PDA

View Full Version : CGF:Sykes becomes Richards v. Prieto/Yolo


Pages : [1] 2

hoffmang
10-25-2010, 7:58 AM
Second Amendment Rights Are Reaffirmed After Sacramento County Sheriff's Office Changes Carry License Policies Say Gun Rights Organizations
Case Continues Against Yolo County to Secure Right to Self-Defense

Bellevue, WA and San Carlos, CA (October 25, 2010) - The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Calguns Foundation have dismissed their case against Sacramento County, California and its Sheriff, John McGinness, after the Sheriff modified his handgun carry permitting policy. Law-abiding Sacramento County residents may now successfully apply for permits to carry handguns by asserting self-defense as a basis for carry permit issuance. A one-year residency requirement has been eliminated, as has policy language that tied self-defense to arbitrary geographic factors.

While Sacramento County has changed its policies, other counties still fail to recognize that self-defense is a legally sufficient reason for issuance of a handgun carry permit. The litigation will continue against Yolo County and its Sheriff, Ed Prieto, on behalf of SAF, Calguns, and Davis resident Adam Richards. Additionally, this past March, Calguns supporter Brett Stewart unsuccessfully asserted self-defense as a basis for seeking a carrying license from Sheriff Prieto . The Sheriff’s written policy states that “self protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence)” are insufficient reasons to exercise Second Amendment rights. Mr. Stewart will seek to join the litigation as a plaintiff in this case, now styled Richards v. Prieto.

“We are very happy to have been able to work with Sheriff McGinness to assist Sacramento County in revising their policies and practices,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of the Calguns Foundation. “Over the past year, more than 30 of our law abiding members and supporters have received licenses to carry firearms with ‘good cause’ statements that are simple variations of self-defense. Even though the Sheriff is retiring at the end of the year, both candidates to replace Sheriff McGinness have publicly stated their support for Second Amendment rights and that they consider self-defense a compelling reason for issuance of gun carry permit.”

“The Second Amendment Foundation will continue working with the Calguns Foundation and keep funding attorney Alan Gura’s lawsuits in California until everyone’s firearms civil rights are fully protected,” added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “Together, we will see many more legal victories.”

For those who wish to apply for a CCW permit, the Calguns Foundation maintains an informational portal to assist applicants in all 58 California counties as part of its recently announced Carry Licensing Compliance and Sunshine Initiative. The Sacramento County page has details on the actual procedure and successful good cause statements and is available at http://bit.ly/CGFSacCarry

___
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org (http://www.saf.org/)) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, the Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/)) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which serves its members by providing Second Amendment-related education, strategic litigation and the defense of innocent California gun owners from improper or malicious prosecution. The Calguns Foundation works to educate government and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own, and lawfully use firearms in California.

69Mach1
10-25-2010, 8:01 AM
Outstanding! Thank you CGF.

Connor P Price
10-25-2010, 8:05 AM
:jump: woooohoooo! This is an awesome victory!

glockk9mm
10-25-2010, 8:06 AM
Keep up the good work... Time to donate to the foundation

GuyW
10-25-2010, 8:07 AM
A home run....
.

Paul E
10-25-2010, 8:07 AM
"Paul E Likes this"

Rossi357
10-25-2010, 8:07 AM
The first domino falls.....?

Stormfeather
10-25-2010, 8:09 AM
Awesome job guys! On to the next county! But, Sacto county is a huge milestone, as we all know what happens in sacto, kind of influences the rest of the state! kudos to all involved!

IrishPirate
10-25-2010, 8:12 AM
Thank You!!!!! Hopefully the rest follow suit quickly!!!!

RobG
10-25-2010, 8:13 AM
Great news! Is there any fear of Sac County going back to its old ways in the future?

ETA: Does this have any bearing on the Yolo county suit?

PEBKAC
10-25-2010, 8:13 AM
Now this is the kind of news I love to hear on Mondays. :)

Excellent job CGF et al.!

JuzDuky
10-25-2010, 8:15 AM
Great work! Thank you!!

Turo
10-25-2010, 8:16 AM
Awesome! Thanks CGF and SAF!

shark92651
10-25-2010, 8:17 AM
Excellent news, Gene!

Citizen 14
10-25-2010, 8:19 AM
Thank you guys for all your hard work! Great job!

Librarian
10-25-2010, 8:20 AM
ETA: Does this have any bearing on the Yolo county suit?

Yeah, kinda - from the first post Bellevue, WA and San Carlos, CA (October 25, 2010) - The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Calguns Foundation have dismissed their case against Sacramento County, California and its Sheriff, John McGinness,
...
The litigation will continue against Yolo County and its Sheriff, Ed Prieto, on behalf of SAF, Calguns, and Davis resident Adam Richards. ... this case, now styled Richards v. Prieto.

Untamed1972
10-25-2010, 8:22 AM
Great news! Is there any fear of Sac County going back to its old ways in the future?ETA: Does this have any bearing on the Yolo county suit?

That would be my concern. Without the force of a court decision behind it what's to prevent any sheriff, or successive sheriff from pulling a Hutchins? Hopefully Yolo or San Diego will be stubborn enough to give us the court decision we need to prevent such things.

J.D.Allen
10-25-2010, 8:23 AM
ETA: Does this have any bearing on the Yolo county suit?

I don't know about ETA but this sure ratchets up the pressure on Yolo. Yolo county is like a mouse compared to the elephant that is Sacto, and the elephant just caved and left the mouse to fight the battle all by itself. Not a great position to be in if you're the mouse. :43:

RobG
10-25-2010, 8:25 AM
Yeah, kinda - from the first post

I saw that litigation continues. I do not know how intertwined the two cases were/are and was curious as to the effect of dropping the suit against one but keeping the other going.

wash
10-25-2010, 8:26 AM
This is great news.

SACRAMENTO folded!

*** ***** county is on the way (redacted because it might be secret)!

Pretty soon there will only be 3-4 holdouts left.

the_quark
10-25-2010, 8:28 AM
That would be my concern. Without the force of a court decision behind it what's to prevent any sheriff, or successive sheriff from pulling a Hutchins? Hopefully Yolo or San Diego will be stubborn enough to give us the court decision we need to prevent such things.

Both the current candidates for Sheriff, I believe, have indicated that intend to follow this policy.

Regardless, this settlement does not include any agreement from us not to sue them again, in the future. If they go back to their old ways, we'll quickly get on them, again. Given they settled this case, previously, they'd be in a very bad state if they changed their policy and required us to go to court, again.

the_quark
10-25-2010, 8:30 AM
Also, obviously, this is the answer to the question "why haven't you filed more stuff in Sykes, did we miss a deadline?" :rolleyes:

We've been in settlement talks for months. We couldn't tell you anything about it, directly, because we didn't want to risk blowing up the settlement.

Obviously, we'll be moving forward against Yolo with all haste now that this is out of the way. :chris:

RobG
10-25-2010, 8:32 AM
Also, obviously, this is the answer to the question "why haven't you filed more stuff in Sykes, did we miss a deadline?" :rolleyes:

We've been in settlement talks for months. We couldn't tell you anything about it, directly, because we didn't want to risk blowing up the settlement.

Obviously, we'll be moving forward against Yolo with all haste now that this is out of the way. :chris:

So is it safe to assume that settlement talks did not work with Yolo county?

Untamed1972
10-25-2010, 8:34 AM
Both the current candidates for Sheriff, I believe, have indicated that intend to follow this policy.

Regardless, this settlement does not include any agreement from us not to sue them again, in the future. If they go back to their old ways, we'll quickly get on them, again. Given they settled this case, previously, they'd be in a very bad state if they changed their policy and required us to go to court, again.

Good to know. It's just not as secure a position as a judicial or legislative mandate as a boundary to guide future policies. But if more and more CCWs can get out there then we, like other states, can establish the empirical evidence need to show that CCWs for the law-abiding are a non-issue and then perhaps can get an easier shall-issue system passed, especially if Sheriff's see that they can't handle the processing for the fees they're allowed to charge.

the_quark
10-25-2010, 8:35 AM
So is it safe to assume that settlement talks did not work with Yolo county?

As far as I'm aware, Yolo has made no move to settle.

Untamed1972
10-25-2010, 8:36 AM
Also, obviously, this is the answer to the question "why haven't you filed more stuff in Sykes, did we miss a deadline?" :rolleyes:

We've been in settlement talks for months. We couldn't tell you anything about it, directly, because we didn't want to risk blowing up the settlement.

Obviously, we'll be moving forward against Yolo with all haste now that this is out of the way. :chris:

Based on your previous post, would this be considered a "binding settlement agreement" type of deal? Like with the terms of the settlement stipulated in writing? Just curious.

RRangel
10-25-2010, 8:37 AM
This is great news. For those with doubts, as to the future state of RKBA in California, this is a good example of proof. The reason why CGF should get your support.

darkshier
10-25-2010, 8:38 AM
Awesome news guys. CGF is the real deal and everyone should get out their checkbooks for some donation time today.

the_quark
10-25-2010, 8:39 AM
Good to know. It's just not as secure a position as a judicial or legislative mandate as a boundary to guide future policies. But if more and more CCWs can get out there then we, like other states, can establish the empirical evidence need to show that CCWs for the law-abiding are a non-issue and then perhaps can get an easier shall-issue system passed, especially if Sheriff's see that they can't handle the processing for the fees they're allowed to charge.

Certainly for the precedent, it's nice to get a court decision. That said, if the other party capitulates, there's not much you can do to continue (see the San Francisco Housing Authority case, for example). As far as this particular county goes, the courts tend to take a dim view of government entities that change their policies to get a civil rights lawsuit dropped, and then go back to the old policies. Were they to do something like that, I don't think it would go well for them in court.

Also, on the last point, this is completely separate from our attempting to clean up the administration of CCW systems by counties.

M. D. Van Norman
10-25-2010, 8:41 AM
And the big picture emerges!

Thank you, gentlemen. I’m off to eat a sandwich and take a nap.

Wake me when the assault on the “big four” begins. ;)

I hope the war chest holds out. :chris:

FreedomIsNotFree
10-25-2010, 8:44 AM
First off, thank you CGF and to the many others that dedicated their time and energy to the progress that has been made. I do, however, have a question. Are we truly at "shall issue" in Sacramento County? The fact they Sac County accepts personal defense as a good cause is huge progress, but are other factors being taken in to consideration by the issuing agency other than if the applicant can legally own a handgun and their personal defense good cause? Theoretically, a person can have quite a "colorful" past and not be a prohibited person. Thoughts?

Casual_Shooter
10-25-2010, 8:45 AM
Nice work! Keep moving south. :)

Librarian
10-25-2010, 8:46 AM
I saw that litigation continues. I do not know how intertwined the two cases were/are and was curious as to the effect of dropping the suit against one but keeping the other going.

It was one case, two defendants. One defendant has been dropped.

harbinger007
10-25-2010, 8:46 AM
Brett, you make reference to a "settlement". Is there a written settlement with McGinness? Last week he commented on radio that Sykes has had no influence on how he's issued CCWs. According to him, the only reason he didn't grant more CCWs is because more people didn't apply.

Also, did Ms. Sykes receive a CCW?

tgriffin
10-25-2010, 8:47 AM
Come on down to Contra Costa when you whip the ****e out of Yolo. We need the same treatment here.

RobG
10-25-2010, 8:47 AM
As far as I'm aware, Yolo has made no move to settle.

Thank you for the info and all the hard work done by CGF:thumbsup: Guess I'll have to continue to wait for Yolo to (hopefully) cave as did Sac.

It was one case, two defendants. One defendant has been dropped.

I see, thanks.

epilepticninja
10-25-2010, 8:49 AM
Thanks for the hard work. I left a message for Amber this morning, to drop of my CCW package.

Untamed1972
10-25-2010, 8:51 AM
To be a devil's advocate, what happens if the Sheriff doesn't follow through on the intent and, while accepting the "self defense as a good cause", finds something else to drag his feet. For example, makes the process last 2 years, or doesn't accept character reference letters or any other variety of possibilities.

