PDA

View Full Version : CGF Supported: Scocca v. Smith (Santa Clara Carry Equal Protection, Sunshine)


Pages : [1] 2 3

hoffmang
03-24-2011, 4:18 PM
SAN JOSE, CA – Tom Scocca, The Calguns Foundation, and The Madison Society have filed a lawsuit seeking to compel Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith to respect the equal protection rights of carry license applicants and conform her carry license policies to state law.

Tom Scocca is a Director of Security Risk Management at a large Silicon Valley semiconductor business. Mr. Scocca has "good cause" that is directly comparable to many of the 70 applicants who have successfully received carry permits in Santa Clara County. Further, Mr. Scocca experienced first hand the effect of unlawful policies that members of Calguns Foundation and The Madison Society experience when attempting to apply for a carry permit from Sheriff Smith.

Tom Scocca faces real threats in performing his job. His work requires him to investigate intellectual property compromise and the theft of valuable company property. Though he is licensed by the state of California to openly carry a firearm, he needs to be able to investigate without raising suspicion. “I've been in law enforcement in the past and am trusted by California to carry a loaded firearm,” Scocca said. “However, even though my good cause is equal to or more worthy than many other applicants who have had their licenses issued, Sheriff Smith arbitrarily denied my application.”

Attorney Don Kilmer, representing the plaintiffs in this case, said, “It’s a shame that Sheriff Smith doesn't take the Constitution seriously. This case really isn't about guns, it is about treating citizens fairly and equally while following California Law.”

“Sheriff Smith has to implement a carry license application process that follows California law and treats similarly situated applicants equally,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “It is especially troubling that a Sheriff would operate a license process in ignorance of state law and binding court precedent.”

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org)) is a non-profit legal defense fund for California gun owners. The Calguns Foundation works to educate government and the public and protect the rights of individuals to own and lawfully use firearms in California.

The Madison Society (www.madison-society.org (http://www.madison-society.org)) promotes and preserves the Constitution of the United states through education and litigation. The Madison Society specifically focuses it's litigation efforts challenging laws, ordinances, regulations, and any other restrictions and infringements on the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms."

A copy of the complaint is available:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.238467/gov.uscourts.cand.238467.1.0.pdf

Mr. Scocca, CGF, Madison, and Don Kilmer would like to thank Preston Guillory for his assistance in developing this case.

-Gene

Paladin
03-24-2011, 4:28 PM
GREAT NEWS!!! Stirring things up in "the Belly of the (anti) Beast" (SF Bay Area).

CGF and the Madison Society on the move!

"Go Team, Go!"

I'm sure Ahern (Alameda), Livingston (CoCoCo), and Hennessey (SFSO) (Hmm. Or would you go after Interim Chief Godown, SFPD?) will be happy to hear this. LOL!

RP1911
03-24-2011, 4:29 PM
Woot!

mej16489
03-24-2011, 4:31 PM
Mr. Scocca, CGF, Madison, and Don Kilmer would like to thank Preston Guillory for his assistance in developing this case.

-Gene

Nice!

sfpcservice
03-24-2011, 4:31 PM
Our Face is like this: ;)

Defendant's face is like: :eek:

They always look surprised when it comes from that direction.

bulgron
03-24-2011, 4:32 PM
This is an important step forward. If sheriffs feel free to flaunt state law as it now exists, what might they do once we get good cause statements and other noxious features struck from the books?

Everyone involved in this, way to go!

p_shooter
03-24-2011, 4:38 PM
Woohoo!

Mr. Scocca, CGF, Madison, and Don Kilmer would like to thank Preston Guillory for his assistance in developing this case.


Mr. Hoffman seems to have some class.

Southwest Chuck
03-24-2011, 4:40 PM
Great job guys! CGF rocks! :King:

Are we looking at a Sacramento type outcome (settlement) or will they have to be taken to the mat on this one?

bwiese
03-24-2011, 4:40 PM
Woohoo!
Mr. Hoffman seems to have some class.

Yes, and that statement also is said in sincerity.

Preston Guillory ("TBJ") has done a lot of useful work in CCW matters. While there are political differences about "how things move up the ladder", we still do indeed recognize those contributions.

creekside
03-24-2011, 4:40 PM
Happy dance.

hoffmang
03-24-2011, 4:43 PM
Are we looking at a Sacramento type outcome (settlement) or will they have to be taken to the mat on this one?

Like any plan, it doesn't survive contact with the enemy. It's very hard to predict what the actual outcome will be but there are some minimum changes that will have to occur here.

-Gene

stix213
03-24-2011, 4:49 PM
I'm very curious as to their response to this. They can't even go Yolo style and say they have a state interest in keeping people from bearing arms who dont conform to their arbitrary standards, since they have issued for similar good cause already meaning the plaintiff has already met their standards.

Spaceghost
03-24-2011, 4:50 PM
Wow. I live in Santa Clara county and will be keeping an eye on this!

wildhawker
03-24-2011, 4:51 PM
CGF news article on this here: http://calgunsfoundation.org/news/169-scoccavsmith.html

Paladin
03-24-2011, 4:52 PM
A copy of the complaint is available:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.238467/gov.uscourts.cand.238467.1.0.pdf


Page 9 of 10 of the complaint is not in the .pdf

hoffmang
03-24-2011, 4:54 PM
Page 9 of 10 of the complaint is not in the .pdf

That is the filed copy... Imminently repairable.

-Gene

CharAznable
03-24-2011, 4:55 PM
Given this lawsuit are we still going to see the release of the good cause statements for Santa Clara?

wildhawker
03-24-2011, 4:57 PM
Given this lawsuit are we still going to see the release of the good cause statements for Santa Clara?

Santa Clara good cause statements are in hand. I believe that our volunteers are currently working on the redactions; as soon as those are complete, we will publish them to www.gotcarry.org.

-Brandon

Paladin
03-24-2011, 5:01 PM
Time for CGNers to start monitoring the media, both MSM and alternative, for news reports about this.

Might be best to start a separate thread dedicated to linking to/summarizing/discussing those reports.

taperxz
03-24-2011, 5:01 PM
From the time the sunshine initiative started to this is surprisingly quick! I was waiting to see how the good cause statements would play out against a violator. Good Luck CGF i think it would be hard for them to refute the facts.

Stonewalker
03-24-2011, 5:03 PM
Thank you for all your great work! Woo!

Barbarossa
03-24-2011, 5:05 PM
Gene / Bill / and others,

Thank you for your relentless defense of the constitution. I am always thrilled when the CalGuns Foundation works to broaden my civil rights, by educating municipalities.

I pray this tenacity for educating County Sheriffs on following the letter of the law, will one day bring Alameda County up to par with our State Capitol's County and beyond.

Andy Taylor
03-24-2011, 5:06 PM
Good job. Keep it up. :D

shooting4life
03-24-2011, 5:07 PM
Nice

bulgron
03-24-2011, 5:08 PM
From the time the sunshine initiative started to this is surprisingly quick! I was waiting to see how the good cause statements would play out against a violator. Good Luck CGF i think it would be hard for them to refute the facts.

Only because Billy Jack started working on this years before the Sunshine Initiative was started. We really shouldn't overlook his role in this case.

wildhawker
03-24-2011, 5:08 PM
From the time the sunshine initiative started to this is surprisingly quick! I was waiting to see how the good cause statements would play out against a violator. Good Luck CGF i think it would be hard for them to refute the facts.

This is not the only lawsuit we have in the lineup. Stay tuned.

I hope that any sheriff or county attorney reading this takes [another] good look at those letters I've sent... The time to talk through policy deficiencies is fleeting.

-Brandon

choprzrul
03-24-2011, 5:08 PM
Will a win in this case have county, district, or statewide effect?

Is there a way to track county expenses incurred as a direct result of illegal policies and procedures? It sure would be nice to be able to say "This ignorant jack wagon has cost the taxpayers of this county $xx,xxx.oo"

.

**EDIT**

can someone help poor billy jack get that egg off of his face?

Gene & co. et al have shown where the class acts can be found...

.

sobiloff
03-24-2011, 5:10 PM
Bravo! Bravo!

safewaysecurity
03-24-2011, 5:12 PM
Good timing.

taperxz
03-24-2011, 5:17 PM
This is not the only lawsuit we have in the lineup. Stay tuned.

I hope that any sheriff or county attorney reading this takes [another] good look at those letters I've sent... The time to talk through policy deficiencies is fleeting.

-Brandon

I sure hope they don't think you're kidding! I would hate to be an elected official that costs their tax payers millions because they were in violation of the law!!

Ubermcoupe
03-24-2011, 5:17 PM
:D Just when I was letting CA laws (and this rain) bring me down, Gene has brightened my day!

MP301
03-24-2011, 5:21 PM
Very nice guys. It's only going to get more entertaining from here I'd say!

HowardW56
03-24-2011, 5:32 PM
Wonderful, another sheriff will get to "Tell it to the judge". :cool:

Now when will you get to Los Angeles? :43:

microwaveguy
03-24-2011, 5:37 PM
Cool ..........I have been waiting for this :D
This means that I might actually get a permit before 2020!

Go get em Gene

Barbarossa
03-24-2011, 5:39 PM
Page 3, line 7.

Do you mean?

Ensure: To make sure, certain, or safe : guarantee

rather then?

Insure: To provide or obtain insurance on or for

:whistling:

Elucidus
03-24-2011, 5:54 PM
Went through the document, and am very glad and proud of what you guys are doing for us. Thanks so much!!!!!

johndoe2150
03-24-2011, 5:59 PM
Now when will you get to Los Angeles? :43:

I would hope soon as well. You would think that because the county is broke they wouldn't waste money just to sick it to the constitution. I have a feeling that la might be one of the last ones to turn.

Well keep up the good work!

goober
03-24-2011, 6:00 PM
Page 3, line 7.

Do you mean?


rather then?



