PDA

View Full Version : Liberal legislators revenge


BigJim_610
06-21-2010, 2:34 PM
Question for legal folks.

Say the UOC law is passed and the RINO in Sacramento signs it, could the legislature pass another law prohibitting those with CCW from carrying outside the issuing county? I have no doubt those in Sacramento are considering something like this because of the ground swell of support for CCW.

Window_Seat
06-21-2010, 3:03 PM
IANAL, but will chime in on this one because I believe pretty strongly that this wouldn't pass muster in a post-incorporation world, especially after Sykes (below in my signature line).

The Legislature can continue to huff & puff and kick & scream & flop on the floor and foam at them mouth all they want, and the courts will continue to cause their spaghetti to slide down the walls and into little hungry black holes.

Erik.

Gray Peterson
06-21-2010, 3:08 PM
Question for legal folks.

Say the UOC law is passed and the RINO in Sacramento signs it, could the legislature pass another law prohibitting those with CCW from carrying outside the issuing county? I have no doubt those in Sacramento are considering something like this because of the ground swell of support for CCW.

Many years ago, an assistant to a state house rep was running around saying that they should do exactly that. The problem is that the people in power do not want to be bound by that law too, and the folks with licenses in the "no issue to regular citizens" counties will not tolerate that either, and they have a lot of power and money.

bulgron
06-21-2010, 3:08 PM
I also don't think that all the uber-wealthy & famous people in this state with CCWs would be too happy about that.

Of course, they could try to have two classes of CCWs: one for uber-wealthy & famous people, and one for the rest of us, but I for one would love to see the state try to defend that in Federal court.

Gray Peterson
06-21-2010, 3:12 PM
I also don't think that all the uber-wealthy & famous people in this state with CCWs would be too happy about that.

Of course, they could try to have two classes of CCWs: one for uber-wealthy & famous people, and one for the rest of us, but I for one would love to see the state try to defend that in Federal court.

It wouldn't, even minus the 2A issues. See Guillory v. County of Orange.

Super Spy
06-21-2010, 3:21 PM
I'm pretty sure the legislature will pass said stupid law, and the RINO will sign it.

Gray Peterson
06-21-2010, 3:23 PM
I'm pretty sure the legislature will pass said stupid law, and the RINO will sign it.

Based on what evidence?

Btw, let me remind everyone: "Liberal" does not mean "anti-gun" in an exclusive fashion. Senator Rod Wright is African-American, Liberal, and VERY pro-gun. In fact, it is because of then-Rep. Wright that we're fixing the sheriffs office violations of statutory law.

yellowfin
06-21-2010, 4:12 PM
We really need to adjust the differentiated pistol license structure in NY. The same criteria and process in one county for carry only gets you able to take it to the range in another, and nobody can carry in NYC no matter where your license is from unless NYPD gives you a NYC carry license--which ~200 people out of millions have.

weezil_boi
06-21-2010, 6:26 PM
Question for legal folks.

Say the UOC law is passed and the RINO in Sacramento signs it, could the legislature pass another law prohibitting those with CCW from carrying outside the issuing county? I have no doubt those in Sacramento are considering something like this because of the ground swell of support for CCW.


Yes.

Ammiano sits on the assembly public safety committee and he (and others) would love to fix what they consider to be a "problem"... that people from counties where its easy to get a CCW cannot be stopped from bringing them into THEIR counties and cities. They will try. And, with just the right Leg Governor... they'll succeed. I spoke to someone that works closely with him, I just could not sway his opinion. Maybe someone smarter than me will :D

kcbrown
06-22-2010, 1:55 PM
I also don't think that all the uber-wealthy & famous people in this state with CCWs would be too happy about that.

Of course, they could try to have two classes of CCWs: one for uber-wealthy & famous people, and one for the rest of us, but I for one would love to see the state try to defend that in Federal court.

They won't do anything so blatantly obvious and easy to challenge.

Instead, they'll do something like somehow extend LEO status to the uber-wealthy. Since LEOs are already considered a "special class" even at the federal level (see LEOSA), such a move will be much harder to challenge, I'd wager.

grammaton76
06-22-2010, 2:13 PM
They won't do anything so blatantly obvious and easy to challenge.

Instead, they'll do something like somehow extend LEO status to the uber-wealthy. Since LEOs are already considered a "special class" even at the federal level (see LEOSA), such a move will be much harder to challenge, I'd wager.

They've already been doing that. Check Ajax22's thread on it - he's trying to figure out a solid mechanism to let that work for the non-wealthy/famous. But, it's the same mechanism the wealthy/famous have been using to get all-50-state ccw for some time now.

advocatusdiaboli
06-22-2010, 2:43 PM
I also don't think that all the uber-wealthy & famous people in this state with CCWs would be too happy about that.

Of course, they could try to have two classes of CCWs: one for uber-wealthy & famous people, and one for the rest of us, but I for one would love to see the state try to defend that in Federal court.

