PDA

View Full Version : CCW Initiative: Local Police Departments


sfpcservice
10-30-2010, 4:08 PM
I know the CCW project is just getting off the ground, but can it be expanded to include our local Police Departments? I think it would be very interesting to see how many city council members were issued by the Local PD's all the while flat out denying the citizens of that city. I wouldn't be surprised if this was almost a 100% occurrence for PD's that don't issue to regular folks.

Gray Peterson
10-30-2010, 4:17 PM
I know the CCW project is just getting off the ground, but can it be expanded to include our local Police Departments? I think it would be very interesting to see how many city council members were issued by the Local PD's all the while flat out denying the citizens of that city. I wouldn't be surprised if this was almost a 100% occurrence for PD's that don't issue to regular folks.

The problem here is one of proper application of force. The cities can really easily get out of the issuance process by signing a G memorandum with the Sheriff's Offices, whereas the sheriff's have no choice but to take applications.

For example, Fountain Valley (Orange County) charged $500 for a license. I contacted the city police department's chief, who pretty much told me that he forwarded that information to the city council and they set the fee, and pretty much stated that someone would have to file a writ of mandate if they refused to change it.

Later reports indicated they signed a G memorandum with Sheriff Hutchens (they didn't have any CCW's issued in a few years anyway) and they got out of the CCW biz.

The Project Team are already quite busy with dealing with 58 sheriff's plus a handful of "project cities" that are personally selected by individual members of the Project Team (me, Brandon, a few others) for meting out pain in specific for their major stupidities when it comes to our attention. If we included all city police departments, it would triple our workload for perceptively little gain. There are 400 cities in California. Assuming that half of them are "Lakewood-plan" cities (contracting with the sheriff), and maybe half of them went "G", that would be 100 more licensing authorities on top of the current 58.

wildhawker
10-30-2010, 4:19 PM
Overall, no. Tactically, yes.

Remember that the goal is to make carry licenses accessible and help people get theirs, not to produce a "gotcha" journalism piece.

I know the CCW project is just getting off the ground, but can it be expanded to include our local Police Departments? I think it would be very interesting to see how many city council members were issued by the Local PD's all the while flat out denying the citizens of that city. I wouldn't be surprised if this was almost a 100% occurrence for PD's that don't issue to regular folks.

Gray Peterson
10-30-2010, 4:29 PM
Overall, no. Tactically, yes.

Remember that the goal is to make carry licenses accessible and help people get theirs, not to produce a "gotcha" journalism piece.

Exactly. Their good cause would be known, but not specifically who they are. In the end, it doesn't matter.

The Shadow
10-30-2010, 5:22 PM
Maybe it's already been mentioned somewhere, but why not sue the state on second amendment grounds regarding the provisions of 12050 and 12031 since those two laws are the essence of second amendment infringements in California? Eliminate those and you eliminate the restrictions to carrying a firearm. The way I see it, the federal courts have already said that strict scrutiny would be applied to any gun law that's challenged, so why not just hit the state directly and not worry about the underlings?

Librarian
10-30-2010, 5:27 PM
Maybe it's already been mentioned somewhere, but why not sue the state on second amendment grounds regarding the provisions of 12050 and 12031 since those two laws are the essence of second amendment infringements in California? Eliminate those and you eliminate the restrictions to carrying a firearm. The way I see it, the federal courts have already said that strict scrutiny would be applied to any gun law that's challenged, so why not just hit the state directly and not worry about the underlings?

Primarily because the law leaves the authority with local LEO - the state itself is not issuing the CCWs. That being so, there are no state actors to sue.

dantodd
10-30-2010, 5:30 PM
Also the state probably has more access to more lawyers than Yolo county does and the prayer for relief would be the same.

The Shadow
10-30-2010, 5:33 PM
Primarily because the law leaves the authority with local LEO - the state itself is not issuing the CCWs. That being so, there are no state actors to sue.

However, if the laws were repealed, then it effectively takes the authority away. So the state is the primary actor, and has as one of its powers, delegated authority to the CLEOS.

yellowfin
10-30-2010, 5:46 PM
You REALLY don't want CCW's issued by the state in an anti gun state. See Maryland as an example.

wildhawker
10-30-2010, 5:58 PM
Yellow, you're wrong here. Ideally CA would consolidate at the state level, preferably under a licensing div or commission (e.g. security guards) rather than an enforcement arm (e.g. DOJ).

sfpcservice
10-30-2010, 6:00 PM
You REALLY don't want CCW's issued by the state in an anti gun state. See Maryland as an example.

Aren't CA CCW's some of the most liberal in where you can go while carrying though? I always thought that they never tightened down where you can and can't go because they just assumed there's no point if people cant get them anyway.

dantodd
10-30-2010, 6:11 PM
The good news is that if such restrictions were already on the books it would take years of time and gobs of money to kill the laws but new laws are much easier to stop

Librarian
10-30-2010, 6:22 PM
However, if the laws were repealed, then it effectively takes the authority away. So the state is the primary actor, and has as one of its powers, delegated authority to the CLEOS.

