-2009, 8:23 PM
Here's a fun retrospective video with Dennis Henigan from the Brady bunch, having a premonition of things to come! Watching it in the context of court challenges like this one is especially entertaining.

Note that this is post Parker, pre-Heller. I love how they now paint the Heller decision as if the whole point of it was to allow 'reasonable restrictions.'

Enjoy . . .

http://premium.fileden.com/premium/2...l%20length.wmv DEAD LINK NOW my apologies

hardway
05-05-2009, 8:26 PM
New member here. I've read this site for quite awhile though. I'm a life member and have always sent money to NRA and CRPA, but after the recent events spear headed by you guys I will be sending my first of many contributions to you guys tommorow morning. I'm a membership recuiter for the NRA as well and I will do everything I can to spread the word of the good work you guys are doing...Thank you very much...keep it up. Ryan

BobB35
05-05-2009, 8:28 PM
[QUOTE=1JimMarch;2431496]Now let's ask another question:

Will Yolo cave in? Will they see the expense of this turkey of a case (from their point of view) and voluntarily reform?

Sacatomatos won't fold, but Yolo? They don't have pockets all that deep.

And...why not name the Davis PD Chief as a defendant? THEY might have folded up like a wet rag...[/QUOTE

This couldn't come at a better time. Sac County is $185 million in the red this year alone and is looking at the Black hole of revenue. They are in no position to reasonably spend money fighting this battle (I am sure they will spend the money - just shouldn't). The county has already talked about cutting deputies. Just plays right into the case.

Should get interesting.....should get that last plaintiff and see what he has to say.

obeygiant
05-05-2009, 8:32 PM
Donation Sent! Thank you Gene, The Calguns Foundation and The Second Amendment Foundation!

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/593/buckthumbsup1.jpg

kermit315
05-05-2009, 8:33 PM
Now let's ask another question:

Will Yolo cave in? Will they see the expense of this turkey of a case (from their point of view) and voluntarily reform?

Sacatomatos won't fold, but Yolo? They don't have pockets all that deep.

And...why not name the Davis PD Chief as a defendant? THEY might have folded up like a wet rag...

question from a non legal minded guy: wouldnt it be better that they dont cave in, and try to fight it, so as to get case law on our side instead of a settlement?

ohsmily
05-05-2009, 8:38 PM
Now let's ask another question:

Will Yolo cave in? Will they see the expense of this turkey of a case (from their point of view) and voluntarily reform?

Sacatomatos won't fold, but Yolo? They don't have pockets all that deep.

And...why not name the Davis PD Chief as a defendant? THEY might have folded up like a wet rag...

Because the basis for their denial is essentially permitted pursuant to the PC (note they are a municipal/city police department, not the county authority).

1JimMarch
05-05-2009, 8:39 PM
question from a non legal minded guy: wouldnt it be better that they dont cave in, and try to fight it, so as to get case law on our side instead of a settlement?

I think a best-case scenario is SOME defendants cave, others don't.

We get the good case law from a win going all the way, BUT a lot of smaller agencies will see the handwriting on the wall and we'll get shall-issue in up to 1/4 of the state fairly soon.

Which in turn will make the obvious "disparity in treatment" thing even more obvious.

For an example of "you can't treat people across the state differently on a basic civil right", see also Bush v. Gore 2000 (yeah, the election contest).

timdps
05-05-2009, 8:40 PM
So I signed up but can't figure out how to watch the video. Your link just goes to the home page.

tim

Here's a fun retrospective video with Dennis Henigan from the Brady bunch, having a premonition of things to come! Watching it in the context of court challenges like this one is especially entertaining.

Note that this is post Parker, pre-Heller. I love how they now paint the Heller decision as if the whole point of it was to allow 'reasonable restrictions.'

Enjoy . . .

http://premium.fileden.com/premium/2...l%20length.wmv

kermit315
05-05-2009, 8:45 PM
I think a best-case scenario is SOME defendants cave, others don't.

We get the good case law from a win going all the way, BUT a lot of smaller agencies will see the handwriting on the wall and we'll get shall-issue in up to 1/4 of the state fairly soon.

Which in turn will make the obvious "disparity in treatment" thing even more obvious.

For an example of "you can't treat people across the state differently on a basic civil right", see also Bush v. Gore 2000 (yeah, the election contest).


Ok, so now I see where it is headed. I think sacramento has too much face to lose by not fighting it, especially when they are convinced that they are right, so that should be the W even if Yolo settles out and amends current policy. Sound about right?

1JimMarch
05-05-2009, 8:50 PM
Because the basis for their denial is proper as per the Penal Code.

Like hell it is!!!

Yes, Davis PD could say "we're buck-passing the whole issue to the sheriff" via PC12050(g), also known as "declaring G". But they didn't do that! Oh no, they just stopped issuing permits WITHOUT doing the hand-off to the sheriff. So applicants from that town going to the sheriff get buck-passed back to the town, which is a dead end.