They already do that now in many California counties and cities and get away with it because there isn't enough public disclosure of the process, criteria, and issued permits to allow public scrutiny and lawsuits.

I don't think that will stand long is we get forced incorporation via McDonald.
If they try to maintain their secret exclusive regimes, I hope the lawsuits will start.

Christmas in June--who'd have thought. And so close after Father's Day. No worry now is that they'll postpone until next term. I hope not.

Gray Peterson
06-22-2010, 2:54 PM
They already do that now in many California counties and cities and get away with it because there isn't enough public disclosure of the process, criteria, and issued permits to allow public scrutiny and lawsuits.

I don't think that will stand long is we get forced incorporation via McDonald.
If they try to maintain their secret exclusive regimes, I hope the lawsuits will start.

Christmas in June--who'd have thought. And so close after Father's Day. No worry now is that they'll postpone until next term. I hope not.

Why do you think I'm working on a Wiki Project of posted policies of each county with my compliance project?

Anothercoilgun
06-22-2010, 9:00 PM
I also don't think that all the uber-wealthy & famous people in this state with CCWs would be too happy about that.

Of course, they could try to have two classes of CCWs: one for uber-wealthy & famous people, and one for the rest of us, but I for one would love to see the state try to defend that in Federal court.

CCW is just that, a separation of classes.

1JimMarch
06-23-2010, 12:38 AM
The current permitholders number about 35k. Of those at least 25k are basically some of the wealthiest people in the state. Neither political party can afford to piss off a block like that. Period. That's why we're not going to go backwards on CCW.

Well that's one reason anyhow. The courts being the other.

FreedomIsNotFree
06-23-2010, 12:49 AM
Perhaps UOC in incorporated areas of the state will be the sacrificial lamb. It would give the legislature the ability to appear tough on guns while they are being forced to open CCW permits to the masses. The timing is rather interesting.

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 8:23 AM
Perhaps UOC in incorporated areas of the state will be the sacrificial lamb. It would give the legislature the ability to appear tough on guns while they are being forced to open CCW permits to the masses. The timing is rather interesting.

Unlikely. When asked during one of the early press conferences about the fact that many of the people who UOC are protesting their sheriff's restrictive CCW issuance policies, and that the issue would solve itself if carry licenses where required to be issued for personal protection.

The looks on their faces were one of: "What a silly thing to ask us", and didn't really answer the question, as that would require defending the indefensible.

yellowfin
06-23-2010, 8:29 AM
Unlikely. When asked during one of the early press conferences about the fact that many of the people who UOC are protesting their sheriff's restrictive CCW issuance policies, and that the issue would solve itself if carry licenses where required to be issued for personal protection.

The looks on their faces were one of: "What a silly thing to ask us", and didn't really answer the question, as that would require defending the indefensible.
So our side didn't press harder?!?!? Why are they simply allowed to skate? Why are they NOT pushed to answer the indefensible? Every time I read something like this and when I see a debate between our side and anti gun LE and/or the Bradys, there's always pulling of punches instead of landing the knockout blow. WHY?!?!?!!? Our side seems to cut the line when the fish is at the boat all the time.

N6ATF
06-23-2010, 9:00 AM
Perhaps UOC in incorporated areas of the state will be the sacrificial lamb. It would give the legislature the ability to appear tough on guns while they are being forced to open CCW permits to the masses. The timing is rather interesting.

The legislature will never do anything but ban every form of 2A unless they have genital pain compliance installed by order of SCOTUS.

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 9:27 AM
So our side didn't press harder?!?!? Why are they simply allowed to skate? Why are they NOT pushed to answer the indefensible? Every time I read something like this and when I see a debate between our side and anti gun LE and/or the Bradys, there's always pulling of punches instead of landing the knockout blow. WHY?!?!?!!? Our side seems to cut the line when the fish is at the boat all the time.

Because the person that challenged them was a member of the press from a conservative news source and that was the last of a line of questions that was peppered on Saldaņa and other members of the press conference. Simply flat out, the point was made and the politicians looked bad, but only bad to segment of the population.

Gun owners in California are politically powerless. This is why the political branches do not listen to us. We are, however, not legally powerless. This is why the LEGAL branch (the federal courts in specific) listen to us.

yellowfin
06-23-2010, 9:39 AM
Doesn't answer my question. What I'm asking is why we don't ask the questions and say the things to the public that would turn the public against the political branches when we have the chance. Our side gets interviews, debates, etc. and doesn't lay out the real stuff that would stab them through the heart instead of giving them paper cuts.

bulgron
06-23-2010, 9:41 AM
Doesn't answer my question. What I'm asking is why we don't ask the questions and say the things to the public that would turn the public against the political branches when we have the chance.

Because they make sure we don't have the chance.

