Santa Clara Discrepancies [Archive]

Glock22Fan

06-11-2009, 12:21 PM

TBJ is trying to do PRAR's against Santa Clara and is meeting some resistance and finding some discovered anomalies in her CCW numbers, two different totals for denials, two different numbers for issued, use of an illegal application form and other things we cannot post.

It will be helpful if anyone denied in the past two years contacts us. Her lack of proper record keeping and inability to provide accurate numbers has taken our investigation in some rather interesting directions.

Her legal advisor has apparently also noticed some of the things we have discovered and she is now interfering with our Public Records Act request. Her legal advisor is borderline violating the PRA. So, we know we are onto something. We had planned to examine the files in May but Deputy County Counsel Stevens has not been cooperative. We really cannot blame her for not wanting to hand us the Sheriff on a Silver serving dish.

So, if you are in Santa Clara and have had recent dealings with the SD about CCW's, please contact us.

Stormfeather

06-11-2009, 09:36 PM

this again

yellowfin

06-12-2009, 04:24 AM

Here's the problem, G22. You would have had me as someone to talk to on the matter as well as a lot of folks here, but we didn't apply because we were told again and again it wouldn't be worth our time. God knows I wanted to, but I didn't have the money to throw away just to say I did. There is probably a vast group of folks who would gladly be in the "applied" pool if we hadn't been repeatedly told either don't bother because it's futile or worse that it was counterproductive. Based upon that, even, there are probably tens of thousands who are led to believe CCW's in the county or even the state outrightly don't exist because of their scarcity and secrecy. How do/have you expect(ed) to have anything to work with given that?

That said, of course, I'm glad you guys are finding what you are and keep up the good work. :popcorn:

Python2

06-12-2009, 07:20 AM

Just wondering what made TBJ go after Santa Clara without a possible plaintiff? Why not San Mateo? He has copies of correspondences and denial provided to him a couple of years ago and there was (his word) an outright dual policy violation.

Glock22Fan

06-12-2009, 07:26 AM

Just wondering what made TBJ go after Santa Clara without a possible plaintiff?

What makes you think that there is no plaintiff?

And, we are not particularly asking people to come forward as test cases, we just want to know if anyone can help determine certain facts, like has anyone been denied by Santa Clara, because the figures they are providing are suspect.

It's not just a case of whether there is a dual policy or not, we had Santa Maria's police chief frankly admitting he has one in both the newspapers and in his deposition, and the judge still ruled against us for reasons that I've discussed in other threads (basically, because we couldn't prove that the client was in the "same class of individuals" as those who had been granted permits -- turns out it isn't enough to have a Good Cause, the sheriff or chief must also have already have issued a CCW to someone with the same class of Good Cause.) And, as has been said before, we cannot "go after" just any old sheriff, we do need a qualified plaintiff.

Stormfellow: Thank you for your ongoing interest and thoughtful comments. Adds so much to the discussion.

yellowfin

06-12-2009, 07:28 AM

Santa Clara SD is a big and very deserving target for TBJ to put the pain on, preferably to the tune of several hundred or even thousand lawsuits. If that particular county gets cracked open, and it needs to be, we have a big strategic chunk taken for our side. Next to LA and OC it is probably the biggest prize which is why the antis and their sheriff (along with SJPD play keep away so hard with it.

bulgron

06-12-2009, 07:43 AM

I wrote to the Santa Clara County Sheriff's department a little over a year ago seeking information about their issuance policy. The form letter I got back made it very clear that they consider CCWs a privilege. Interestingly, they didn't answer the one real question that I had about their issuance policy, which is what they consider to be Good Cause. Of course, foolishly, I didn't explicitly ask about what they consider to be Good Cause. But then again, I'm pretty sure that they aren't going to admit in writing that G.C. can only be met if you're filthy rich or politically well-connected.

In any case, after seeing that response I knew the only way to get a CCW in Santa Clara County was to overturn the discretionary aspect of our CCW laws. Which is what I'm waiting for before I got have a little chat with my local PD and the Sheriff's Department.

I believe Yellowfin is right, btw. This is a county with 2.5 million people (last I checked). Assuming an interest rate of just 1%, there should be about 25,000 people who have requested CCWs from the Sheriff's department or the surrounding PDs. But we've been so discourage from trying that few, if any, bother.

What I think would be interesting is if we could reach those 25,000 people and get them involved in the Sheriff's race, just to let the PTBs know that we're out here. But this county is nowhere in terms of politically organizing against Sheriff Smith.

Sad. Very sad.

Glock22Fan

06-12-2009, 08:33 AM

Just to throw some figures into the pond, according to one source there are 85 permits currently issued by SCSD and there have been "about" thirteen denials in the last two years.

7x57

06-12-2009, 08:47 AM

The idea that a CCW denial may hurt your chances in the future is very widespread, though I've never seen any concrete proof. But that rumor all by itself is a powerful deterrent.

Living in LA county, the only reason I have to apply would be if I thought there would someday be a class-action lawsuit that would benefit from having more warm bodies (an idea I've heard actually suggested). This benefit would have to be large enough for me to basically throw money in the toilet now, however. IOW, the only reason to spend the money and the time would be to have a carefully-documented rejection. But so far as I can tell this won't matter-if Sykes succeeds I won't need it to get a CCW, and if Sykes fails I won't get one either way.

I suppose the most likely possibility for it being useful would be if Baca is recalcitrant enough post-Sykes that he needs a savage beating in federal court before he decides to obey the law. Which isn't unlikely, I guess. But I suspect LAPD will be a much more recalcitrant holdout than LASD, as they seem more like true-believers instead of Baca's sheer opportunism.

The thing I don't quite get is why LAPD isn't the best target for TBJ, given that they're in open violation of a court order already. I suspect I really don't understand the dynamics here.

7x57

yellowfin

06-12-2009, 08:54 AM

That of course says that most people got turned away from applying, their applications were thrown in the trash or shredded, or didn't bother in the first place after seeing that they have a one in 100,000 chance of the time and money spent getting them what they want. At least with the lottery you don't get a record of being denied a state issued license.

Glock22Fan

06-12-2009, 08:58 AM

The thing I don't quite get is why LAPD isn't the best target for TBJ, given that they're in open violation of a court order already. I suspect I really don't understand the dynamics here.

Because we don't have a qualified plaintiff. If we did, it would be a nice plum to pick. And, just for the record, they are not violating a court order if there are no qualified applicants denied - and (as far as we can tell) there haven't been any. What we have in LA City is an open door (for many people) that no-one seems to want to walk through.

And, for those people who think Billy Jack is too selective about who he will take on, just remember the furore there has been recently on this board concerning the people who a certain attorney chose to represent despite misgivings on this board.

7x57

06-12-2009, 09:20 AM

Because we don't have a qualified plaintiff. If we did, it would be a nice plum to pick. And, just for the record, they are not violating a court order if there are no qualified applicants denied - and (as far as we can tell) there haven't been any. What we have in LA City is an open door (for many people) that no-one seems to want to walk through.

This is a puzzle to me, and precisely the place where TBJ seems most useful to the rest of us who care about rights. I'd love to see LAPD in court again with clear proof of their contempt of the existing court order. Such a lawsuit wouldn't be about the Right to Bear, but it would be about acquainting LAPD with this unfamiliar, unpleasant thing called the Law. We'll have the same trouble but worse if, say, Sykes succeeds, and you can't start too early with the therapeutic spankings for my money.

All this makes me wonder whether some off-record things are being said which scare people away for more sinister reasons than "you won't get it." It makes me curious enough to wish I fit California's Unconstitutionally Infringing GC definition just to find out.

But then, I couldn't afford TBJ's services anyway, so it's unclear that this would do much.

And, for those people who think Billy Jack is too selective about who he will take on, just remember the furore there has been recently on this board concerning the people who a certain attorney chose to represent despite misgivings on this board.

Oh, I don't. TBJ isn't about the right, it is about who has the privilege under the old theory that there is no right involved at all. Further, it seems to be played in courts where every possible exercise of discretion is against the citizen and in favor of the government. This is California's game and is played by California's rules.

My only objection to Billy Jack is more or less his personal disdain for the idea that every citizen has a Right to Bear, and his rather contemptuous way of expressing it. But those are just words and hurt me naught, while his actions seem useful in applying pain and expense to the many jurisdictions that cannot bring themselves to follow even California's very limited grant of privilege.

7x57

DDT

06-12-2009, 07:46 PM

Unless TBJ is going to do something that helps the community overall rather than a single client it really doesn't behoove those individuals who were denied or would like to apply to "give away" information that someone else is making a living by using.

It's pretty straight forward, if TBJ is making money off of the info and not working to help the community why would the community help?

kertong

06-12-2009, 08:39 PM

I am a resident of santa clara county, and of course, I did not bother applying as I was told it would be a waste of my time.

If you want me to apply even for a denial to strengthen your case with, or there is anything else I can do to help, let me know. I am a lawful SC resident/homeowner with a clean record, college education, excellent employment track history, etc.. fwiw.

Serpentine

06-12-2009, 08:47 PM

Well (hate to state the obvious), if TBJ is successful, it could lighten the restrictions for the rest of us down the road by setting a precedent.

Unless TBJ is going to do something that helps the community overall rather than a single client it really doesn't behoove those individuals who were denied or would like to apply to "give away" information that someone else is making a living by using.

It's pretty straight forward, if TBJ is making money off of the info and not working to help the community why would the community help?

Untamed1972

06-12-2009, 08:49 PM

It's pretty straight forward, if TBJ is making money off of the info and not working to help the community why would the community help?

:thumbsup:

7x57

06-12-2009, 08:55 PM

It's pretty straight forward, if TBJ is making money off of the info and not working to help the community why would the community help?

To let certain CLEOs acquire some hard-earned experience in the novel arena of being beneath rather than above the law, I'd imagine. That might save us the time and expense of teaching the lesson from scratch post-Sykes.

7x57

DDT

06-12-2009, 08:57 PM

Well (hate to state the obvious), if TBJ is successful, it could lighten the restrictions for the rest of us down the road by setting a precedent.

No it won't unfortunately. TBJ refuses to release the CCW apps they acquire under PRA requests and their lawsuits are routinely settled out of court with their client receiving their CCW. Which is great for TBJ and their clients but it is not intended to, nor will it, further "lighten the restrictions" for the rest of us. Sykes and even cases like Mehl would lighten the restrictions for the rest of us. Giving free information to TBJ does nothing for the community and only serves to line the pockets of TBJ. On the bright side it also gets a CCW for one client willing to pay $10K or so for a CCW to TBJ rather than having to donate a similar amount to a corrupt sheriff.

I, in no way feel it is inappropriate for TBJ to do what they do, everyone has to make a living and I would never want to suggest they don't have every right to make their living as they see fit. I just think it is naive of "the community" to give them information without compensation.