Now if somebody shows me a document from Davis PD implementing PC12050(g), I'll shut up. But that's VERY very uncommon. What it appears is going on from the suit is what's a lot more common.

Remember, we've got documents from Contra Costa county in which a cross-jurisdictional agreement between the sheriff and all the chiefs says "the sheriff won't issue in the town jurisdictions" and then the towns either don't issue at all or cut maybe half a dozen or less for the PD armorer and a couple of cronies. Again: we have it in WRITING as the "Contra Costa Police Chief's Association Model CCW Protocol":

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/cccc2.pdf

From the complaint, it looks like that's what's going on in Yolo:

Plaintiff Richards was further advised that as a matter of policy, his application would not be considered unless he first applied to the Chief of Police in the City of Davis, where Plaintiff Richards resides.

If the sheriff was ignoring a "declaration of G" by Davis PD, then OK, the fault is purely on the sheriff's part. But as dumb as these guys are, they're not THAT dumb...if the sheriff had a Davis PD "G declaration" in his hands, he'd have pulled a different stunt - not this one!

So yeah, Davis PD is absolutely meat for the beast here, a fuzzy little bunny ready to get eaten alive, and so far Gura's failure to name them is the single biggest flaw in the complaint.

ohsmily
05-05-2009, 8:53 PM
Like hell it is!!!

Yes, Davis PD could say "we're buck-passing the whole issue to the sheriff" via PC12050(g), also known as "declaring G". But they didn't do that! Oh no, they just stopped issuing permits WITHOUT doing the hand-off to the sheriff. So applicants from that town going to the sheriff get buck-passed back to the town, which is a dead end.

Now if somebody shows me a document from Davis PD implementing PC12050(g), I'll shut up. But that's VERY very uncommon. What it appears is going on from the suit is what's a lot more common.

Remember, we've got documents from Contra Costa county in which a cross-jurisdictional agreement between the sheriff and all the chiefs says "the sheriff won't issue in the town jurisdictions" and then the towns either don't issue at all or cut maybe half a dozen or less for the PD armorer and a couple of cronies. Again: we have it in WRITING as the "Contra Costa Police Chief's Association Model CCW Protocol":

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/cccc2.pdf

From the complaint, it looks like that's what's going on in Yolo:



If the sheriff was ignoring a "declaration of G" by Davis PD, then OK, the fault is purely on the sheriff's part. But as dumb as these guys are, they're not THAT dumb...if the sheriff had a Davis PD "G declaration" in his hands, he'd have pulled a different stunt - not this one!

So yeah, Davis PD is absolutely meat for the beast here, a fuzzy little bunny ready to get eaten alive, and so far Gura's failure to name them is the single biggest flaw in the complaint.

I have the letter that they issued. It states explicitly in the letter that they don't currently have the resources to process the applications and that Sheriff Prieto would process the application. You are correct in that it is not a true hand off of the app but their language may be sufficient to satisfy (g). In any case, I will not speculate what Gura's plans are or his reasons for not adding one defendant or another.

AEC1
05-05-2009, 8:57 PM
Another donation comming in the AM. This place rocks!! I might have change my residancy back to CA!!!!

IAmASensFan
05-05-2009, 8:58 PM
Very happy to see us on the offensive. AWB next? :)

I'd say High Caps, but I guess they would also fall under the "safe" handgun list suit since many guns are banned because of mag capacity alone.

jasilva
05-05-2009, 9:06 PM
Now let's ask another question:

Will Yolo cave in? Will they see the expense of this turkey of a case (from their point of view) and voluntarily reform?

Sacatomatos won't fold, but Yolo? They don't have pockets all that deep.

And...why not name the Davis PD Chief as a defendant? THEY might have folded up like a wet rag...


Yolo won't go quietly. Even though it is mostly a rural county the major population center and hence the majority of voters is in......














Davis:eek:
Somehow I doubt that Berkeley North is pro RKBA.

whyter
05-05-2009, 9:08 PM
Donated what I could.. Thanks for all you guys are doing!

bigcalidave
05-05-2009, 9:08 PM
Do work guys!!! Another great day!

Can'thavenuthingood
05-05-2009, 9:10 PM
This gives May 5 and entirely new perspective:).

Nirvana,

Vick

Roadrunner
05-05-2009, 9:14 PM
I don't mind watching these usurpers of our rights fold and acquiesce, but I think I would like it better when they fight, lose, and pay our second amendment defenders their due reward.

Either way, other usurpers will catch word of their impending doom, and acquiesce before they are legally eviscerated by real patriots and defenders of the constitution.

Santa Cruz Armory
05-05-2009, 9:16 PM
Donation sent. Thanks guys.