:whistling:

"insure" has more than one meaning, one of which is equivalent to "ensure"

but did you mean

than: a —used as a function word to indicate the second member or the member taken as the point of departure in a comparison expressive of inequality ; used with comparative adjectives and comparative adverbs <older than I am> <easier said than done> b —used as a function word to indicate difference of kind, manner, or identity ; used especially with some adjectives and adverbs that express diversity <anywhere else than at home>
2
: rather than —usually used only after prefer, preferable, and preferably

rather than

then: : at that time
2
a : soon after that : next in order of time <walked to the door, then turned> b : following next after in order of position, narration, or enumeration : being next in a series <first came the clowns, and then came the elephants> c : in addition : besides <then there is the interest to be paid>
3
a (1) : in that case <take it, then, if you want it so much> (2) —used after but to qualify or offset a preceding statement <she lost the race, but then she never really expected to win> b : according to that : as may be inferred <your mind is made up, then> c : as it appears : by way of summing up <the cause of the accident, then, is established> d : as a necessary consequence <if the angles are equal, then the complements are equal> :D


anyway, good job CGF! looking forward to seeing how this plays out!

trashman
03-24-2011, 6:05 PM
Great work as usual -- can't wait to see it play out.

Nice hat tip to TBJ, too -

--Neill

Experimentalist
03-24-2011, 6:07 PM
This is not the only lawsuit we have in the lineup. Stay tuned.


Alameda! Alameda! Alameda!

Kidding. I know everyone wants their County to be next.

Well done to all. I'm certain that a very well considered plan is unfolding.

Window_Seat
03-24-2011, 6:08 PM
Awesome stuff! Looking forward to more good things to come. :thumbsup:

Erik.

Fjold
03-24-2011, 6:12 PM
Mr. Scocca, CGF, Madison, and Don Kilmer would like to thank Preston Guillory for his assistance in developing this case.

-Gene

The difference between class and crass.

N6ATF
03-24-2011, 6:22 PM
overseas/oversees

I would hate to be an elected official that costs their tax payers millions because they were in violation of the law!!

That's because you're not a functional sociopath who has COTUS printed on your toilet paper and gets off on setting fire to taxpayers' money and raising taxes constantly.

yellowfin
03-24-2011, 6:26 PM
Very good stuff, just gotta get rid of the "similarly situated" junk.

Blackhawk556
03-24-2011, 6:27 PM
@wildhawk...you say Santa Clara good cause statements are at hand. Did you get them recently or have they been in your position since counties first started releasing them about 2 months ago? Should we be expecting new statements being released in several days?

RSC
03-24-2011, 6:34 PM
This is not the only lawsuit we have in the lineup. Stay tuned.

I hope that any sheriff or county attorney reading this takes [another] good look at those letters I've sent... The time to talk through policy deficiencies is fleeting.

-Brandon

Could it be that the OC sheriff is re-reading one of these letters right now? Or is she on the next mailing list? :D

wildhawker
03-24-2011, 6:34 PM
@wildhawk...you say Santa Clara good cause statements are at hand. Did you get them recently or have they been in your position since counties first started releasing them about 2 months ago? Should we be expecting new statements being released in several days?

We received them some time ago, but there is literally data going back into the 1970s (in no particular oder). It takes time to sort, filter, and redact, not to mention the desire to not put them out in front of this litigation.

-Brandon

N6ATF
03-24-2011, 6:39 PM
Could it be that the OC sheriff is re-reading one of these letters right now? Or is she on the next mailing list? :D

Probably switched out her COTUS-print toilet paper for the letter. Unrepentant criminal sheriffs get to meet the steamroller.

safewaysecurity
03-24-2011, 6:39 PM
Yea Santa Clara GC statements have been out for a while. I'm still waiting for Contra Costa GC statements. Those coming anytime soon? =D

wildhawker
03-24-2011, 6:41 PM
For ref, here's the CGF Initiative page for Santa Clara: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/ccw-initiative/131-santa-clara.html

PsychGuy274
03-24-2011, 6:42 PM
I saw the title of this thread and then read the first sentence and the first thing I thought was "I'ma need a beer for this!"

And I was right :43:

BanjoGunner
03-24-2011, 6:43 PM
Santa Clara good cause statements are in hand. I believe that our volunteers are currently working on the redactions; as soon as those are complete, we will publish them to www.gotcarry.org.

-Brandon
Hopefully these will include the basic "I wish to carry a firearm for self defense and the defense of my family.", as it is the only good cause statement I will provide.

And thanks to everyone involved in bringing things to their present state in Santa Clara County.

BG

RSC
03-24-2011, 6:54 PM
Probably switched out her COTUS-print toilet paper for the letter. Unrepentant criminal sheriffs get to meet the steamroller.

If that's the case, there's a good chance she'll aquire a nasty rash before encountering said steamroller :biggrinjester: Double win!

yellowfin
03-24-2011, 6:54 PM
Excellent work indeed. CGF reminds me very much of Carlos Hathcock with Smith as the female Viet Cong leader he knew of as "The Apache."

taperxz
03-24-2011, 6:57 PM
Just wondering with the timing of this lawsuit? Even though the reasons are different, does the timing of this lawsuit have anything to do with, lets say the somewhat predictability of whats happening in Yolo?

Anchors
03-24-2011, 7:03 PM
I don't know how you could even imagine a better plaintiff in this lawsuit haha I'm surprised he even got denied in the first place.

Nice!

PsychGuy274
03-24-2011, 7:06 PM
I don't know how you could even imagine a better plaintiff in this lawsuit haha I'm surprised he even got denied in the first place.

Nice!

Being in Kalifornia you're surprised? :confused:

Shiboleth
03-24-2011, 7:17 PM
Only because Billy Jack started working on this years before the Sunshine Initiative was started. We really shouldn't overlook his role in this case.

That's what i was thinking when i read this. Isn't this approach given support mainly by Guillory v Gates? IIRC that was what resulted in agencies being forced to issue similarly situated persons with similar good causes. Of course the 14A should've been enough by itself.

ubet
03-24-2011, 7:22 PM
http://eightzero.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/steamroller.jpg

Window_Seat
03-24-2011, 7:31 PM
Brandon, check your PMs. :cool:

Erik.

BigDogatPlay
03-24-2011, 7:31 PM
Woohoo!

Mr. Hoffman seems to have some class.

I think after this much time that would go without saying. Giving due credit where credit is due is the mark of a gentleman and that label is always well applied to the entire CGF board, in my own humble opinion.

On point... very well played CGF, and with a superbly crafted plaintiff. While some of the strategy is apparent, the tactics in this action appear brilliant. Going to enjoy seeing how this unfolds.

taperxz
03-24-2011, 7:36 PM
http://eightzero.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/steamroller.jpg


Bill really should copyright this!!!! LOL

HowardW56
03-24-2011, 7:39 PM
Alameda! Alameda! Alameda!

Kidding. I know everyone wants their County to be next.

Well done to all. I'm certain that a very well considered plan is unfolding.

I'm sure we all want out counties to be next, I'm enjoying watching this all play out. I don't enjoy waiting, but I don't really mind when I see progress like this...

:D

ubet
03-24-2011, 7:43 PM
Bill really should copyright this!!!! LOL

I dont know who bill is, but I think its great! Glad he made it. I had seen it before on a search for something. Had to spend 2 hours searching images for it again.

NorCal MedTac
03-24-2011, 7:45 PM
Only because Billy Jack started working on this years before the Sunshine Initiative was started. We really shouldn't overlook his role in this case.

hell yes

CitaDeL
03-24-2011, 8:01 PM
Looks like a solid gold plantiff, and he couldnt be in a better spot.

As another post indicated, its cause for a refreshment.

pitchbaby
03-24-2011, 8:06 PM
I knew I felt an announcement coming soon... Hehe!

Anchors
03-24-2011, 8:36 PM
Being in Kalifornia you're surprised? :confused:

Okay. Good point.
Nothing really surprises me anymore, but I'm a transplant so sometimes I still shake my head and say to myself, "Really?". :o

Pat Riot
03-24-2011, 8:49 PM
What are the chances of this leading to self-defense being good cause?

moleculo
03-24-2011, 9:09 PM
Really, sincerely...Thank you guys from the bottom of my heart from all of us "little people" whose rights have been trampled for years and who greatly appreciate the resources that you are bringing to make a change in this State. I can only look forward to the day when I can see such a lawsuit be brought toward the County of Los Angeles ;)

Barbarossa
03-24-2011, 9:39 PM
Haha nice goober :D

GrayWolf09
03-24-2011, 9:44 PM
Sweet! Thanks guys.

spgripside
03-24-2011, 9:47 PM
Nice move. Thank you.

Window_Seat
03-24-2011, 10:06 PM
Sweet! Thanks guys.

I LOLd at your signature, I think I need to go get my lungs now. :D

Erik.

Paladin
03-24-2011, 10:38 PM
This is not the only lawsuit we have in the lineup. Stay tuned.

I hope that any sheriff or county attorney reading this takes [another] good look at those letters I've sent... The time to talk through policy deficiencies is fleeting.

-BrandonPlummer is gone. Rupf is gone. Even though I don't live in SF, I'd almost prefer you guys go after Hennessey before he leaves too. I'd LOVE for you guys to give at least one of the "Old Guard" high blood pressure before he retires -- or maybe even a stroke.

Sounds mean? Well, when I think of all the law-abiding citizens of those crooks' fiefdoms who have been robbed, mugged, raped, maimed, put into a coma/PVS, or murdered because for DECADES law-abiding citizens have been stripped bare of their ABILITY to carry a HGN to defend their lives, I think a stroke (or worse), is proportionate justice.

Connor P Price
03-24-2011, 11:07 PM
I hope that any sheriff or county attorney reading this takes [another] good look at those letters I've sent... The time to talk through policy deficiencies is fleeting.

-Brandon

If only they would listen.

Beatone
03-24-2011, 11:36 PM
Santa Clara county. I've got to see how this turns out. Go get um.

hoffmang
03-24-2011, 11:40 PM
What are the chances of this leading to self-defense being good cause?

This is not that case. This applies Guillory and moves to force Counties to have lawful application practices - nothing more.