DDT

06-12-2009, 09:00 PM

To let certain CLEOs acquire some hard-earned experience in the novel arena of being beneath rather than above the law, I'd imagine. That might save us the time and expense of teaching the lesson from scratch post-Sykes.

7x57

Post Sykes, assuming it is successful, there is no need for the work TBJ has been doing. If you have case law saying the Sheriff doesn't have discretion to refuse issue then it's a quick letter to the county attorney or summary judgment. There is no way a Sheriff or county counsel would refuse to accept Sykes but somehow be afraid of a case that was never even filed, just negotiated away.

Manic Moran

06-13-2009, 06:16 AM

Made an application in December. Cheque cashed in February. Haven't as much as received a letter of denial or acknowledgement since.

Am currently deployed out of California, so I've not chased the matter down.

NTM

1JimMarch

06-13-2009, 09:14 AM

Santa Clara is a JUICY target. From what I was able to gather many years ago (call it 2002 era) it's outright corrupt. That's what they're covering up.

TEAM BILLY JACK, LISTEN UP!

I've known for a long time now that the worst offender agencies are going to try and cover up CCW issuance data. So this post comes as zero surprise.

We have GOT to go after the central, statewide archives on this stuff, held at California DOJ. Even if it doesn't include the "good cause" data, just the central listing of who has a permit will absolutely block all sorts of idiocy from local agencies.

DOJ's position is that because the data is distributed over a statewide law-enforcement computer network that contains confidential data, the CCW data which is obviously public record somehow becomes transmuted as "not public". In other words, the same data that's public from local agencies is considered private from Cal-DOJ.

The stuff is in a database format, easily exportable to a standard format like .CSV with the non-public stuff (social security number, etc) stripped out. There's no technical problem.

It means suing Cal-DOJ. I wasn't able to get the resources together to do it.

Thoughts?

DDT

06-13-2009, 09:57 AM

It means suing Cal-DOJ. I wasn't able to get the resources together to do it.

Thoughts?

Unfortunately TBJ isn't interested in changing the system or doing any suits like you have outlined. They are a CCW assistance group. They research on their customer's dime and work only to get the single CCW issued. It's a fairly lucrative business and it ensures that there is SOME equity in CCW issuance for those with deep pockets.

Unless the only "resource" you were lacking is a skilled attorney then TBJ is definitely not interested as they don't do any work pro bono for the community nor do they share the fruits of their research with the community.

IF the only resource you are lacking is a skilled attorney and money is not an object TBJ might be willing to help you. They have typically only taken indiviual CCW cases but if the money is there they might be willing to do what you want.

1JimMarch

06-13-2009, 10:11 AM

Going after the statewide records will help their effectiveness with every case they deal with.

7x57

06-13-2009, 10:18 AM

Going after the statewide records will help their effectiveness with every case they deal with.

But if DDT's concerns are valid, TBJ might keep any records they squeeze out of the DOJ to themselves. I have no idea if that's true myself, but that's what he's talking about.

7x57

DDT

06-13-2009, 12:27 PM

Going after the statewide records will help their effectiveness with every case they deal with.

I understand it would help them with their cases. The problem I have is with assisting with cases that are not going to be effective in bringing rights back to all Californians.

DDT

06-13-2009, 12:28 PM

But if DDT's concerns are valid, TBJ might keep any records they squeeze out of the DOJ to themselves. I have no idea if that's true myself, but that's what he's talking about.

7x57

Since they stated this thread I'm confident they are reading it. I'm sure they'll speak up if they intend to share the fruits of their PRAs with the group.

7x57

06-13-2009, 01:06 PM

Since they stated this thread I'm confident they are reading it. I'm sure they'll speak up if they intend to share the fruits of their PRAs with the group.

Well, technically, Glock22Fan started the thread. He sometimes represents TBJ, and seems to in this case, but sometimes himself. It's worth noting that, especially since the issues where he personally diverges from TBJ are on things like shall-issue.

7x57

DDT

06-13-2009, 01:10 PM

Well, technically, Glock22Fan started the thread. He sometimes represents TBJ, and seems to in this case, but sometimes himself. It's worth noting that, especially since the issues where he personally diverges from TBJ are on things like shall-issue.

I did specifically use "they" rather than "he" in reference to the team. I thought that Billy Jack put a post on his site stating his support for Sykes which is essentially shall-issue. At any rate, Glock's sig line includes "Team Billy Jack Spokesman and Webmaster" I would assume as spokesman he could, if he so chose, speak regarding TBJ's intention to share the information they get in their PRAs.

7x57

06-13-2009, 02:01 PM

I did specifically use "they" rather than "he" in reference to the team. I thought that Billy Jack put a post on his site stating his support for Sykes which is essentially shall-issue. At any rate, Glock's sig line includes "Team Billy Jack Spokesman and Webmaster" I would assume as spokesman he could, if he so chose, speak regarding TBJ's intention to share the information they get in their PRAs.

No real disagreement, I was just recognizing that Glock22Fan participates very much as a member of Calguns and not just as a TBJ spokesman, and deserves to be treated as such.

I don't look much at TBJ's website because Billy Jack's style and shoot-from-the-hip opinions tend to offend me, so I don't know if he supports Sykes. I don't get the impression that he's strongly against shall-issue per se, just not really for it without a slightly "better" (but not enormously "better") justification than "I'm an American citizen." I get the impression he'd be happy if every person with even a mild concrete threat could carry, but would rather people with none at all not carry.

7x57

1JimMarch

06-13-2009, 04:59 PM

If Billy Jack and company win access to the statewide records, anybody else can then file the same request without a lawsuit, and get the stuff even if Billy won't share.

sfpcservice

06-13-2009, 05:07 PM

Jim, allot of agencies don't report to DOJ as they are required to do so.

yellowfin

06-13-2009, 05:13 PM

TBJ will still have plenty of action post Sykes in enforcing it upon the no-issue departments. They'll have to modify their style a bit from consistently dispensed privilege to equal access right, but the need to squeeze will still very much be there. If anything it will get more intense, hopefully medieval with perhaps some gratuitous retribution thrown in for good measure.

Glock22Fan

06-13-2009, 05:23 PM

OK, well, my absence for a few hours is because the Mem'Sahib thinks that weekends are weekends, and I don't get much computer time - not because I'm ducking any issues.

To Jim, yes I read the thread regularly, and Billy Jack reads it as well. Yes, there is a discrepancy between Sheriff Smith's figures and the figures that DoJ reports for SCC. Yes, we are following it up. That's why we've asked for details of any denials. If some of you want to withhold information just because TBJ isn't working directly for you, that's your choice. Sounds to me a bit like a kid refusing to lend his ball to play cricket unless he can bat all the time.

For those who think that TBJ witholds PRAR information, tell me one occasion that you have asked for anything that we know through a PRAR and we have denied it. As far as I know, the only things we've refused to share are the confidential results of legal settlements - and we'd be in big trouble with the courts if we did that. Of course, PRAR's sometimes result in pages and pages of data; we don't actually post all the details but we've never denied it to anyone. Come to think of it, as far as I know, no one has ever asked for any of it.

With any luck, one day TBJ will be unnecessary, but that day is not yet. Until then, I think that any pressure we put on sheriffs and chiefs is worthwhile and benefits, directly or indirectly, the whole community.

bwiese

06-13-2009, 05:28 PM

With any luck, one day TBJ will be unnecessary, but that day is not yet. Until then, I think that any pressure we put on sheriffs and chiefs is worthwhile and benefits, directly or indirectly, the whole community.

Correct.

TBJ has his avenues and approaches that can work. Until Sykes and derivatives make CA CCW somewhat rationally near shall-issue due to RKBA issues, we need to approach the problem from all angles - which includes due process matters unrelated to RKBA.

Let's fight any way we can. All methods keep the opposition busy.

7x57

06-13-2009, 05:52 PM

Correct.

TBJ has his avenues and approaches that can work. Until Sykes and derivatives make CA CCW somewhat rationally near shall-issue due to RKBA issues, we need to approach the problem from all angles - which includes due process matters unrelated to RKBA.

Let's fight any way we can. All methods keep the opposition busy.

Then can you tell me why LAPD isn't in court for violating a court order? TBJ apparently has trouble finding plaintiffs for what surely must be a slam-dunk case, given that it's already been decided. There has to be more to it than that there simply are no persons who fit the court's definition of "good cause" and wish to have a CCW in all of LA. Something else has to be going on.

7x57

DDT

06-13-2009, 06:02 PM

For those who think that TBJ witholds PRAR information, tell me one occasion that you have asked for anything that we know through a PRAR and we have denied it. As far as I know, the only things we've refused to share are the confidential results of legal settlements - and we'd be in big trouble with the courts if we did that. Of course, PRAR's sometimes result in pages and pages of data; we don't actually post all the details but we've never denied it to anyone. Come to think of it, as far as I know, no one has ever asked for any of it.

I guess I was under that impression from other posts, possibly incorrectly.

Do you have all of your CCW applications acquired from PRAs in electronic format? If so, please forward them and I'll be happy to make them available to the community at no charge. I am particularly interested in what is considered G.C. in different venues and exactly WHO is being issued. The ID of those denied is of less interest and if you feel the need to redact that I'm more than comfortable there.

DDT

06-13-2009, 06:06 PM

Glock22Fan

06-13-2009, 06:10 PM

Then can you tell me why LAPD isn't in court for violating a court order? TBJ apparently has trouble finding plaintiffs for what surely must be a slam-dunk case, given that it's already been decided. There has to be more to it than that there simply are no persons who fit the court's definition of "good cause" and wish to have a CCW in all of LA. Something else has to be going on.

7x57

We are agreed, I think, that there must be suitable candidates in a city this big. However, depite publicity on this board, no such candidate has come forward. TBJ has been approached by a very few (low single figure) number of people and some of those undoubtedly should receive a CCW and hopefully one day will. However, none of them totally filled the bill and, as we've said often, at this point in time, TBJ really does need to concentrate on solid gold candidates. Win a couple of cases like that and we will have established precedents that will hopefully ease the barriers for other applicants.

Just to amplify my earlier post; SCC's counsel states that there have been "about thirteen" denials in the last two years. We're not sure if this means 12.8 or 13.5 (ha ha) or whether the staff there can't count into double figures that accurately (LOL). However, SCC has reported to DoJ that there have been zero denials. Thanks to data provided (by email and p.m.) we have documentary evidence of some of these denials.

There are, as I said, some 85 permits outstanding. We know some detail, but the counsel is blocking access to the bulk of the data. We may have to take this to court to force the issue. I don't want to say more at this point (why give away your ammo?) but we already know enough to know that there's dirt there.