Robert, your donation is now completePayment by PayPal
Confirmation number: 3FW53245HC299034H

Flogger23m
05-05-2009, 9:31 PM
Wow, I did not think this would come this quickly. :eek:

gotgunz
05-05-2009, 9:40 PM
Your complaint states this:

...Shasta County issued Plaintiff Witham a license to carry a handgun in January, 2007, which was to last for two years.
On or about July, 2007, Plaintiff Witham relocated from Shasta to the City of
Fairfield, in Solano County. As required by law, Plaintiff Witham notified the Sheriff of Shasta County of this move.
On or about July, 2008, Plaintiff Witham relocated from Solano County to
Sacramento County, and again notified the Sheriff of Shasta County of this move. Within days, Plaintiff Witham’s permit to carry a handgun was revoked. Plaintiff Witham has reason to believe this was done at the request of Defendant McGinness, pursuant to the custom, policy, or practice of Defendant Sacramento County.

I have a hard time believing that you guys could have possibly overlooked this:

(B) If the license is one to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, then it may not be revoked solely because the licensee changes his or her place of residence to another county if the licensee has not breached any conditions or restrictions set forth in the license or has not fallen into a prohibited class described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. However, any license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall expire 90 days after the licensee moves from the county of issuance if the licensee's place of residence was the basis for issuance of the license.

If the permit was issued from Shasta County while he was a resident there (as opposed to one related to business in Shasta County while residing elsewhere) then his place of residence was the basis for the issuance thereof.

The time between the work related death threats and the issuance of the ccw doesn't make sense. If the threats were credible then he should have gotten the ccw in '05 (early '06 at the latest). Given that Shasta County is nearly shall issue I would say he applied, had good moral character based on his previous LEO experience and he holds a P.I. license, was summarily issued and once he moved to Fairfield it should have been revoked then.

Don't mean to piss on the parade but I see alot of holes in this one plaintiff's case.

I hope I am wrong.

anthonyca
05-05-2009, 9:42 PM
When it rains... IT POURS!

Look out America, California wants back in!

Man that is great. Can I use that as a sig line?

hoffmang
05-05-2009, 9:45 PM
The time between the work related death threats and the issuance of the ccw doesn't make sense.

Your supposed concern doesn't matter.

Ignore the unconstitutional law for a moment.

Does a man who received death threats because he was working for justice deserve to have his right to self defense revoked because he moved?

-Gene

Macadelic4
05-05-2009, 9:45 PM
Props to Gene and the gang. Will be following this as members have brought up some additional interesting points in the thread.

Donation sent.

Sinixstar
05-05-2009, 9:50 PM
wow - all I can say.
Good work, hope it works out for you.

Just found out i'll be moving to California by the end of the month. Have been OC'ing here in NV just because I can - figured I might as well enjoy it while it lasts.
I know something like this isn't going to work it's way through the courts by the end of the month obviously - but it certainly lessens the sting of the move a bit.

Now we just gotta figure out that whole AWB thing CA has going on. Was in scheel's earlier today and they had DPMS ARs for $850 complete, a little over $1000 for a package (optics, spare mags, case, etc). Made me just :banghead:

Maestro Pistolero
05-05-2009, 9:57 PM
So I signed up but can't figure out how to watch the video. Your link just goes to the home page.

Sorry about that, it's not working for me either now. I'm not sure how to fix that. Here's a youtube link, to a similar statement he made after oral arguments in Heller:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXEjJjFLWHw

I hope at least that works.

Or hopefully someone can help us out here.

nick
05-05-2009, 10:03 PM
Your complaint states this:

...Shasta County issued Plaintiff Witham a license to carry a handgun in January, 2007, which was to last for two years.
On or about July, 2007, Plaintiff Witham relocated from Shasta to the City of
Fairfield, in Solano County. As required by law, Plaintiff Witham notified the Sheriff of Shasta County of this move.
On or about July, 2008, Plaintiff Witham relocated from Solano County to
Sacramento County, and again notified the Sheriff of Shasta County of this move. Within days, Plaintiff Witham’s permit to carry a handgun was revoked. Plaintiff Witham has reason to believe this was done at the request of Defendant McGinness, pursuant to the custom, policy, or practice of Defendant Sacramento County.

I have a hard time believing that you guys could have possibly overlooked this:

(B) If the license is one to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, then it may not be revoked solely because the licensee changes his or her place of residence to another county if the licensee has not breached any conditions or restrictions set forth in the license or has not fallen into a prohibited class described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. However, any license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall expire 90 days after the licensee moves from the county of issuance if the licensee's place of residence was the basis for issuance of the license.

If the permit was issued from Shasta County while he was a resident there (as opposed to one related to business in Shasta County while residing elsewhere) then his place of residence was the basis for the issuance thereof.