But the laws are not repealed. And working that level is far more complicated than addressing the actual issuers of today and getting them to follow the laws.

Unless you want to argue that 'Vermont carry' is the only acceptable condition, the actual 12050 law isn't particularly bad. I won't disagree that 'Vermont Carry' might be strongly preferable, but it isn't politically doable for a while yet.

Gray Peterson
10-30-2010, 6:42 PM
Maybe it's already been mentioned somewhere, but why not sue the state on second amendment grounds regarding the provisions of 12050 and 12031 since those two laws are the essence of second amendment infringements in California? Eliminate those and you eliminate the restrictions to carrying a firearm. The way I see it, the federal courts have already said that strict scrutiny would be applied to any gun law that's challenged, so why not just hit the state directly and not worry about the underlings?

That is exactly what Gary Gorski tried to do in Mehl, Rothery, and Pizzo and failed miserably at doing. What you're talking about is challenging PC12025, PC12031, and PC626.9 in a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the statute.

Thus sort of challenges are extremely disfavored, especially in litigations where the right hasn't been specifically as "fleshed out" as First Amendment cases. An as-applied challenge to the criminal statute requires being charged with a crime and challenging via the criminal defense system in the state (I don't trust the state court judges on 2A issues more than I can throw them). An as applied challenge to a licensing system in civil court makes our case more sympathetic to a federal judge and gives an assurance that his decision will not be "arming scumbags".

We need the right first, then we go after the criminal prohibition.

The Shadow
10-30-2010, 7:02 PM
That is exactly what Gary Gorski tried to do in Mehl, Rothery, and Pizzo and failed miserably at doing. What you're talking about is challenging PC12025, PC12031, and PC626.9 in a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the statute.

Thus sort of challenges are extremely disfavored, especially in litigations where the right hasn't been specifically as "fleshed out" as First Amendment cases. An as-applied challenge to the criminal statute requires being charged with a crime and challenging via the criminal defense system in the state (I don't trust the state court judges on 2A issues more than I can throw them). An as applied challenge to a licensing system in civil court makes our case more sympathetic to a federal judge and gives an assurance that his decision will not be "arming scumbags".

We need the right first, then we go after the criminal prohibition.

Not being familiar with Gary Gorski, I did some quick perusing. From what I read, his antics are all pre-McDonald. As for the right, we have the right through Heller and McDonald. So yes, in a post McDonald world with the supreme court suggesting that strict scrutiny should be the standard by which all gun laws are measured, I suppose I am challenging 12025, 12031, and 626.9 because they are effectively, unconstitutional.

All we need now is an attorney with the tenacity to champion the cause and a judge that agrees with him/her.

hoffmang
10-30-2010, 7:15 PM
Not being familiar with Gary Gorski, I did some quick perusing. From what I read, his antics are all pre-McDonald. As for the right, we have the right through Heller and McDonald. So yes, in a post McDonald world with the supreme court suggesting that strict scrutiny should be the standard by which all gun laws are measured, I suppose I am challenging 12025, 12031, and 626.9 because they are effectively, unconstitutional.
The federal courts require constitutional avoidance. It's a core judicial tenant that even bill of rights rights should only be used to invalidate a legislative scheme in the most minimal way that protects the right. As such, challenging a host of laws when one can simply force sheriffs to issue carry permits is a sure loser.

All we need now is an attorney with the tenacity to champion the cause and a judge that agrees with him/her.
It's tenacious to storm a machine gun nest unarmed - that doesn't make it a good idea. Federal judges, even ones otherwise sympathetic to the concept that the 2A includes a right to bear arms, in the 9th Circuit are not going to agree to invalidating bans on LOC (yet) or forcing Vermont carry.

-Gene

wildhawker
10-30-2010, 7:31 PM
All we need now is an attorney with the tenacity to champion the cause and a judge that agrees with him/her.

In addition to Gene's sentiments:

1. If you can find an attorney willing to "champion the cause" as bounded in your above posts, you've almost certainly found one that shouldn't.

2. Finding "a judge that agrees with him/her" is only part of the equation. You also need to find a three-judge panel that agrees with you, then possibly a full en banc Court of Appeals which agrees with you, and likely wrap that up in a bow of at least 5 SCOTUS justices who agree with you.

In other words, it's one thing to be "busy"; it's another thing entirely to be "productive".

The Shadow
10-30-2010, 10:01 PM
As daunting a task it may well be, one can at least hope.

Paladin
10-30-2010, 10:10 PM
For anyone wishing to push cities' PDs while CGF focuses on counties' SOs, you may want to contact TBJ and see if they need any help. From BJ's posts on this thread, he seems like he wants to go after PDs too. This will allow you to do what you want and the CGF crew (and allies) focus on what they think best. As long as neither does something that will hinder the other (short or long-term), sounds win-win to me.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=334866

nick
10-30-2010, 10:23 PM
LAPD might be the low-hanging fruit in L.A. County. They're already under the settlement conditions, and from what I heard, they seem to be violating those conditions every ow and then. It's not that hard to verify, either.

hoffmang
10-31-2010, 12:23 AM
As daunting a task it may well be, one can at least hope.