7x57

06-13-2009, 06:35 PM

We are agreed, I think, that there must be suitable candidates in a city this big.

It seems a statistical certainty, if the court's definition of "good cause" was marginally sane. I don't know what it was, but I seem to recall that perhaps professions like being a jeweler automatically qualified you?

However, depite publicity on this board, no such candidate has come forward.

Then either they do not exist, or the self-selected unrepresentative population sample of people who obsessively read gun boards does not intersect with the class of good candidates. Given that the former seems statistically impossible, I would assume the latter. You need a different way to find them.

Bulk mail to jewelers? :p

7x57

1JimMarch

06-13-2009, 11:00 PM

OK, waitasec. The ONLY way the local-department-level CCW roster could conflict with the state DOJ's roster is if permits are being handed out at the local level that DOJ doesn't know about and hasn't run the required background check on.

That suggests some of the permit issuance at the local level is so "visibly dirty" they don't want to report it to DOJ for fear Jerry Brown (about as unpredictable a politician as they come, EVER) might get it into his head to investigate local corruption. God only knows the last two AGs would never have done so, but they may have feared somebody like Jerry or better getting into office.

In my book, Jerry Brown is weird, elitist, Liberal as hell (although a lot of that got beat out of him dealing with Oakland!) and fundamentally honest.

Very, VERY interesting.

7x57

06-13-2009, 11:58 PM

OK, waitasec. The ONLY way the local-department-level CCW roster could conflict with the state DOJ's roster is if permits are being handed out at the local level that DOJ doesn't know about and hasn't run the required background check on.

Uh, this is an interesting direction you're going. Are you saying that the issuance was actually illegal? Somehow I doubt immunity doesn't extend to actually violating the rules the legislature did set down.

If the DOJ keeps records of the checks it runs, then you'd more or less have a smoking gun just by showing that someone has a permit without a DOJ record.

I suppose somehow this isn't really as bad as it sounds, but if it really involves breaking the law to issue patronage permits I could almost have enjoyed delaying fixing the real problem with Sykes just to go after illegal permit issuance and inflict extra pain. :43:

7x57

1JimMarch

06-14-2009, 01:30 PM

Uh, this is an interesting direction you're going. Are you saying that the issuance was actually illegal? Somehow I doubt immunity doesn't extend to actually violating the rules the legislature did set down.

Well yeah. Bigtime. The suggestion is that some of the CCW issuance at the local level was so squirrelly the local sheriff didn't want to let Cal-DOJ and the Cal-AG know it was even happening due to how ugly (corrupt) it looked. So you end up with permits out there that are in fact fake - *maybe* without the applicant even realizing it!

My understanding is that if a cop on the street wants to make sure your CCW permit is real, they're likely to call your issuing agency for confirmation. Right? Or do they run it through the state database?

Is the state CCW database even accessible to patrol cops?

If I was part of TBJ I'd want to find this out, stat.

ON EDIT: waitasec, wasn't Carona in Orange County accused of cutting at least one CCW permit to a mobster? Is this maybe how he did it?

Python2

06-14-2009, 02:56 PM

OK how about this questions:
Where does the number "ORI" with seven digit numbers starting with a "CA" originate from? There is also another number "CH" with eight digit numbers noted in a CCW permit. Pretty sure these are tracking numbers of some sort and have purpose. Could it be one of them is DOJ? If so, then somebody is committing fraud if DOJ have no record of a CCW.

Opus109

06-14-2009, 03:51 PM

What about if someone moved from a different county to Santa Clara county, and already had a CCW? They would get on the Santa Clara CCW list, but their permit would not have been issued by that county. Just a thought...

ke6guj

06-14-2009, 03:58 PM

Glock22Fan

06-14-2009, 08:01 PM

IIRC, if you move, you have to notify the issuing agency and they will revoke your permit. You then have to contact your new CLEO for a new CCW.

I think that exact scenario is mentioned in the current CGF CCW lawsuit.

Correct. The old permit should run for 90 days after the move (to protect you while the new sheriff issues your new permit (LOL), although many sheriffs pull the rug immediately.

Glock22Fan

06-14-2009, 08:17 PM

I don't know what it was, but I seem to recall that perhaps professions like being a jeweler automatically qualified you?

See this link (http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/?blog=2&page=1&disp=posts&paged=2) blog dated 29/03/12.

Go to B.J.'s latest blog (http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/)and you will see that Santa Clara alone is expected to result in over 2,000 sheets of paper, for some 85 permits. Sorry, but we don't have this stuff scanned, we go through it the old fashioned way.

Apart from gleaning some Good Causes, most of the value in these papers is the analysis performed by Billy Jack. That analysis is of course work product belonging to the client and not a public record. However, we usually share any overall information that we discover that we feel will assist this community. Things like the LAPD court case refered to in the blog above.

Billy Jack is also willing to help people with a serious interest in PRAR's to do their own, and will share his knowledge of the right, and wrong, way to go about these. As part of this, B.J. does provide template letters. However, B.J. does not encourage those with just an idle interest to go stirring the pot too much and make life difficult for serious researchers.

7x57

06-14-2009, 08:41 PM

See this link (http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/?blog=2&page=1&disp=posts&paged=2) blog dated 29/03/12.

The easiest one at first glance is "persons employed in the field of security." Completely objective, plenty of people doing it, and something that a determined rabble-rouser wouldn't find hard to do for a while just for purposes of being a plaintiff. :43: (I.e. if someone had a larger purpose than just getting a CCW.) But I'm interested that you have not found a security guard interested--is there some back-channel that the city can apply pressure on security guards? They might find their license hard to renew or something?

Persons with a RO might be a little more shy about being found, but they might be much more likely to go to court with the city. But...the people who need a CCW the most in this situation frankly are the least likely to have the money to pay for the lawsuit. People with money have a lot more options.

From what I gather unofficially, any black person living in a Latino slum where the Latino drug gangs are doing a little ethnic cleansing is by definition under unusual threat of physical attack--but they won't have the money to pay for a lawsuit.

It is clear that plenty of candidates exist and some must have the money and the motivation to spend it. Your problem is one of advertising, and apparently Calguns is a poor place to find them.

Contra some thread comments, I'd direct someone your way if I knew of a candidate just for the mental anguish having a CCW-ectomy would cause chief Bratton.

7x57

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 06:44 AM

Let me say to anyone who should qualify but cannot afford a lawsuit, TBJ would be (as always) willing to guide them through the process of applying for a permit, right up to the point where an appeal is denied, free of charge. It is only when a lawsuit is the only remaining recourse that TBJ requires a down payment, to cover court fees and attorney retainers.

nicki

06-15-2009, 08:24 AM

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 08:53 AM

You know, if Billy Jack was to come out and say that would work to get non discriminatory issue and would support anyone's right to apply provided they would learn the law and be a responsible gun carrier, he would probably get alot more support from people.

People can have changes of heart and I think most people on this board would accept his change from "Good Cause" issue to "Equal Issue".

The fact is the issuance of CCW permits varies so much from agency to agency, that "good cause" can't be administered fairly.

This is a "State License", but you can only apply at your local PD or sheriff of county of residence and the rules vary drastically from county to county.

You can go to any county to renew of get a driver's license or in fact any other statewide license.

Nicki

Billy Jack's style is somewhat controversial and people have been attacking Billy Jack since long before his opinions on "Shall Issue" were published. Billy Jack's attackers, who (despite much explanation) still persist in misrepresenting just about everything TBJ does, don't help Billy Jack to feel that everyone is mature or intelligent enough to merit the responsibility of carrying a firearm.

But let me also quote Billy Jack's blog (http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/) where he indicates support for a possible overrule of p.c.12050 which would lead towards "Shall Issue."

Billy Jack want to wish Gura and Kilmer good luck and God's speed with their new Federal suit challenging the constitutionality of 12050 PC.

7x57

06-15-2009, 09:11 AM

Billy Jack's attackers, who (despite much explanation) still persist in misrepresenting just about everything TBJ does, don't help Billy Jack to feel that everyone is mature or intelligent enough to merit the responsibility of carrying a firearm.

He has no one but himself to blame for his detractors. Perhaps if Billy Jack started exhibiting some maturity on his blog, or intelligence to write what he means if he doesn't actually have a profound disdain for the rights of people with neither money to pay him nor California Good Cause, someone might actually care about his opinion on the maturity of others. I like you, and I like him to go after sheriffs who can't even obey California's Infringing law, but personally he doesn't seem like any friend of either the actual Second Amendment nor of the people who it is really written for.

7x57

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 09:43 AM

if he doesn't actually have a profound disdain for the rights of people with neither money to pay him nor California Good Cause,

7x57, Your opinions are much more reasoned than many, and I know that you do have some appreciation for what TBJ is doing, but you miss the point here.

The people who get Billy Jack's scorn are not the people you mention. The ones who really get his scorn are those who do have enough money (basically, no more than you would expect to need to defend a UOC charge) who do have a Good Cause, but who are still unwilling to stand up for their rights, who are unwilling to rock the boat.

I don't have spare money, and I don't have what would count as a Good Cause, and B.J. has never, ever hinted that I don't have "brass ones." Billy Jack is convinced, as you are regarding LAPD, that there are people out there who could come forward, but who choose not to. These are the ones he castigates.

yellowfin

06-15-2009, 09:55 AM

Untamed1972

06-15-2009, 10:08 AM

4) Persons who transport in public, significant amounts of valuable property which is impractical to entrust to the protection of armored car services

I'm no in LA...but what constitutues a "significant amount of valuable property"?

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 10:12 AM

I can understand that people find his style abrasive. Despite that, he is still working to get people CCW's within the existing system and within the existing laws. He is in no position to get CCW's for people who don't qualify under the existing system and he does not greatly concern himself with any battle to change the system.

What TBJ does is to pressure the CLEO's to follow the existing rules and issue CCW's to people who should get them under the existing rules. Just because that doesn't directly include John Doe doesn't, in my view, make the effort any less worthwhile.

But we've had all these stale arguments before, all with the same people. Unless there's something new that's relevant to the original post, I propose to drop out of this argument.

Untamed1972

06-15-2009, 10:19 AM

He is in no position to get CCW's for people who don't qualify under the existing system and he does not greatly concern himself with any battle to change the system.

That's called "turf protection". Can't blame someone for wanting to do it, that's what the "free market" is all about it. Doesn't mean anyone has to support it though....especially if there is nothing in it for the supporters.

DDT

06-15-2009, 10:50 AM

I guess I was under that impression from other posts, possibly incorrectly.

Do you have all of your CCW applications acquired from PRAs in electronic format? If so, please forward them and I'll be happy to make them available to the community at no charge. I am particularly interested in what is considered G.C. in different venues and exactly WHO is being issued. The ID of those denied is of less interest and if you feel the need to redact that I'm more than comfortable there.