-Gene

Liberty1
03-24-2011, 11:52 PM
Always good to read Don and Jason's handiwork! Looking forward to the MSJ!!!

dantodd
03-24-2011, 11:59 PM
I believe that, in many ways, this case scares sheriffs and counties counsel much more than Richards does. In Richards the sheriffs might have to start issuing for self-defense. Here the sheriffs might get hoisted up on the pitard that is the 14th amendment.

mossy
03-25-2011, 12:00 AM
please you guys gotta work on Alameda i want my CCW rights to

Kid Stanislaus
03-25-2011, 12:06 AM
I have a feeling that la might be one of the last ones to turn.

Surprise, surprise!!;)

anthonyca
03-25-2011, 12:07 AM
Great work. I have asked this before and I still don't know. Has there ever been a civil rights organization that has been so effective at such a young age? The CGF was born a short time ago and is already taking out key dug in positions on the front line in this war on our rights.

I recently learned about the Madison Society and had to join them also. I also gave a donation. The have a case against holder and the Feds concerning their interpretation of California expungement.

hoffmang
03-25-2011, 12:07 AM
Page 9 of 10 of the complaint is not in the .pdf

Northern District requires paper filings and does the scanning so the clerk's office made an error. It will get addressed shortly. In the meantime, here is the complaint (http://www.hoffmang.com/temp/20110324181127.pdf) with the missing page included.

-Gene

CSDGuy
03-25-2011, 12:16 AM
I believe that, in many ways, this case scares sheriffs and counties counsel much more than Richards does. In Richards the sheriffs might have to start issuing for self-defense. Here the sheriffs might get hoisted up on the pitard that is the 14th amendment.
I think you're right... because this case would force equality under the 14th and if along comes another binding case that makes self defense as acceptable good cause and moral character is determined to be "not prohibited"... then she's stuck. Seriously stuck. As in Shall-Issue Stuck.

And Shall-Issue Stuck probably scares the :eek: out of Sheriffs (and their Counsel) that do not issue in an equitable manner.

dantodd
03-25-2011, 12:30 AM
I think you're right... because this case would force equality under the 14th and if along comes another binding case that makes self defense as acceptable good cause and moral character is determined to be "not prohibited"... then she's stuck. Seriously stuck. As in Shall-Issue Stuck.

And Shall-Issue Stuck probably scares the :eek: out of Sheriffs (and their Counsel) that do not issue in an equitable manner.

I think it may go deeper than that. There is real, significant, PERSONAL liability to comes with 14th amendment violations. There are more inequities in the CCW policies than GC and Good Moral Character questions.

Issuing CCWs to plaintiffs is preferable to issuing checks from the counties limited funds in the minds of County Management.

ggod408
03-25-2011, 2:20 AM
Awesome news! Thank you yet again Calguns!

kazman
03-25-2011, 5:57 AM
Best news I've had in a while! Now for the waiting... Thanks guys.

choprzrul
03-25-2011, 6:15 AM
Still curious if a win in Santa Clara will have county, district, or statewide applicability?

.

Paladin
03-25-2011, 6:27 AM
Northern District requires paper filings and does the scanning so the clerk's office made an error. It will get addressed shortly. In the meantime, here is the complaint (http://www.hoffmang.com/temp/20110324181127.pdf) with the missing page included.

-Gene

Thanks.

DOE Defendants: "additional," "unknown persons or entities," that may have "assisted and/or lent support to the wrongful conduct of Defendants". :hide:

Paladin
03-25-2011, 6:37 AM
Still curious if a win in Santa Clara will have county, district, or statewide applicability?IMHO -- IANAL -- it is just enforcing the law as it currently stands. It is not seeking a new law or new interpretation/application of a law.

So, a win here shows that Guillory is still good law and that there's organizations that are using it to successfully sue CA sheriffs. That should make all CA sheriffs clean up their acts unless they want to be the next sheriff to be sued and pay out big bucks.

If the sheriffs don't voluntarily clean up their acts and continue to expose themselves, their sheriffs' depts, and their counties to legal liability, county counsel will explain the situation to both the sheriff and their Board of Supervisors (think loss of county's liability insurance among other things). After that, I'm not sure if there's a mechanism for removing/recalling a sheriff who willfully violates the law, or if the BoS can do things to force the sheriff to resign (e.g., cut off his salary due to willful malfeasance).

But remember, IANAL.

FastFinger
03-25-2011, 7:03 AM
http://i54.tinypic.com/5cix36.png

Kenpo Joe
03-25-2011, 7:09 AM
http://i54.tinypic.com/5cix36.png

You're killing me.

Back on mute. :coolgleamA:

kcbrown
03-25-2011, 8:02 AM
I've been wondering when the hammer would finally drop on Santa Clara.

Thanks very much, CGF, for doing this.

I know the scope of this is limited. Chess, not checkers. And small, precise moves, too. You know, the kind that wind up, in the end, incapacitating your foe. :43:


For those of us who live in Santa Clara, I think it's time to bust out the checkbooks again! Donation incoming!

Crom
03-25-2011, 8:10 AM
Still curious if a win in Santa Clara will have county, district, or statewide applicability?

.

I agree with Paladin. The sheriff's actions according to the complaint run afoul of the Guillory (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58468) doctrine which was a 1984 Ninth circuit case (Guillory v. County of Orange (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6217614771319591527)) which stated that 'CA PC 12025 "Good cause" is subject to equal protections under the law.'

I would not expect a district court ruling to have any effect on state law (in this instance). However, an appeal very well could.

IMHO -- IANAL -- it is just enforcing the law as it currently stands. It is not seeking a new law or new interpretation/application of a law.

So, a win here shows that Guillory is still good law and that there's organizations that are using it to successfully sue CA sheriffs.
<snip>
But remember, IANAL.

Soldier415
03-25-2011, 8:11 AM
Fire in the Hole!

bulgron
03-25-2011, 8:21 AM
[/I]I would not expect a district court ruling to have any effect on state law (in this instance). However, an appeal very well could.

More importantly, this lawsuit is seeking to sue Sheriff Smith individually, as well as the county. If I'm reading this right, that means they're going after Smith's private bank account.

I know it's really hard to touch politicians personally in a lawsuit, but if they can get some money out of her, even if its just a couple of hundred bucks, it should serve as a real wake up call to the other sheriffs in this state. It sets a precedent, and a really ugly one at that from a sheriff's point of view.

Can you imagine what a slap in the face that would be? "Sheriff Smith, you have to give Tom Scocca his CCW, AND you have to write him a personal check for $1500.00." I'd love to be there to see the reaction if that verdict ever got handed down.

johndoe2150
03-25-2011, 8:53 AM
Surprise, surprise!!;)

Oh please do tell me more. Or is it top secret or speculation. Because if there is any way I could help out let me know.

I'm assuming it will be :twoweeks:

uyoga
03-25-2011, 8:58 AM
Eternal Vigilance!

yellowfin
03-25-2011, 8:58 AM
I can't wait for NYS to get its version of this. In fact, I'll have to suggest that we do so.

yellowfin
03-25-2011, 9:00 AM
Can you imagine what a slap in the face that would be? "Sheriff Smith, you have to give Tom Scocca his CCW, AND you have to write him a personal check for $1500.00." I'd love to be there to see the reaction if that verdict ever got handed down.It needs to have two or three more zeroes tacked onto it to make it not worth having gotten away with this junk for over a decade. The pain needs to be bad enough for it to negate the satisfaction of having kept 1.76 MILLION people from their rights and to totally eliminate any further thought of it being done again. This is a crime against humanity and needs to be treated as such.

Crom
03-25-2011, 9:11 AM
More importantly, this lawsuit is seeking to sue Sheriff Smith individually, as well as the county. If I'm reading this right, that means they're going after Smith's private bank account.

I know it's really hard to touch politicians personally in a lawsuit, but if they can get some money out of her, even if its just a couple of hundred bucks, it should serve as a real wake up call to the other sheriffs in this state. It sets a precedent, and a really ugly one at that from a sheriff's point of view.

Can you imagine what a slap in the face that would be? "Sheriff Smith, you have to give Tom Scocca his CCW, AND you have to write him a personal check for $1500.00." I'd love to be there to see the reaction if that verdict ever got handed down.

I think this is done as a formality to adhere to some weird points in the law that establishes "Who is a person under a section 1983 claim" and allows plaintiffs to recover costs with a case. I don't know that the sheriff would actually have to pay out of pocket. I'd like to know the answer.

I found some helpful information in this link here: ELEMENTS OF A SECTION 1983 CLAIM (http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm)

IGOTDIRT4U
03-25-2011, 9:25 AM
Great work as usual -- can't wait to see it play out.

Nice hat tip to TBJ, too -

--Neill

Ha, ha, ha, he said "hat"...

But, give credit where it is due. TBJ has had an interest in this county for awhile.

Paladin
03-25-2011, 9:42 AM
Always good to read Don and Jason's handiwork! Looking forward to the MSJ!!!
IANAL, but IMHO, a MSJ won't happen. There are too many facts in dispute.

Defendants will not stipulate that Scocca has GMC and GC equivalent to others who have been issued CCWs by Sheriff Smith. Thus, at minimum, those two issues are going to a trier of fact, either bench or jury, assuming the parties do not reach a settlement before it goes to trial.

But IANAL.

Paladin
03-25-2011, 10:12 AM
IANAL, but the really good thing is that even if Scocca and Smith come to a settlement (giving money and a CCW to Scocca), CGF and MS, I assume, will NOT settle without Smith making substantial changes in her CCW policy and/or practices.

Remember: to get CGF & MS to both settle, she may have to give them MORE than what they are suing her about. IOW, CGF & MS could say, "We're suing you over violating laws A & B, but if you want to settle out of court, you'll have to fix A & B and give us X & Y too" where X is GMC = not prohibited and Y is SD = GC.

Again, IANAL.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-25-2011, 10:20 AM
The really good thing is that even if Scocca and Smith come to a settlement (giving money and a CCW to Scocca), CGF and MS, I assume, will NOT settle without Smith making substantial changes in her CCW policy and/or practices.