EDIT: Never mind - by the time I typed it, there were 20+ posts on this topic. Good news travell fast!

Doesn't the statute in the PC require them to give you an answer within 90days?

Chatterbox
10-25-2010, 8:56 AM
Let's say Yolo folds also ... doesn't that mean that after all sturm-and-drung, we're still no closer to statewide CCW shall issue? Would the strategy then shift to county by county litigation? Seems...messy and annoying. Any chance of adding defendants to the suit, like Los Angeles/Marin County?

Lone_Gunman
10-25-2010, 8:58 AM
Outstanding! As a recently approved Sac County applicant I appreciate you guys more than you can know. Keep up the good work and THANK YOU!!!

M. D. Van Norman
10-25-2010, 8:58 AM
Let’s say Yolo folds also … doesn’t that mean … we’re still no closer to statewide CCW shall issue? Would the strategy then shift to county by county litigation?

Yep, hence the new CGF volunteer network.

loather
10-25-2010, 9:03 AM
This is great news for Sacramento county, but it drags the process out for the rest of the counties now. Not securing a judicial win in Sacramento means no precedent is set statewide, and the process will have to start again in another county (like Yolo) - this is definitely a double-edged sword :(

And now, we wait (again). Not that I'm in any way unappreciative of CGF's efforts - this is an excellent win for Sacramento county. I just find myself wishing Sacramento would have fought tooth and nail to keep their garbage policy, allowing us to win statewide sooner.

wash
10-25-2010, 9:04 AM
First off, thank you CGF and to the many others that dedicated their time and energy to the progress that has been made. I do, however, have a question. Are we truly at "shall issue" in Sacramento County? The fact they Sac County accepts personal defense as a good cause is huge progress, but are other factors being taken in to consideration by the issuing agency other than if the applicant can legally own a handgun and their personal defense good cause? Theoretically, a person can have quite a "colorful" past and not be a prohibited person. Thoughts?
CGF wouldn't settle for anything less than a shall issue for self defense policy.

That's "virtual shall issue" because there is no law stating that permits shall be issued for self defense, but there is threat of a lawsuit backing it up...

I don't know the limits of discretion but I imagine that if you're a bum or a drunk you might have trouble getting a permit even if your record is ~clean.

the_quark
10-25-2010, 9:06 AM
Brett, you make reference to a "settlement". Is there a written settlement with McGinness? Last week he commented on radio that Sykes has had no influence on how he's issued CCWs. According to him, the only reason he didn't grant more CCWs is because more people didn't apply.


I'm not actually 100% sure if there's a written settlement, or not. I think so, but I haven't seen it with my own eyes (and Gene's in a meeting, so I can't just go ask him).

As you note, Sheriff McGinness is publicly stating the position that his policy hasn't changed, and it's always been this way. I'll note two quick facts:

First, obviously, if we hadn't had folks be denied, we wouldn't have filed the case. His enforcement of the policy prior to Sykes was at best...uneven.

Second, this story:

http://cbs13.com/thescoop/The.Scoop.Sacramento.2.1042825.html

From July, 2009 - two months after Sykes was filed is about how McGinnis is threatening to make a CCW easy to get if the county goes through with the budget cuts they were thinking about:


Right now, it's difficult to get a concealed weapons permit in Sacramento County. A law enforcement committee examines each application. McGinness stays out of the process. But budget cuts could force the system to be streamlined.
So, there you have it, two months after Sykes was filed, "[e]asy acquisition of concealed weapons permits for law abiding residents [was] one idea being considered". But, no, really, Sykes didn't change his policy at all, it's always been easy to get a 12050 license! :rolleyes:

That said, I probably don't want to spend too much time beating up on a man who's now on our side after we've won so completely that he's insisting he was always on our side, all along. :cool:

Also, did Ms. Sykes receive a CCW?I am not up-to-the-minute, but I do not believe she has received her license, yet. However, obviously, if there were any shenanigans here, we'd mount back up very quickly.

Gray Peterson
10-25-2010, 9:06 AM
To be a devil's advocate, what happens if the Sheriff doesn't follow through on the intent and, while accepting the "self defense as a good cause", finds something else to drag his feet. For example, makes the process last 2 years, or doesn't accept character reference letters or any other variety of possibilities.

EDIT: Never mind - by the time I typed it, there were 20+ posts on this topic. Good news travel fast!

Illegal, see my signature. Counties WILL comply with the law, period. The only reason I believe Sacramento isn't getting hammered (like I did with compliance with Riverside and another bay area county yet to be named) is that a new sheriff will take office in less than 3 months.

wash
10-25-2010, 9:07 AM
Sacramento isn't like D.C., it's just another county where CCW is concerned.

We have always needed to go through every county that will not issue permits for self defense.

In that respect, a settlement is better because we can focus on the other counties now.

FreedomIsNotFree
10-25-2010, 9:10 AM
This is great news for Sacramento county, but it drags the process out for the rest of the counties now. Not securing a judicial win in Sacramento means no precedent is set statewide, and the process will have to start again in another county (like Yolo) - this is definitely a double-edged sword :(

And now, we wait (again). Not that I'm in any way unappreciative of CGF's efforts - this is an excellent win for Sacramento county. I just find myself wishing Sacramento would have fought tooth and nail to keep their garbage policy, allowing us to win statewide sooner.

As long as anyone that is not a prohibited person, along with a good cause of personal defense, will be issued a CCW this is a MAJOR win. CGF has a huge notch on their belt that they will undoubtedly highlight during mandatory settlement talks with other counties in the future.

Additionally, precedent doesn't always preclude expensive lawsuits. Sometimes you still need to sue. CGF has put themselves in the drivers seat. They will have the ability to ask the counties one simple question....Do you want to do this the easy way or the hard way?

Hopi
10-25-2010, 9:11 AM
Thanks to the team for the hardwork......and the CGN resident grammar Nazi for putting himself out there.....

the_quark
10-25-2010, 9:12 AM
This is great news for Sacramento county, but it drags the process out for the rest of the counties now. Not securing a judicial win in Sacramento means no precedent is set statewide, and the process will have to start again in another county (like Yolo) - this is definitely a double-edged sword :(

And now, we wait (again). Not that I'm in any way unappreciative of CGF's efforts - this is an excellent win for Sacramento county. I just find myself wishing Sacramento would have fought tooth and nail to keep their garbage policy, allowing us to win statewide sooner.

Actually in this particular case it shouldn't matter much, since we'll go forward against Yolo. We've lost the time since September to now we could've been moving the case forward, but that's about it.

FreedomIsNotFree
10-25-2010, 9:16 AM
CGF wouldn't settle for anything less than a shall issue for self defense policy.

That's "virtual shall issue" because there is no law stating that permits shall be issued for self defense, but there is threat of a lawsuit backing it up...

I don't know the limits of discretion but I imagine that if you're a bum or a drunk you might have trouble getting a permit even if your record is ~clean.

If the "bum" or "drunk" you refer to haven't committed crimes that make them a prohibited person, then why would they be denied under a "shall issue" policy. Shall issue means as long as you are not a prohibited person you are granted a CCW. That is the question I'm trying to have answered.

the_quark
10-25-2010, 9:17 AM
They will have the ability to ask the counties one simple question....Do you want to do this the easy way or the hard wayDo you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

Fixed that for you. :chris:

HowardW56
10-25-2010, 9:21 AM
Nice work! Keep moving south. :)

Quickly, please......


:D

HowardW56
10-25-2010, 9:23 AM
This is great news for Sacramento county, but it drags the process out for the rest of the counties now. Not securing a judicial win in Sacramento means no precedent is set statewide, and the process will have to start again in another county (like Yolo) - this is definitely a double-edged sword :(

And now, we wait (again). Not that I'm in any way unappreciative of CGF's efforts - this is an excellent win for Sacramento county. I just find myself wishing Sacramento would have fought tooth and nail to keep their garbage policy, allowing us to win statewide sooner.

San Diego is still moving forward...

wash
10-25-2010, 9:23 AM
If the "bum" or "drunk" you refer to haven't committed crimes that make them a prohibited person, then why would they be denied under a "shall issue" policy. Shall issue means as long as you are not a prohibited person you are granted a CCW. That is the question I'm trying to have answered.
I don't know and I don't intend to become a bum or a drunk to find out.

FreedomIsNotFree
10-25-2010, 9:24 AM
Fixed that for you. :chris:

Nothing wrong with a little Eastwood in the morning. But you could clarify a point for me, if you have a moment. Will someone with a colorful past, but not a prohibited person, be granted a CCW in Sac County? Thanks.

BigYankee
10-25-2010, 9:24 AM
Awesome new guys!

HondaMasterTech
10-25-2010, 9:27 AM
Hopefully at least one county refuses to back down. It would take a REALLY long time to address one county at a time without the courts being involved. At least with the court system involved, every county would be forced to change it's policy.

On a side note; Freedom feels good. ;)

hoffmang
10-25-2010, 9:28 AM
This past March we sent CGF friends to both Yolo and Sacramento County. Our own Grant Early (toolbox-x) put one of the self defense good cause statements on his application and was granted in Sacramento. However, Brett Stewart in Yolo was denied. That denial means that we will pursue Yolo County until we have a definitive decision from the courts. In Sacramento we have been unable to obtain a denial for any average law abiding person. If you are denied in Sacramento (which you are very unlikely to be) then you need to contact CGF.

Mrs. Sykes and Mr. Whitham are about mid-way through the application process in Sacramento.

Please recall that the case against Yolo has been there since the beginning so we are by no means starting from scratch.

-Gene

the_quark
10-25-2010, 9:28 AM
Nothing wrong with a little Eastwood in the morning. But you could clarify a point for me, if you have a moment. Will someone with a colorful past, but not a prohibited person, be granted a CCW in Sac County? Thanks.

Right now the Sheriff's office is still maintaining latitude on "good moral character". It will take a 2nd Amendment "bear" case (c.f., Yolo county) to force that "good moral character" really means "not prohibited".

So, yes, right now, if you have (say) drunk in public convictions, the Sheriff can deny you. We don't know if he will, but he hasn't promised not to. Obviously, if you do apply, and get denied (for any reason), you should let us know.

PS: Wasn't ignoring you the other two times you asked, I just didn't know the answer for sure. :)

green grunt
10-25-2010, 9:31 AM
Outstanding................great work...THANK YOU........now if the San Jaquin county Sheriff reads this....that would help.....still waiting to hear about my CCW , meeting was 3 weeks ago....

Lone_Gunman
10-25-2010, 9:33 AM
I just e-mailed the press release to 6 local gun stores and the Armstrong and Getty radio show. Hopefully we can dispel some of the "Sac County won't issue" FUD.

FreedomIsNotFree
10-25-2010, 9:41 AM
Right now the Sheriff's office is still maintaining latitude on "good moral character". It will take a 2nd Amendment "bear" case (c.f., Yolo county) to force that "good moral character" really means "not prohibited".

So, yes, right now, if you have (say) drunk in public convictions, the Sheriff can deny you. We don't know if he will, but he hasn't promised not to. Obviously, if you do apply, and get denied (for any reason), you should let us know.

PS: Wasn't ignoring you the other two times you asked, I just didn't know the answer for sure. :)

Thanks again Brett. I figured those finer details would need to be worked out over time. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm waiting patiently for Santa Clara County... :)

wash
10-25-2010, 9:43 AM
It should come down to the lawsuit.

If you are a client that CGF wouldn't touch and don't have the money to do a Gorski, you might not be able to get a CCW if you are a bum or a drunk.

harbinger007
10-25-2010, 9:44 AM
I'm not actually 100% sure if there's a written settlement, or not. I think so, but I haven't seen it with my own eyes (and Gene's in a meeting, so I can't just go ask him).

As you note, Sheriff McGinness is publicly stating the position that his policy hasn't changed, and it's always been this way. I'll note two quick facts:

First, obviously, if we hadn't had folks be denied, we wouldn't have filed the case. His enforcement of the policy prior to Sykes was at best...uneven.