Since I haven't heard from you and you've posted a number of times to this thread can I assume you missed this response? Please forward the info as soon as possible. I will be happy to make it available on the web.

thanks again.
dan

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 01:08 PM

Since I haven't heard from you and you've posted a number of times to this thread can I assume you missed this response? Please forward the info as soon as possible. I will be happy to make it available on the web.

thanks again.
dan

Maybe you missed post 47 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2632169&postcount=47)?

DDT

06-15-2009, 01:10 PM

I guess I was under that impression from other posts, possibly incorrectly.

Do you have all of your CCW applications acquired from PRAs in electronic format? If so, please forward them and I'll be happy to make them available to the community at no charge. I am particularly interested in what is considered G.C. in different venues and exactly WHO is being issued. The ID of those denied is of less interest and if you feel the need to redact that I'm more than comfortable there.

Maybe you missed post 47 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2632169&postcount=47)?

Since it was not a reply I didn't see the relevance to my question. When and where can I come to scan the material? If you have a copy service that will copy for $.10/sheet I'll be happy to come and pick up copies to scan myself.

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 01:14 PM

I'm no in LA...but what constitutues a "significant amount of valuable property"?

It is not defined in the policy. The problem you run up against here is people who intentionally carry large amounts of cash of property when they do not have to just to establish GC. The PD's and SO's can see through this.

I guess each case would have to be judged on its merits, and that brings an uncertainty to the equation that is not present with some of the other categories.

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 01:16 PM

Since it was not a reply I didn't see the relevance to my question. When and where can I come to scan the material? If you have a copy service that will copy for $.10/sheet I'll be happy to come and pick up copies to scan myself.

I do not have access to any of the papers. I will bring this to Billy Jack's attention and ask him what we have that can be made available.

Untamed1972

06-15-2009, 01:26 PM

It is not defined in the policy. The problem you run up against here is people who intentionally carry large amounts of cash of property when they do not have to just to establish GC. The PD's and SO's can see through this.

I guess each case would have to be judged on its merits, and that brings an uncertainty to the equation that is not present with some of the other categories.

The problem also is that "significant" is a relative term. For someone rolling in $$$$......get robbed and losing $1000 might be no big deal. For average joe who was gonna pay his rent with it.....it IS significant!

GoodEyeSniper

06-15-2009, 01:36 PM

It is not defined in the policy. The problem you run up against here is people who intentionally carry large amounts of cash of property when they do not have to just to establish GC. The PD's and SO's can see through this.

I guess each case would have to be judged on its merits, and that brings an uncertainty to the equation that is not present with some of the other categories.

I find it sad that they might be willing to let you protect the thousands of dollars you have to transport, but your two kids you have to drive to and from school everyday don't merit the same protection or value.

This is a dislike of the system, nothing to do with TBJ.

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 02:05 PM

I guess I have misspoken somewhat and I apologise. Although I am sure that some will think it was deliberate, it was an oversight, caused by lack of consideration on my part; it was not deliberate, and I personally am purely responsible.

First, we have (as is well known) steadfastly refused to reveal Good Causes. It is our belief that the people who need template Good Causes may well be tempted to duplicate them to the detrement of all.

The raw results of a PRAR are meaningful mainly for their Good Causes. Without addresses and other redacted material, that's nearly all there is of interest to the average punter. Therefore we believe that the raw results should not be published and we will not assist in that activity. This board is quick to castigate any newspaper that publishes PRAR results, what's the difference if one of us does it?

If anyone has a specific query that we can assist with from our knowledge of the PRAR data, and this can be done without jeopardizing our client's case, then we will do our best to oblige. However we will not publish the raw data or our detailed analysis for the general public to inspect. To the best of our knowledge, no other professional ( such as attorneys) in this field has ever published this data either.

My apologies if this upsets people.

Untamed1972

06-15-2009, 02:17 PM

First, we have (as is well known) steadfastly refused to reveal Good Causes. It is our belief that the people who need template Good Causes may well be tempted to duplicate them to the detrement of all.

But w/o any definition of what acceptable "good causes" are.....how is one to know if they have good enough cause to warrant going thru the hassle.

This whole secrecy thing about "good cause" is more than it's annoying.

Short of having received death threats.....What if I have good cause and don't even know it because no will tell you what good cause is or isn't? Heck...they'll barely even hint at what it might be.

I get so sick of this f-ed up state sometimes I wanna puke!

And the supposed discrepencies you're finding in your records seasrch are not to the detriment of all as well?

So what if someone copies (roughly copies) the wording of someone elses good cause statement. As long as they're not lying then sheriff's investigation of the application/good cause should support the statement. Who cares who wrote it.

bulgron

06-15-2009, 02:38 PM

I find it sad that they might be willing to let you protect the thousands of dollars you have to transport, but your two kids you have to drive to and from school everyday don't merit the same protection or value.

The current CCW laws in California are intended to allow you to carry a concealed weapon when your circumstances place you at an "elevated risk" of being attacked over that of the ordinary citizen. Since most people at one point or another in their lives transport children around, the mere fact of that does not put you at an "elevated risk."

Of course, given the way our may-issue CCW laws have been implemented, even someone with a true "elevated risk" is unlikely to get a CCW, depending on the county you're in.

And I argue that the whole rationale behind "elevated risk" is unconstitutional when applied to a license to carry a firearm. The mere acknowledgment of the normal levels of risk that we all face in our daily lives ought to be enough good cause in any sane and rational licensing scheme. But then, I guess that's what Sykes is really all about.

But at least now you know why our current unconstitutional laws place a premium on someone who carries a lot of money around, versus someone who does normal things like transport children. Just to be clear, the theory is that someone who is transporting a lot of money on a routine basis is more likely to be targeted for robbery than is someone who is just trying to get the kids to school.

I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but that's how our laws are SUPPOSED to work. The fact that they don't even work at that level of unconstitutional issuance is beyond pathetic.

Untamed1972

06-15-2009, 02:44 PM

The current CCW laws in California are intended to allow you to carry a concealed weapon when your circumstances place you at an "elevated risk" of being attacked over that of the ordinary citizen. Since most people at one point or another in their lives transport children around, the mere fact of that does not put you at an "elevated risk."

Of course, given the way our may-issue CCW laws have been implemented, even someone with a true "elevated risk" is unlikely to get a CCW, depending on the county you're in.

And I argue that the whole rationale behind "elevated risk" is unconstitutional when applied to a license to carry a firearm. The mere acknowledgment of the normal levels of risk that we all face in our daily lives ought to be enough good cause in any sane and rational licensing scheme. But then, I guess that's what Sykes is really all about.

But at least now you know why our current unconstitutional laws place a premium on someone who carries a lot of money around, versus someone who does normal things like transport children. Just to be clear, the theory is that someone who is transporting a lot of money on a routine basis is more likely to be targeted for robbery than is someone who is just trying to get the kids to school.

I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but that's how our laws are SUPPOSED to work. The fact that they don't even work at that level of unconstitutional issuance is beyond pathetic.

So because someone is more likely to be attacked they are given the elevated priviliege of being able to defend themselves even though they may never actually be attacked?

Yes someone with a "normal risk" of being attacked is not given the priviledge of defending themselves even though they might be the unlucky one in 100,000 that does actually get attacked?

Under those "handling of cash" good causes....why isn't everyone that works a bank have good cause then? Remember when bank managers were getting kidnapped?

In any of the "mass shootings" that have occurred in the last couple of years.....how many of those people were at "elevated risk"? Prolly none of them until the day when some nutjob decided to start shooting at people. It just makes me sick to think that our elected officials, inspite of the overwhelming evidence that CCW does protect lives, think so little of the lives of their constituents.

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 02:49 PM

But w/o any definition of what acceptable "good causes" are.....how is one to know if they have good enough cause to warrant going thru the hassle.

This whole secrecy thing about "good cause" is more than it's annoying.

Short of having received death threats.....What if I have good cause and don't even know it because no will tell you what good cause is or isn't? Heck...they'll barely even hint at what it might be.

I get so sick of this f-ed up state sometimes I wanna puke!

And the supposed discrepencies you're finding in your records seasrch are not to the detriment of all as well?

So what if someone copies (roughly copies) the wording of someone elses good cause statement. As long as they're not lying then sheriff's investigation of the application/good cause should support the statement. Who cares who wrote it.

I guess you don't know the history regarding Good Cause copying in several counties, including O.C., where it has backfired on people.

You can expect to be grilled mercilessly on whether your Good Cause is real, and applies to you at your interview. If your Good Cause is real and does apply to you, why do you need to see someone else's? Yours will either fly or it won't.

If you don't know what your Good Cause is, you probably don't have one.

TBJ routinely advises people (sometimes up to five a day) whether their Good Cause is likely to be acceptable in their county/city, based on our knowledge. But they have to write it first, based on their circumstances.

You might examine a set of PRAR's and discover, say, a number of pharmacists with CCW's. Each of them will have their own, distinctive, Good Cause. Believe it or not, the examining deputy will be familiar with them and will almost certainly recognize a copy as a copy. As a one-time university professor with classes of some 140 students, I could frequently recognize when someone copied some coursework from a previous year's class member. Most issuing authorities have far fewer CCW permits.

There are respected senior members of this board with no connection with TBJ who will endorse this "secrecy." I know of none who criticise it.

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 02:54 PM

So because someone is more likely to be attacked they are given the elevated priviliege of being able to defend themselves even though they may never actually be attacked?

Yes someone with a "normal risk" of being attacked is not given the priviledge of defending themselves even though they might be the unlucky one in 100,000 that does actually get attacked?

Under those "handling of cash" good causes....why isn't everyone that works a bank have good cause then? Remember when bank managers were getting kidnapped?

In any of the "mass shootings" that have occurred in the last couple of years.....how many of those people were at "elevated risk"? Prolly none of them until the day when some nutjob decided to start shooting at people. It just makes me sick to think that our elected officials, inspite of the overwhelming evidence that CCW does protect lives, think so little of the lives of their constituents.

This we can agree on. The trouble with the existing system is that being beaten three times within inches of your life might not convince a CLEO to issue unless you can prove it is going to happen again. And maybe, not even then.

However, that's the way the current system works. That isn't TBJ's doing, just the way it is.

Untamed1972

06-15-2009, 02:58 PM

I guess you don't know the history regarding Good Cause copying in several counties, including O.C., where it has backfired on people.

You can expect to be grilled mercilessly on whether your Good Cause is real, and applies to you at your interview. If your Good Cause is real and does apply to you, why do you need to see someone else's? Yours will either fly or it won't.

If you don't know what your Good Cause is, you probably don't have one.

TBJ routinely advises people (sometimes up to five a day) whether their Good Cause is likely to be acceptable in their county/city, based on our knowledge. But they have to write it first, based on their circumstances.