The time between the work related death threats and the issuance of the ccw doesn't make sense. If the threats were credible then he should have gotten the ccw in '05 (early '06 at the latest). Given that Shasta County is nearly shall issue I would say he applied, had good moral character based on his previous LEO experience and he holds a P.I. license, was summarily issued and once he moved to Fairfield it should have been revoked then.

Don't mean to piss on the parade but I see alot of holes in this one plaintiff's case.

I hope I am wrong.

Wasn't his good cause and good moral character the basis for issuing his CCW permit?

Moreover, if the defendants argue that his residence in Shasta County was the basis for the issuance of CCW, they're basically admitting that the same law is applied differently in different counties.

Maestro Pistolero
05-05-2009, 10:14 PM
Got it on You tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bZwezAPM_s&feature=channel

And another, responding to Heller II briefings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2H4wyOk8s4

1JimMarch
05-05-2009, 10:21 PM
I have the letter that they issued. It states explicitly in the letter that they don't currently have the resources to process the applications and that Sheriff Prieto would process the application. You are correct in that it is not a true hand off of the app but their language may be sufficient to satisfy (g). In any case, I will not speculate what Gura's plans are or his reasons for not adding one defendant or another.

Ah. OK, that "sorta-kinda" looks like a declaration of G. It ain't perfect but, it's likely close enough...WAIT, no it's not!

Dammit, hold on here. Look at "G" itself:

(g) Nothing in this article shall preclude the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city from entering an agreement with the sheriff of the county in which the city is located for the sheriff to process all applications for licenses, renewals of licenses, and amendments to licenses, pursuant to this article.


Davis PD >>HAS<< to notify the sheriff. They can't play this screwed-up game.

Based on how the sheriff is acting, they haven't filed G. It would be wise to at least find out in discovery if Davis PD ever "filed G" with the sheriff, and if they haven't...baby, they're IN this thing as a defendant, bigtime.

yellowfin
05-05-2009, 10:29 PM
.Does a man who received death threats because he was working for justice deserve to have his right to self defense revoked because he moved?

-GeneBetter question: Does a man deserve to have his right to self defense revoked because he moved...period? I miss what the relevence of prior threats to one's life is in regard to being able to walk away alive from a carjacking or holdup at a 7-11.

7x57
05-05-2009, 10:29 PM
It would be wise to at least find out in discovery if Davis PD ever "filed G" with the sheriff, and if they haven't...baby, they're IN this thing as a defendant, bigtime.

I don't feel I have a good enough handle on this sort of thing to even guess if they planned to play this game, but...discovery can be a wonderful thing. I wonder what all can be dug up about issue practices in this state that way? I'm guessing discovery is a more productive way to go fishing than PRA (??) requests.

7x57

gotgunz
05-05-2009, 10:32 PM
Your supposed concern doesn't matter.

Ignore the unconstitutional law for a moment.

Does a man who received death threats because he was working for justice deserve to have his right to self defense revoked because he moved?

-Gene

Gene, you're preaching to the choir. In my eyes (as an instructor for CCW classes) the threat was not that credible or he would have had the ccw much sooner. Given that Shasta County issues CCW's to its residents for almost the asking I would say that the residence was the basis of issuance just like it is for the vast majority of the others they have issued to. According to 12050pc (weather 'unconstitutional' or not) it clearly states that it is void after change of the county of residence and it probably should have been revoked when he moved to Fairfield.

As far as the "working for justice"..... come on! He was working for a private entity whose sole aim is profits. As such he was charged (and compensated) to protect said assets which are to the direct benefit of an Indian Casino operated by a sovereign nation. That is not justice; that is performing the job that you are paid to do.

So my 'supposed concern' does indeed matter. Maybe not to others but it does matter to some regardless.

I think you have misinterpreted my post; I truly hope this is able to force the changes our ccw system desperately needs but even you would concede that any actions taken need to be done correctly. I saw something that caught my eye; I'm not an attorney but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last week.

ivanimal
05-05-2009, 10:34 PM
Adam, you are my new hero!:)

1JimMarch
05-05-2009, 10:44 PM
I'm guessing discovery is a more productive way to go fishing than PRA (??) requests.

OH HELL YEAH!!!

gotgunz
05-05-2009, 10:45 PM
Wasn't his good cause and good moral character the basis for issuing his CCW permit?

Moreover, if the defendants argue that his residence in Shasta County was the basis for the issuance of CCW, they're basically admitting that the same law is applied differently in different counties.

Remember, in our current system the presence of 'good cause' is left to the discretion of the cleo of where you apply (which unless the ccw is issued as a 90 day temp related to employment) is the county of your residence. This means you apply in the county where you LIVE.

I am not saying it is right just that is the way it is currently done. Good cause is subjective, residence is not.

