PDA

View Full Version : BillyJack pessimism on shall issue CA Carry Licenses


Pages : 1 [2]

Meplat
10-02-2010, 6:12 PM
You’re much more optimistic than I am! I figure it will be closer to 10 years, barring events elsewhere. I can see two years for Sykes in district court, two years for the first appeal, two years for the U.S. Supreme Court, and two or more years of additional enforcement litigation after our presumed victory.

And if we allow Obama to continue in a position to pack the court it will be never.

Meplat
10-02-2010, 7:46 PM
Until we get to the point were a drawing of a gun is just a drawing, and not perceived as violence, then it will start going smoothly. Until then, a need for patience is also necessary.
:)

What are you trying to say here? The drawing of a gun in a public urban environment, while in and of its self should not be against the law, it is not trivial. I hope you do not have to learn that the hard way.

Meplat
10-02-2010, 7:50 PM
Pretty sure that's not defensible in court.

DA: "Can you tell us for the record why you failed the plaintiff?"
Psych: "He didn't say anything except something about the 5th Amendment"
DA: "So he was exercising his Constitutional rights?"
Psych: "I guess"
DA: "Do you see the problem here?"

And how much time money and grief have you gone through before you get to that point?:rolleyes:

Meplat
10-02-2010, 7:56 PM
No.

I'm not sure your opinion is relevant Gray.;):D

Meplat
10-02-2010, 8:03 PM
Brave have nausea problem with anyone who refers to himself in first person.

:rofl2:

Sgt Raven
10-02-2010, 8:36 PM
What are you trying to say here? The drawing of a gun in a public urban environment, while in and of its self should not be against the law, it is not trivial. I hope you do not have to learn that the hard way.

Drawing on paper, a picture, you know the kids who get kicked out of school for 'DRAWING' a picure of a gun. :p

CHS
10-02-2010, 8:45 PM
And how much time money and grief have you gone through before you get to that point?:rolleyes:

Failing someone for doing nothing more than just remaining silent will not hold up to ANY kind of scrutiny. Period.

Am I willing to test it? Hell yes.

Meplat
10-02-2010, 9:10 PM
Failing someone for doing nothing more than just remaining silent will not hold up to ANY kind of scrutiny. Period.

Am I willing to test it? Hell yes.

Thank heaven for guys like you. I can't take the stress of things like that any more.

Stress:

That condition witch obtains when the mind over rides the bodies' inclination to choke the living **** out of some ***hole that richly deserves it.:p

bussda
10-02-2010, 9:25 PM
What are you trying to say here? The drawing of a gun in a public urban environment, while in and of its self should not be against the law, it is not trivial. I hope you do not have to learn that the hard way.

SgtRaven correctly posted my intent, i.e. drawing a picture.

But you post an interesting idea. Going to meet someone in a public place, talking about your newest weapon with a good friend, then pulling it out to do show and tell, and everyone ignores it or joins in admiration or disparagement... :-)

And something to chew on, current law enforcement practice is drawing weapon means use of force. But these are civillians, not governed by that use of force policy. Different mindset.

OK time to stop dreaming and end this threadjack!

Billy Jack
10-02-2010, 10:03 PM
I'll see your Cree and raise you a 1/4 Cherokee. One hell of a lot of us have a touch of the blanket in us. But we don't have to get stupid about it.

I think it safe to say Billy Jack was the one that paved that road.

'Can't we all just get along?'

Some of us are working active cases. I post when I can and after I stop laughing at the posts.

Billy Jack
'The Force is stong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Sgt Raven
10-02-2010, 10:41 PM
'Can't we all just get along?'

Some of us are working active cases. I post when I can and after I stop laughing at the posts.

Billy Jack
'The Force is stong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com)

Well then, anything new on the SCSO and L. Smith front?

Meplat
10-02-2010, 11:07 PM
Sure, I think your posts are fine. But then I'm not all hung up on being part native American.

I really don't understand the people who criticize sports teams for using Indian names. You do not name your team after something you do not respect! These folks are just looking for something to be offended about.

As far as your ego, I get it, it's entertaining and interesting. I respect your contribution to the cause and understand your focus on the 14th amendment route.