You might examine a set of PRAR's and discover, say, a number of pharmacists with CCW's. Each of them will have their own, distinctive, Good Cause. Believe it or not, the examining deputy will be familiar with them and will almost certainly recognize a copy as a copy. As a one-time university professor with classes of some 140 students, I could frequently recognize when someone copied some coursework from a previous year's class member.

There are respected senior members of this board with no connection with TBJ who will endorse this "secrecy." I know of none who criticise it.

My point is I believe my good cause is "I have a right to self defense and a right to keep and BEAR arms". But such is appearantly not enough in this state. So my point is beyond that.....how is one to know except to subject themselves to hassle of the corrupt system to find out if their cause IS good enough or not when no one will ever say what "good cause" is or isn't.

And again I say.....if the good cause statement is found to be true and applicable, who cares who wrote it?

For example....I have rental property. And once a month I transport a check (and sometimes cash) from my tenants to the bank. Is that good enough cause? I don't know. Is the amount significant? Maybe not to some, but were I unlucky enough to get robbed on that one day a month it would be significant to me!

See my point? And before I go an spend time and money and enduring questioning by the LEOs and investigation of my private life I'd like to know if that is good cause or not.

And the "well apply and see" answer is BS in my opinion.....so don't go there.

Untamed1972

06-15-2009, 03:03 PM

"If you don't know what your Good Cause is, you probably don't have one."

And personally I find this statement to come across a little arrogant and elitest....so I can see where TBJ gets his reputation. I KNOW I have good cause from my personal perspective......what I and anyone else needs to know is what is good cause TO THEM!!! I'm not a friggin' mind reader.

How can anyone know when there is such lack of definition and secrecy perpetuated by both sides of this issue? Perhaps at least if people did reveal then more people would be come aware of how 2 people with nearly same "good cause" can be treated differently.

Transparency goes along way to weeding out corruption and it seems like when it comes to this issue niether side wants transparency at all.

DDT

06-15-2009, 03:07 PM

For those who think that TBJ witholds PRAR information, tell me one occasion that you have asked for anything that we know through a PRAR and we have denied it. As far as I know, the only things we've refused to share are the confidential results of legal settlements - and we'd be in big trouble with the courts if we did that.

There are respected senior members of this board with no connection with TBJ who will endorse this "secrecy." I know of none who criticise it.

I guess you've refuted your own earlier post. Now, next time I claim that you don't share information garnered via PRA please don't waste your breath denying it.

I am not saying it isn't your right, I am only saying that since you don't share with the community it is not surprising that some in the community would be less than forthright when you ask for free discovery on a job you are billing out.

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 03:09 PM

My point is I believe my good cause is "I have a right to self defense and a right to keep and BEAR arms". But such is appearantly not enough in this state. So my point is beyond that.....how is one to know except to subject themselves to hassle of the corrupt system to find out if their cause IS good enough or not when no one will ever say what "good cause" is or isn't.

And again I say.....if the good cause statement is found to be true and applicable, who cares who wrote it?

For example....I have rental property. And once a month I transport a check (and sometimes cash) from my tenants to the bank. Is that good enough cause? I don't know. Is the amount significant? Maybe not to some, but were I unlucky enough to get robbed on that one day a month it would be significant to me!

See my point? And before I go an spend time and money and enduring questioning by the LEOs and investigation of my private life I'd like to know if that is good cause or not.

And the "well apply and see" answer is BS in my opinion.....so don't go there.

And here we have a good example. Your Good Cause (which generally we would advise people not to publish on the internet) might well be strong enough in some counties, but definitely would not be in others. In the borderline counties, it might depend upon the amount that you collect, and the area from which you collect it. If you collected a few hundred from an apartment or two in Beverly Hills, it probably wouldn't fly. Twenty thousand a month in cash from dozens of properties somewhere else, and maybe. It all depends. Unless you live in Santa Clara, their PRAR's won't help you a bit. If you do live in Santa Clara (or somewhere else that we have examined in depth) then we can give you a better idea as to whether this type of Good Cause is likely to be acceptable to them or not.

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 03:13 PM

I guess you've refuted your own earlier post. Now, next time I claim that you don't share information garnered via PRA please don't waste your breath denying it.

I am not saying it isn't your right, I am only saying that since you don't share with the community it is not surprising that some in the community would be less than forthright when you ask for free discovery on a job you are billing out.

We do share information, just not everything you would like to see.

Now ask Chuck Michel, Donald Kilmer or Alan Gura for everything they have learned while persuing their court cases. Would you tell them to "Get lost" if they asked questions?

Untamed1972

06-15-2009, 03:21 PM

And here we have a good example. Your Good Cause (which generally we would advise people not to publish on the internet) might well be strong enough in some counties, but definitely would not be in others. In the borderline counties, it might depend upon the amount that you collect, and the area from which you collect it. If you collected a few hundred from an apartment or two in Beverly Hills, it probably wouldn't fly. Twenty thousand a month in cash from dozens of properties somewhere else, and maybe. It all depends. Unless you live in Santa Clara, their PRAR's won't help you a bit. If you do live in Santa Clara (or somewhere else that we have examined in depth) then we can give you a better idea as to whether this type of Good Cause is likely to be acceptable to them or not.

Well seeing how I'm anonymous here I don't see it as an issue especially since I've never applied let alone been denied.

And were I to actually apply I'd write it up much better then I did here.

DDT

06-15-2009, 03:21 PM

We do share information, just not everything you would like to see.

Now ask Chuck Michel, Donald Kilmer or Alan Gura for everything they have learned while persuing their court cases. Would you tell them to "Get lost" if they asked questions?

Nope, and I haven't told TBJ to "get lost" either. The biggest difference is that the three people you mentioned are working toward restoring rights to all Americans. TBJ is working to help people navigate the existing system.

They have also refrained from posting things like "tell me one occasion that you have asked for anything that we know through a PRAR and we have denied it." if you want a one way street where all the benefit goes to you and your client fine, but don't mislead about your intentions.

There is nothing ignoble about what TBJ is doing it is just different than the others and as you know; quid pro quo.

bulgron

06-15-2009, 03:38 PM

So because someone is more likely to be attacked they are given the elevated priviliege of being able to defend themselves even though they may never actually be attacked?

It's good to see that you understand how the law is supposed to work.

Of course, as I stated previously, it doesn't work even that well.

So what we have here is an unconstitutional law that CLEO's apparently can't even obey.

And, naturally, the dirty truth to all this G.C. crapola is that it was originally invented to make sure that fine, upstanding white people could carry weapons while no one else could. But like all racists schemes, sooner or later the scheme gets turned on society as a whole so that only a very privileged class of people (the well-to-do and the politically well-connected) can access the privilege.

The world will truly be a better place once California's may-issue system is recognized for the moldering pile of unconstitutional digested food stuff that it is.

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 03:57 PM

"tell me one occasion that you have asked for anything that we know through a PRAR and we have denied it."

Except for refusing to share Good Causes, today was the first time and at the time I said that, it was totally true to the best of my knowledge.

And no, the three attorneys I mentioned are trying to get the authorities to obey the law as written. Heller, Theseus and the other cases are all exactly that. None of them represent political activity, they are all directly aimed at benefitting the clients in question. They may have some input to the lawmakers, but the work content I'm asking if you've asked them to share is on cases to enforce existing law.

And, I'm tired of saying, a win for Billy Jack also benefits others, though admittedly not on the scale of Heller.

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 04:14 PM

Well seeing how I'm anonymous here I don't see it as an issue especially since I've never applied let alone been denied.

I said "generally."

And were I to actually apply I'd write it up much better then I did here.

I would certainly hope so, and it is that version that I would advise anyone and everyone not to publish.

And maybe this isn't the case for you, but a lot of people have published enough information that any lurking cop (and believe me there are such) could identify them even though they think they are anonymous.

Untamed1972

06-15-2009, 04:29 PM

I said "generally."

I would certainly hope so, and it is that version that I would advise anyone and everyone not to publish.

And maybe this isn't the case for you, but a lot of people have published enough information that any lurking cop (and believe me there are such) could identify them even though they think they are anonymous.

But again I say....if the good cause statement is investigated like it is supposed to be, and found to be true and accurate, then who cares who wrote it?

Seems like it should only be an issue if the investigation shows the GC statement to be untrue, inaccurate or overly embelished.

GuyW

06-15-2009, 04:47 PM

I, in no way feel it is inappropriate for TBJ to do what they do, everyone has to make a living and I would never want to suggest they don't have every right to make their living as they see fit. I just think it is naive of "the community" to give them information without compensation.

This charge is made here repeatedly.

Making _some_ money on an activity, does not equate to "making a living", unless the person in question lives in a mud hut.
.

TBJ is working to help people navigate the existing system.

I know one of the TBJ attorneys. His basic reason to do this is to support and advance the 2nd Amendment. Yes, he does get paid, but it is an infitesimal part of his living as an attorney.

Contrarily, if a potential client wanted to pay him a fortune to exploit some loophole in child pornography laws, he would refuse it.

Get it? Just because they get paid to kick CLEOs in the butt, doesn't make them souless mercenaries.

And kicking anti-gun CLEOs in the butt is not contrary to gun rights in general...
.

DDT

06-15-2009, 05:05 PM

This charge is made here repeatedly.

What charge? I merely pointed out that this is what they do for a living.

Making _some_ money on an activity, does not equate to "making a living", unless the person in question lives in a mud hut.

Can you explain this to me? I don't understand how being an attorney is equated to making a subsistence living. Are you suggesting that TBJ are all independently wealthy and don't need to charge anything for their services?

Get it? Just because they get paid to kick CLEOs in the butt, doesn't make them souless mercenaries.

And kicking anti-gun CLEOs in the butt is not contrary to gun rights in general....

How on earth did you get "soulless mercenary" from my post. I merely pointed out that this is a legal service that they charge their clients for. I've never said anything was wrong with that but I do want it clear that they don't do this out of the goodness or their hearts or for the betterment of the firearms community as a whole. They represent their clients, just like any attorney should.

I think that bringing up the Red Herring of Child Pornography is disgusting and disrespectful of the whole conversation and would appear to merely be a way of smearing those involved. Please don't do that. There should be some corollary to Godwin's Law for bringing Child Pornography into an online discussion.

DDT

06-15-2009, 05:08 PM

But again I say....if the good cause statement is investigated like it is supposed to be, and found to be true and accurate, then who cares who wrote it?

Seems like it should only be an issue if the investigation shows the GC statement to be untrue, inaccurate or overly embelished.

I agree 100% if there is a G.C. that was accepted by the Sheriff and then 100 people whose situation fit the same G.C. they should all be issued. I would love to see a suit where we found such a wide open G.C. statement and had a bunch of people use the same G.C. to see what the Sheriff does. If he were to refuse to issue to all of the applicants it would make for an interesting lawsuit. Would require incorporation though to get equal protection protection for those applying with the same G.C.