Second, this story:

http://cbs13.com/thescoop/The.Scoop.Sacramento.2.1042825.html

From July, 2009 - two months after Sykes was filed is about how McGinnis is threatening to make a CCW easy to get if the county goes through with the budget cuts they were thinking about:

So, there you have it, two months after Sykes was filed, "[e]asy acquisition of concealed weapons permits for law abiding residents [was] one idea being considered". But, no, really, Sykes didn't change his policy at all, it's always been easy to get a 12050 license! :rolleyes:

That said, I probably don't want to spend too much time beating up on a man who's now on our side after we've won so completely that he's insisting he was always on our side, all along. :cool:

I am not up-to-the-minute, but I do not believe she has received her license, yet. However, obviously, if there were any shenanigans here, we'd mount back up very quickly.

Thanks, Brett. I realize it's more important to have this "win" as clearly evident by the change in practices in with the SSD. While a written settlement isn't as important, last week McGuinness was claiming he'd win Sykes. A written settlement could possibly prevent any more of that sort of silly talk.

CSDGuy
10-25-2010, 9:48 AM
For McGinness, a "win" may have been simply being dropped as a Defendant. Unless you dig and see the text changes in the "process" letters that have been done over the past 2 years, you might believe a claim that there was no reason to continue the suit against him, if he brings up this later.

the_quark
10-25-2010, 9:50 AM
While a written settlement isn't as important, last week McGuinness was claiming he'd win Sykes.

Actually, strictly speaking, I believe he said he wouldn't "lose" it.

As I said at the time, "it depends on what your definition of 'lose' is."

That said, it doesn't seem worth a lot of time to argue semantics with the man.

sighere
10-25-2010, 9:51 AM
Congrats to all! This is truly a victory. GCG and Alan Gura are my heroes! Not a total victory, because there's no court decision for the rest of us in other counties to hang our hats on. I'm in L.A. county, so this is very important for me. I was hoping for an actual decision because L.A. is a tough nut. I don't know if Sykes was finally decided whether or not Baca would back down, but I'm sure it would have been a lot more likely than now pointing to a dropped/settled case.

Maybe I'm wrong, but telling the Sheriff to "see Sykes v McGuiness" would seem to carry more weight than telling them that Sacto county caved and became shall issue. I guess I'll find out when I get my denial letter. (I would probably faint like a little waif if it was anything but a denial letter I'll be getting!)

Maybe the time is right for a 1983 action in L.A. county! Does anyone know if any cases have been, or will be filed soon in L.A.?

the_quark
10-25-2010, 9:52 AM
It should come down to the lawsuit.

If you are a client that CGF wouldn't touch and don't have the money to do a Gorski, you might not be able to get a CCW if you are a bum or a drunk.

Yeah, and I do want to make clear that, at this time, I'd be surprised if we took on a suit for someone who has a "colorful" past. We'd rather win the right affirmatively, with sympathetic plaintiffs. If you've had some indiscretions that are public record, you're probably going to have to be patient.

Python2
10-25-2010, 9:54 AM
*** ***** county is on the way (redacted because it might be secret)!

.

Heh, you should do better than that, you blew it by the number of asterisk :D
No worry, I am not telling;)

wash
10-25-2010, 9:57 AM
But did I manipulate the asterisks?

CSDGuy
10-25-2010, 9:57 AM
Heh, you should do better than that, you blew it by the number of asterisk :D
No worry, I am not telling;)
P2: Something tells me you tried there once... ;)

rips31
10-25-2010, 9:58 AM
congrats and thanks to cgf! waiting for the fireworks with the 'big two (2)'!

gotta see if i can figure a way to donate w/o the wife noticing...

mblat
10-25-2010, 9:58 AM
It is GREAT news. A lot of people don't really care much about 2A and take "default" position. Default position used to be - "no issue".
Now it is becoming "shall issue". Many counties will follow Sacramento lead and fold simply because "everybody else did it".

That will leave "head cases" like San Franciso and unfortuantly for me, Los Angeles. But their position will be severaly undermined also
"How od you explain that you are the only county in Southern California that doesn't accept self-defence as good cause".

Python2
10-25-2010, 10:01 AM
Actually, strictly speaking, I believe he said he wouldn't "lose" it.

As I said at the time, "it depends on what your definition of 'lose' is."

That said, it doesn't seem worth a lot of time to argue semantics with the man.

Hmmnn....reminds me of Clinton " I did not have intercourse with that woman":D

HowardW56
10-25-2010, 10:02 AM
Maybe the time is right for a 1983 action in L.A. county! Does anyone know if any cases have been, or will be filed soon in L.A.?

I'm sure the right people do know what is coming in Los Angeles, but they aren't likely to tell you. Its a safe bet that if they would tell you, it wouldn't be on a public forum...

Donny1
10-25-2010, 10:02 AM
Awesome work!

About the one year requirement, I just moved to San Bernardino which is basically a shall issue county for self defense. I've read you should apply after 6 months of residency because it takes a while so I have 5 months to wait for that (been here 25 days). Is there a chance that SB would change that part of their policy before being forced by precedent? Should I apply now and challenge it? ... or be happy I'm in a place that will issue.

M. D. Van Norman
10-25-2010, 10:03 AM
Well, I’ve always been a good boy. I did say some colorful words once when I got a parking ticket on Christmas Eve. :p

Untamed1972
10-25-2010, 10:04 AM
It is GREAT news. A lot of people don't really care much about 2A and take "default" position. Default position used to be - "no issue".
Now it is becoming "shall issue". Many counties will follow Sacramento lead and fold simply because "everybody else did it".

That will leave "head cases" like San Franciso and unfortuantly for me, Los Angeles. But their position will be severaly undermined also
"How od you explain that you are the only county in Southern California that doesn't accept self-defence as good cause".


especially when all the CCW holders from neighboring shall issue counties would be able to carry in your county/city completely legally like those communting in to work everyday, but the residents who live and pay taxes there cannot.

Python2
10-25-2010, 10:10 AM
P2: Something tells me you tried there once... ;)

No comment:D but I am ready to move back DL and voter reg wise that is, as soon as "you know who" get his;)

Gray Peterson
10-25-2010, 10:11 AM
It is GREAT news. A lot of people don't really care much about 2A and take "default" position. Default position used to be - "no issue".
Now it is becoming "shall issue". Many counties will follow Sacramento lead and fold simply because "everybody else did it".

That will leave "head cases" like San Franciso and unfortuantly for me, Los Angeles. But their position will be severaly undermined also
"How od you explain that you are the only county in Southern California that doesn't accept self-defence as good cause".

Unholy trinity of gun control is San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Alameda Counties.

J.D.Allen
10-25-2010, 10:15 AM
It is GREAT news. A lot of people don't really care much about 2A and take "default" position. Default position used to be - "no issue".
Now it is becoming "shall issue". Many counties will follow Sacramento lead and fold simply because "everybody else did it".

That will leave "head cases" like San Franciso and unfortuantly for me, Los Angeles. But their position will be severaly undermined also
"How od you explain that you are the only county in Southern California that doesn't accept self-defence as good cause".


Their position will be even more undermined when crime rates go DOWN instead of UP once all those CCW's start to be issued...

Purple K
10-25-2010, 10:17 AM
Awesome news! Calguns Works!!!

the_quark
10-25-2010, 10:24 AM
Hmmnn....reminds me of Clinton " I did not have intercourse with that woman":D

I believe you were looking for "there is no relationship". ;)

Havoc70
10-25-2010, 10:27 AM
Something tells me Yolo will settle. It is not an affluent county by any stretch of the imagination. This is awesome news!

ColdDeadHands1
10-25-2010, 10:33 AM
Unholy trinity of gun control is San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Alameda Counties.

I'm so glad Santa Clara County isn't part of the Unholy Trinity! So when is the lawsuit against the illustrious Sheriff Smith coming?

Rossi357
10-25-2010, 10:38 AM
Hmmnn....reminds me of Clinton " I did not have intercourse with that woman":D

Before the wedding, Hillary asked Chelsea...."did you have sex with him yet"?
Chelsea answered...."Not according to daddy".

not-fishing
10-25-2010, 10:44 AM
I guess I'll still be a Sacramento test case - approval after the suit is dropped

I wonder if the "Slow-Issue" will speed up. With over a million people in Sacramento County there is one hell of a backlog.

Even at 400 approvals per year (double the amount the Sheriff stated was happening) you've got at least 75 years of new applicants to get to the 3% level that other states have.

Blackhawk556
10-25-2010, 10:47 AM
I was thinking about this also
Let's say Yolo folds also ... doesn't that mean that after all sturm-and-drung, we're still no closer to statewide CCW shall issue? Would the strategy then shift to county by county litigation? Seems...messy and annoying. Any chance of adding defendants to the suit, like Los Angeles/Marin County?

but then i read this. I hope no settlement is reached with Yolo no matter what they try next
This past March we sent CGF friends to both Yolo and Sacramento County. Our own Grant Early (toolbox-x) put one of the self defense good cause statements on his application and was granted in Sacramento. However, Brett Stewart in Yolo was denied. That denial means that we will pursue Yolo County until we have a definitive decision from the courts. In Sacramento we have been unable to obtain a denial for any average law abiding person. If you are denied in Sacramento (which you are very unlikely to be) then you need to contact CGF.

Mrs. Sykes and Mr. Whitham are about mid-way through the application process in Sacramento.

Please recall that the case against Yolo has been there since the beginning so we are by no means starting from scratch.

-Gene


funny stuff:D:D
Before the wedding, Hillary asked Chelsea...."did you have sex with him yet"?
Chelsea answered...."Not according to daddy".

shooting4life
10-25-2010, 10:49 AM
Great news!!! Will send a donation later tonight.

harbinger007
10-25-2010, 10:52 AM
Actually, strictly speaking, I believe he said he wouldn't "lose" it.

As I said at the time, "it depends on what your definition of 'lose' is."

That said, it doesn't seem worth a lot of time to argue semantics with the man.

Yeah, I guess he chose words carefully. I just listened again. This isn't word for word (couldn't hit pause button), but very close. He said "You've been saying we're going to lose Sykes. I plan to make an announcement next week to the contrary."

Untamed1972
10-25-2010, 10:53 AM
I guess I'll still be a Sacramento test case - approval after the suit is dropped

I wonder if the "Slow-Issue" will speed up. With over a million people in Sacramento County there is one hell of a backlog.

Even at 400 approvals per year (double the amount the Sheriff stated was happening) you've got at least 75 years of new applicants to get to the 3% level that other states have.

I think sheriff's are just going to hafta realize that the extensive process they engage in now is not needed nor cost effective. If anything, it will be that factor that will get sheriffs to push the .leg to adopt a more statewide universal shall issue system like other states have. And hopefully they wont go the other route of asking the .leg for a fee increase instead to handle the extra work load.

But sheriffs could speed up the process if they just did the same database search DOJ does for firearm posession eligibilty, ran your prints and sent you off to get your training.

Window_Seat
10-25-2010, 10:55 AM
Very good news, and hopefully soon, we'll be applying in the county I live in. We need sponsorships for Alameda County for that effort!

Erik.

usctrojan
10-25-2010, 11:03 AM
Congrats on the hard work!

Rekrab
10-25-2010, 11:16 AM
This is great news! Not only do Sac County citizens get a good shot at getting their rights, it saves tax payers money by getting into a legal battle! Good work CGF and all!

AndrewMendez
10-25-2010, 11:24 AM
Folks, keep in mind that this does not directly have to do with the current "ALL 58 COUNTIES" fire drill in the works. That is a completely different piece of "work"...but Like Window Seat said, WE NEED SPONSORSHIPS (http://www.cgfstore.org/category/cgf-sponsorships)!

Ksmash01
10-25-2010, 11:40 AM
Unholy trinity of gun control is San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Alameda Counties.