Remember: to get CGF & MS to both settle, she may have to give them MORE than what they are suing her about. IOW, CGF & MS could say, "We're suing you over violating laws A & B, but if you want to settle out of court, you'll have to fix A & B and give us X & Y too" where X is GMC = not prohibited and Y is SD = GC.

That's a given. Any settlement of a suit of this nature should have permanent effects, and change of policy, as a term of settlement. Otherwise, it goes to Court and if the plaintiff(s) win, I am sure they will get injunctive relief as part of their win.

The real hurt, after a win that includes the relief, is the awarding of attorney fees. Kind of like a silent illness. Strikes when no one realizes it.

Serpentine
03-25-2011, 10:22 AM
Is there an acronym definition link on this website?



.

Paladin
03-25-2011, 10:26 AM
That's a given. Any settlement of a suit of this nature should have permanent effects, and change of policy, as a term of settlement. Otherwise, it goes to Court and if the plaintiff(s) win, I am sure they will get injunctive relief as part of their win. I was subtly pointing out the difference between what TBJ does and what CGF does. If the named plaintiff gets their CCW (and some money/attny fees?), and they decide that's enough for them, TBJ folds. From what I can tell, that isn't CGF's "business model". :43:

Paladin
03-25-2011, 10:27 AM
Is there an acronym definition link on this website?



.Probably somewhere.

IANAL: I am not a lawyer

IOW: in other words

GC: Good Cause requirement for a CCW

GMC: Good Moral Character requirement for a CCW

SD: self-defense

CGF: Calguns Foundation

MS: Madison Society

IGOTDIRT4U
03-25-2011, 10:28 AM
I was subtly pointing out the difference between what TBJ does and what CGF does. If the named plaintiff gets their CCW (and some money/attny fees?), and they decide that's enough for them, TBJ folds. From what I can tell, that isn't CGF's "business model". :43:

Ok, got it. And yes, that is TBJ's modus. He is working for a "client" and that is all. CGF is working for/against a "system".

Uxi
03-25-2011, 10:36 AM
I hope something similar is cooking against Baca and his corrupt cronyism

dantodd
03-25-2011, 10:43 AM
An important thing to remember is that once the sheriff is forced to issue to Scocca it opens her up to issuing to those "similarly situated" to any of her outstanding licenses. Scocca is the plaintiff because any rational review of the facts show not only that he is similarly situated but also that he needs the protection oc a ccw. If the sheriff has issued for significantly "lower" documented good cause (perhaps simple self-defense) she will have to also issue to people with that good cause. Once she loses this case she is on notice and can vw held to greater accountability in future cases. This will force her to assess "similarly situated" more brutally in the future.

Remember, it was during this phase of Richards (nee Sykes) that cgf started getting self defense gc through in Sacramento.

Serpentine
03-25-2011, 10:51 AM
Probably somewhere.

IANAL: I am not a lawyer

IOW: in other words

GC: Good Cause requirement for a CCW

GMC: Good Moral Character requirement for a CCW

SD: self-defense

CGF: Calguns Foundation

MS: Madison Society


Thank you very much.

taperxz
03-25-2011, 10:57 AM
Thank you very much.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=78606&highlight=acronyms

Glock22Fan
03-25-2011, 10:58 AM
Ha, ha, ha, he said "hat"...

But, give credit where it is due. TBJ has had an interest in this county for quite a while.

To make this more plain, Billy Jack has been working on this case in particular since it started (as a TBJ case), long before the Sunshine Initiative.

Serpentine
03-25-2011, 11:04 AM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=78606&highlight=acronyms

Much appreciated!

stix213
03-25-2011, 11:06 AM
If we get a win in the Richards case, will this case be expanded?

yellowfin
03-25-2011, 11:10 AM
Santa Clara has 1.76 million people to be liberated by this. I wonder what a truly free unencumbered number of CCW's could be for there once this and/or Richards takes effect. Of course the number is going to be lower than a free state b/c so many gun owners have been driven out by prior decades, but it should be several thousands if not tens of thousands, correct?

N6ATF
03-25-2011, 11:14 AM
Whatever the number, whatever the county, expect extreme, life-threatening delays.

taperxz
03-25-2011, 11:18 AM
Santa Clara has 1.76 million people to be liberated by this. I wonder what a truly free unencumbered number of CCW's could be for there once this and/or Richards takes effect. Of course the number is going to be lower than a free state b/c so many gun owners have been driven out by prior decades, but it should be several thousands if not tens of thousands, correct?



I would think much much more. With the amount of FUD in this state there will be many more to find this knew found freedom in CA that some never thought possible and simply dismissed owning a firearm as not possible in this state. JMO

Paladin
03-25-2011, 11:35 AM
If we get a win in the Richards case, will this case be expanded?Looks like Kilmer is open to that. See FN1, p. 7 of the complaint.

Gray Peterson
03-25-2011, 11:37 AM
Whatever the number, whatever the county, expect extreme, life-threatening delays.

Nope. 90 days means 90 days.

Paladin
03-25-2011, 11:39 AM
Santa Clara has 1.76 million people to be liberated by this. I wonder what a truly free unencumbered number of CCW's could be for there once this and/or Richards takes effect. Of course the number is going to be lower than a free state b/c so many gun owners have been driven out by prior decades, but it should be several thousands if not tens of thousands, correct?IIRC, in Shall Issue states, ~3-4% of the population gets a CCW. Factor in the loss of CA gunnies, esp since the mid-1980s, and the generally anti culture of CA, I'd figure about 1-2% of the population. So, you're looking at eventually ~25,000 CCWers in Santa Clara alone. :eek: :43:

yellowfin
03-25-2011, 11:42 AM
I would think much much more. With the amount of FUD in this state there will be many more to find this knew found freedom in CA that some never thought possible and simply dismissed owning a firearm as not possible in this state. JMOThe biggest obstacle I saw when living in Santa Clara County was that firearm ownership wasn't impossible, but it was largely impractical and horrendously inconvenient. For a place that has Santa Row and other mega shopping areas the miniscule and dismal selection of stores (Gun Vault being the sole exception) and the choice between total dumps (San Jose municipal and Reeds', the latter being run by pompous ***holes who think you're not "tacticool" enough for them), arm and a leg fees (Sunnyvale and that other gun club that's even more $$$$), or a 45 minute drive out of town (Metcalf) for ranges all of which encumbered by disgracefully retarded rules is a total disgrace and probably accounts for a large percentage of the lack of gun owners there. It's easier to do virtually everything else than buy, own, practice with, and use a firearm. Seriously, with a 10 day wait, a labyrinth of regulations, unfriendly neighbors, etc. it really was a matter of why bother.

Daily CCW is really the only thing that's practical, and thanks to Her Royal Jackass Highness that wasn't possible. That is probably 80% of the reason the anti gun culture is so able to thrive there.

HowardW56
03-25-2011, 11:52 AM
CGF pleased me so much with this action that I just donated another $100.00......


:D

blakdawg
03-25-2011, 11:53 AM
More importantly, this lawsuit is seeking to sue Sheriff Smith individually, as well as the county. If I'm reading this right, that means they're going after Smith's private bank account.


That's how it's written up, but from a practical point of view all of the participants know that Santa Clara County will indemnify Smith and no matter how this goes down, she's not going to lose a penny of her personal funds.

If it were otherwise, she'd just get insurance to cover her losses, and then we'd have to pay for the insurance, one way or the other.

blakdawg
03-25-2011, 11:56 AM
The biggest obstacle I saw when living in Santa Clara County was that firearm ownership wasn't impossible, but it was largely impractical and horrendously inconvenient.

Things have improved within the past year, at least from the gun store point of view - Valkyrie Arms in Milpitas is very close to San Jose, and Metal Dog Tactical opened a brick & mortar store on North First - the store is already open but they're not (quite) ready to go for firearms sales, but it sounds like they're days or weeks away from that.

bulgron
03-25-2011, 12:03 PM
Things have improved within the past year, at least from the gun store point of view - Valkyrie Arms in Milpitas is very close to San Jose, and Metal Dog Tactical opened a brick & mortar store on North First - the store is already open but they're not (quite) ready to go for firearms sales, but it sounds like they're days or weeks away from that.

There's also now US Firearms in Sunnyvale.

N6ATF
03-25-2011, 12:38 PM
Nope. 90 days means 90 days.

So appointments set in December for as early as September are within 90 days? :confused:

Gray Peterson
03-25-2011, 12:40 PM
So appointments set in December for September are within 90 days? :confused:

Nope, it just hasn't been litigated yet. :)

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 12:41 PM
So appointments set in December for as early as September are within 90 days? :confused:

Slightly different legal issue here as there are really two bifurcated duties of the licensing authority ('accept/process', 'determine timely').

wash
03-25-2011, 12:52 PM
None of that ever stopped me. I got in to shooting back when Reeds was National Shooting Club and I didn't know any places that sold guns beside Mel Cottons, Big 5 and Sportsman's Supply.

It would be nice if there was BLM land or some other low budget shooting option close by but if you can afford ammo and a gun there is nothing stopping you from owning and shooting on occasion.

This lawsuit is sounding good and I feel like Santa Clara is a soft target among the "anti" counties. I've heard more police support the idea of CCW than condemn it, probably because there isn't much crime in the county (except a few spots). It's not like SF where there are a bunch of unemployed hippies in rent controlled apartments with nothing better to do than infringe our rights, or Alameda where people support gun bans with cries of "for the (gang banger) children".

I'm not sure how much Billy Jack had to do with this but I will say that CGF took his strategy and supercharged it. There was no way that Billy Jack was going to take on all 58 DAs but that is the plan at CGF. Instead of getting permits for a few, CGF wants shall issue for all and they are taking the steps we need to get it.

N6ATF
03-25-2011, 12:53 PM
Nope, it just hasn't been litigated yet. :)

How do you litigate the government into hiring more people/building more offices/buying more LiveScans? Government is built to delay the hell out of everyone, so you really just have to take it out of business entirely.

bulgron
03-25-2011, 1:36 PM
None of that ever stopped me. I got in to shooting back when Reeds was National Shooting Club and I didn't know any places that sold guns beside Mel Cottons, Big 5 and Sportsman's Supply.