If you invite 10 cops to your home and tell them all: "hey guys, this is where I live" and you have the presence of actually residing there (pictures on the walls, you know where the glasses are when you offer them a drink, the remote is stuck with velcro to a chair that has an impression of your *** permanently depressed into it etc... ) then they should be inclined to agree that you do in fact live there. If you tell those same 10 cops that you should have a ccw and the reasons why, that is subjective and all or some could disagree with you.

Discretion carries a very wide stroke; one swipe by many painters will yield very different results even when using the same brush. CCW issuance is no different.

You don't honestly believe that the same law could be applied in different ways from one county to the next do you ?:eek::p

hoffmang
05-05-2009, 10:50 PM
Discretion carries a very wide stroke; one swipe by many painters will yield very different results even when using the same brush. CCW issuance is no different.

That would be why we're saying that discretion isn't constitutional.

-Gene

7x57
05-05-2009, 10:54 PM
As far as the "working for justice"..... come on! He was working for a private entity whose sole aim is profits. As such he was charged (and compensated) to protect said assets which are to the direct benefit of an Indian Casino operated by a sovereign nation. That is not justice; that is performing the job that you are paid to do.


Um, you've been listening to some dangerous people. It's time for another episode of "Philosophical Intervention." :eek:

It is the left who has whispered in your ear that justice is not involved if the sole aim is profits. If earned lawfully the money belongs to them regardless, and it is an injustice if it is stolen. Demonizing the profit motive is a preliminary to getting control of money the government has no right to. It is also the left who has whispered in your ear that you are not upholding justice if you are not a sworn officer of the state--part of the context of the 2A is the idea that every citizen is responsible for upholding the law, even by violence if he witnesses a crime or hears the "hue and cry." And it is the left who has whispered in your ear that you are not upholding justice if you are being paid--once again the demonization of the profit motive, this time on the part of the citizen, and changing justice from a matter of fact and law to a matter of subjective intent.

That is part of the system of thought that, truly believed and followed through, disarms the victims and teaches them to *be* victims and dependents of the state. It is deadly to the system of thought that makes sense of the idea that every man not only can but *should* be armed.

Justice is served as an objective fact when theft is thwarted and private property upheld, and the moreso when assault is thwarted and personal safety is upheld. If we give that up, we end up in a place where we can no longer say why ethics demands that we value the life of the homeowner over the burglar, or the woman over her would-be rapist. We can no longer say why the victim is justified in using violence against the assailant. And in losing a core principle of ethics, we become less than human. :chris:

Intervention over. Go, and think like the left no more. ;)

7x57

gotgunz
05-05-2009, 10:54 PM
That would be why we're saying that discretion isn't constitutional.

-Gene

I'm with ya brotha!

Liberty1
05-05-2009, 10:56 PM
That would be why we're saying that discretion isn't constitutional.

-Gene

Gene ...what's the time frame of events in the coming months/year for this case? Is there a Wiki link for fed court procedure/process?

There goes my sleep pattern I reestablished after Nordyke....:thumbsup:

We live in internet time and want all this by two posts ago :)

7x57
05-05-2009, 10:56 PM
I am not saying it is right just that is the way it is currently done.

But I believe Alan Gura and Don Kilmer are saying, in court, that it is in fact specifically not right and it must not ever be done that way again. They seek to change the practice based on the law, so you can't turn around and argue that their criticism is without merit because of current practice. Ultimately, that's circular, and if the law worked that way nothing would be unconstitutional.

7x57

nick
05-05-2009, 11:11 PM
Remember, in our current system the presence of 'good cause' is left to the discretion of the cleo of where you apply (which unless the ccw is issued as a 90 day temp related to employment) is the county of your residence. This means you apply in the county where you LIVE.

I am not saying it is right just that is the way it is currently done. Good cause is subjective, residence is not.

If you invite 10 cops to your home and tell them all: "hey guys, this is where I live" and you have the presence of actually residing there (pictures on the walls, you know where the glasses are when you offer them a drink, the remote is stuck with velcro to a chair that has an impression of your *** permanently depressed into it etc... ) then they should be inclined to agree that you do in fact live there. If you tell those same 10 cops that you should have a ccw and the reasons why, that is subjective and all or some could disagree with you.

Discretion carries a very wide stroke; one swipe by many painters will yield very different results even when using the same brush. CCW issuance is no different.

You don't honestly believe that the same law could be applied in different ways from one county to the next do you ?:eek::p

Neither of that was my point. I was pondering on what their defense might be. The law as it exists now says that residence determines where the person can or cannot apply. However, it says that what determines the issuance itself is CLEO's discretion supposedly based on good cause and good moral character.