They're like the villains of Spiderman, Batman, and Superman all rolled up in one unholy, concentrated form of evil.......

dantodd
10-25-2010, 11:43 AM
Something tells me Yolo will settle. It is not an affluent county by any stretch of the imagination. This is awesome news!

It takes 2 to settle. Do you think CGF wants to get into a money war with Sacto. or Yolo?

While Yolo can't settle unilaterally they can capitulate unilaterally.


MSJ and no appeal works for me.

Havoc70
10-25-2010, 11:51 AM
It takes 2 to settle. Do you think CGF wants to get into a money war with Sacto. or Yolo?

While Yolo can't settle unilaterally they can capitulate unilaterally.


MSJ and no appeal works for me.

Sorry, yes, poor choice of words on my part. I meant to say cave in like Sac did :).

Funtimes
10-25-2010, 11:54 AM
Unholy trinity of gun control is San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Alameda Counties.

I thought it was City and County Honolulu =p... but thats just me! Keep doing the good work.

Maybe one day Hawaii can have tasers, a form of open carry, or any form of concealed carry lol!

MP301
10-25-2010, 12:00 PM
Yeah, and I do want to make clear that, at this time, I'd be surprised if we took on a suit for someone who has a "colorful" past. We'd rather win the right affirmatively, with sympathetic plaintiffs. If you've had some indiscretions that are public record, you're probably going to have to be patient.

Define colorfull.

What about stuff in a person's DOJ jacket that did not result in a conviction?

For example, arrest(s) without convictions? Every arrest is in a persons DOJ file for life regardless of outcome/disposition and Im pretty sure that most Sheriff's would use that info against a person for denial under "moral character".

Those that are not squeeky clean have to go to the back of the bus?:p

dantodd
10-25-2010, 12:06 PM
Sorry, yes, poor choice of words on my part. I meant to say cave in like Sac did :).

What I am saying is that CGF will very likely not let Yolo off by dismissing them like they did for Sacto. If yolo were permitted to "pull a Sacto" there would be no precedence. We want the law changed. Once the law is changed dealing with counties like SF and LA becomes an issue of legal compliance, not changing the law like it is here.

If we let Yolo off the hook like Sacramento then the law stands as written and we have 2 more counties where "self defense" is good cause. If Yolo capitulates and we have judgment against them then the law is rewritten by the case to remove discretion from the sheriff. It is a huge difference.

Once it is no longer legal for the sheriff to use "discretion" in denying you a right the lawsuit that is filed against that sheriff is very different than the current case and includes piercing personal immunity.

If the law says the sheriff is wholly responsible for issuing permits and further says (by way of judicial intervention) that "self defense" is adequate good cause and "not prohibited" is adequate "good moral character" then any sheriff who denies you that right is PERSONALLY liable for damages done to you by the denial.

hoffmang
10-25-2010, 12:14 PM
I wonder if the "Slow-Issue" will speed up. With over a million people in Sacramento County there is one hell of a backlog.
Things have been speeding up of late. The most recent report was 70 days end to end.
Define colorfull.

Arrests that you're honest about on the application are very unlikely to be a problem, as long as they have been concluded. Old convictions are likely to be no real problem. Recent convictions...

-Gene

ZRT650
10-25-2010, 12:17 PM
Any idea how this will change the status in San Mateo County?

dantodd
10-25-2010, 12:22 PM
Any idea how this will change the status in San Mateo County?

As there is no court order changing any laws this will have no direct impact on San Mateo county. Hopefully all (or at least most) sheriffs see this as the "writing on the wall" and will fall in line but there is nothing in this specifically that addresses anything happening in San Mateo.

the_quark
10-25-2010, 12:26 PM
Any idea how this will change the status in San Mateo County?

That's an interesting question.

MP301
10-25-2010, 12:26 PM
Things have been speeding up of late. The most recent report was 70 days end to end.


Arrests that you're honest about on the application are very unlikely to be a problem, as long as they have been concluded. Old convictions are likely to be no real problem. Recent convictions...

-Gene

So, is it your opinion that those with old skeltons in their closets
(10+ years?) are GTG with Calguns pursuing their possible denial on those grounds or is that much further down the road?

Edit: old non prohibiting stuff obviously

sighere
10-25-2010, 12:31 PM
Does anyone have a case number for Richards v Prieto? I searched Pacer.gov, but it keeps popping up Sykes (as in associated case, possibly amicus) The actual case does not come up.

Joe
10-25-2010, 12:38 PM
Excellent work guys.

So when is CoCo county gonna get some love?

bodger
10-25-2010, 12:38 PM
Outstanding. This is why I donate to CGF.

Now come down here to Los Angeles and give Lee Baca a Come To Jesus moment on his illegal CCW policies.:D

Librarian
10-25-2010, 12:47 PM
Does anyone have a case number for Richards v Prieto? I searched Pacer.gov, but it keeps popping up Sykes (as in associated case, possibly amicus) The actual case does not come up.

It's the same case, just amended - see the Wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) and the Pacer link there. The motion is doc 42, I believe.

ohsmily
10-25-2010, 12:49 PM
Does anyone have a case number for Richards v Prieto? I searched Pacer.gov, but it keeps popping up Sykes (as in associated case, possibly amicus) The actual case does not come up.

Probably still under Sykes until an amended complaint is filed???

jb7706
10-25-2010, 12:50 PM
So, is it your opinion that those with old skeltons in their closets
(10+ years?) are GTG with Calguns pursuing their possible denial on those grounds or is that much further down the road?

Edit: old non prohibiting stuff obviously

I know for certain that at least minor offenses from the distant past are not a problem in Sac.

woodsman
10-25-2010, 12:51 PM
Come on down to Contra Costa when you whip the ****e out of Yolo. We need the same treatment here.

+1

Waiting for the COCO Squeeze!

icentropy
10-25-2010, 12:53 PM
Ventura won't even give up their application info, I guess we're in for the long haul.... Congrats to all the free man/women in Sacramento! May the rest of us join you soon.

Blackhawk556
10-25-2010, 12:53 PM
What happen with the good cause statements from our "30 members"?
Are they posted on the website so that others can read them?
CGF is suing ventura so that they have access to good cause statement so what about we see the good cause statements from the 30 members.
At least others will have an idea of what a "self defense" good cause statement looks like.

wildhawker
10-25-2010, 12:55 PM
These awesome results are not without significant cost. Please take a moment to Sponsor Carry License Reform (http://www.cgfstore.org) in your county today.

Untamed1972
10-25-2010, 12:56 PM
What happen with the good cause statements from our "30 members"?
Are they posted on the website so that others can read them?
CGF is suing ventura so that they have access to good cause statement so what about we see the good cause statements from the 30 members.
At least others will have an idea of what a "self defense" good cause statement looks like.

It looks like this:

"SELF DEFENSE"

Do you need me to type it for you 29 more times? LOL :D

sighere
10-25-2010, 12:57 PM
Duh, thanks LIbrarian. I was just checking that out when you chimed in. I guess I'm a little slow today. I didn't remember that they were one action. I guess when you throw around Sykes v McGuiness around enough it's easy to forget the other plaintiffs/defendants. After all, I certainly don't remember McDonald's co plaintiffs...

wildhawker
10-25-2010, 12:57 PM
What happen with the good cause statements from our "30 members"?
Are they posted on the website so that others can read them?
CGF is suing ventura so that they have access to good cause statement so what about we see the good cause statements from the 30 members.
At least others will have an idea of what a "self defense" good cause statement looks like.

"I wish to acquire a license to carry a firearm so I may lawfully exercise my right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense", or some simple variation thereof.

wildhawker
10-25-2010, 12:59 PM
Excellent work guys.

So when is CoCo county gonna get some love?

They already are getting some "love", and will be getting some more soon. :43:

Sponsor our efforts here (http://www.cgfstore.org).

N6ATF
10-25-2010, 1:05 PM
"I wish to acquire a license to carry a firearm so I may lawfully exercise my right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense", or some simple variation thereof.

Does Sac require a complete sentence, or can we make a FAQ thread:

Good cause in Sacramento County="Self-defense." Period. Write it down. Seriously. JUST DO IT ALREADY! STOP ASKING, THAT IS THE ANSWER!

the_donald_
10-25-2010, 1:06 PM
First thing's first, Great job CGF & SAF! News like this makes me want to stay in CA and help educate others. It's very easy to become pessimistic about our future here and want to give up and leave. CGF gives me hope for a better tomorrow, and that is priceless.

I'm curious if this news is being proactively sent to the county sheriffs that are not accepting "personal protection" as GC. I keep reading about "writing on the wall", but have these other sheriffs been informed?

It's probably a very obvious "yes" answer, just thought I'd ask anyway.

Thanks again.

Don

jb7706
10-25-2010, 1:22 PM
Does Sac require a complete sentence, or can we make a FAQ thread:

Good cause in Sacramento County="Self-defense." Period. Write it down. Seriously. JUST DO IT ALREADY! STOP ASKING, THAT IS THE ANSWER!

I can't believe how many people I have talked to that simply refuse to believe that they can now get a CCW in Sacramento. Even after I show them my permit they are convinced I made a campaign contribution or "know somebody." It's like a sick form of Stockholm Syndrome or something.

the_quark
10-25-2010, 1:27 PM
What happen with the good cause statements from our "30 members"?
Are they posted on the website so that others can read them?
CGF is suing ventura so that they have access to good cause statement so what about we see the good cause statements from the 30 members.
At least others will have an idea of what a "self defense" good cause statement looks like.

Actually, if you look at our Sacramento page:

http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/resources/ccw-initiative/122-sacramento (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5186517)


I wish to carry a firearm for self defense and the defense of my family.
I know, because I typed it in.

No, we haven't bothered PRARing that back from the Sheriff. :)

sighere
10-25-2010, 1:29 PM
I gotta figure the word will spread fast amongst the Sheriffs. Being the pessimist (I live in L.A. county) that I am, I'm sure guys like Baca are arrogant enough to figure it does not apply to them, and that Sacto probably had crappy lawyers etc.... He'll probably need to be dragged kicking and screaming the whole way. Some of the more realistic/reasonable ones might fall in line though.

Blackhawk556
10-25-2010, 1:29 PM
"I wish to acquire a license to carry a firearm so I may lawfully exercise my right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense", or some simple variation thereof.

wow, so these 30 members just wrote about a sentence or two and that's was it?

FirstFlight
10-25-2010, 1:31 PM
Many thanks to CGF and SAF....way to go guys! Looks like we are moving down towards San Mateo County!

the_quark
10-25-2010, 1:32 PM
wow, so these 30 members just wrote about a sentence or two and that's was it?

The sentence above, yes. You'll also get an interview with an officer, who will ask you what your good cause is, and you say "self defense."

the_quark
10-25-2010, 1:32 PM
Many thanks to CGF and SAF....way to go guys! Looks like we are moving down towards San Mateo County!

:gene:

GuyW
10-25-2010, 1:34 PM
The sentence above, yes. You'll also get an interview with an officer, who will ask you what your good cause is, and you say "self defense."

Obviously a vast improvement, but still its mindless bureacratic red tape.
.

Untamed1972
10-25-2010, 1:34 PM
:gene:

where is that spaghetti western music when you need it? LOL (that is one of my favorite smileys BTW)

Python2
10-25-2010, 1:39 PM
Many thanks to CGF and SAF....way to go guys! Looks like we are moving down towards San Mateo County!

Huh! Arent they already there? :D

wash
10-25-2010, 1:41 PM
I think one thing that some people are missing is that we don't need a legal prescedent here. We don't need to get a ruling against Yolo or any other county because we already have the prescedents required to win these cases.

We are going after the counties on equal protection grounds. That means if there is any funny business in the permitting, like we PRAR a good cause and then use it with an applicant who has the same circumstances and a permit is not issued, we've got a 100% can't loose lawsuit.

We're going to use the same tactic on all 58 counties and it will work every time.

I don't think there is a win in the courts that would change the whole state to "shall issue" but we are going to get the same thing one county at a time. Once we have all 58, who cares how we got there?