I bought my first gun in 1990 from Tri-City in Fremont. It was a Colt Gold Cup, and it cost me $765.50 (I still have the receipt). I then used to go to National Shooting Club at least once a week to practice with it.

There really isn't any problem finding places to buy guns in the South Bay. You just have to look around. And, yeah, it's a pain to find somewhere to shoot. But then, it's a pain to do anything here that requires the great outdoors. Even a simple day hike turns into some kind of expedition when you factor in travel time and crowd avoidance.

All good reasons to leave this hole, but I don't think any one of them is designed to specifically limit shooting activities.

navyinrwanda
03-25-2011, 1:48 PM
Always good to read Don and Jason's handiwork! Looking forward to the MSJ!!!

As has been noted, this case won't be resolved on summary judgment.

There are issues of fact in question – the law is settled. This means discovery and trial (jury or bench). The construction and preservation of a strong fact record is absolutely essential, particularly on appeal.

Unless the defendants capitulate, it's unlikely that this case will come to trial in 2011.

BusBoy
03-25-2011, 1:54 PM
:lurk5:

stix213
03-25-2011, 2:08 PM
None of that ever stopped me. I got in to shooting back when Reeds was National Shooting Club and I didn't know any places that sold guns beside Mel Cottons, Big 5 and Sportsman's Supply.

It would be nice if there was BLM land or some other low budget shooting option close by but if you can afford ammo and a gun there is nothing stopping you from owning and shooting on occasion.


I don't live around Santa Clara, but when I go shooting I typically make a day of it and drive 2 hours each way to NF land, instead of going to Circle S range 10 minutes away (which is a good range still, I'm just not a fan of being watched and having to follow rules other than those necessary for safety). So just saying if you like to go shooting, don't let where you live slow you down.

Paladin
03-25-2011, 2:13 PM
Time for CGNers to start monitoring the media, both MSM and alternative, for news reports about this.

Might be best to start a separate thread dedicated to linking to/summarizing/discussing those reports.Time for us to start watching and listening for news reports.

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 2:22 PM
How do you litigate the government into hiring more people/building more offices/buying more LiveScans?

1. Eventually, due process challenges.
2. Currently, and later, breach of duty lawsuits.

Flopper
03-25-2011, 3:03 PM
I bought my first gun in 1990 from Tri-City in Fremont. It was a Colt Gold Cup, and it cost me $765.50 (I still have the receipt). I then used to go to National Shooting Club at least once a week to practice with it.

There really isn't any problem finding places to buy guns in the South Bay. You just have to look around. And, yeah, it's a pain to find somewhere to shoot. But then, it's a pain to do anything here that requires the great outdoors. Even a simple day hike turns into some kind of expedition when you factor in travel time and crowd avoidance.

All good reasons to leave this hole, but I don't think any one of them is designed to specifically limit shooting activities.

Actually there's TONS of places to shoot in the Bay Area, with many different competition and training options all over the place.

A (very) short list:

1. Chabot
2. Los Altos R & G
3. Metcalf
4. San Jose Municipal
5. Sunnyvale R & G
6. Reed's
7. Targetmasters
8. Richmond

These are only the ranges I've been to, but I know there's more.

Google and look around a little and you'll be surprised at all the shooting opportunities around here.

PS-CGF, TBJ, and all others: THANK YOU!

wash
03-25-2011, 3:10 PM
I know people do it all the time but I prefer to avoid the city of Richmond.

sighere
03-25-2011, 3:45 PM
There is a lawsuit in LA county. Birdt v Baca and Beck. To my knowledge Calguns has not backed it, but I'm not aware of any behind the scenes discussions that might have been had. Brady has indicated they will file an amicus brief. LAPD has hired Zimring as an "expert" and has said he needs to analyze "arrest records of the last several years" which I have no idea what their angle is on that.

Birdt just filed for a deposition of Baca and Beck and their staff, and told them to bring their "good" g.c. statements. He's asking for this about 2 weeks before the settlement conference, so I surmise LASO and LAPD will ask to delay the depo till after the settlement conf. It will be interesting to see if they cave and give him his permit and tell him to go away. Of course that would only delay the eventual day of reckoning that they'll have to face one day or the other.

N6ATF
03-25-2011, 3:47 PM
1. Eventually, due process challenges.
2. Currently, and later, breach of duty lawsuits.

And they can't just say "oops, sorry, we filed for municipal bankruptcy"?

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 3:52 PM
If no local option is available as instructed by statute, you could move to enjoin the state law in an as-applied challenge.

Joe
03-25-2011, 3:57 PM
Awesome job guys!

hoffmang
03-25-2011, 7:29 PM
I think this is done as a formality to adhere to some weird points in the law that establishes "Who is a person under a section 1983 claim" and allows plaintiffs to recover costs with a case. I don't know that the sheriff would actually have to pay out of pocket. I'd like to know the answer.

I found some helpful information in this link here: ELEMENTS OF A SECTION 1983 CLAIM (http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm)
This case is not about monetary fines at all. If Mr. Scocca had out of pocket expenses, he can recover those. The Sheriff is sued in her personal capacity because that's the individual that must be sued under Federal Civil Rights law. That said, attorney's fees are likely to be recovered, but the way that works is her employer pays them as a standard part of her employment agreement. What is really being asked for is a declaration/injunction that requires Mr Scocca to receive his permit and that requires the Santa Clara County 12050 permit process to be lawful.
There is a lawsuit in LA county. Birdt v Baca and Beck. To my knowledge Calguns has not backed it, but I'm not aware of any behind the scenes discussions that might have been had.

There have been some conversations even here on CGN that Mr. Birdt is probably not the best person to test LA County but Mr. Birdt has been openly hostile to his color.

-Gene

Paladin
03-25-2011, 9:33 PM
What is really being asked for is a declaration/injunction that requires Mr Scocca to receive his permit and that requires the Santa Clara County 12050 permit process to be lawful.I wasn't going to mention this, but now I will.

I was looking to see if Santa Clara limits the number of guns on the permit. I looked at the .pdf for local CCW policies linked at:
http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/resources/ccw-initiative/131-santa-clara

and the even pages weren't posted, incl. p.8 which has Sec. 9, "Weapons & Firearms Qualification."

So, let's say for the sake of argument, if Sheriff Smith's current policy limits the permit to 3 HGNs, and after he wins, Scocca applies for a permit for 5 HGNs, will this court require Smith to issue Scocca's CCW for 5 HGNs, or will he be refused a permit for 5 and have to file a separate (state/federal?) lawsuit?

stag1500
03-25-2011, 9:45 PM
There's also now US Firearms in Sunnyvale.

:iagree:

Great people. Great service. No egos. Mark my words.... US Firearms in Sunnyvale is going to be one of the leading gun stores in the Bay Area in the years to come.

wildhawker
03-25-2011, 10:43 PM
Paladin, different suit.

Paul S
03-25-2011, 11:18 PM
Probably somewhere.

IANAL: I am not a lawyer

IOW: in other words

GC: Good Cause requirement for a CCW

GMC: Good Moral Character requirement for a CCW

SD: self-defense

CGF: Calguns Foundation

MS: Madison Society


Thanks my friend...what I view as the overuse of abbreviations is often a killer to the context of many postings throughout the internet...not just here . Thanks again for clarifying.

Librarian
03-25-2011, 11:27 PM
The abbreviation thread is in General Gun Discussions http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=78606

And there's another version at the Wiki - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Firearms_Terms_and_Acronyms

Kid Stanislaus
03-26-2011, 12:04 AM
Oh please do tell me more. Or is it top secret or speculation. Because if there is any way I could help out let me know.

I'm assuming it will be :twoweeks:

No, no. I meant it sarcastically, "Surprise, surprise" that LA would be one of the last counties to conform. Sorry for misleading you. :o

resident-shooter
03-26-2011, 12:14 AM
I just love it when calguns' lawsuits turn into pure, brutal, awesome, nonstop аss-raping :)

Paladin
03-26-2011, 7:00 AM
Paladin, different suit.
That's what I thought. Since Gene wrote What is really being asked for is a declaration/injunction that requires Mr Scocca to receive his permit and that requires the Santa Clara County 12050 permit process to be lawful.I wasn't sure how many illegal issues that would encompass (and scare other anti CLEOs into obeying immediately).

Related: in paragraph 23 (d) of the Complaint, Kilmer points out that Smith does not post her local CCW policy on the web. Assuming we win, will our side be able to use this judgment to get the other Bay Area sheriffs (and issuing CoPs?), to post their CCW policies online immediately?

Last, since this case is unlikely to be named "Calguns Foundation v. Smith", how do you pronounce Scocca? Like "Sko-kah"?

jnojr
03-26-2011, 7:44 AM
Tom Scocca is a Director of Security Risk Management at a large Silicon Valley semiconductor business. Mr. Scocca has "good cause" that is directly comparable to many of the 70 applicants who have successfully received carry permits in Santa Clara County. Further, Mr. Scocca experienced first hand the effect of unlawful policies that members of Calguns Foundation and The Madison Society experience when attempting to apply for a carry permit from Sheriff Smith.

Tom Scocca faces real threats in performing his job. His work requires him to investigate intellectual property compromise and the theft of valuable company property. Though he is licensed by the state of California to openly carry a firearm, he needs to be able to investigate without raising suspicion. “I've been in law enforcement in the past and am trusted by California to carry a loaded firearm,” Scocca said. “However, even though my good cause is equal to or more worthy than many other applicants who have had their licenses issued, Sheriff Smith arbitrarily denied my application.”

So, what relief is there for most Santa Clara County residents here? Sounds like, worst case (for the Sheriff), the judge says, "You have to issue permits to people with this special good cause". And then maybe the Sheriff just decides that now that cause isn't "good enough" any more.