Also, while we all know that the law is not equally applied, the equal application of the law is the standard we (and they) are supposed to achieve.

gotgunz
05-05-2009, 11:15 PM
Um, you've been listening to some dangerous people. It's time for another episode of "Philosophical Intervention." :eek:

It is the left who has whispered in your ear that justice is not involved if the sole aim is profits. If earned lawfully the money belongs to them regardless, and it is an injustice if it is stolen. Demonizing the profit motive is a preliminary to getting control of money the government has no right to. It is also the left who has whispered in your ear that you are not upholding justice if you are not a sworn officer of the state--part of the context of the 2A is the idea that every citizen is responsible for upholding the law, even by violence if he witnesses a crime or hears the "hue and cry." And it is the left who has whispered in your ear that you are not upholding justice if you are being paid--once again the demonization of the profit motive, this time on the part of the citizen, and changing justice from a matter of fact and law to a matter of subjective intent.

That is part of the system of thought that, truly believed and followed through, disarms the victims and teaches them to *be* victims and dependents of the state. It is deadly to the system of thought that makes sense of the idea that every man not only can but *should* be armed.

Justice is served as an objective fact when theft is thwarted and private property upheld, and the moreso when assault is thwarted and personal safety is upheld. If we give that up, we end up in a place where we can no longer say why ethics demands that we value the life of the homeowner over the burglar, or the woman over her would-be rapist. We can no longer say why the victim is justified in using violence against the assailant. And in losing a core principle of ethics, we become less than human. :chris:

Intervention over. Go, and think like the left no more. ;)

7x57

Where the **** do people come up with this ****?

I have allowed nobody to whisper anything in my ear (although I have allowed some women in my day to lick the lobe :cool:).

I am the epitome of a capitolist! But even if one of my employees notified me of another one was stealing from the company that is not justice (in the original context used within this discussion), that is called doing your job and protecting the assets of your employer thereby protecting the company that provides you with said employment. :rolleyes:

I have never thought like the left and frankly am insulted that you would insinuate that I was for merely playing the devil's advocate.


Rant over.

gotgunz
05-05-2009, 11:19 PM
I was pondering on what their defense might be.

I am wondering the same thing. Regardless of what it is I am certain it will be entertaining if nothing else.

In fact I bet alot of what they say will become fodder for sig lines here and elsewhere on the web, LOL.

7x57
05-05-2009, 11:29 PM
I have allowed nobody to whisper anything in my ear


That was something of a metaphor I assumed would be clear. If you wish me to be ploddingly literal, then I am talking about unconscious assumptions. It is impossible not to have some, but the more you have the less you know why you believe what you do. By "whisper in your ear" I mean specifically that you have internalized assumptions that fit well with an anti-gun philosophical system and poorly with a pro-gun philosophy.


I am the epitome of a capitolist!


At the risk of inspiring further insult by having a joke taken seriously, I just want to say that while I don't quite know what it is I'm enchanted by the idea of someone being a capitOlist and what they might believe. ;)


But even if one of my employees notified me of another one was stealing from the company that is not justice


You may believe so, but if you mean to say that justice is not upheld in that case then I claim you are quite wrong.


I have never thought like the left


If the assumptions are internalized and unconscious, how would you know whether you are thinking like the left or not?


and frankly am insulted that you would insinuate that I was for merely playing the devil's advocate.


Well, if you are insulted that is unfortunate, but I'm mainly interested in the question of whether it is *true*. I think you are accepting some assumptions that you shouldn't, and in doing so you are arguing using, at least to a degree, their worldview.

It has little to do with your playing devil's advocate, unless you are making an argument you believe to be false but probable that the other side would raise. In that case, it wouldn't be your thinking I was critiquing.

7x57

nick
05-05-2009, 11:30 PM
In fact I bet alot of what they say will become fodder for sig lines here and elsewhere on the web, LOL.

"I didn't deny it. I just didn't permit it. The denial letter was a system error."

st.clouds
05-05-2009, 11:31 PM
They deserve what's coming for the ridiculous arguments against ab357. Will support w/ my purse. Let me know if there's anything else to make sure this goes well.

nick
05-05-2009, 11:32 PM
At the risk of inspiring further insult by having a joke taken seriously, I just want to say that while I don't quite know what it is I'm enchanted by the idea of someone being a capitOlist and what they might believe. ;)

7x57

That does it! He supports the Capitol, he's one of them! It was a slip proving that he's a mole here!

Anyone got tar? I have access to a pitchfork :)

Liberty1
05-05-2009, 11:34 PM
I am wondering the same thing. Regardless of what it is I am certain it will be entertaining if nothing else.

In fact I bet alot of what they say will become fodder for sig lines here and elsewhere on the web, LOL.

They will say that Heller only applies to "home carry" and then defend 12050 by saying that open carry is not prohibited and 12031 is a reasonable restriction since you can carry ammo in separate mags therefor the 2nd A. is not offended...

7x57
05-05-2009, 11:39 PM
That does it! He supports the Capitol, he's one of them! It was a slip proving that he's a mole here!


By Jove, Holmes, you've done it! You've unmasked the killer!


Anyone got tar? I have access to a pitchfork :)

Hmm...nope, no tar. If I brewed up a really, really strong cup of coffee, would that be good enough?