Even if you did not have other irons in the fire I think your 14th amendment approach would be needed for many cases for a long time. I doubt you are trying to defeat the 2A approach. A resourceful and intelligent man like yourself does not need to stoope to the level of politicians and bureaucrats.

Please Know that in that post I was admonishing your critics about being "stupid about it", not you.

You may note that in my sig line I have a simple, honest, direct, native American quote. I take great pride in it. But I don't get stupid about it.

Peace.

Mike

'Can't we all just get along?'

Some of us are working active cases. I post when I can and after I stop laughing at the posts.

Billy Jack
'The Force is stong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Gray Peterson
10-03-2010, 2:14 AM
And how much time money and grief have you gone through before you get to that point?:rolleyes:

I'm an ******* and I don't give a ****. Bring it the **** on.

I'm not sure your opinion is relevant Gray.;):D

Pfft....

Paladin
10-03-2010, 8:05 AM
Yeah, I understand.

But I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about people needlessly dying (that 53 y.o. w/o a CCW dying in a fist fight recently cf. to that 85 y.o who had a CCW and a .25acp semi living). I'm sure there are many other cases I don't hear about, where women w/o CCWs are raped vs ones w/CCWs who scare off or prevail over their attackers. Similarly, I'm sure there are many cases of pizza delivery people being harmed w/o CCWs cf to my thread yesterday of the one who prevailed over the two BGs who attacked him. I just get fed up w/this happening to law-abiding folk who are forced by law to be prey.

:rant:

I'm sure you feel the same way.

Thanks for all your efforts too.http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=348633

Turns out I didn't have to look very far to find support for the first half of my position.

This female CGNer posted that there had been 4 sexual 5 attempted sexual assaults (2 were successful) since June at her apt complex in Walnut Creek, in Contra Costa county -- a city and a county where it is VERY RARE for "mere civilians" to get CCWs to defend themselves.

After all, just call 9-1-1, or take up karate: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=348105 :rolleyes:

Here's a link to news story: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2010/10/03/5th-woman-attacked-in-walnut-creek-apartment-complex/

Glock22Fan
10-03-2010, 8:54 AM
SgtRaven correctly posted my intent, i.e. drawing a picture.

But you post an interesting idea. Going to meet someone in a public place, talking about your newest weapon with a good friend, then pulling it out to do show and tell, and everyone ignores it or joins in admiration or disparagement... :-)

And something to chew on, current law enforcement practice is drawing weapon means use of force. But these are civillians, not governed by that use of force policy. Different mindset.

OK time to stop dreaming and end this threadjack!

Happened to me in a Utah cafe when my friend pulled out his new .380 Ruger to unload and show me. Nobody took any notice.

He asked if I was carrying, I just tapped my hip and said "You've seen my Glock before." I must admit, it would have been uncomfortable for me to draw it, even though nobody seemed to care about his.

dieselpower
10-03-2010, 9:24 AM
Hummmmmmmm.........

Mental health professionals are now required to report individuals they think are dangerous. (BTW I think that is a bad idea) Other than that would not any information be covered by the Dr. patient privilege?:confused:

Not if you are being charged with a crime. If you paid a shrink to evaluate you for a CCW, that evaluation is admissible in court against you. You can attempt to fight its entrance into evidence, but you have no "patient privilege" stopping its use against you.

Therefore there is a 5thA right to refuse to answer. That refusal to answer questions can not be used to fail you.

So you will be paying $150 to a State contracted Psychiatrist, to comply with a requirement of CCW. That doesn't mean you are giving up your Rights.

It would be the same as a CCW requirement to speak with a Priest before issuance

Meplat
10-03-2010, 12:16 PM
Thanks for the explanation. That sucks.


Not if you are being charged with a crime. If you paid a shrink to evaluate you for a CCW, that evaluation is admissible in court against you. You can attempt to fight its entrance into evidence, but you have no "patient privilege" stopping its use against you.

Therefore there is a 5thA right to refuse to answer. That refusal to answer questions can not be used to fail you.

So you will be paying $150 to a State contracted Psychiatrist, to comply with a requirement of CCW. That doesn't mean you are giving up your Rights.