Mr. Scocca might well get his CCW, but bringing forward a plaintiff who is "special", just not quite "special enough" isn't something that I see as being a huge benefit for those who aren't "special" at all.

jnojr
03-26-2011, 7:45 AM
I know people do it all the time but I prefer to avoid the city of Richmond.

So do I.

Oh wait http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif

jnojr
03-26-2011, 7:51 AM
IIRC, in Shall Issue states, ~3-4% of the population gets a CCW.

FWIW...

Fairfax County has just over 1,000,000 residents. CHPs are good for 5 years. I got mine in December, and it's number 15XXX If we assume they start at 00001 at the beginning of the year, that means they issue roughly 16,000 per year, times five years = ~80,000 CHPs extant at any given time. That would be 8%, at most. Obviously, there's some guessing here, but FWIW...

Luieburger
03-26-2011, 8:12 AM
I can't wait to hear their response.

Maestro Pistolero
03-26-2011, 8:35 AM
FWIW...

Fairfax County has just over 1,000,000 residents. CHPs are good for 5 years. I got mine in December, and it's number 15XXX If we assume they start at 00001 at the beginning of the year, that means they issue roughly 16,000 per year, times five years = ~80,000 CHPs extant at any given time. That would be 8%, at most. Obviously, there's some guessing here, but FWIW...

Why would they start the numbering over at the beginning of the year? And aren't they called CCW's in fairfax? Just curious.

(ETA: Sorry, was thinking Fairfax CA, I guess they are called CHPs in VA, Thanks, Goober.)

goober
03-26-2011, 8:46 AM
Why would they start the numbering over at the beginning of the year? And aren't they called CCW's in fairfax? Just curious.

dunno bout the restart on the numbering but note jnojr is in VA.

bulgron
03-26-2011, 9:26 AM
So, what relief is there for most Santa Clara County residents here? Sounds like, worst case (for the Sheriff), the judge says, "You have to issue permits to people with this special good cause". And then maybe the Sheriff just decides that now that cause isn't "good enough" any more.

Mr. Scocca might well get his CCW, but bringing forward a plaintiff who is "special", just not quite "special enough" isn't something that I see as being a huge benefit for those who aren't "special" at all.

Remember that we're playing chess here.

We all know that CA's current CCW law is quite generous to issuing authorities, and it gives them a huge amount of leeway in terms of who they will issue to. But even despite how generous those current rules are, Sheriff Smith still finds it impossible to stay within the boundaries of the law.

As the evidence begins to come out, I believe you will see a portrait of corruption painted that will shock and amaze you.

So if Sheriff Smith isn't willing to obey the rather wide and generous CCW law as it exists today, what do you suppose she'll do if our legal efforts in other parts of the state result in a tightening of that law, so that she is required to issue on a shall-issue basis? Remember, this is a politician who doesn't like to obey the CCW laws right now. Do you really think she'd obey the law if some far away court changed the rules?

My guess is, unless we apply a big hammer to her thick skull, she'll just ignore progressing case law and continue to issue in her arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal way. But by applying hammer to thick skull now, we can convince her that she really, really does need to obey the CCW issuance laws, whatever they might be.

Plus, I believe there is the possibility that this case will result in direct judicial supervision of her issuing processes. Even better.

I don't know how important it is, but I also wonder that if our side shows huge corruption in the current system, maybe the judiciary will take note of that and realize "may-issue" really is a hugely horrible idea.

snoopy
03-26-2011, 9:43 AM
Mr. Scocca might well get his CCW, but bringing forward a plaintiff who is "special", just not quite "special enough" isn't something that I see as being a huge benefit for those who aren't "special" at all.

Assuming this suit is successful, it will go some way to putting county Sheriffs on notice that they must apply California's CCW laws consistently to all applicants.

A different case, Richards vs Prieto seeks to show Sheriffs that, as quoted on the Calguns foundation wiki:

1.Declaratory relief that the “good moral character” and “good cause” provisions of California Penal Code § 12050 are unconstitutional either on their face and/or as applied to bar applicants who are otherwise legally qualified to possess firearms and who assert self-defense as their “good cause” for seeking a handgun carry permit;

Put the two together and all of us "not special enough" types should be good to go; assuming we are willing to jump through a few paper work hoops on the way to our CCWs. Of course, as in all battles, the enemy has a say in how things playout.....

Shiboleth
03-26-2011, 9:56 AM
So, what relief is there for most Santa Clara County residents here? Sounds like, worst case (for the Sheriff), the judge says, "You have to issue permits to people with this special good cause". And then maybe the Sheriff just decides that now that cause isn't "good enough" any more.

Mr. Scocca might well get his CCW, but bringing forward a plaintiff who is "special", just not quite "special enough" isn't something that I see as being a huge benefit for those who aren't "special" at all.

If there has demonstrably been some previous number of people issued CCW's based on good cause A, which is similar to Mr. Scocca's, i imagine there would be concern about the sheriffs no longer accepting said GC while allowing all those who were issued under it to retain their permits.

I don't think it's an issue of this being a "special" plaintiff, outside of the scope of the lawsuit. Finding the right plaintiff to aid in winning a lawsuit is one thing, but the eventual goal is for that lawsuit to establish precedent and criteria that allow others to benefit.

In my uneducated legal opinion, i see this case as applying the Guillory doctrine seeking to focus on GC. Finding a good plaintiff aids in pushing this lawsuit through to success (or by their nature and/or situation defends against potential arguments defense in the case would make). If the suit is won, this would not elevate the man himself a the ideal to be matched in order to be issued, but rather would acknowledge that his GC, having previously been accepted as sufficient for others, will be acceptable. The end result should be that all people (and i may be off here some), even those who might be dissimilarly situated, who have the same GC as Mr. Scocca should be issued. So only those with dissimilar GC would not benefit.

ETA: actually to clarify, the suit would not establish only Mr. Scocca's GC as sufficient, but ideally "all" previously accepted GC.

hoffmang
03-26-2011, 9:57 AM
Mr. Scocca might well get his CCW, but bringing forward a plaintiff who is "special", just not quite "special enough" isn't something that I see as being a huge benefit for those who aren't "special" at all.

The reasons we're involved are explained decently above, but this is why this is a CGF supported case and not just a CGF case. The battle for the end of discretion - that GC = self defense is happening in Richards, Palmer, Kachalsky, Bateman, and Woolard, etc.. If however, we can get Sheriffs to honor their existing good cause issuances (and, hint - there are political favors in most groups of issuance which have low good cause - which is why they really want unfettered discretion) and get them to otherwise comply with California law (no arbitrary requirements to the application) then when we win the strategic carry cases, there is not much of any battle left.

-Gene

wash
03-26-2011, 10:59 AM
It's kind of like how the artificial horizon is better than the real horizon.

Virtual shall issue is better than actual shall issue because we are forcing them to issue permits they don't want to issue and it's their corrupt policies that make it possible.

Virtual shall issue is the goal. After we have that, real shall issue isn't terribly important and we'll probably get it any way because the sheriffs will get tired of issuing permits they don't want to.

That's where CGF and Billy Jack strategy parted ways, TBJ just wanted a few individual permits, CGF has it's eye on the real prize.

Glock22Fan
03-26-2011, 11:43 AM
It's kind of like how the artificial horizon is better than the real horizon.

Virtual shall issue is better than actual shall issue because we are forcing them to issue permits they don't want to issue and it's their corrupt policies that make it possible.

Virtual shall issue is the goal. After we have that, real shall issue isn't terribly important and we'll probably get it any way because the sheriffs will get tired of issuing permits they don't want to.

That's where CGF and Billy Jack strategy parted ways, TBJ just wanted a few individual permits, CGF has it's eye on the real prize.

How then do you explain the fact that this case was started by TBJ (some eighteen months hard work) and taken over by CGF to give it the funding it needed and deserved?

Not saying that the methodology might not have change slightly, that's bound to happen with a new team, but Tom was originally a TBJ client

wash
03-26-2011, 11:55 AM
TBJ never dreamed of taking on all 58 DAs and getting virtual shall issue.

CGF dreamed big, TBJ dreamed ~small.

Billy Jack got the ball rolling, CGF is a force multiplier.

bulgron
03-26-2011, 12:02 PM
TBJ never dreamed of taking on all 58 DAs and getting virtual shall issue.

CGF dreamed big, TBJ dreamed ~small.

Billy Jack got the ball rolling, CGF is a force multiplier.

The real difference is that TBJ just wants to get the issuing authorities to obey the law as it exists today.

CGF wants to do that too, but then they also want to change the law so that ordinary citizens can get CCWs.

TBJ doesn't care about ordinary citizens. They just care about people with special cause.

So there's overlap in the goals, but CFG definitely has bigger plans than does TBJ.

nicki
03-26-2011, 1:01 PM
Santa Clara county is 140 million dollars in the hole and they are coming up on renewing contracts this summer.

The county is financially in deep trouble, everyone is being told to cut costs.

In the past, the county sheriff's figured they had deep pockets, today those pockets got holes and they are empty.

A few things to consider.

Gun issues are not something that are on the top of most county workers agenda, however, things like the county having money to pay them is.

If word spreads among the county workforce that they are looking at having to make concessions yet the county can find lots of money to try to defend the sheriff in a losing civil rights case, it will not go over well.

Many workers recognize already recognize that there will be no pay raises, that they may have to make concessions.

Last contract, the county offered to extend the current contract with no raises and it was overwhelmingly approved.

County workers will reluctantly accept concessions provided they believe the county is acting in "GOOD FAITH".

If they believe the county is operating in "Bad Faith", we will probably see an ugly contract fight this summer, possibly a strike and from a PR point of view, the union will be looking at things to fire back at management.

Let's take Valley Med for instance, the hospital's professional staff is actually paid at or below prevailing wages of other hospitals.

During summer time, everyone fights to get time off at every employer, but hospitals run 24/7/365.

With Valley on strike, other hospitals would only be happy to temporarily hire Valley's professional staff and give their workers time off.

Valley shutting down would mean that the county just lost the main Trauma Center not only for Santa Clara County, but surrounding counties as well.