GuyW

06-15-2009, 05:53 PM

What charge? I merely pointed out that this is what they do for a living.

Can you explain this to me? I don't understand how being an attorney is equated to making a subsistence living.

You apparently went right by this:

Yes, he does get paid, but it is an infitesimal part of his living as an attorney.

You continue to attempt to portray this as individuals making all or a substantial part of their livings from these cases ie "this is what they do for a living".

It is not what they do for a living. It is a sideline.

I do want it clear that they don't do this....for the betterment of the firearms community as a whole.

And I testify from personal knowledge that they do have that motivation. What's your contrary evidence?

I think that bringing up the Red Herring...and would appear to merely be a way of smearing those involved.

This is a rich objection, given your posts here that smear the TBJ participants...

.

Glock22Fan

06-15-2009, 06:11 PM

This is a rich objection, given your posts here that smear the TBJ participants...

From my viewpoint, I believe that the statements made in this thread come tantamount to calling me a liar, which I find grossly offensive. Furthermore, Billy Jack is being impugned for behaving exactly the same way as any of the attorneys that charge for their services, work on their clients' behalf, protect their clients' interest and do not share everything they know.

I agree I mispoke by implying wrongly that we might actually share some raw PRAR data, but it was not with intent to deceive. DDT keeps saying that TBJ never shares anything, and yet you can find out information we've shared just by reading this thread. Numbers such as the claimed permits and denials at SCC. Discrepancies between SCC figures and DoJ figures. Details of court directives aimed at LAPD, which, I venture to guess, nobody on this board even guessed about.

DDT, what have YOU done for the cause?

DDT

06-15-2009, 06:20 PM

And I testify from personal knowledge that they do have that motivation. What's your contrary evidence?

I don't understand. You are saying that members of TBJ are doing this "for the betterment of the firearms community." I cannot and will not dispute their motives only the results of their actions. None of their lawsuits are designed or have the effect of changing the laws in the state of CA or creating judicial restrictions in the Sheriffs' discretion clause. I am sure that the TBJ guys are just as committed to 2A as Gorski is but their cases have no impact on issue other than to their clients. Again, I am NOT SMEARING anyone or saying it is wrong for them to represent their clients. That is what an attorney is paid to do.

This is a rich objection, given your posts here that smear the TBJ participants...

How on earth are you finding a smear in ANYTHING I have posted. If you do it is wholly unintentional. I have nothing against what they do. I just think that some people are under the impression that the lawsuits are intended to change the rules of issuance and felt it was worth pointing out that this is not the case.

If you continue to accuse me smearing ANYONE please re-post the alleged smear so that I know what you are misunderstanding. I have direct knowledge of my intent and opinions and I do not mean to or intend to smear anyone.

DDT

06-15-2009, 06:21 PM

DDT, what have YOU done for the cause?

Exactly what I have claimed.

DDT

06-15-2009, 06:30 PM

From my viewpoint, I believe that the statements made in this thread come tantamount to calling me a liar, which I find grossly offensive. Furthermore, Billy Jack is being impugned for behaving exactly the same way as any of the attorneys that charge for their services, work on their clients' behalf, protect their clients' interest and do not share everything they know.

Why do you consider ANYTHING I have posted impugning? I have essentially just posted exactly what you did. The TBJ is a group of attorneys and they represent their clients, nothing more and nothing less. I think that some people lose sight of TBJ's intent and goals and that a gentle reminder that they are simply attorneys working on a single CCW and not trying to reform the system is important.

DDT keeps saying that TBJ never shares anything,

I have never said such a thing. I merely said that it would be an excellent addition to the community if they did share the fruits of their PRAs and NEVER said that they share nothing. I had no interest in requesting the PRA information as it is TBJ's to do with as they will. You are the one who stated that TBJ WOULD share the information so I responded accordingly.

For anyone who is actually still reading this. Team Billy Jack has every right to NOT share the fruits of their labor, either raw PRA data or analysis of their research beyond public filings. I have never said, nor do I believe they are "evil" not their character impugned by such action. I DO feel that if they did choose to share the information it would benefit the community and I would never share information for free with someone who doesn't reciprocate.

AGAIN I SEE NOTHING IMMORAL OR BAD WITH TBJs KEEPING PRAs CONFIDENTIAL.

GuyW

06-15-2009, 06:48 PM

The TBJ is a group of attorneys and they represent their clients, nothing more....

I know one of the TBJ attorneys. His basic reason to do this is to support and advance the 2nd Amendment.

I think that some people lose sight of TBJ's intent and goals and that a gentle reminder that they are.....not trying to reform the system....

None of their lawsuits are designed or have the effect of.... creating judicial restrictions in the Sheriffs' discretion clause.

I just think that some people are under the impression that the lawsuits are intended to change the rules of issuance and felt it was worth pointing out that this is not the case.

There you go again (and again) - it IS exactly the case, by personal knowledge.

These CLEOs now have their own, illegal rules of issuance and illegally abuse their discretion.

The goals are to

a) get a qualified applicant a permit

b) stop the illegal activities and thereby further our goals. I know this for a fact.

Stopping the illegal activities helps Joe Sixpack incrementally, because a CLEO under Court oversight, will not be able to issue to his buds / contributors, while screwing Joe Average. Either the CLEO stops issuing entirely (which can be foreclosed by the Court), or he issues in strict accordance with the law, whereby his cronies don't get permits. At that juncture, he may well liberalize his policies so that cronies can get permits, and then Joe Sixpack does as well.

I consider all of your untrue statements about these guys' motives and goals as smears.
.

.

DDT

06-15-2009, 07:14 PM

There you go again (and again) - it IS exactly the case, by personal knowledge.

These CLEOs now have their own, illegal rules of issuance and illegally abuse their discretion.

The goals are to

a) get a qualified applicant a permit

b) stop the illegal activities and thereby further our goals. I know this for a fact.

Stopping the illegal activities helps Joe Sixpack incrementally, because a CLEO under Court oversight, will not be able to issue to his buds / contributors, while screwing Joe Average. Either the CLEO stops issuing entirely (which can be foreclosed by the Court), or he issues in strict accordance with the law, whereby his cronies don't get permits. At that juncture, he may well liberalize his policies so that cronies can get permits, and then Joe Sixpack does as well.

I consider all of your untrue statements about these guys' motives and goals as smears.
.

.

As I stated over and over.... They are retained by their clients are are NOT trying to change the laws. The front page of their website says EXACTLY that. "We will, however, challenge those CLEO's and Sheriffs who think that they can rewrite the law and those whose understanding of P.C. 12050 (Concealed Carry law) is apparently lacking."

To suggest that forcing the sheriff to follow the law in a single permit is the same as being motivated for the good of the firearms community is generous at best. I expect any good attorney whose client's 4th amendment rights are violated to use this in court, this doesn't mean that I see defense attorneys as civil rights attorneys. Again, it is not a smear it is not intended to impugn anyone's motives or actions I just think that some folks here think that TBJ is crusading for 2A civil rights like CGF SAF and their attorneys are. This is not the case and it doesn't have to be the case.

GuyW

06-15-2009, 07:28 PM

To suggest that forcing the sheriff to follow the law in a single permit is the same as being motivated for the good of the firearms community is generous at best.

Stop trying to move the goalposts - that is not what I've said.

I have said, from personal knowledge, that they ARE personally motivated for the good of the firearms community.

Why do you continue to say that I'm factually wrong?

How the $%^& could you even know that I'm wrong??

.

DDT

06-15-2009, 07:47 PM

Stop trying to move the goalposts - that is not what I've said.

I have said, from personal knowledge, that they ARE personally motivated for the good of the firearms community.

Why do you continue to say that I'm factually wrong?

How the $%^& could you even know that I'm wrong??

.

I have not said that you are wrong about their desire to change the laws or their true belief in the 2A. Nor have I moved the goalposts. I have merely said that they are attorneys, hired by clients and that their suits are not designed to open the issuance beyond sheriff's discretion. I have pointed out the differences between this approach and CGF's and SAF's approach. I don't know why you continue to take this as an insult. Just as I believe that a defense attorney strongly believes in civil rights and fights for their clients' civil rights. But don't mistake the purpose of the case. The purpose is to serve the client. AGAIN there is nothing nefarious about serving your client. Do you not think that Kilmer would have appealed if his clients so requested?

Untamed1972

06-16-2009, 07:34 AM

I have not said that you are wrong about their desire to change the laws or their true belief in the 2A. Nor have I moved the goalposts. I have merely said that they are attorneys, hired by clients and that their suits are not designed to open the issuance beyond sheriff's discretion. I have pointed out the differences between this approach and CGF's and SAF's approach. I don't know why you continue to take this as an insult. Just as I believe that a defense attorney strongly believes in civil rights and fights for their clients' civil rights. But don't mistake the purpose of the case. The purpose is to serve the client. AGAIN there is nothing nefarious about serving your client. Do you not think that Kilmer would have appealed if his clients so requested?

I didn't see any assaults DDT....but sometimes people don't like having the truth told when it doesn't make them look good.

As stated TBJ's focus is helping one person at a time navigate the system as it stands now, and to force CLEOs to adhere to the existing system. I have not seen his name on any of the federal suits that are actually seeking to change the system for the betterment of all by setting court precedent and establishing case law. Perhaps he is fighting for the 2A rights of specific individuals within the confines of the current corrupt and unconstitutional system, but I fail to see how he is really fighting for 2A rights on the larger scale. Because if CA suddenly goes shall-issue he's going to lose a lucrative part of his practice. So why would he want to change the system?

It's a free market and I support his right to make a living, nor is required to fight for the establishment of freedoms for all. I just think it is hypocritical for him, or a representative of his, to come here to a MB that is founded on seeking freedom for all, and ask for free information to support his private practice.

DDT

06-16-2009, 11:53 AM

I didn't see any assaults DDT....but sometimes people don't like having the truth told when it doesn't make them look good.

Like I said, I don't even think it makes them look bad, it just is what it is neither good nor bad. I sort of feel bad about how Glock, Guy and I have driven this poor thread so far off topic I guess we ought to let them get back to their asking for help with their lawsuit.

Untamed1972

06-16-2009, 11:56 AM

Like I said, I don't even think it makes them look bad, it just is what it is neither good nor bad. I sort of feel bad about how Glock, Guy and I have driven this poor thread so far off topic I guess we ought to let them get back to their asking for help with their lawsuit.

doing what they do for a living doesn't make them look bad. coming here asking for free info to help their client when they do not give back to help the "community" does......at least in my opinion. just seems kinda sleazy/selfish to me. but that's just my opinion.