It would be the same as a CCW requirement to speak with a Priest before issuance

CCWFacts
10-03-2010, 6:08 PM
I will say one more thing on this thread...

Billy Jack's persona and personality do rub some people the wrong way. A lot of people (including me) disagree with him on many things. Many people (including me) don't get along with him.

But regardless of my personal views and feelings about Billy Jack, the fact is, he has been in CCW court cases long before there were Internet forums. He was a plaintiff in a case that is very very important for CCW and also some other areas today. And we will get shall-issue, soon, quite possibly through the courts, and if that's the avenue we get it, then Billy Jack's case will be important in it. Not to mention his efforts in PRARs and other areas.

I hope his contributions are remembered more than his persona.

wildhawker
10-03-2010, 6:28 PM
CCWFacts,

Alan Gura is *the* reason we will have the right to both keep (as we do) and bear arms (coming soon).

EP cases (like Preston's) have very probably made for an extraordinarily low number of CA CCWs actually issued- much lower than most would think.

acousticmood
10-03-2010, 6:44 PM
What kind of questions would be allowed in a psych eval? Wouldn't some questions be an invasion of privacy? I don't remember the second amendment requiring this in order to "bear arms".

Gray Peterson
10-03-2010, 6:46 PM
CCWFacts,

Alan Gura is *the* reason we will have the right to both keep (as we do) and bear arms (coming soon).

EP cases (like Preston's) have very probably made for an extraordinarily low number of CA CCWs actually issued- much lower than most would think.

To be fair, there are other aspects of equal protection besides actual license issuance. Restrictions on licenses, training opportunities, etc etc etc.

-Gray

wildhawker
10-03-2010, 6:49 PM
Gray,

That's not what we're talking about here and certainly not that which is otherwise legally inevitable.

HowardW56
10-03-2010, 6:52 PM
I will say one more thing on this thread...

Billy Jack's persona and personality do rub some people the wrong way. A lot of people (including me) disagree with him on many things. Many people (including me) don't get along with him.

But regardless of my personal views and feelings about Billy Jack, the fact is, he has been in CCW court cases long before there were Internet forums. He was a plaintiff in a case that is very very important for CCW and also some other areas today. And we will get shall-issue, soon, quite possibly through the courts, and if that's the avenue we get it, then Billy Jack's case will be important in it. Not to mention his efforts in PRARs and other areas.

I hope his contributions are remembered more than his persona.

I agree. As unique as his personality is, he has laid some of the groundwork that is useable in the CCW battles that are ongoing.

Gray Peterson
10-04-2010, 1:07 AM
Gray,

That's not what we're talking about here and certainly not that which is otherwise legally inevitable.

Had to think about that for a minute, but now I realize what you mean.

bussda
10-04-2010, 10:24 AM
EP cases (like Preston's) have very probably made for an extraordinarily low number of CA CCWs actually issued- much lower than most would think.

This is getting a bit off topic, but you speak cryptically. If I understand your words, then EP (equal protection) cases made the CCW issuance for average citizens worse? Is there some link to where this is discussed or could you provide additional information? Not trying to be argumentative, just looking to understand.

bussda
10-04-2010, 11:19 AM
If there's a federal court order, the police are obligated to follow it, regardless of orders from on high. State law is also clear on the amount of time:

12052.5. The licensing authority shall give written notice to the applicant indicating if the license is approved or denied within 90 days of the initial application for a new license or a license renewal or 30 days after receipt of the applicant's criminal background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later.

This is not an optional law. Fiscal v. City/County of San Francisco makes it very clear that the state has preempted all discretion from the sheriffs. 90 Days of initial application, or 30 days after receipt. Once that 90 day threshold is passed and they don't tell you to get LiveScanned (every 48 hours for a return on that), a mandamus action can be filed against the sheriff or PD chief to force him to decide.

Two points here. If police/sheriff are required to follow a court order, then why haven't they been following Guillory and others? (Not cop bashing, just pointing out that sometimes the law is ignored, or defined differently.) And when does the clock start, the date the application is received or logged into the system? (Example: Application dropped off or mailed, received by agency, put to one side, processing earlier received applications, then logged in and start action. Payment not processed until they pull the application out of the box or start action.)