I just want to add that Nick on a pitchfork rampage frankly scares the daylights out of me. Is that a Normandyian pitchfork, though?

7x57

hoffmang
05-05-2009, 11:43 PM
open carry is not prohibited and 12031 is a reasonable restriction

Hence the words "operable" and "loaded" in the complaint :31:

-Gene

gotgunz
05-05-2009, 11:43 PM
It has little to do with your playing devil's advocate, unless you are making an argument you believe to be false but probable that the other side would raise. In that case, it wouldn't be your thinking I was critiquing.

7x57

Now you got it... I was pointing out what I saw in the complaint as it may be viewed by their counsel.

And I am the one who has stated on here that assuming anything is a certain way to guarantee being wrong. I assume nothing.

And sue me for the one typo error on one single letter in one word. I read some post on here and the spelling I see makes me think that there are a lot of people on the web who have tourettes syndrome spasms while typing. :rolleyes:.

LOL

"I didn't deny it. I just didn't permit it. The denial letter was a system error."

See? You got the first one when they say this (I'm sure they will too!).

That does it! He supports the Capitol, he's one of them! It was a slip proving that he's a mole here!

My name is Allison and I am a Gemini :TFH:

Anyone got tar? I have access to a pitchfork :)

You're going to end up with a permanent limp, LOL.

gotgunz
05-05-2009, 11:45 PM
They will say that Heller only applies to "home carry" and then defend 12050 by saying that open carry is not prohibited and 12031 is a reasonable restriction since you can carry ammo in separate mags therefor the 2nd A. is not offended...


That doesn't sound like a good sig line though. :43:

CalNRA
05-05-2009, 11:47 PM
late to the party, long day at work. PP coming.:thumbsup:

nick
05-05-2009, 11:50 PM
Is that a Normandyian pitchfork, though?

7x57

Same pitchforks as everywhere else, you just... pile the hay... quietly :43:

nick
05-05-2009, 11:51 PM
You're going to end up with a permanent limp, LOL.

Way ahead of you, courtesy 7.62x54R :D

JDay
05-05-2009, 11:54 PM
They will say that Heller only applies to "home carry" and then defend 12050 by saying that open carry is not prohibited and 12031 is a reasonable restriction since you can carry ammo in separate mags therefor the 2nd A. is not offended...

Which is a stupid argument since Heller was partially about not being able to keep a loaded firearm in the home.

gotgunz
05-05-2009, 11:55 PM
I got mine from a '73 Kawi Z-1 and a '79 Olds Delta 88, LOL.

7x57
05-06-2009, 12:06 AM
Same pitchforks as everywhere else, you just... pile the hay... quietly :43:

...over the still-warm bodies of the Frenchmen who poked their long Gallic noses where they didn't belong, at least if I believe you. :eek:

7x57

7x57
05-06-2009, 12:10 AM
Way ahead of you, courtesy 7.62x54R :D

See, this kind of response is why I find it more difficult than usual to one-up Nick.

Someday we're all probably going to find out that it's all an act and he spent all that time protesting the war in Berzerkley instead of trading projectiles with people in furrin' lands.

7x57

nick
05-06-2009, 12:11 AM
...over the still-warm bodies of the Frenchmen who poked their long Gallic noses where they didn't belong, at least if I believe you. :eek:

7x57

They were cold from the day they were born, the Frenchmen... :chris:

nick
05-06-2009, 12:13 AM
Which is a stupid argument since Heller was partially about not being able to keep a loaded firearm in the home.

Are you implying our public officials are unable to make a stupid argument?

thatrogue
05-06-2009, 12:13 AM
I'm damn proud to be a calgunner these days

Liberty1
05-06-2009, 12:58 AM
Which is a stupid argument since Heller was partially about not being able to keep a loaded firearm in the home.

And Next... in two weeks Gene announces the filling of a suit on behalf of a one armed homeless veteran who can't afford the 12050 license fees...:eek:

JDay
05-06-2009, 1:01 AM
Are you implying our public officials are unable to make a stupid argument?

Are you implying that I believe they are smart?

Kid Stanislaus
05-06-2009, 4:20 AM
Are you implying that I believe they are smart?


Don't you mean "inferring"?:p

nicki
05-06-2009, 4:36 AM
They could have just passed AB357 a few weeks ago and all this ugliness could have been avoided.

Boy, that PORAC rep really had it in for us, he really opened his mouth at that hearing, he put more than his foot in his mouth.

BTW, Assembly hearings are videotaped:thumbsup:

Nicki

CalNRA
05-06-2009, 4:47 AM
Boy, that PORAC rep really had it in for us, he really opened his mouth at that hearing, he put more than his foot in his mouth.