Glock22Fan

06-16-2009, 12:07 PM

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

If you haven't seen Billy Jack's real name (Guillory) on any of the precedent cases, you haven't looked long enough, or far enough back. Billy Jack has already established case law, maybe before you learned to read. Try googling "Guillory v. Gates." Look how many other law firms etc. quote this landmark case in the eighties. Let me start you off here (http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/opinion1.pdf).

In addition, the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit has held that
an arbitrary and capricious CCW Permit scheme that treats similarly situated
individuals differently may give rise to liability on the part of the issuing official on
federal equal protection grounds. Guillory v. Gates, 731 F.2d 1379 (1984).

Has there been anything that has gone up to the Supremes? No. But then our clients haven't been backed by millionaire individuals or large organizations. Given that backing, who knows? Billy Jack's lawsuits do have the potential to change the way the "Dual system" and "Friends of the Sheriff" work.

GuyW has already said that the money is a small factor for the attorneys involved. Let me say that it certainly isn't Billy Jack's sole source of income either. He has a thriving P.I. business and would by no means starve if there was nothing whatsoever in CCW issuance. He may not be a great law changer, but he truly believes that the law as it is should be obeyed by CLEO's as much as by anyone else. As far as I'm concerned, if I shared my TBJ income and expenditure with any of you, you would owe me money. Come to think of it, all there is is expenditure.

here asking for free info to help their client when they do not give back to help the "community" does......

ARHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

Do you guys even read Bill Wiese? You do know who he is?

Correct.

TBJ has his avenues and approaches that can work. Until Sykes and derivatives make CA CCW somewhat rationally near shall-issue due to RKBA issues, we need to approach the problem from all angles - which includes due process matters unrelated to RKBA.

Let's fight any way we can. All methods keep the opposition busy.

Untamed1972

06-16-2009, 12:18 PM

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

If you haven't seen Billy Jack's real name (Guillory) on any of the precedent cases, you haven't looked long enough, or far enough back. Billy Jack has already established case law, maybe before you learned to read. Try googling "Guillory v. Gates." Look how many other law firms etc. quote this landmark case in the eighties. Let me start you off here (http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/opinion1.pdf).

Has there been anything that has gone up to the Supremes? No. But then our clients haven't been backed by millionaire individuals or large organizations. Given that backing, who knows? Billy Jack's lawsuits do have the potential to change the way the "Dual system" and "Friends of the Sheriff" work.

GuyW has already said that the money is a small factor for the attorneys involved. Let me say that it certainly isn't Billy Jack's sole source of income either. He has a thriving P.I. business and would by no means starve if there was nothing whatsoever in CCW issuance. He may not be a great law changer, but he truly believes that the law as it is should be obeyed by CLEO's as much as by anyone else. As far as I'm concerned, if I shared my TBJ income and expenditure with any of you, you would owe me money. Come to think of it, all there is is expenditure.

ARHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

I believe I did say I was talking about cases that were INTENDED to change the system did I not?

And if he had a good case to take up to SCOTUS that would be of braod benefit don't you think he would be able to find backing for it? But again...it seems his focus is on working within the current system. That's his right and I am not arguing that. THIS site and most of it's members are about CHANGING the system. THAT is MY point.

If his cases have the potential to change the system then why hasn't it changed? Why has he not filed federal cases like one recently filed to attack the system rather then to try and work with it?

Again.....I completely defend his right to do what he does. All I'm saying is that coming here, a site that has a different mission/goal in mind, and asking for free info to support a method that doesn't quite jive with the goal/mission in mind here seems kinda selfish.

Like I said....that's just my opinion....and it's my right to have it, and express it.

Untamed1972

06-16-2009, 12:19 PM

"In addition, the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit has held that
an arbitrary and capricious CCW Permit scheme that treats similarly situated
individuals differently may give rise to liability on the part of the issuing official on
federal equal protection grounds. Guillory v. Gates, 731 F.2d 1379 (1984)."

So then why is the system still the way it is here and now, in 2009, 25yrs later?

Untamed1972

06-16-2009, 12:23 PM

"Let's fight any way we can. All methods keep the opposition busy."

Notice he said "let's fight"...or "let US" fight. The "US" is an important part of that quote.

There needs to be a TEAM approach to this stuff. TBJ doesn't seem to wanna do that. If he did....then he might get the additional funding support he would need to take some of his good cases all the way.....and we wouldn't be sitting here in 2009 fighting the same battle.

DDT

06-16-2009, 12:44 PM

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

If you haven't seen Billy Jack's real name (Guillory) on any of the precedent cases, you haven't looked long enough, or far enough back. Billy Jack has already established case law, maybe before you learned to read. Try googling "Guillory v. Gates." Look how many other law firms etc. quote this landmark case in the eighties. Let me start you off here (http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/opinion1.pdf).

Is Billy Jack's identity anywhere on the website? I didn't realize he and Guillory were one and the same? I just did a quick site search and didn't come up with anything either.

Has there been anything that has gone up to the Supremes? No. But then our clients haven't been backed by millionaire individuals or large organizations. Given that backing, who knows? Billy Jack's lawsuits do have the potential to change the way the "Dual system" and "Friends of the Sheriff" work.

Nor was Kilmer, most of his work was done for expenses only. What's the point?

GuyW has already said that the money is a small factor for the attorneys involved. Let me say that it certainly isn't Billy Jack's sole source of income either. He has a thriving P.I. business and would by no means starve if there was nothing whatsoever in CCW issuance. He may not be a great law changer, but he truly believes that the law as it is should be obeyed by CLEO's as much as by anyone else. As far as I'm concerned, if I shared my TBJ income and expenditure with any of you, you would owe me money. Come to think of it, all there is is expenditure.

No one has said anything else. Only that they do this for paying clients. If you choose to donate your time then I'm glad that you feel good about your contributions. I still don't see your point. I have also NEVER said that TBJ was against CCW reform. There is plenty of work out in the world and I was grateful to see his support for Sykes as you posted in that thread.

Do you guys even read Bill Wiese? You do know who he is?

Appeal to authority is a terribly argument. I do know who Bill is and have respect for him. I also disagree with him at times. I do agree that it is worth pursuing gun reform laws from all angles and I have no problem with TBJ and how they go about it. Nowhere does Bill suggest that CGF or he personally is giving money to TBJ to help pursue individual CCWs. That is neither good not bad. I think that everyone who has a few thousand dollars lying around that they are able to spend on attaining a CCW is well served by these suits and it is good that the sheriffs know there is some money and legal power behind those people they use their discretion against.

Glock22Fan

06-16-2009, 12:46 PM

Notice he said "let's fight"...or "let US" fight. The "US" is an important part of that quote.

I believe that Bill intended to include TBJ as part of that US. He made it in this thread and directly relevant to TBJ. He is saying, I believe, that TBJ is persuing a legitimate and useful approach in the overall fight. To be part of the overall fight, we don't have to be following exactly the same path or, as Bill says, we can approach it from different angles. TBJ is approaching it from a different angle than you would wish, but that's no reason to disrespect it.

If he did....then he might get the additional funding support he would need to take some of his good cases all the way.....

If I remember the history of Heller, the backing came before the plaintiffs.

Is Billy Jack's identity anywhere on the website?

It is a commonly known fact amongst most posters that have been around a while, but it isn't emphasized anywhere. That's the point about screen personae. Rather like when Eric Clapton wanted to hide from his fame and tried to become anonymous as Derek and the Dominos. However, the advertising people splashed "DEREK IS ERIC!" posters everywhere and ruined that idea.

I think that everyone who has a few thousand dollars lying around that they are able to spend on attaining a CCW is well served by these suits and it is good that the sheriffs know there is some money and legal power behind those people they use their discretion against.

If you people do, as you say, generally support TBJ approaching it from a different angle, then why all this constant grumbling we see in this thread and elsewhere? If you don't want to contribute useful information, then don't. But why, in an open forum, should TBJ NOT say, "We're working on this case, anyone want to contribute knowledge, even though it might not directly benefit you in the short term?"

Untamed1972

06-16-2009, 12:57 PM

TBJ is approaching it from a different angle than you would wish, but that's no reason to disrespect it.

I don't disrespect it.....I just don't advocate that the many should support free of charge, the single client who is only seeking to benefit themselves. Don't know how many times I need to say that.

You want people to freely share information with you which you (TBJ) has clearly indicated they will not share in return. If TBJ wishes to follow that plan of attack....I guess he will hafta gather his info the hard way won't he? My point being that a free flow and interchange of info helps everyone....himself and his clients too. It would seem he's seeking one-sided benefit which is why he's not getting the info he's looking for.

If I remember the history of Heller, the backing came before the plaintiffs.

HMMmmmm.....kinda like the current federal case of Sykes? Your statement only supports my claim! Had a case been brought forward and filed in a manner to benefit the many....I doubt he would have trouble getting support for it.

Glock22Fan

06-16-2009, 01:14 PM

You want people to freely share information with you which you (TBJ) has clearly indicated they will not share in return.

We are trusted with information every day that we have no intention of sharing. Much of this would, in fact, dry up if we had any other policy.

So, someone tells us "I was denied in XYZ county in XX month, here's a copy of my denial letter. I don't want to make a fuss because . . . ."

We should publish that? Scan it in for all to see? Maybe we should leave names unredacted on it?

We need it because we want to cross check what the county says with reality. We want, if that's the case, to catch the county out in a lie. We don't need, or intend, to publish it.

Maybe we should publish the guy's Good Cause statement as well. After all, it tells you guys what not to say in your applications.

We actually have some moles here and there, people who support our aims in places where they have insider knowledge. Maybe we should publish transcripts of their telephone calls to us?

We do share information - just not all of it. We do publish court documents which contain our findings. However, it would not be in anyone's interests for us to publish everything we know. Puh-lease, are you really that naive?

Untamed1972

06-16-2009, 01:23 PM

I did not say share peoples' personal information.

I'm done with this thread. Help the team and the team will help you.....that's all I'm gonna say. Good luck with your investigation and case. Hopefully some good will come of it for the client AND the community as a whole.

As for the good cause statement issue.....I still don't agree with the whole secrecy issue on that. The case you quoted talked about "similarly situation person's being treated differently". If one is denied how are they to know if they are "similarly situated" to someone who was approved unless that information is shared? Well...short of hiring a CCW attorney of course. Get my point? I beleive there is more to the good cause secrecy issue then people want to let on. Secrecy breeds corruption.

Glock22Fan

06-16-2009, 01:42 PM

I did not say share peoples' personal information.

But most of what we get is personal information. All those CCW applications for example.

And this thread, although it isn't obvious from the posts, has in fact gained us quite a bit of knowledge, sent by p.m. and email. If those people didn't want to share with us, they wouldn't have, but it is clear that they didn't want their information posted, or they would have done that themselves.