A sheriff is immune from ALL liability from those who misuse firearms under said license, under Government Code 818.8 and 821.2. There is NO liability for issuing a license, period, even if it was issued in error. The only liability is for attorneys fees and court costs if a license is denied under 42USC1983.

All attempts at requiring liability insurance violates PC12054(d).

You're assuming there will be a huge crime drop to the point where staffing will not be an issue. First, the counties and cities are freaking broke. They can barely contain the crime rate as it is with the staffing that they have. Handing out carry permits like candy will help with their budget problems.

You deal with monetary (legally defined) liability. How about political liability, public perception, and similar? (Thinking outside the box here.)

And my earlier post stated there would be a perceived need for less staffing. (Staffing is not related to crime levels, but it is easy to think that.) There will not be huge drop in crime, but it will be significant (or at least not go up much with the current economic situation). And when the numbers get crunched, the income will not be much. Usually max 3% but more normally about 1% of the eligible population will apply for a license if I remember correctly.


Not 5 years. Also, remember that these is not the same as striking down a statutory ban. This is directing the sheriff to exercise his discretion in state law not in an unconstitutional manner. There is a major difference between a statutory strike down case (Heller, McDonald) versus a discretion narrowing case. A lot of people don't understand the difference, and make these grand predictions about it taking forever with no facts to back it up.

Yes, I do forget this is a discretion narrowing case. And the issue is defining discretion. I remember following Jim March's case from the 90's. And yes, we do have the Heller, McDonald cases, which are significant. But, being practical, I prefer to be pessimistic, expended too much optimism in the past. :) I am taking a jaded view, but view it from the point that someone who has not heard of CalGuns can walk in and not get run through the wringer.

An aside. Are the points we are discussing in a specific place? I hate to run things over that have been said before. If they were scattered, that is different. Just hate taking time with what may seem to be repetitive questions. I appreciate the time taken to reply.

Gray Peterson
10-04-2010, 12:05 PM
Two points here. If police/sheriff are required to follow a court order, then why haven't they been following Guillory and others? (Not cop bashing, just pointing out that sometimes the law is ignored, or defined differently.)

Because Guillory isn't a guarantee of getting a license and must be done on a micro-level with each individual county. Guillory is a doctrine which must be applied to each individual county. It requires a lot of work, either PRAR research or via discovery. This being done by an individual is expensive or difficult. Guillory also has on unfortunate side effect: It can result in less licenses being issued because that "self defense" good cause issued to a crony could suddenly result in a revocation to that particular applicant who can be forced to come into the sheriff's office change their good cause. Once that's changed, the license for that good cause no longer exists, and it results in less licenses issued. Great for the regular people, not good for the cronies, but a step backward is taken. Pre-McDonald, this is a major problem.

And when does the clock start, the date the application is received or logged into the system? (Example: Application dropped off or mailed, received by agency, put to one side, processing earlier received applications, then logged in and start action. Payment not processed until they pull the application out of the box or start action.)

The day the application is received by mail (trackable mailer recommended) or dropped off with receipt. Massive non-compliance by county sheriffs only means that individuals are afraid to complain for fear of being rejected for a license.

You deal with monetary (legally defined) liability. How about political liability, public perception, and similar? (Thinking outside the box here.)

If a court is presented with these excuses, the excuses will be dismissed outright.

And my earlier post stated there would be a perceived need for less staffing. (Staffing is not related to crime levels, but it is easy to think that.) There will not be huge drop in crime, but it will be significant (or at least not go up much with the current economic situation). And when the numbers get crunched, the income will not be much. Usually max 3% but more normally about 1% of the eligible population will apply for a license if I remember correctly.

True, but remember the pent up demand issues. California is an extraordinarily violent state. For decades, they were told they couldn't carry even if they didn't want to. Once they hear about it in the news, and it gets plastered on the newspapers and eventually, on power poles in multiple languages on fliers, etc, we'll be able to get that percentage up. Some people think I'm being too optimistic, but every single one of my friends, who are not general gun people, would get a carry license. They are really afraid of anti-gay violence, gang violence, and other forms of criminal stupidity.