Politically it would be a disaster, each side would be pointing fingers at each other trying to gain the public high ground.

People operate on emotion, not facts guys, this could turn really ugly.

Let's say I know enough people who work at Valley Med that the above situation could happen.

In the Heller/MacDonald case, big name law firms stepped up to defend those cities and they got massacred by little old Alan Gura.:43:

When Quality Law Firms realize that helpling Laurie Smith means that they are risking a trip to the US Supreme court and losing on a national stage to Alan Gura, many will pass.

Yes, the LCAV will step up, and based on the quality of their past work, we can only hope they will.

Alan Gura's eventual fee settelement with Wash DC is going to help our side big time. It will be a wakeup call that violating our second amendment rights is expensive.

Hopefully someone will get to the County Attorney and show them that what they are seeing so far is only the tip of the iceberg.

The only thing the attorneys can do is stall, so far two counties have based defense of the ccw policies on the premise that "Unloaded Open Carry" meets our constitutional standard of right to keep and bear arms.

Of course, there is the issue of "functional arms" and the fact that the "school zone" issue creates a prior vague contraint on actually exercising the right to openly bear arms.

Right now open carry in most urban areas is risky, a bill to expand the school zones to 1500 feet would efffectively ban open carry in most cities.

It is possible we could see a situation where we get "Loaded Open Carry".

Before you say "No Way", that is exactly what happened in Ohio in 2003 when the Ohio Supreme court upheld the constitutionality of Ohio's concealed weapons ban.

Of course mass open carry marches throughout the state motivated then Gov Taft to finally sign a shall issue CCW bill.

Nicki

yellowfin
03-26-2011, 1:12 PM
I don't know how important it is, but I also wonder that if our side shows huge corruption in the current system, maybe the judiciary will take note of that and realize "may-issue" really is a hugely horrible idea.Those of us on the east coast are particularly counting on it. This is prime material to smack Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland over the head with, potentially for a lot more CCW and other 2A things, for example business licenses, building permits, etc. The political patronage system needs to be nuked flat.

bulgron
03-26-2011, 2:17 PM
Those of us on the east coast are particularly counting on it. This is prime material to smack Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland over the head with, potentially for a lot more CCW and other 2A things, for example business licenses, building permits, etc. The political patronage system needs to be nuked flat.

If that's your goal, then your problem is that there has never been a mature system of government at any time in human history that didn't have a political patronage system of one kind or another.

I'll be happy if we can just eliminate political patronage for blatantly life-and-death things like CCWs. Business licenses, building permits, liquor licenses, all that stuff is going to stay corrupt. I might wish it were otherwise, but history doesn't give me reason to be optimistic on that front.

CSDGuy
03-26-2011, 3:29 PM
Let's take Valley Med for instance, the hospital's professional staff is actually paid at or below prevailing wages of other hospitals.

During summer time, everyone fights to get time off at every employer, but hospitals run 24/7/365.

With Valley on strike, other hospitals would only be happy to temporarily hire Valley's professional staff and give their workers time off.

Valley shutting down would mean that the county just lost the main Trauma Center not only for Santa Clara County, but surrounding counties as well.

Politically it would be a disaster, each side would be pointing fingers at each other trying to gain the public high ground.

People operate on emotion, not facts guys, this could turn really ugly.

Let's say I know enough people who work at Valley Med that the above situation could happen.


Nicki
If VMC shut down... that would make things ugly for a while. It would put a lot of pressure on the two other Trauma Centers there. Regional Medical Center is a Level II, but if they've absorbed the staff from the old San Jose Med Center, they should be a very efficient and capable Level II. Stanford University Medical Center is also a Level I Trauma Center. The part that would really be bad would be if the VMC Burn Unit shut down...

While you know some people in VMC... I know that EMS system very, very well. I have a pretty good idea about how much closure of VMC would impact the rest of the County.

You're very right though: fighting a civil rights lawsuit to the tune of BIG dollars... while claiming hardship with the unions will be a HUGE disaster for their PR and with the bargaining units... Their best option would be to try to keep this lawsuit quiet (they'll try this), settle it, get it dismissed (they'll do this too), or moot it before it generates a big bill for the County. Hopefully they'll see it that way.

Glock22Fan
03-26-2011, 3:34 PM
The real difference is that TBJ just wants to get the issuing authorities to obey the law as it exists today.

CGF wants to do that too, but then they also want to change the law so that ordinary citizens can get CCWs.

TBJ doesn't care about ordinary citizens. They just care about people with special cause.

So there's overlap in the goals, but CFG definitely has bigger plans than does TBJ.

I'm an ordinary citizen in Los Angeles county. What am I in it for if you are right? It certainly isn't the (non-existent) money.

We've helped a lot of ordinary citizens get CCW's within the current framework. We get "thank you" notes almost every week. There's a difference or opinion (between BJ and myself) on many aspects, including "Shall Issue" and standard mags, but believe me, I haven't been working for five years just for people with special causes. I've always believed in the "domino effect" and have said so often. Use leverage and threat of legal action to get one person a CCW and it makes it easier for the next person, and so forth.

bulgron
03-26-2011, 3:39 PM
I'm an ordinary citizen in Los Angeles county. What am I in it for if you are right? It certainly isn't the (non-existent) money.

We've helped a lot of ordinary citizens get CCW's within the current framework. We get "thank you" notes almost every week. There's a difference or opinion (between BJ and myself) on many aspects, including "Shall Issue" and standard mags, but believe me, I haven't been working for five years just for people with special causes. I've always believed in the "domino effect" and have said so often. Use leverage and threat of legal action to get one person a CCW and it makes it easier for the next person, and so forth.

While I fully believe that you're in it for "the ordinary citizen", B.J. has been on this very site in the past expressing his belief that CCWs should not be available to ordinary citizens who have a want and not a need. I have never read one word from him to suggest he thinks CCWs should be made available on a shall-issue basis. In fact, I've read quite a lot of his words that say the exact opposite.

Since B.J. is pretty much the heart and soul behind TBJ, this is where my belief that "TBJ doesn't care about ordinary citizens" comes from.

wash
03-26-2011, 3:45 PM
I wouldn't go so far as to say that he doesn't care, he just wasn't moving in a direction that would help people other than those who decided to try one of his lawsuits.

The appearance of this looked like TBJ was ok with discretionary issue as long as his clients could get permits.

I'm sure that's not the case but that is how it looks.

nicki
03-26-2011, 4:13 PM
Some of us have had issues with TBJ, but that is the PAST.

The bottom line is TBJ came through and what we have to do is look at the future.

TBJ did alot of legwork, and his legwork has laid the foundation to not only getting CCW in Santa Clara county, but potentially the whole SF bay area.

Let's not dwell in the past, let's look to the future.

As far as I am concerned, people set aside egos and differences and everyone rocks.

Nicki

wildhawker
03-26-2011, 4:27 PM
Nick, its not the past when Billy Jack keeps it present:

http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/

Quote deleted.

Let's allow people to go over to his site and read, if it should be interesting to them.

// Librarian

HowardW56
03-26-2011, 4:34 PM
Nick, its not the past when Billy Jack keeps it present:

http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/

Billy Jack (Preston) has done quite a bit that is beneficial to the CCW cause, he did lay some of the groundwork. But that rant makes me think he is a little out of plumb....

Paladin
03-26-2011, 9:47 PM
Nick, its not the past when Billy Jack keeps it presentBrandon, PM sent.

As Nicki said, let's focus on the future, on the good work CGF is doing -- liberating entire counties at a time! -- and not get upset or distracted by minor annoyances.

To all: CGF, because they're an actual party to this federal lawsuit (versus TBJ who are legal representatives of a party/client), won't fade away if a plaintiff decides to just get their CCW and throw in the towel. CGF will fight all the way until they/we get what we want -- our RKBA in public! :chris:

hoffmang
03-26-2011, 11:58 PM
To all: CGF, because they're an actual party to this federal lawsuit (versus TBJ who are legal representatives of a party/client), won't fade away if a plaintiff decides to just get their CCW and throw in the towel. CGF will fight all the way until they/we get what we want -- our RKBA in public! :chris:

Correct but I want to make sure we're setting expectations here. We are only a party remaining in this suit should Mr. Scocca get his license to bring the Santa Clara permit process into compliance. We are not looking for self defense = good cause here. Now, should background cases come down in currently unforeseen ways, that could change radically. As usual, we are focused on making things right for the individual plaintifs (or defendants) first.

-Gene

2Bear
03-27-2011, 3:30 AM
And they fell like dominos.

"Whoa, Domino. Roll me over Romeo. Time for a change..."
25LhUHKVYMo

CGF for Federalist Party!

Paladin
03-27-2011, 7:25 AM
Correct but I want to make sure we're setting expectations here. We are only a party remaining in this suit should Mr. Scocca get his license to bring the Santa Clara permit process into compliance. We are not looking for self defense = good cause here. Now, should background cases come down in currently unforeseen ways, that could change radically. As usual, we are focused on making things right for the individual plaintifs (or defendants) first.

-GeneCorrect. I meant these CGF lawsuits collectively should bring us a public RKBA.

Since CGF is also a party to Richards, if Prieto/Yolo decide to settle by giving Richards a CCW + attny fees + some $$$ and Richards decides to accept, CGF will continue that fight (along w/SAF), until the end (hopefully w/us getting SD = GC), right?

I was just pointing out a fundamental difference in what TBJ does/can do, and what CGF does/can do.

An aside: as I asked previously in this thread, since this suit will probably named after him, how does Scocca pronounce his name, "Sko-kah"?

hoffmang
03-27-2011, 2:07 PM
Correct. I meant these CGF lawsuits collectively should bring us a public RKBA.

Since CGF is also a party to Richards, if Prieto/Yolo decide to settle by giving Richards a CCW + attny fees + some $$$ and Richards decides to accept, CGF will continue that fight (along w/SAF), until the end (hopefully w/us getting SD = GC), right?
Prieto denied Stewart in Richards. That case will continue to a legally binding conclusion. Also note that it's submitted for final judgement by both sides.