It might take a while but there is a much better chance of success than a balot initiative with a much lower cost.

Bizcuits
10-25-2010, 1:47 PM
So what happens if Sacramento County reverts back to May Issue?

dantodd
10-25-2010, 1:48 PM
GuyW, it amazes me that some people can look at this and aul not be satisfied. Why don't you just wait until we get constitutional carry. Until then stop complaining that no victory is good enough. Do you realize how demeaning that attitude is to people like Brandon and Gray, not to mention the rest of the CGF girard and their attorneys who have invested countless hours and a lot of money to get us here?

timdps
10-25-2010, 1:49 PM
As far as I'm aware, Yolo has made no move to settle.

They might move in that direction now...

tim

Blackhawk556
10-25-2010, 1:49 PM
Actually, if you look at our Sacramento page:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5186517

I know, because I typed it in.

No, we haven't bothered PRARing that back from the Sheriff. :)

your link isn't working

Super Spy
10-25-2010, 1:52 PM
Come on down to Contra Costa when you whip the ****e out of Yolo. We need the same treatment here.

+1 on that! Coco county needs to see the light.

putput
10-25-2010, 1:58 PM
I think it’s important to note here that California has been dragged kicking and screaming back in to the United States and that means that we all have 2A protections. You no longer need to be the victim of a crime or a special class or a special profession to get a CCW. That being said right now we need to create equal protection cases in the no issue counties. So, please wait for those cause examples and the lead from CGF… Meanwhile, hit the volunteer page and donate if you can. THANKS CGF. The “Bear” light is at the end of this tunnel.

wash
10-25-2010, 1:59 PM
So what happens if Sacramento County reverts back to May Issue?
Lawsuit on!

We'll have them by the balls.

It will end quickly and painfully for Sac.

the_quark
10-25-2010, 2:00 PM
your link isn't working

Corrected the link, sorry about that.

bulgron
10-25-2010, 2:02 PM
I'm so glad Santa Clara County isn't part of the Unholy Trinity! So when is the lawsuit against the illustrious Sheriff Smith coming?

If Santa Clara County isn't in the trinity, then it's because you can't put four evils into the three points in a triangle.

Make it an unholy quadrangle and you'll fit Santa Clara County in just fine.

putput
10-25-2010, 2:05 PM
Marin Pentagram!

If Santa Clara County isn't in the trinity, then it's because you can't put four evils into the three points in a triangle.

Make it an unholy quadrangle and you'll fit Santa Clara County in just fine.

uyoga
10-25-2010, 2:05 PM
Gene: Did "Good Moral Character" get redefined as well?
Meaning: Good Moral Character = Not othrewise disqualified by law or criminal record. = No more "good character" letters from neighbors required, etc?

Thanks.

bulgron
10-25-2010, 2:09 PM
Marin Pentagram!

lol. I still like the metaphor of the iron wall that one pro-gun fellow I know uses. It stretches from Santa Barbara all the way up to Marin. There might be a few weak points in the wall here and there, but it still stands, and will continue to until some lawyer or another comes in here and knocks it down.

Hurry please.

Untamed1972
10-25-2010, 2:10 PM
GuyW, it amazes me that some people can look at this and aul not be satisfied. Why don't you just wait until we get constitutional carry. Until then stop complaining that no victory is good enough. Do you realize how demeaning that attitude is to people like Brandon and Gray, not to mention the rest of the CGF girard and their attorneys who have invested countless hours and a lot of money to get us here?

Geez...lighten up. It's a big change for people, give them time to absorb it. Being that this is a "policy change" I think it's fair for people to ask how firm the change is, especially after seeing how easily "policy" can change ala Hutchins in OC.

nrgcruizer
10-25-2010, 2:14 PM
Great job fellas...Par excellente!!!!:D

the_quark
10-25-2010, 2:19 PM
Gene: Did "Good Moral Character" get redefined as well?
Meaning: Good Moral Character = Not othrewise disqualified by law or criminal record. = No more "good character" letters from neighbors required, etc?

There's a false dichotomy there. Nothing like reference letters are being required, but he is still retaining some latitude. So, if you have recent drug convictions (for example), he'll probably not issue.

No, we don't yet know what the exact boundaries are. If you get denied, let us know.

Dirtbozz
10-25-2010, 2:19 PM
I gotta figure the word will spread fast amongst the Sheriffs. Being the pessimist (I live in L.A. county) that I am, I'm sure guys like Baca are arrogant enough to figure it does not apply to them, and that Sacto probably had crappy lawyers etc.... He'll probably need to be dragged kicking and screaming the whole way. Some of the more realistic/reasonable ones might fall in line though.

Let's start draggin'. :D

mbuna
10-25-2010, 2:22 PM
Let me get this straight. Our rights are becoming un-infringed?
Bravo. Can't wait for "standard" cap mags being the norm.

wash
10-25-2010, 2:35 PM
I'm not too happy with Santa Clara county's attitude toward guns but I must say that it's worse in SF, Alameda and LA.

Hell, I thought San Mateo was worse than Santa Clara and I think the way events unfold there will be plenty of surprises.

Rossi357
10-25-2010, 2:40 PM
San Diego County should be included in that funny shaped unholy triangle. When a Sheriff says his county is shall not issue, he should be at the top of the list.

dantodd
10-25-2010, 2:58 PM
Geez...lighten up. It's a big change for people, give them time to absorb it. Being that this is a "policy change" I think it's fair for people to ask how firm the change is,

My response was not to a question about how firm the change is but rather a complaint that ANY form of "good cause" is too much. Can't people just congratulate the team that did all this work and stop complaining about what is left to do.

It's like complaining today about the Giants winning the NLCS because they didn't win the World Series. The World Series hasn't even been played.

Havoc70
10-25-2010, 3:00 PM
I agree, Dantodd. This is huge. Awesome stuff!

steadyrock
10-25-2010, 3:02 PM
Out f-ing standing. Thank you, and keep it up. To paraphrase Lao-Tzu: "The journey through 58 counties begins with a single step."

Barkoff
10-25-2010, 3:13 PM
How about Monterey, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, is there a search for people who have been denied in those counties to be the face of a lawsuit?

SoCal Gunner
10-25-2010, 3:25 PM
Spectacular news. I'm just waiting for a nod for action from the volunteer thread. (Riverside County)

safewaysecurity
10-25-2010, 3:35 PM
+ 1000 for Contra Costa County!!! We need help!

wash
10-25-2010, 3:36 PM
How about Monterey, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, is there a search for people who have been denied in those counties to be the face of a lawsuit?

While it might work out that way, I think the idea is to find that one golden good cause statement that anyone can fit in to, then have everyone use it. Then if they deny a permit to anyone with that good cause statement (who's a suitable plaintiff), CGF sues.

The only way to do it faster is if CGF finds a smoking gun in the public records, like 5 rejections on the same legitimate good cause to squeaky clean applicants while a politically connected dirt bag gets his with the same good cause.

Still, even if this happened I think we wouldn't hear about it, the CCW policy would just mysteriously change overnight.

safewaysecurity
10-25-2010, 3:52 PM
I know that some CoCo county applicants who got their permits that were "regular citizens" got them by putting nothing for good cause or self-defense.

Nor-Cal
10-25-2010, 4:05 PM
Very good work for all thoes involved. And the domino chain game begins!

sideshowhr
10-25-2010, 4:38 PM
excellent work by all involved :thumbsup:

vintagearms
10-25-2010, 5:50 PM
Awesome news!! Now, if we could get this changed in Ventura County ....

sighere
10-25-2010, 6:13 PM
Now this is hope and change we can all believe in! I sense the start of a new era coming to California!!!

microwaveguy
10-25-2010, 6:18 PM
Right now I look at this as a poker game with CGF and SAF holding a royal flush and daring the other guys to call the bet. :D

One county at a time kicking screaming is better than nothing......... as soon as I get my rental put back together from my tenant destroying it I'll sent another donation.

EXCELLENT job for all those involved.

stag6.8
10-25-2010, 6:25 PM
this is great news .....we all would like to see los angeles county go to trial....team billy jack ....where are you?

Scarecrow Repair
10-25-2010, 6:27 PM
That's an interesting question.

Reminds me of that old joke ...

Phone rings. Guy answers.

Pause.

Guy says, with wonder, "You don't say."

Pause

Guy repeats, with more wonder, "You don't say."

Guy hangs up the phone.

Friend asks, "Who was that?"

Guy says, "He didn't say."

hoffmang
10-25-2010, 6:38 PM
To answer some questions that (keep) coming up:

1. Can't Sac just change policy?

Both candidates have fought hard with each other to be even more pro issuance for self defense than the other. I have many good reasons to believe that both candidates are honestly committed to maintaining and even improving the system for average citizens. Also note that when we win against Yolo, that will bind Sac. Further, based on equal protections law it will be very hard for them to go back from self-defense = good cause. Also, if they change policy, we did not give up the right to sue them again on any issue.

2. Why won't Yolo settle?

Yolo can't settle. They denied Brett Stewart. We will settle for nothing less than a legally binding final judgment.

3. What about good moral character?

Sac does retain some ability to deny based on good moral character. Things I have reason to believe they would deny for are lieing on a previous application, having a recent DUI (less than 5 years.) I don't think that's fully constitutional but we're not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good in Sac when we can make the legal points in Yolo.

4. When are you coming to my county?

There are about four main thrusts here. We have the high level Federal cases (Richards, Peruta), we can force counties under equal protection to issue to other's who meet an already issued good cause, we will force compliance with the Penal and Government Code, and we'll have an exhaustive list of granted good causes. It's a complex matrix we have to balance to figure out which county goes in what order. Note that we do not have to take every county through every step to get counties into a place where most everyone can get a permit.

5. What do I write on my Sacramento app for good cause?

There are two good cause statements on the calgunsfoundation.org Sacramento page (linked handily in the OP...) that we know have been issued against. Just use the one sentence. Please don't over think it.

-Gene

bronsht
10-25-2010, 6:43 PM
I want to thank all the CGF members who have carried this Sysiphean weight for so long.

I live in San Francisco. Help!
bronsht

dantodd
10-25-2010, 6:45 PM
this is great news .....we all would like to see los angeles county go to trial....team billy jack ....where are you?

This is not how Billy Jack works. He helps people get a single permit within the old "special threat" good cause paradigm. If you have exceptional good cause and the money to fund discovery and potentially a lawsuit then Billy Jack will help YOU get a CCW in many California counties.

If you want to be able to get a CCW simply for self defense in every county (eventually) in the state then donate to CGF as that is their goal and they WILL get there.

Bret Daniels
10-25-2010, 7:26 PM
What an amazing victory for the citizens of Sacramento County and hopefully the path for all others in California to exercise their fundamental right of self-protection. The people at CGF deserve a HUGE thanks for carrying the fight. Now on to the work of streamlining the process and reducing the cost so that no one is delayed or prevented from exercising this victory. Good job guys!!!

M. D. Van Norman
10-25-2010, 8:57 PM
Yolo can’t settle. They denied Brett Stewart. We will settle for nothing less than a legally binding final judgment.

They can always settle, no?

“Oops! Our mistake. Here’s your license.”

But then no one said victory would be easy. No one promised the decisive, historic victory that all of us in the civil-rights movement desire. Indeed, no one can guarantee us even that obscure footnote in a future civics text.

Maestro Pistolero
10-25-2010, 9:11 PM
Until there is solid precedent there will always be a recalcitrant jurisdiction who will need a judicial whooping before finally coming to their senses. Even if the remaining defendants settle, there will be others.

hoffmang
10-25-2010, 9:24 PM
They can always settle, no?

“Oops! Our mistake. Here’s your license.”
Nope. Mr. Stewart, SAF, and CGF have standing to require them to enter a binding agreement to not deny in the future. They could "settle" but it would be in a binding court order that would be precedential. Yolo is going to pay 1988 legal fees in this matter.