Yes, I do forget this is a discretion narrowing case. And the issue is defining discretion. I remember following Jim March's case from the 90's. And yes, we do have the Heller, McDonald cases, which are significant. But, being practical, I prefer to be pessimistic, expended too much optimism in the past. :) I am taking a jaded view, but view it from the point that someone who has not heard of CalGuns can walk in and not get run through the wringer.

That's your problem, not mine. I am not a fan of excessive pessimism in almost all circumstances.

An aside. Are the points we are discussing in a specific place? I hate to run things over that have been said before. If they were scattered, that is different. Just hate taking time with what may seem to be repetitive questions. I appreciate the time taken to reply.

It comes from my own experience.

dantodd
10-04-2010, 12:11 PM
This is getting a bit off topic, but you speak cryptically. If I understand your words, then EP (equal protection) cases made the CCW issuance for average citizens worse? Is there some link to where this is discussed or could you provide additional information? Not trying to be argumentative, just looking to understand.

I think what he meant is that as good a case as Preston brought it did not dramatically change the issue rate of sheriffs in the state although it opened them to having to permit a trickle through when cases like those Preston runs as his alter-ego "BillyJack" confront them.

I don't think there was anything particularly cryptic about Brandon's post, though it might take a little background to understand.

I could be completely off-base and I'm sure Brandon will correct me if he had intended to imply anything else.

wildhawker
10-04-2010, 12:25 PM
This is getting a bit off topic, but you speak cryptically. If I understand your words, then EP (equal protection) cases made the CCW issuance for average citizens worse? Is there some link to where this is discussed or could you provide additional information? Not trying to be argumentative, just looking to understand.

I don't mean to imply that Guillory made CCW issuance worse at all.

My point is that the number of CCWs issued due to a 14A EP challenge are a very small fraction of the licenses currently or previously issued. The case is useful to the degree that it has been, but very soon licenses will be based on your 2A fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense rather than your 14A right of equal protection (in this context, to bear only if you meet the conditions which are accepted under the licensing authority's discretion for another in your same class).

Currently, the licensing authorities who are issuing a license will, and those who don't (or are doing so improperly and in violation of Guillory) will continue to do as such until they are successfully challenged.

My wife often reminds me that I can be right all day long and be wrong at the end of it. Being 'right', and having case law as in Guillory, only practically matters to the extent that it serves to secure or advance your position. My argument is that the period in which Guillory is an effective tool is, at least for the most part, coming to an close, and furthermore that it has been an oft-unused tool since it's been available for use (excepting by those who are compensated to do same).

dantodd
10-04-2010, 1:05 PM
Just to add. The 2nd Amendment claim wasn't available to billy jack so he took the course that was available to him.

Glock22Fan
10-04-2010, 1:31 PM
I've kinda kept out of this, as many other good people were making good points, but may I observe that one of the reasons why Salute and, Guillory haven't had as much effect as they should (quite apart from the lack of Heller and McDonald) is that typical gun owners seem to have been incredibly reluctant to come forward and challenge the authorities.

We've helped a lot of people (for free) from yellow and green counties, but people in red counties have been beaten into submission before they've even gotten anywhere whatsoever.

That's why there's not many successful cases resulting from Guillory - because the people feel powerless, not because Guillory is inherently powerless.

For heaven's sake, with the amount of publicity there's been, there should have been one or more good candidates come forward in, say, Los Angeles (city or county), but there hasn't been.

bodger
10-04-2010, 1:44 PM
I've kinda kept out of this, as many other good people were making good points, but may I observe that one of the reasons why Salute and, Guillory haven't had as much effect as they should (quite apart from the lack of Heller and McDonald) is that typical gun owners seem to have been incredibly reluctant to come forward and challenge the authorities.

We've helped a lot of people (for free) from yellow and green counties, but people in red counties have been beaten into submission before they've even gotten anywhere whatsoever.

That's why there's not many successful cases resulting from Guillory - because the people feel powerless, not because Guillory is inherently powerless.

For heaven's sake, with the amount of publicity there's been, there should have been one or more good candidates come forward in, say, Los Angeles (city or county), but there hasn't been.


Now is the perfect time for a good candidate to come forward in Los Angeles.
John has told me that my GC isn't of the nature that would make for a good fit, but there are plenty of gunnies here and there has to be someone that would be of the caliber they are looking for.