Help the team and the team will help you.....that's all I'm gonna say.

There may be a common set of objectives, but there is more than one team.

As a hopefully final note myself, if there are any professionals working on 2nd Amendment/CCW related cases who with to confer and maybe share information, then that would be treated with different criteria than are blanket requests to reveal everything for the bloviating masses to pontificate over. Not that I am saying that anyone here is a bloviator of course ;).

Untamed1972

06-16-2009, 02:01 PM

But most of what we get is personal information. All those CCW applications for example.

If you got them by public records request.....then aren't they public information?

As a hopefully final note myself, if there are any professionals working on 2nd Amendment/CCW related cases who with to confer and maybe share information, then that would be treated with different criteria than are blanket requests to reveal everything for the bloviating masses to pontificate over. Not that I am saying that anyone here is a bloviator of course ;).

Again.....just confirming the turf protection for those in the legal profession I refered to before. Glad you have such a high opinion of the masses too! Do I detect a hint of elitism?

DDT

06-16-2009, 02:09 PM

Bthat would be treated with different criteria than are blanket requests to reveal everything for the bloviating masses to pontificate over. Not that I am saying that anyone here is a bloviator of course ;).

I think this is an excellent place to end the animosity and let it stand as a simple note of your opinions and thoughts on the people here.

Untamed1972

06-16-2009, 02:13 PM

And to be clear.....I'm not talking about sharing peoples' personal info. I'm talking more like statistics, perhaps occurrences found (minus names and addresses) where 1 person was issued and several others with similar good cause were denied. Despite my point on the good cause secrecy issue....I don't even need verbatum GC statements. Just general categories of GC that were approved. Like X number were issued for transporting of good/cash in excess of $X.XX in value, X number were issued for death threats, X number were issued for blah, blah, blah.

Take it further X sheriff issued X number of permits to campaign contributors (You could include names with this one and post it all over the friggin' internet).

That's the kind of information sharing I'm talking about.

I'd even bet there would be those who would volunteer to analyze the data and compile it were the raw info to be made available.

See my point?

That general info made available would provide the average joe something to go on rather then all this hush, hush, don't speak of it in public stuff.

Glock22Fan

06-16-2009, 02:15 PM

If you got them by public records request.....then aren't they public information?

Yes, so why don't you walk in and get them yourself if you are that interested. If they are public information, then TBJ is hardly hiding them from you. Why is it necessary to offer Billy Jack money to get them copied/scanned, if you can get them direct from the source? Answer, it isn't, so what's the big deal?

Again.....just confirming the turf protection for those in the legal profession I refered to before.

Not just the legal profession. Any professional will talk more freely to others in the same line of business, partly because they each know that the other is not likely to misunderstand and probably won't misuse the data out of ignorance.

There are people on this board who fancy themselves as barrack room lawyers. The professionals I've heard from aren't that impressed.

However, this is in direct response to your request that we be team players. And now I get criticised because I said we would consider assisting other teams on a peer to peer basis with different criteria than we would consider mass publication?

I just can't win, can I?

Glock22Fan

06-16-2009, 02:18 PM

I think this is an excellent place to end the animosity and let it stand as a simple note of your opinions and thoughts on a very small subset of the people here.

Corrected it for you.

DDT

06-16-2009, 02:25 PM

There are people on this board who fancy themselves as barrack room lawyers. The professionals I've heard from aren't that impressed.

the only person I have heard lay any claim to having learned enough to be a lawyer is Gene. Are you making an accusation?

It is quite interesting how you and Guy are the only ones taking shots at others on the board. I have never done that in this thread and all I get is attacked by the two of you. I will repeat that I have never claimed anything TBJ is doing is any any way unacceptable, just that it is for the benefit of their clients and not done to change the laws of the state. Whenever I say this you simply attack me or claim that I am somehow attacking you and TBJ by pointing out this fact. Yet, you say the same thing that I post here and on the website. I don't know why it gets your feathers so ruffled that you feel the need to start with the ad hominem attacks. I can assure you that I am more than ably equipped to defend myself should you really want to take this down to the level of personal attacks.

Untamed1972

06-16-2009, 02:36 PM

And now I get criticised because I said we would consider assisting other teams on a peer to peer basis with different criteria than we would consider mass publication?

Yet you came here seeking info not from peers but from avg. people.....so again I point to your one-sidedness in want to be given something you won't offer in return.

Yes.....it's all public info and anyone could go get it. But from a TEAM perspective why waste time doing something someone has already done? If the info has already been obtained share it and let it be analyzed and used for the benefit of the WHOLE community from whom you came to seek information. It's called cooperation....something you seem to not be able to grasp.

I never claimed to be a lawyer. But I do attempt to be a well informed citizen which is always a strong defense against gov't corruption. What I am asking for is assistance in being well informed.

Is that such a terrible thing for a citizen to want?

Glock22Fan

06-16-2009, 02:55 PM

I would not call Gene a barrack room lawyer. He is a very knowledgable layman, aware (I think) of his limitations. Barrack room lawyers only think they know what it is all about and usually suffer from wishful thinking. I could, but won't, identify a couple of those on this board, and I don't necessarily mean people who have contributed to this thread.

And as for the name calling: Maybe nobody, perhaps aware of the moderators, came right out and accused me of lying, but some of the posts were pretty damned close to it. There was also a lot of sneering about "why would anybody want to help TBJ, they're only in it for what they can get out of it." Maybe your skin is thicker, but I find that gratuitous, unnecessary and offensive.

You mention "ad hominem" attacks. I'm not aware I made any, except in the most general terms and not directed to any particular individual. If I did (after all there are ten pages) then I apologise - not for the first time in this thread.

OK, let's put this thing to bed. I won't comment further unless someone says something really outragious.

DDT

06-16-2009, 03:44 PM

Barrack room lawyers only think they know what it is all about and usually suffer from wishful thinking. I could, but won't, identify a couple of those on this board, and I don't necessarily mean people who have contributed to this thread.
...

You mention "ad hominem" attacks. I'm not aware I made any, except in the most general terms and not directed to any particular individual.

The insinuations like the barrack room lawyering and blovinating are attacks on "the person" rather than the argument. An attack needn't be specific to be ad hominem, only off the point of the argument and directed at the person arguing. That being said, I know that you take this very personally and I understand why you posted them. It is completely human to feel the need to defend oneself.

And as for the name calling: Maybe nobody, perhaps aware of the moderators, came right out and accused me of lying, but some of the posts were pretty damned close to it.

I apologize if you felt I was calling you a liar. I can assure you that I would be quite direct about it if that is what I believed. I have all the respect in the world for those who keep this board going but I wouldn't let that stop me from posting something I hold strongly.

With all sincerity, I wish you luck in your lawsuit. Hopefully this thread can get back on topic for you.

Glock22Fan

06-16-2009, 05:31 PM

I apologize if you felt I was calling you a liar. I can assure you that I would be quite direct about it if that is what I believed. I have all the respect in the world for those who keep this board going but I wouldn't let that stop me from posting something I hold strongly.

With all sincerity, I wish you luck in your lawsuit. Hopefully this thread can get back on topic for you.

Thank you.

Manic Moran

06-17-2009, 04:00 PM

Out of curiousity, I gave SCCSO a ring today, the CCW chap sounded quite cheerful. He tracked down my application in a few minutes, gave me a ring back, and informed me that my application had, indeed/of course been denied back in January. He is re-sending the denial letter, I'll set about writing the appeal now.

NTM

GuyW

06-17-2009, 05:36 PM

Manic Moran

06-17-2009, 07:07 PM

Didn't know they had a time limit.

Since I've been on military duty for a while, maybe I can invoke SSCRA to 'hold' the deadline for the duration I've been active.

NTM

yellowfin

06-17-2009, 07:13 PM

It isn't just the denial itself that's the outrage, but the mentality behind it. The "I don't think you need it so since it's up to me you won't get it" self appointed god garbage. Here's an example of the same arrogance and snottiness displayed by Sheriff Smith, only in New York state, where your pistol license isn't just for what you can carry on you, but what you can even own:
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii65/TexomaTrash/Why%20Prep/Matt2.jpg
"Now wish to add" meaning you have to get a judge to sign paperwork for you to add the next pistol to your license and issues you a coupon to give the gun store in order to receive it. They can refuse to do so. Not only is the 2nd Amendment clearly not respected by this, but the 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments as well.

Canute

06-17-2009, 07:52 PM

Wow, that thing from the SC of New York is bogus. Damn, as a Santa Clara county resident I read halfway through this thread hoping to actually learn something.

7x57

06-17-2009, 10:22 PM

The people who get Billy Jack's scorn are not the people you mention. The ones who really get his scorn are those who do have enough money (basically, no more than you would expect to need to defend a UOC charge) who do have a Good Cause, but who are still unwilling to stand up for their rights, who are unwilling to rock the boat.

Looks like this thread exploded to a fine red mist while I was gone, so I suppose this is pointless to respond to....

It's quite possible that you are correct; but why can I not learn that from his blog? It isn't just a "style" issue--it is either that his disdain is wider than you say, or that he cannot write clearly enough to express it himself. I have no reason to doubt your personal knowledge, but even if I accept it, I cannot respect Billy Jack's writing. If it is not as contemptuous as it sounds, it is simply misleading and incorrect.

I also seem to recall reading what Yellowfin mentioned--Billy Jack actually thinks shall-issue is a mistake and ordinary citizens don't have good enough cause to have a permit. Now here is what just really infuriates me--I've also seen Billy Jack post grand statements about the Second Amendment and the Right to Arms. That is really too much from him. Whatever the motivations of the TBJ individuals, they are deluding themselves if they think they have much to do with the 2A.

Now equal protection under the 14th, yes, TBJ could justly be said to fight for that. But what TBJ does, and all it can do under it's chosen, pre-Heller/Nordyke scheme, is to apply pressure for equal protection for the "privilege of arms." That's it. Nothing there about the Right to Arms because it's an approach borne of a system whose core assumption is that Arms are a privilege.

We all know that, right? I'm belaboring the obvious only because, at least while posturing on his blog, Billy Jack doesn't actually seem to know that. And I guess the point is that the blog is deceptive. It is written to sound like it has to do with the 2A right, even though it does not. Deceptive enough that the first time I read the website, I thought it was some kind of 2A campaign. I actually had to read enough here to finally figure out what TBJ does and doesn't do.

Why interesting? Well, because the blog is more insulting to a wider group of people than Glock22Fan describes, as I've said. So here is a second case having to do with a difference between what Billy Jack actually says publicly and what some associates (well, I don't know whether GuyW would count as an associate, nor does it matter all that much) say.

On the whole, I much prefer his associates' version of reality to Billy Jack's, as well as their on-line persona to his. It's too bad we can't have TBJ without Billy Jack.

7x57