Until there is solid precedent there will always be a recalcitrant jurisdiction who will need a judicial whooping before finally coming to their senses. Even if the remaining defendants settle, there will be others.

There may be one to three... But beating on them with precedent is just sport.

-Gene

the_quark
10-25-2010, 9:51 PM
But beating on them with precedent is just sport.

Hey, Jason's got to pay for his boat somehow.

Bret Daniels
10-25-2010, 9:55 PM
Hey, Jason's got to pay for his boat somehow.

What are you guys doing hanging out on a website....you should be out raising a toast (haha).

N6ATF
10-25-2010, 10:03 PM
Nope. Mr. Stewart, SAF, and CGF have standing to require them to enter a binding agreement to not deny in the future. They could "settle" but it would be in a binding court order that would be precedential. Yolo is going to pay 1988 legal fees in this matter.


Is there an accomplice vs accomplice thing you are able to run when you sue two counties at once? In other words, if one folds, the other is stuck not being able to "confess" and forced to pay dearly (the legal fees of the ENTIRE suit)? :43:

the_quark
10-25-2010, 10:03 PM
What are you guys doing hanging out on a website....you should be out raising a toast (haha).

:cheers2:

Hey, Gene, how'd we not schedule beer drinking tonight?

In all seriousness it really kinda seems like an anti-climax to me. We've been this close for weeks, actually announcing it's the easy part. ;)

Window_Seat
10-25-2010, 10:12 PM
I think a celebration dinner is in order, but maybe it's too early, considering there was a Nordyke dinner very recently. I posted that suggested in an OP. Just a thought.

Erik.

spgripside
10-25-2010, 10:21 PM
Once again, CGF has made my week. Thanks.

hoffmang
10-25-2010, 10:32 PM
What are you guys doing hanging out on a website....you should be out raising a toast (haha).

The two are not mutual exclusive... :chris:

-Gene

MindBuilder
10-25-2010, 10:34 PM
I say thanks a million to all those who have put in so much hard work to make this happen. I think of the good lives that will be saved by your effort.

Do you have to list a particular weapon that you will carry with your permit? If so that seems totally pointless. Perhaps you should make it part of any agreements that they will allow the carry of any weapon the permit holder chooses. This would even help when transporting long guns "concealed" but not locked, in your car, near schools and such. A primary weapon could be listed as the one trained and tested on.

Bret Daniels
10-25-2010, 10:41 PM
The two are not mutual exclusive... :chris:

-Gene

True, true, true. Think I'll raise a bowl of pecan ice cream smoothered with Kahluah.

Gray Peterson
10-25-2010, 11:20 PM
What an amazing victory for the citizens of Sacramento County and hopefully the path for all others in California to exercise their fundamental right of self-protection. The people at CGF deserve a HUGE thanks for carrying the fight. Now on to the work of streamlining the process and reducing the cost so that no one is delayed or prevented from exercising this victory. Good job guys!!!

And thank you for acknowledging CGF's, it's volunteers (such as myself), Alan Gura, Don Kilmer, and the Sacramento plaintiffs for what they did. It was their hard work that made this happen.

N6ATF
10-25-2010, 11:25 PM
True, true, true. Think I'll raise a bowl of pecan ice cream smoothered with Kahluah.

Yum.

pitchbaby
10-25-2010, 11:35 PM
I know there has been talk of the county directly east of Sac... Does any of the time once spent in Sacto now have anything to do with what may be moving out in that eastwardly direction. The Sheriff there is mostly on the 2A side as it is. Probably just need some big guns to show them how to read the constitution so they are less arbItrary about who gets the privilege and who does not. I am sure it would be an easy win with the right entourage on the right day. I'll buy the victory dinner for the first 10 fighters and freeloaders alike! You just gotta like Mexican!

starsekr
10-26-2010, 12:30 AM
Question for the lawyers in the house:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

I see three reasons in this paragraph for carrying a weapon right off the bat, "defending life", "protecting property", and "obtaining safety". Why don't these fly as reasons for a CCW permit, or as reasons to challange a denial?

N6ATF
10-26-2010, 12:49 AM
The CA constitution was ruled null and void and effectively seceded from the U.S. a long time ago... but that's OK, Nordyke for a little while, and finally McDonald brought CA.gov back into the union whether they like it or not.

3B830
10-26-2010, 1:56 AM
Thank you SAF, CGF, Alan Gura, Don Kilmer, and Jason Davis!

tiki
10-26-2010, 4:13 AM
wow, so these 30 members just wrote about a sentence or two and that's was it?

That's all I did.

kellito
10-26-2010, 4:16 AM
:King:

CGF ROCKS!

Meplat
10-26-2010, 4:33 AM
Seems...messy and annoying.

You just described the foreseeable future.:mad:

GrizzlyGuy
10-26-2010, 6:44 AM
Thank you CGF for your diligence and hard work! Once again I gleefully bow down to your collective greatness. :patriot:


Yolo can't settle. They denied Brett Stewart. We will settle for nothing less than a legally binding final judgment.



3. What about good moral character?

Sac does retain some ability to deny based on good moral character. Things I have reason to believe they would deny for are lieing on a previous application, having a recent DUI (less than 5 years.) I don't think that's fully constitutional but we're not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good in Sac when we can make the legal points in Yolo.


I'm happy to see CGF's willingness to go to the mat vs. Yolo and not accept surrender (even if offered). Making carry a right vs. a privilege is the only way to truly solve 'good moral character' and, just as importantly IMHO, force DOJ to reform its CCW application form (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=353890) to remove the parts that collect sensitive and irrelevant personal details. Agencies may choose to redact that information when responding to PRAR requests for CCW applications but are not required to by law.

Imagine the following scenario: An imperfect, mortal person applies for a CCW and honestly answers the questions, admitting past illegal drug use (not prohibiting per 9th circuit (http://volokh.com/2010/03/31/the-second-amendment-and-people-with-medical-marijuana-user-cards/) in United States v. Purdy (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1040384.html)), various mental health issues and voluntary treatment, and two recent DUI arrests. Since none of this is prohibiting under current law, the CCW license is issued.

Along comes LCAV who does a PRAR request. They find this application and others with at least some non-perfect-person similarities (not redacted thanks to their requests being processed by people who happen to be sympathetic to their cause), and use this info as an effective political and public relations weapon in their fight for more stringent gun laws. The headlines read 'Government Grants Permission for Crazy, Irresponsible Drug and Alcohol Users to Carry Guns in Public!'. Zowie, we even have occasional comments here on CGN that say 'some people shouldn't be allowed to get CCW permits/carry guns', so I think that's a winner in the political and public relations arenas. This could lead to legislatures (possibly including Congress) panicking and creating even more prohibiting categories, further restricting everyone's RKBA. The only thing that could realistically stop this is a right to carry that has been affirmed in a federal court.

Anyhoo, I'm not trying to throw a wet blanket on CGF's accomplishments, just trying to reinforce how happy I am that you will be fighting Yolo all the way to the point of having the federal court ruling that can prevent the above scenario, solidify our gun rights and solidify our right to privacy that has been explicitly guaranteed us in Article 1 Section 1 of the CA State Constitution (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1). :)

fiveflat
10-26-2010, 7:07 AM
Printed my application this morning! Good work guys! donation on the way!

the_quark
10-26-2010, 7:27 AM
I say thanks a million to all those who have put in so much hard work to make this happen. I think of the good lives that will be saved by your effort.

Do you have to list a particular weapon that you will carry with your permit? If so that seems totally pointless. Perhaps you should make it part of any agreements that they will allow the carry of any weapon the permit holder chooses. This would even help when transporting long guns "concealed" but not locked, in your car, near schools and such. A primary weapon could be listed as the one trained and tested on.

I certainly think "totally pointless" rather understates what we've accomplished, here. :p

Regardless, the listing of firearms is included in the statute, so we can't get rid of it just by a deal with the Sherrif. Our intent is to fix this post Richards, in the courts.

not-fishing
10-26-2010, 7:46 AM
Yolo is going to pay 1988 legal fees in this matter. -Gene

Music to my ears. I cannot tell you how tired I am of not-seeing the prevailing party receive legal fees from the other side. :clap:

Especially when it is a Government or quasi-government agency who the case has been decided against. :43:

Untamed1972
10-26-2010, 7:47 AM
I say thanks a million to all those who have put in so much hard work to make this happen. I think of the good lives that will be saved by your effort.

Do you have to list a particular weapon that you will carry with your permit? If so that seems totally pointless. Perhaps you should make it part of any agreements that they will allow the carry of any weapon the permit holder chooses. This would even help when transporting long guns "concealed" but not locked, in your car, near schools and such. A primary weapon could be listed as the one trained and tested on.

By legal definition a "long gun" is not concealable, hence a how could you be given a permit to carry concealed a weapon which by definition is not concealable?

Besides I think the PC on CCW permits specfically states it is for carrying a concealed a pistol or revolver that is capable of being concealed which would automatically exclude long guns which are not concealable anyway.

Untamed1972
10-26-2010, 8:05 AM
Thank you CGF for your diligence and hard work! Once again I gleefully bow down to your collective greatness. :patriot:





I'm happy to see CGF's willingness to go to the mat vs. Yolo and not accept surrender (even if offered). Making carry a right vs. a privilege is the only way to truly solve 'good moral character' and, just as importantly IMHO, force DOJ to reform its CCW application form (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=353890) to remove the parts that collect sensitive and irrelevant personal details. Agencies may choose to redact that information when responding to PRAR requests for CCW applications but are not required to by law.

Imagine the following scenario: An imperfect, mortal person applies for a CCW and honestly answers the questions, admitting past illegal drug use (not prohibiting per 9th circuit (http://volokh.com/2010/03/31/the-second-amendment-and-people-with-medical-marijuana-user-cards/) in United States v. Purdy (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1040384.html)), various mental health issues and voluntary treatment, and two recent DUI arrests. Since none of this is prohibiting under current law, the CCW license is issued.

Along comes LCAV who does a PRAR request. They find this application and others with at least some non-perfect-person similarities (not redacted thanks to their requests being processed by people who happen to be sympathetic to their cause), and use this info as an effective political and public relations weapon in their fight for more stringent gun laws. The headlines read 'Government Grants Permission for Crazy, Irresponsible Drug and Alcohol Users to Carry Guns in Public!'. Zowie, we even have occasional comments here on CGN that say 'some people shouldn't be allowed to get CCW permits/carry guns', so I think that's a winner in the political and public relations arenas. This could lead to legislatures (possibly including Congress) panicking and creating even more prohibiting categories, further restricting everyone's RKBA. The only thing that could realistically stop this is a right to carry that has been affirmed in a federal court.

Anyhoo, I'm not trying to throw a wet blanket on CGF's accomplishments, just trying to reinforce how happy I am that you will be fighting Yolo all the way to the point of having the federal court ruling that can prevent the above scenario, solidify our gun rights and solidify our right to privacy that has been explicitly guaranteed us in Article 1 Section 1 of the CA State Constitution (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1). :)

I wonder if questions/information about previous medical/mental treatment could be protected and/or dropped from consideration based on the medical privacy laws?

Although on some level questions about drug use and mental illness do go directly to establishing whether a person is a prohibited posessor or not, much like the questions on the 4473, so there might hafta be some challenges to federal law on those issues first before you can jumpon the local sheriff for them because he could claim he just following federal law on those issues.

wash
10-26-2010, 8:42 AM
There are reasons why I keep my hands clean.

It is a bit of a sacrifice, I can't smoke weed or drive around blind drunk.

I do it because I don't want any Sheriff's discretion to extend to the point that I can be denied anything.

I do it because when these chances come I want to take advantage.

Discretion has been perverted in to a civil rights violation in many counties but complaining that a virtual shall issue policy is bad because drunks might be denied (when everyone else gets their permit) is being too picky.

I don't know about everyone else but I will jump through a few hoops to get a permit that people like Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pellosi and Barbera Boxer do not want me to have. I bet there are at least 10,000 other people like me who will do the same and that's important because we need numbers. Once the flood gates open, we need to make sure California floods.

sighere
10-26-2010, 9:36 AM
[QUOTE=hoffmang;5189722] Yolo is going to pay 1988 legal fees in this matter.