And some people hope to win the lottery. Luckily losing the lottery only costs you the ticket where losing a civil rights case costs everyone in that court's jurisdiction their civil rights.

-Gene

CaliforniaCarry
10-31-2010, 6:36 PM
As daunting a task it may well be, one can at least hope.

One case with the wrong attorney, the wrong plaintiff(s), and the wrong judges... and everything you've just mentioned as being "unconstitutional" will be many more decades away from being declared as such. I'd like to think we're around a decade away from being in a "comfortable" spot (shall-issue CCW, no mag capacity limits, no AW laws, no roster; but with NFA stuff just barely on the radar), and I'd hate to see some "champion" lawyer come in and set us back 50 years. Instead of fighting for our children's rights, we'd then be fighting for our grandchildren's.

Rally behind SAF, CGF, and (if you must pick a "champion") Gura.

The Shadow
11-01-2010, 11:03 AM
One case with the wrong attorney, the wrong plaintiff(s), and the wrong judges... and everything you've just mentioned as being "unconstitutional" will be many more decades away from being declared as such. I'd like to think we're around a decade away from being in a "comfortable" spot (shall-issue CCW, no mag capacity limits, no AW laws, no roster; but with NFA stuff just barely on the radar), and I'd hate to see some "champion" lawyer come in and set us back 50 years. Instead of fighting for our children's rights, we'd then be fighting for our grandchildren's.

Rally behind SAF, CGF, and (if you must pick a "champion") Gura.

I've never doubted Gura's abilities, but I'm also well aware that the best way to prevent a person from doing something is to make them believe the effort to accomplish a task would be futile. I would hope that the possibility has at least been explored and the conclusions are based on irrefutable evidence. I would hate to see efforts to restore the rights of Californian's dragged out because people chose not to think outside of the box.

CaliforniaCarry
11-01-2010, 1:50 PM
I've never doubted Gura's abilities, but I'm also well aware that the best way to prevent a person from doing something is to make them believe the effort to accomplish a task would be futile. I would hope that the possibility has at least been explored and the conclusions are based on irrefutable evidence. I would hate to see efforts to restore the rights of Californian's dragged out because people chose not to think outside of the box.

I would respectfully submit that any kind of direct, facial constitutional challenge to the problems you mentioned is profoundly "in the box" at this point. "Out of the box" thinking includes ideas like finding a plaintiff without a right arm to challenge the handgun roster. Everyone inside the box seems to think that because SCOTUS declared the right to arms fundamental, we can just go out and seek declarations that X, Y, and Z are all unconstitutional. Perhaps we should be able to do that, but we can't operate based on how things should be, for that is the path to failure. We must instead operate based on how things are.

These conclusions are based on history. Rights aren't won back all at once; they never have been and never will be.

Like you, I would also hate to see efforts to restore the rights of Californian's dragged out because people chose not to think outside of the box (See my previous post in this thread). However, I think we're thinking of different boxes.

dantodd
11-01-2010, 1:57 PM
I've never doubted Gura's abilities, but I'm also well aware that the best way to prevent a person from doing something is to make them believe the effort to accomplish a task would be futile. I would hope that the possibility has at least been explored and the conclusions are based on irrefutable evidence. I would hate to see efforts to restore the rights of Californian's dragged out because people chose not to think outside of the box.

I am confident, because of his postings here and conversations I've been fortunate enough to have in person, that Alan and Gene's strategy is sound.

I would much rather wait 5 or 10 extra years for OUR rights to be restored than make a misstep and get pushed back 3 or 4 decades. Sometimes it is appropriate to make sure each step is carefully planned and is moving you in the right direction.

Civil rights litigation is like a minefield, each step is crucial and must be planned and in the right direction. The cost of even one misstep is too great to risk.

hoffmang
11-01-2010, 3:14 PM
I've never doubted Gura's abilities, but I'm also well aware that the best way to prevent a person from doing something is to make them believe the effort to accomplish a task would be futile. I would hope that the possibility has at least been explored and the conclusions are based on irrefutable evidence. I would hate to see efforts to restore the rights of Californian's dragged out because people chose not to think outside of the box.

Heller was so far outside the box that most gun rights supporters were against it. Similar were parts of McDonald - the parts that got the New York Times to editorialize for incorporation. Thinking outside the box is why we're attacking the sheriff's discretion in the 9th Circuit. Texas this is not.

-Gene

The Shadow
11-01-2010, 3:54 PM
Heller was so far outside the box that most gun rights supporters were against it. Similar were parts of McDonald - the parts that got the New York Times to editorialize for incorporation. Thinking outside the box is why we're attacking the sheriff's discretion in the 9th Circuit. Texas this is not.

-Gene

Then I applaud the efforts of all involved and encourage you to keep up the good work.