Glock22Fan
06-23-2010, 10:40 AM
Doesn't answer my question. What I'm asking is why we don't ask the questions and say the things to the public that would turn the public against the political branches when we have the chance. Our side gets interviews, debates, etc. and doesn't lay out the real stuff that would stab them through the heart instead of giving them paper cuts.

Because they make sure we don't have the chance.

And, frankly, most of the public could not care less.

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 11:01 AM
Doesn't answer my question. What I'm asking is why we don't ask the questions and say the things to the public that would turn the public against the political branches when we have the chance. Our side gets interviews, debates, etc. and doesn't lay out the real stuff that would stab them through the heart instead of giving them paper cuts.

You missed the point of what I was trying to say.

Except for people like us, no one else votes purely on gun issues. Incumbent sheriffs do not get de-elected over anything gun related either way. Even if Sheriff Hennessey of San Francisco were to go "personal protection as good cause" and start issuing licenses, he still would not lose re-election. It goes both ways.

bulgron
06-23-2010, 11:35 AM
You missed the point of what I was trying to say.

Except for people like us, no one else votes purely on gun issues. Incumbent sheriffs do not get de-elected over anything gun related either way. Even if Sheriff Hennessey of San Francisco were to go "personal protection as good cause" and start issuing licenses, he still would not lose re-election. It goes both ways.

Well, in fact, he probably would lose re-election because the dominant political machine in that part of the state would defund him, and instead back someone else.

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 11:42 AM
Well, in fact, he probably would lose re-election because the dominant political machine in that part of the state would defund him, and instead back someone else.

San Francisco has unique issues that applies nowhere else.

bulgron
06-23-2010, 12:27 PM
San Francisco has unique issues that applies nowhere else.

I actually think the same sort of thing would happen to any pro-CCW sheriff from San Francisco south to at least San Jose.

Too many billionaires in this part of the state who like their prestige and privilege.

yellowfin
06-23-2010, 12:41 PM
People don't care about the issue? Oh? Then why is it every time the issue comes up with statewide candidates you say they shouldn't speak up about being pro gun b/c the voters will reject them for it? Which is it?

grammaton76
06-23-2010, 2:12 PM
Unlikely. When asked during one of the early press conferences about the fact that many of the people who UOC are protesting their sheriff's restrictive CCW issuance policies, and that the issue would solve itself if carry licenses where required to be issued for personal protection.

The looks on their faces were one of: "What a silly thing to ask us", and didn't really answer the question, as that would require defending the indefensible.

They rolled their eyes, the one guy got a little red-faced, and then said "THIS debate is about UOC, it's NOT about concealed carry. Please stick to the subject". Or words to that effect.

Well, in fact, he probably would lose re-election because the dominant political machine in that part of the state would defund him, and instead back someone else.

This is pretty much correct. You don't break with the party line.

People don't care about the issue? Oh? Then why is it every time the issue comes up with statewide candidates you say they shouldn't speak up about being pro gun b/c the voters will reject them for it? Which is it?

1. Gun people don't care ENOUGH to matter.
2. Neutral people don't care at all, unless the media complains, in which case they side with anti-gun people.
3. Anti-gun people care.

Candidates shouldn't ever speak up on the gun issue because #2 and #3 are much, much larger than the subset of #1 which cares enough to CHANGE a vote based on the gun issue.

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 2:19 PM
People don't care about the issue? Oh? Then why is it every time the issue comes up with statewide candidates you say they shouldn't speak up about being pro gun b/c the voters will reject them for it? Which is it?

Who's this "you" that you speak of? You realize that the political situation with sheriffs are completely different than statewide candidates right?

Give you an example: Sheriff Hutchens started expiring people's licenses in a form of hubris. The Orange County Board of Supervisors put her in, but then called her into multiple meetings and she flat out said that the county board of supervisors couldn't tell her how to issue licenses. The Board passed useless resolutions asking her to restore the policy before Carona was indicted. She refused.

The Board of Supervisors had a few trump cards in their hands they could have done. They could have limited or even eliminated the entire budget for the sheriffs office until she complied with their request, or did other measures. They didn't do that. Why? Because there are higher priorities in the county than what they perceive as 400 "whiny gun owners who lost their CCW's". That goes both ways.

For example, if the Sheriff of San Mateo County (for an example reasons only), were to suddenly announce a personal protection policy, the Brady Campaign would pack the supervisors meetings (we'd of course have a force call out of our own to defend the sheriff's decision) and start whining in meetings and make it go to the late hour. The Sheriff would come in and explain that because of McDonald and the potential liabilities of the Sheriff's Office, he cannot risk a lawsuit by denial, and that the previous administration's understanding of liability from issuance was completely incorrect. The Board of Supervisors would pass a resolution condemning the sheriff, and that would essentially be it. The voters 3 years from now will not care about the issue.

People perceive their sheriff differently than they perceive Governors.