I've got to think that this is one of the better ways to get the SO's to come to the table. 1983 litigation can cost cities and governmental agencies a ton when fee recovery kicks in. After all, money talks and b.s. walks! My personal opinion is that it may take multiple actions on the tougher nuts before they really come around.

M. D. Van Norman
10-26-2010, 9:44 AM
And at two years per county, we’ll be done in another 114 years. :eek::D

Well, I hope not. :o:p

Untamed1972
10-26-2010, 9:45 AM
[QUOTE=hoffmang;5189722] Yolo is going to pay 1988 legal fees in this matter.


I've got to think that this is one of the better ways to get the SO's to come to the table. 1983 litigation can cost cities and governmental agencies a ton when fee recovery kicks in. After all, money talks and b.s. walks! My personal opinion is that it may take multiple actions on the tougher nuts before they really come around.


Perhaps residents of these counties getting sued need to start going to County BoS meetings and asking why the counties are wasting county residents tax dollars on fighting law suits they're ultimately going to lose when instead they could just respect citizens rights and bring in revenue by means of license fees.

Have people there at every single meeting, asking the same questions until the BoS tells the sheriff to cut the crap and get with the times.

wash
10-26-2010, 9:50 AM
And at two years per county, we’ll be done in another 114 years. :eek::D

Well, I hope not. :o:p
Lots of things will happen in parallel and probably half of the counties are already good so I would be surprised if more than 3-4 counties hold out until 2012.

I would not be surprised if all of CA is virtual shall issue in a year.

yellowfin
10-26-2010, 9:52 AM
Lots of things will happen in parallel and probably half of the counties are already good so I would be surprised if more than 3-4 counties hold out until 2012.

I would not be surprised if all of CA is virtual shall issue in a year.Then get campus carry, which will strike at the very heart and reproductive system of the anti gun ideology.

Fjold
10-26-2010, 9:55 AM
And at two years per county, we’ll be done in another 114 years. :eek::D

Well, I hope not. :o:p

Probably only about 80 years since there are some almost "shall issue" counties already in existence. :D

GrizzlyGuy
10-26-2010, 9:56 AM
I wonder if questions/information about previous medical/mental treatment could be protected and/or dropped from consideration based on the medical privacy laws?

HIPAA and similar laws restrict disclosure of your medical records without your consent. However, you are required to provide consent as a condition of submitting the CCW application (http://calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/DOJ_CCW_App_Fillable.pdf). From section 8 (with my underlining):

I hereby give permission to the agency to which this application is made to conduct a background investigation of me and to contact any person or agency who may add to or aid in this investigation. I further authorize persons, firms, agencies and institutions listed on this application to release or confirm information about me and statements I have made as contained in this application.

I suspect that there is no way that we'll be able to limit the scope of that consent statement as long as CCW licenses are a privilege and not a right.

Although on some level questions about drug use and mental illness do go directly to establishing whether a person is a prohibited posessor or not, much like the questions on the 4473, so there might hafta be some challenges to federal law on those issues first before you can jumpon the local sheriff for them because he could claim he just following federal law on those issues.

Questions such as those on the 4473 that have limited scope and go directly toward determining if you are prohibited or not (e.g., asking about current drug use or addiction or asking if you have ever been found not guilty by reason of insanity) will likely remain in place even if a CCW license was determined to be a right instead of a privilege. However, the current questions are open ended and go far beyond what is needed to determine if you are prohibited or not:

Have you ever been in a mental institution, treated for mental illness, or been found not-guilty by reason of insanity...Are you now, or have you ever been, addicted to a controlled substance or alcohol, or have you ever utilized an illegal controlled substance, or have you ever reported to a detoxification or drug treatment program?

In submitting the application, you also acknowledge what I said above - that any or all of this information can be released to the public:

I understand that all of the information disclosed by me in this application may be subject to public disclosure.

and later...

Notwithstanding any other provision of law and pursuant to the Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250 et seq.), I understand that information contained in this application may be a matter of public record and shall be made available upon request or court order.

I don't think that would include your actual medical records obtained by the agency, but I think it could include their conclusions based on those records, such as a denial letter: 'we deny your application because 10 years ago you voluntarily entered the Betty Ford center for alcohol and drug addiction treatment and/or received voluntary treatment for depression from the XYZ mental hospital, and we therefore conclude that you do not have good moral character'.

Meplat
10-26-2010, 10:54 AM
Mental illness, in this regard, must be adjudicated (found by a judge), to be prohibitive. There is a part of the welfare and institutions code that say that if you are reported by your shrink to have made threats of violence against an identifiable individual your right to possess can be suspended for six months. I wonder if questions/information about previous medical/mental treatment could be protected and/or dropped from consideration based on the medical privacy laws?

Although on some level questions about drug use and mental illness do go directly to establishing whether a person is a prohibited posessor or not, much like the questions on the 4473, so there might hafta be some challenges to federal law on those issues first before you can jumpon the local sheriff for them because he could claim he just following federal law on those issues.

wash
10-26-2010, 11:02 AM
Then get campus carry, which will strike at the very heart and reproductive system of the anti gun ideology.
I believe Sacramento had to strike the school zone exception from it's issued CCW licenses.

I'm sure that was due to CGF advise.

I know that CGF will eventually work on GFSZ's but I think that will have to wait until after resolution of Nordyke at least.

Untamed1972
10-26-2010, 11:06 AM
Mental illness, in this regard, must be adjudicated (found by a judge), to be prohibitive. There is a part of the welfare and institutions code that say that if you are reported by your shrink to have made threats of violence against an identifiable individual your right to possess can be suspended for six months.


I think we all must remember that pre-McDonald the entire system was set-up as "this is a priviliege and we will do everything we can to find a reason to disqualify you." Hence all the intrusinveness of the process. Parts of that process will simply hafta be challenged over time and removed now that we are talking about exercising a fundamental right.

THEY will hafta justify what compelling state interest is served by such intrusivness, which I think will be difficult to do since 40some other states seem to do just fine w/o it. If they simply want to know who is carrying then why do they need to know anything more than my name and where I currently reside?

bulgron
10-26-2010, 11:18 AM
It is a bit of a sacrifice, I can't smoke weed or drive around blind drunk.


Funny, I never did those things because I always thought they were dumb-*** things to do.

OK, yes, I know, you're probably being sarcastic. It just struck me as odd, the idea that someone might decide to not drink and drive tonight because they might be able to get a CCW 10 years from now if only they keep their nose clean ....

bulgron
10-26-2010, 11:19 AM
I would not be surprised if all of CA is virtual shall issue in a year.

I'll be falling out of my chair stunned and shocked if this happens in under 5 years.

Untamed1972
10-26-2010, 11:25 AM
Funny, I never did those things because I always thought they were dumb-*** things to do.

OK, yes, I know, you're probably being sarcastic. It just struck me as odd, the idea that someone might decide to not drink and drive tonight because they might be able to get a CCW 10 years from now if only they keep their nose clean ....


I think the point is that choosing to keep one's nose clean now is acknowledging that failure to do so now can have unintended consequences later on down the road.

steadyrock
10-26-2010, 11:28 AM
I don't think that would include your actual medical records obtained by the agency, but I think it could include their conclusions based on those records, such as a denial letter: 'we deny your application because 10 years ago you voluntarily entered the Betty Ford center for alcohol and drug addiction treatment and/or received voluntary treatment for depression from the XYZ mental hospital, and we therefore conclude that you do not have good moral character'.

Mental illness, in this regard, must be adjudicated (found by a judge), to be prohibitive. There is a part of the welfare and institutions code that say that if you are reported by your shrink to have made threats of violence against an identifiable individual your right to possess can be suspended for six months.

The two bolded sections here don't jive. Which one is correct? Under state law (and county policy, once all counties are following the law), can a person who sought voluntary medical treatment for, say, depression or alcoholism be denied using that alone as a reason? Or does it truly have to be adjudicated (and therefore not voluntary)?

safewaysecurity
10-26-2010, 11:34 AM
Get it done before I turn 21 and I'll be happy =)

nicki
10-26-2010, 11:47 AM
Last year when I testified for AB357 (shall issue), I believe that the rep for the sheriffs association was the YOLO county sheriff.

The sheriffs talk to each other. The one year residency policy is probably a gentleman's agreement so that residents in anti gun counties don't establish residencies in pro gun counties.

When Yolo goes down, everybody will know. Let's also keep an eye out the Peruta case because there is no indication that the sheriff is developing intelligence.

The Brady Bunch has jumped into that case and they filed a "outstanding brief" that will piss the Judge of big time.

Nicki

wildhawker
10-26-2010, 12:00 PM
Every single Sheriff is intimately aware of our lawsuit and initiative. I can say that with absolute confidence.

-Brandon

Last year when I testified for AB357 (shall issue), I believe that the rep for the sheriffs association was the YOLO county sheriff.

The sheriffs talk to each other. The one year residency policy is probably a gentleman's agreement so that residents in anti gun counties don't establish residencies in pro gun counties.

When Yolo goes down, everybody will know. Let's also keep an eye out the Peruta case because there is no indication that the sheriff is developing intelligence.

The Brady Bunch has jumped into that case and they filed a "outstanding brief" that will piss the Judge of big time.

Nicki

IGOTDIRT4U
10-26-2010, 12:01 PM
Last year when I testified for AB357 (shall issue), I believe that the rep for the sheriffs association was the YOLO county sheriff.

The sheriffs talk to each other. The one year residency policy is probably a gentleman's agreement so that residents in anti gun counties don't establish residencies in pro gun counties.

When Yolo goes down, everybody will know. Let's also keep an eye out the Peruta case because there is no indication that the sheriff is developing intelligence.

The Brady Bunch has jumped into that case and they filed a "outstanding brief" that will piss the Judge of big time.

Nicki

Nicki, got a link to that brief?

N6ATF
10-26-2010, 12:10 PM
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.38.5.pdf

wash
10-26-2010, 12:14 PM
I think the point is that choosing to keep one's nose clean now is acknowledging that failure to do so now can have unintended consequences later on down the road.
While I never had that particular motivation and was more concerned with generally not becoming a prohibited person and staying out of jail, it now gives me a third reason to keep my nose clean.

I do think it will cause a decrease in crime from people who want a CCW and also people who get a license seem to be law abiding citizens.

There will certainly be a small amount of people who find out that a CCW license is more achievable than they thought but they can't get one because of a past indescretion.

Lastly, unless BRD becomes a disqualifying condition, I doubt there is going to be any push to let people with mental health issues get a license.

CGF won't get derailed fighting for prohibited people except possibly people prohibited for misdermeanors.

Havoc70
10-26-2010, 12:18 PM
Man, Zimring's brief is astoundingly awesome (sarcasm). Especially where he says restricting permits to a privileged few keeps the police as the "armed majority".

That scares the living crap out of me.

yellowfin
10-26-2010, 12:20 PM
I believe Sacramento had to strike the school zone exception from it's issued CCW licenses.

I'm sure that was due to CGF advise.

I know that CGF will eventually work on GFSZ's but I think that will have to wait until after resolution of Nordyke at least.Not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about legally preempting university prohibition policies of gun ownership, storage, and daily carry by faculty, staff, and students eligible for CCW's such that they cannot be censured, fired, expelled, penalized, or harassed for doing so.

Untamed1972
10-26-2010, 12:27 PM
Not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about legally preempting university prohibition policies of gun ownership, storage, and daily carry by faculty, staff, and students eligible for CCW's such that they cannot be censured, fired, expelled, penalized, or harassed for doing so.


When you're talking about people who are "on the job" it becomes an employment liability issue, just like it is for anyone else who'd wanna carry during the course of their daily employment.

If you're gonna say it must be ok for state Univ. employees to carry on the job then you must say it would be ok for ALL state employees to carry on the job. Courts have already held that your employer has the right to restrict certain freedoms in the work place, and since it is a liability issue, I dont see that changing much anytime soon unfortunately.