Baca and Bratton can only keep us shut out like this forever if they aren't seriously challenged.

curtisfong
10-04-2010, 2:09 PM
John has told me that my GC isn't of the nature that would make for a good fit, but there are plenty of gunnies here and there has to be someone that would be of the caliber they are looking for.

CGF seems to have far better penetration in NorCal than here in LA.

Also, while I understand the incremental approach, and I understand that finding somebody with "just the right GC" is critical to John's strategy, I just can't see the path to meaningful CCW reform this way.

To me, meaningful being "self defense is GC, period".

At best, this strategy will result in better CCW issuance for county residents who "really (omg I really really mean it) need it", but it simply doesn't help the LA county population at large (IMO).

Glock22Fan
10-04-2010, 2:50 PM
CGF seems to have far better penetration in NorCal than here in LA.

Also, while I understand the incremental approach, and I understand that finding somebody with "just the right GC" is critical to John's strategy, I just can't see the path to meaningful CCW reform this way.

To me, meaningful being "self defense is GC, period".

At best, this strategy will result in better CCW issuance for county residents who "really (omg I really really mean it) need it", but it simply doesn't help the LA county population at large (IMO).

I've always seen it under the domino theory. Every successful attack should make them think twice. I never saw this approach as doing more than nibbbling away at the problem, hopefully with each bite a little bigger and a little easier. That's what we could do with the tools we had at that time. Now, we look like getting more and better tools, and taking much bigger bites. That's great, but remember, it's only a few months since the courts were told that California had a RKBA. Until then, the 14th and Guillory were all we had.

And remember, with all the good work Gura, Kilmer, Mitchel et al are doing, Guillory is still a strong cornerstone of their cases.

wildhawker
10-04-2010, 3:19 PM
And remember, with all the good work Gura, Kilmer, Mitchel et al are doing, Guillory is still a strong cornerstone of their cases.

While I agree that Guillory will remain a useful tool when needed, it's not a "cornerstone" precedent for 2A-based challenges.

wildhawker
10-04-2010, 3:21 PM
Based on your first sentence, I think you may fundamentally misunderstand the cases and their implications. Our "penetration" will be to the 9th Circuit level, possibly SCOTUS (if not Sykes that goes to SCOTUS, then most likely Palmer, it's sister case from DC).

When we win, self-defense will be good cause, period. See, e.g., Sacramento.

CGF seems to have far better penetration in NorCal than here in LA.

Also, while I understand the incremental approach, and I understand that finding somebody with "just the right GC" is critical to John's strategy, I just can't see the path to meaningful CCW reform this way.

To me, meaningful being "self defense is GC, period".

At best, this strategy will result in better CCW issuance for county residents who "really (omg I really really mean it) need it", but it simply doesn't help the LA county population at large (IMO).

curtisfong
10-04-2010, 3:34 PM
Based on your first sentence, I think you may fundamentally misunderstand the cases and their implications. Our "penetration" will be to the 9th Circuit level, possibly SCOTUS (if not Sykes that goes to SCOTUS, then most likely Palmer, it's sister case from DC).

When we win, self-defense will be good cause, period. See, e.g., Sacramento.

Actually, i think you misunderstood my post :)

By penetration, I meant readership, since BJ et al were bemoaning the lack of SoCal plaintiffs for their CCW work.

I am well aware of (and thankful for) CGF's penetration to the 9th circuit via Sykes, Peruta, etc.

wildhawker
10-04-2010, 3:46 PM
Actually, i think you misunderstood my post :)

By penetration, I meant readership, since BJ et al were bemoaning the lack of SoCal plaintiffs for their CCW work.

I am well aware of (and thankful for) CGF's penetration to the 9th circuit via Sykes, Peruta, etc.

Sorry if my comments came off wrong, and thank you for the support.

dantodd
10-04-2010, 3:56 PM
CGF's penetration to the 9th circuit

:gene:

curtisfong
10-04-2010, 4:28 PM
:gene:

Oh c'mon, you loved that.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-05-2010, 7:45 AM
Oh c'mon, you loved that.


I certainly did.


The Raisuli