BTW, Assembly hearings are videotaped:thumbsup:


excellent.

otteray
05-06-2009, 5:23 AM
At our club's meeting (two weeks one week ago), Bill said something big was coming!
I'll be sending in another donation.
This is a great birthday present; thanks CGF!

Untamed1972
05-06-2009, 6:40 AM
They could have just passed AB357 a few weeks ago and all this ugliness could have been avoided.

Boy, that PORAC rep really had it in for us, he really opened his mouth at that hearing, he put more than his foot in his mouth.

BTW, Assembly hearings are videotaped:thumbsup:

Nicki

I think it is almost better this way though. Because if AB357 had passed w/o any court precedent being set that would have left the door open for them to change it later on or pull some other shenanigans. This way, once challenged in court, the court ruling will stand to keep them from messin' around with it later.

tgriffin
05-06-2009, 7:14 AM
Absolutely wonderful news CGF! I'm stoked, seeing as I live in Sacramento County, that we may soon see reform of the CCW issuance policy.

PatriotnMore
05-06-2009, 7:20 AM
Gene, or Bill, what are the percentages of a poor ruling all the way thru the 9th, forcing an appeal for a SCOTUS ruling?

Also, what are the percentages, for a poor
SCOTUS ruling?

redneckshootist
05-06-2009, 7:56 AM
I just ready this entire thread. I will have to say thank you Ohsmily. I was working all day yesterday and was away from the computer, then I went out to dinner with oaklander and chibipaw when they told me about this lawsuit, peeked from my Iphone but since the browser isnt that great I just skimmed it. Now that Im at an acuall computer, I can put in my thoughts as a resident of yolo county, I live in davis right now. Ive lived in woodland since 91 and moved to davis in 2008 for some cheap rent.
I just think this is great Im a contractor and I collect when the job is done sometimes I collect payments on big jobs as a result I get large amounts of money, then have to carry it all day. Ive also been givin the run around between the woodland police chief and the sherrif for a long time (woodland pd wont issue says to go to the sherrif) I also have lots of customers that pay cash, I once had a customer pay her bill of $27,000 in cash all cause I told her I give discounts for cash or check. (she didnt notice the check part). I would like to be able to get myself a CCW. So right now Im like a little kid at christmas that just opened a bunch of presents.

1JimMarch
05-06-2009, 7:57 AM
My guesstimate:

15% odds one of the defendants will cave in. 5% both will :).

Better than 50/50 odds at the district court level, better than 75% odds in front of a 3-judge panel of the 9th. That's based on Nordyke specifically trashing both Hickman and Fresno Rifle as good case law.

AntiBubba 2.1
05-06-2009, 8:04 AM
I've known Deanna Sykes for several years. If the other 2 plaintiffs are of the same, er, caliber as her, than we are starting from a good point.

PatriotnMore
05-06-2009, 8:04 AM
My guesstimate:

15% odds one of the defendants will cave in. 5% both will :).

Better than 50/50 odds at the district court level, better than 75% odds in front of a 3-judge panel of the 9th. That's based on Nordyke specifically trashing both Hickman and Fresno Rifle as good case law.


Predictions/percentage on a negative SCOTUS ruling?

redneckshootist
05-06-2009, 8:05 AM
also a donation has been sent through my online banking system. Im gonna set it up to make a regular donation.

highpowermatch
05-06-2009, 8:13 AM
Donation inbound! fantastic work all!!!

Mulay El Raisuli
05-06-2009, 8:16 AM
Hence the words "operable" and "loaded" in the complaint :31:

-Gene


So, since you mention 12031, could this be 'two birds with one stone' kind of thing? IE, knock out 12031 also? Or, is that too dangerous to the basic thrust of the suit?

The Raisuli

P.S. 7X57, I think your "Philosophical Intervention" is right on the money.

CCWFacts
05-06-2009, 8:30 AM
That's based on Nordyke specifically trashing both Hickman and Fresno Rifle as good case law.

That's right. Hickman says very clearly, "no permit for you, because there is no RKBA". The opinion makes it very clear that they would have ruled the other way if there had been a RKBA. Well, now there is a RKBA.

The other things that help are the gross unfairness in California, where some areas are better than others and some sheriffs are clearly using the system to enhance their personal power. And, the fact that shall-issue has swept the nation makes it really hard for the defendants to make the tired old "there will be blood in the streets" protestations.

But really, when you read Hickman, they make it clear that the only reason they said "no CCW" was because at the time there was no RKBA.

PatriotnMore
05-06-2009, 8:34 AM
The other things that help are the gross unfairness in California, where some areas are better than others and some sheriffs are clearly using the system to enhance their personal power. And, the fact that shall-issue has swept the nation makes it really hard for the defendants to make the tired old "there will be blood in the streets" protestations.

And yet, it seemed to work at the AB 357 hearings. I am dumbfounded when law makers and LEO organizations can use the argument, but even more so when law makers buy it.