It will prolly take some kind of a wrongful death lawsuit from the family of a disarmed employee to address this issue. If the employer demands his employees must be disarmed, then they must provide for your safety while on the job. But that would prolly be a tough case to win, asin the long run it would prolly be cheaper to an employers ins. to pay out on the random, infrequent death on the job claim then the cost of liability ins on an annual basis. Not to mention that would then bring up the issue of if an employer allows carry on the job does that absolve them of liabilty if something happens to you? If not then there is not much inducement for an employer to take on the extra risk and cost of ins. to allow it.

Meplat
10-26-2010, 12:29 PM
Most CA counties will go with the flow. We may be suing a few of the counties like SF for the next 100+ years on one nit picking point at a time. And at two years per county, we’ll be done in another 114 years. :eek::D

Well, I hope not. :o:p

wash
10-26-2010, 12:34 PM
That's a noble cause but I would rather they fight GFSZ's.

There are groups focused exclusively on campus carry and I believe they have a lawsuit going on in Colorado or somewhere.

It will be nice to see Campus Carry win their battles but their issue is campuses which is a tiny area compared to all of the incorporated cities in the state. Beyond that, we have to secure the right to carry before you fight to carry in a college or university.

Some people are working on first amendment issues at public schools because many schools would ban speech about campus carry or else quarantine it to a "free speech zone". It's disgusting but that's the fight we have.

GFSZ's on the other hand chill our first amendment right to display arms by limiting areas where UOC is legal to tiny slivers between schools. Once they are gone, people carrying openly might become very common and children will learn about guns and gun rights sooner because they will be exposed to guns in their everyday lives and nothing bad will happen.

If we can make guns a non-issue for young people before they go to college, they will have a much easier time ignoring the antis when they spew their nonsense.

Rossi357
10-26-2010, 12:40 PM
I'm thinking that GFSZ's will be reduced to school property. The 1000 ft part will be gone.

Meplat
10-26-2010, 12:51 PM
The two bolded sections here don't jive. Which one is correct? Under state law (and county policy, once all counties are following the law), can a person who sought voluntary medical treatment for, say, depression or alcoholism be denied using that alone as a reason? Or does it truly have to be adjudicated (and therefore not voluntary)?

They don't jive because they are addressing different things and were stated by different people. You must be adjudicated to be a prohibited person. But under the present system of CLEO discretion, that or just about anything else, could be used as an excuse to question the "good character" of the applicant. In fact the CLEO does not have to even have an articulable reason to question your character.

wash
10-26-2010, 12:53 PM
I'm thinking that GFSZ's will be reduced to school property. The 1000 ft part will be gone.
Eventually but how do you get there?

That's the hard part.

I suspect that "the right people" know just where to strike once we have a scrutiny prescedent from Nordyke.

Meplat
10-26-2010, 12:55 PM
And I suspect some are cheering us on.
Every single Sheriff is intimately aware of our lawsuit and initiative. I can say that with absolute confidence.

-Brandon

wildhawker
10-26-2010, 1:00 PM
And I suspect some are cheering us on.

Yes, but it's not safe to assume that "easy to get a CCW in our county" means "we support CGF's efforts".

There are many "pro-gun" Sheriffs who *do not* like the idea of having to comply with the law.

Fortunately, our Initiative and ongoing suit in Yolo will remove their preferences from the equation.

Untamed1972
10-26-2010, 1:03 PM
While I never had that particular motivation and was more concerned with generally not becoming a prohibited person and staying out of jail, it now gives me a third reason to keep my nose clean.

I do think it will cause a decrease in crime from people who want a CCW and also people who get a license seem to be law abiding citizens.

There will certainly be a small amount of people who find out that a CCW license is more achievable than they thought but they can't get one because of a past indescretion.Lastly, unless BRD becomes a disqualifying condition, I doubt there is going to be any push to let people with mental health issues get a license.

CGF won't get derailed fighting for prohibited people except possibly people prohibited for misdermeanors.

That's my point....you never know what reprecussions the indiscretions of your youth may have down the road.

I knew a young man who after some troubled teen years, decided he wanted to join the military. Prolly woulda been a good experience for him, but because of the choices he made, even as a minor that option is completely off the table for him for the rest of his life, unless they .mil gets really hard-up again and starts handing out waivers like candy again.

Having a criminal record of any kind will at best be an annoying thorn in your side forever, at worst it can limit your choices and freedoms in ways you never imagined at the time.

Meplat
10-26-2010, 1:04 PM
It takes exceptional character to give up power willingly. Even when you know it's the right thing to do.
Yes, but it's not safe to assume that "easy to get a CCW in our county" means "we support CGF's efforts".

There are many "pro-gun" Sheriffs who *do not* like the idea of having to comply with the law.

Fortunately, our Initiative and ongoing suit in Yolo will remove their preferences from the equation.

Rossi357
10-26-2010, 1:10 PM
Eventually but how do you get there?

That's the hard part.

I suspect that "the right people" know just where to strike once we have a scrutiny prescedent from Nordyke.

It would be unconstitutional due to one of those rights in constitution about the right to travel.

steadyrock
10-26-2010, 1:11 PM
They don't jive because they are addressing different things and were stated by different people. You must be adjudicated to be a prohibited person. But under the present system of CLEO discretion, that or just about anything else, could be used as an excuse to question the "good character" of the applicant. In fact the CLEO does not have to even have an articulable reason to question your character.

My mistake; thanks for the clarity.

sighere
10-26-2010, 1:14 PM
Slightly off topic, but does anyone know if sound recordings of the upcoming Peruta arguments will be made available? I'd love to tool on down to SD, but I doubt I'll have the time...

wash
10-26-2010, 1:16 PM
It would be unconstitutional due to one of those rights in constitution about the right to travel.
Somehow I don't think that will be a sucessful argument against GFSZ's.

I think it is much more likely that the 1000' surrounding a school is not sensitive in any way and there is no narrowly tailored government interest served by prohibiting the right to bear arms there.

wash
10-26-2010, 1:23 PM
That's my point....you never know what reprecussions the indiscretions of your youth may have down the road.
Exactly.

Responsibility means understanding the repercussions of your actions and I believe gun ownership is a really great way to teach responsibility.

Being responsible is a choice, it's too bad that some people choose poorly (but not my problem).

the_donald_
10-26-2010, 1:25 PM
Every single Sheriff is intimately aware of our lawsuit and initiative. I can say that with absolute confidence.

-Brandon


^^this here makes me happy. I can't wait for some of that momentum to surface in Orange County. :thumbsup:

Untamed1972
10-26-2010, 1:26 PM
Somehow I don't think that will be a sucessful argument against GFSZ's.

I think it is much more likely that the 1000' surrounding a school is not sensitive in any way and there is no narrowly tailored government interest served by prohibiting the right to bear arms there.

I think it could be both actually. For those that live in school zones it is definitely a hinderance on our ability to move about freely while exercising a fundamental right.

I live on a dead end street, the only way to come and go from my house is thru a school zone, I have no other option or alternate route available. Seems like an infringement on my right to travel to me.

the_quark
10-26-2010, 1:31 PM
I'll be falling out of my chair stunned and shocked if this happens in under 5 years.

Well, thankfully you'll be covered by ObamaCare, by then.

wash
10-26-2010, 1:31 PM
Man, Zimring's brief is astoundingly awesome (sarcasm). Especially where he says restricting permits to a privileged few keeps the police as the "armed majority".

That scares the living crap out of me.
I just read that thing, wow.

It sounds like he would have loved the Gestapo but then there is his name...

sighere
10-26-2010, 1:33 PM
Untamed and Wash, I think you guys are saying the same thing. The gov't can't show a compelling state interest in restricting guns w/in 1000', thus the law is unconstitutional. Because the gov't can't show a compelling interest, your right to travel is unduly impinged. So either you're both right or both wrong. I'll go with you're both right! (insert "important" state interest if the courts come down on intermediate scrutiny vs strict scrutiny) Personally, I don't think strict scrutiny is a slam dunk standard of review for 2nd amendment. Naturally, we all want it, but good arguments can be made when a fundamental right crosses other people's fundamental rights to life and liberty. Rights such as free speech don't result in death and injury when properly exercised and only tenuously can be argued to result in death or injury when improperly exercised, thus a strict scrutiny standard can be easily applied. 2nd A is a little thornier....

the_quark
10-26-2010, 1:38 PM
I think it is much more likely that the 1000' surrounding a school is not sensitive in any way and there is no narrowly tailored government interest served by prohibiting the right to bear arms there.

And, and, it's in no way clear when and where you're committing a felony.

sighere
10-26-2010, 1:44 PM
And, and, it's in no way clear when and where you're committing a felony.

Hey, when Barak Obama installs your car monitoring system so that he can nail you for mileage tax, they can install the "instant felony system" at the same time. It will be GPS driven. As soon as you drive into a school zone, out come the black helicopters... ok, maybe black Chevy Suburbans... Of course, they'll probably call it "it takes a village to keep us all safe initiative"

bulgron
10-26-2010, 1:47 PM
Well, thankfully you'll be covered by ObamaCare, by then.

OK, I'll admit it, I lol'd.

Untamed1972
10-26-2010, 1:51 PM
Untamed and Wash, I think you guys are saying the same thing. The gov't can't show a compelling state interest in restricting guns w/in 1000', thus the law is unconstitutional. Because the gov't can't show a compelling interest, your right to travel is unduly impinged. So either you're both right or both wrong. I'll go with you're both right! (insert "important" state interest if the courts come down on intermediate scrutiny vs strict scrutiny) Personally, I don't think strict scrutiny is a slam dunk standard of review for 2nd amendment. Naturally, we all want it, but good arguments can be made when a fundamental right crosses other people's fundamental rights to life and liberty. Rights such as free speech don't result in death and injury when properly exercised and only tenuously can be argued to result in death or injury when improperly exercised, thus a strict scrutiny standard can be easily applied. 2nd A is a little thornier....

It must also be remember at least currently that under state and federal GFSZ laws, having a CCW is an exemption....at least in your state of residence.

M. D. Van Norman
10-26-2010, 2:11 PM
Perhaps residents of these counties getting sued need to start going to County BoS meetings and asking why the counties are wasting county residents tax dollars … until the BoS tells the sheriff to cut the crap and get with the times.

Been there. Done that.

The supervisors don’t control the sheriffs. The people do, and the people keep electing and re-electing them.

the_donald_
10-26-2010, 3:18 PM
The supervisors don’t control the sheriffs. The people do, and the people keep electing and re-electing them.

This is unfortunately true, i.e. non-incumbent, non-elected, Hutchens winning in Orange County.:mad:

J.D.Allen
10-26-2010, 3:38 PM
Eventually but how do you get there?

That's the hard part.

I suspect that "the right people" know just where to strike once we have a scrutiny prescedent from Nordyke.

You don't have to "get rid" of GFSZ's completely if LOC with a CCW is allowed. CCW's negate GFSZ's. And it gets around the federal law. That's how AZ does it...

wash
10-26-2010, 4:16 PM
I want some form of permitless carry without huge GFSZ restrictions.

I would prefer constitutional carry but if we get shall issue CCW, UOC would remain the no permit option.

With 1000' GFSZ's, UOC is impractical and dangerous for those who practice it. Without 1000' GFSZ's suddenly it's a reasonable mode of carry.

So once CA is virtual shall issue and we've got a sensitive places prescedent from Nordyke, we can attack the 1000' GFSZ to make UOC a workable option and after that we can go after LOC somehow.

The fact is that we won't get constitutional carry through a voter initiative or a friendly legislator pushing a bill through the state congress. We will have to get there through the courts.

I don't think we can get a pure constitutional carry system through the courts but it will be pretty close before we stop trying to fix it.

Rossi357
10-26-2010, 4:44 PM
LOC will come soon after CCW's. The only difference is someone can see yer weapon.