An aside: as I asked previously in this thread, since this suit will probably named after him, how does Scocca pronounce his name, "Sko-kah"?
I believe that is correct.

-Gene

Window_Seat
03-27-2011, 2:16 PM
Prieto denied Stewart in Richards. That case will continue to a legally binding conclusion. Also note that it's submitted for final judgement by both sides.


I believe that is correct.

-Gene

An answer to a future question I won't have to ask. :D

Erik.

Paladin
03-27-2011, 4:58 PM
Also note that it's submitted for final judgement by both sides.So, for the Richards case, there's no backing out now (i.e., too late for a settlement), right?

hoffmang
03-27-2011, 9:15 PM
So, for the Richards case, there's no backing out now (i.e., too late for a settlement), right?

Do I need to come over to your house and write it in blood on your door mat? :D

The likelihood of a settlement in Richards is approaching 0.0001% You can't say never, but it's about as close as you can get. Did you read the contempt that the Yolo County Sheriff's Office has for gun owners, much less those who would carry?

-Gene

Blackhawk556
03-27-2011, 9:35 PM
Sorry but I have a dumb question. Are additional attorney fees really adding up for santa clara county??? Counties don't have legal teams in their yearly budget and say something like, "we'll give you $250k/year and if someone sues the county you'll handle it". IF so, then the county is not using up additional $$$ right? Or am I smoking something good right now???

wildhawker
03-27-2011, 9:58 PM
Sorry but I have a dumb question. Are additional attorney fees really adding up for santa clara county??? Counties don't have legal teams in their yearly budget and say something like, "we'll give you $250k/year and if someone sues the county you'll handle it". IF so, then the county is not using up additional $$$ right? Or am I smoking something good right now???

Every county has in-house or contracted counsel for general and day-to-day municipal legal matters. For some issues (such as major civil rights trials), they often hire outside firm(s) to represent them. These are generally reflective of a mix of pro bono and paid services (it's a bit of a gamed system).

-Brandon

Paladin
03-27-2011, 10:13 PM
Do I need to come over to your house and write it in blood on your door mat? :D

-Gene
I guess you don't like being "Columbo-ed". :D

biW9BbWJtQU

N6ATF
03-27-2011, 10:20 PM
HAHAHAH

freonr22
03-27-2011, 10:44 PM
Do I need to come over to your house and write it in blood on your door mat? :D

The likelihood of a settlement in Richards is approaching 0.0001% You can't say never, but it's about as close as you can get. Did you read the contempt that the Yolo County Sheriff's Office has for gun owners, much less those who would carry?

-Gene
did you ever give thought/pause to billy jacks comment about your "chucky" likeness on his blog? I am not saying he was right, but, .... when "chucky" wins.. it will be superfluous!!! :D

HowardW56
03-28-2011, 7:55 AM
did you ever give thought/pause to billy jacks comment about your "chucky" likeness on his blog? I am not saying he was right, but, .... when "chucky" wins.. it will be superfluous!!! :D



HUH? :confused:

emtmark
03-28-2011, 2:55 PM
http://i54.tinypic.com/5cix36.png

i work in this county and just spit all over my keyboard thats the best photo chop:D

Wherryj
03-28-2011, 4:27 PM
Gene / Bill / and others,

Thank you for your relentless defense of the constitution. I am always thrilled when the CalGuns Foundation works to broaden my civil rights, by educating municipalities.

I pray this tenacity for educating County Sheriffs on following the letter of the law, will one day bring Alameda County up to par with our State Capitol's County and beyond.

One day Alameda County will be brought up to par, but it will only be with much kicking, screaming and litigating.

Gryff
03-28-2011, 5:56 PM
One day Alameda County will be brought up to par, but it will only be with much kicking, screaming and litigating.

...and by slicing Berkeley and Oakland off so that they float away into the Bay.


As for the Scocca lawsuit, my best wishes to Tom. He's a friend of mine, active competitive shooter, damn nice guy, and also has been a Calgunner for the past four years (even if he isn't very active on the forum).

hoffmang
03-28-2011, 6:22 PM
did you ever give thought/pause to billy jacks comment about your "chucky" likeness on his blog? I am not saying he was right, but, .... when "chucky" wins.. it will be superfluous!!! :D

Meh. When all a person has is ad hominem....

-Gene

Paladin
03-28-2011, 6:26 PM
Time for CGNers to start monitoring the media, both MSM and alternative, for news reports about this.

Might be best to start a separate thread dedicated to linking to/summarizing/discussing those reports.Well, I just googled -- "tom scocca" "santa clara" sheriff laurie smith -- and only came up w/CGN, CGF, and other gun related website. No Merc. No SFGate. No local TV stations.

I was hoping the filing would get some coverage because if they mention Calguns Foundation in their reporting, that will probably help their donations and even CGN's membership to increase.

Paladin
03-28-2011, 7:03 PM
I was just over at the NRA-ILA's webpage (http://www.nraila.org/) and notice that there was NOT any announcement of Scocca's lawsuit on their news banner (which has links to more than just news media reports).

Has CGF sent their announcement to the ILA? If not, they should consider doing so. Even if our local MSM doesn't pick up on it (at this point), I'm sure the NRA would love to know about it (assuming they don't already).

Monticore
03-28-2011, 11:49 PM
Well, I just googled -- "tom scocca" "santa clara" sheriff laurie smith -- and only came up w/CGN, CGF, and other gun related website. No Merc. No SFGate. No local TV stations.

I was hoping the filing would get some coverage because if they mention Calguns Foundation in their reporting, that will probably help their donations and even CGN's membership to increase.

I was just looking around too and found the same as you did.

General question:
Is it better strategy to not have it go mass media so that the the County can keep the case low profile to not lose face too much? Even if their loss were to make it big time, someone would try to publicly spin it to not be as drastic a change as it could be (thinking bigger than Gene has prepared us for). Very few people outside of this site get the idea that the bad guys carry regardless of the law. We all want to legally. I don't see our cause helped too much if the public at large starts to really weigh in. It might bolster their resolve to fight tooth and nail against us.

2Bear
03-29-2011, 2:26 AM
Meh. When all a person has is ad hominem....

-Gene

Heh! "Meh"...

Paladin
03-29-2011, 5:13 AM
I was just looking around too and found the same as you did.

General question:
Is it better strategy to not have it go mass media so that the the County can keep the case low profile to not lose face too much? Even if their loss were to make it big time, someone would try to publicly spin it to not be as drastic a change as it could be (thinking bigger than Gene has prepared us for). Very few people outside of this site get the idea that the bad guys carry regardless of the law. We all want to legally. I don't see our cause helped too much if the public at large starts to really weigh in. It might bolster their resolve to fight tooth and nail against us.

Even if the MSM tries, as long as they name CGF, I'm sure there are PLENTY of pro-gun people who are not "gunnies" (hard-core pro-RKBA folk like you find on CGN), who's ears will perk up and then go on the internet to find us (CGF). (Here, I'm talking about various ourdoorsmen or Joe/Jane Average who wants to carry sometimes, but would NEVER join the NRA, etc.) From CGF they should learn about CGN and from both of those they'll find out all that the MSM Insiders don't want them to know about the fight for our RKBA.

Such as??? Such as the map below. Once they begin to realize all that the MSM hasn't been telling them re. Shall Issue (and our RKBA) around the country, they are ours! :43:

http://www.nraila.org/maps/rtc.jpg

johndoe2150
03-29-2011, 6:57 AM
From what I have heard montana might be added to the list of constitution carry states soon as well

jl123
03-29-2011, 10:47 AM
From what I have heard montana might be added to the list of constitution carry states soon as well

And NH.....and possibly a couple others.

Glock22Fan
03-29-2011, 11:51 AM
And NH.....and possibly a couple others.

Montana just needs the gov's signature, which he is expected to give.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=414651

yellowfin
03-29-2011, 12:25 PM
General question:
Is it better strategy to not have it go mass media so that the the County can keep the case low profile to not lose face too much? Even if their loss were to make it big time, someone would try to publicly spin it to not be as drastic a change as it could be (thinking bigger than Gene has prepared us for). Very few people outside of this site get the idea that the bad guys carry regardless of the law. We all want to legally. I don't see our cause helped too much if the public at large starts to really weigh in. It might bolster their resolve to fight tooth and nail against us.I'd say the opposite, it's in our interests to let the public know about this. According to others on the site one of the big problems with this whole situation is that for years is that the Mercury News wouldn't run stories on it because it would show things as they really are and it make the anti gun political complex look really, REALLY bad. The fact that they've done everything possible to avoid and conceal the issue (no pun intended) is all the more reason why we should bring it out and rub it in their faces. They've gotten the laws they wanted, they've had their way and look at what it is: a corrupt VIP insiders party where LE breaks their own laws and gets away with it (so far). The public can't be OK with that, otherwise it wouldn't have been hidden and require so much digging to get it up to the surface. So I say make it front and center spotlight 24/7 and burn them to a lobster red sunburn with the sunshine.

If it makes them fight against our side harder then that means they'll appeal it all the way up and we win at the top and make such a ruling law for all 50 states. Those of us on the east coast would really like to see that happen because it means we can use it against Boston, NYC, Trenton, Baltimore, Providence, and anywhere else in the future that wants to entertain the idea of screwing around making problems for RKBA. If we had Guillory as binding law all the way out here in the 2nd Circuit we'd have already taken out NYC's VIP only carry license system by now.

HUTCH 7.62
03-29-2011, 7:18 PM
Right on. I never cared for Laurie Smith much. And I can't see any good she has done controlling the umpteen million gangs that roam around Santa Clara county buying up tons of spray paint and painting every wall they can find from unincorporated SCC to even the nicer neighborhoods

hoffmang
03-29-2011, 10:26 PM
Is it better strategy to not have it go mass media so that the the County can keep the case low profile to not lose face too much?

The filing of an equal protection carry permit case isn't something that the wider media will find very interesting. A settlement or the conclusion of the case will be quite a bit more newsworthy. We did not invest a lot in the press push behind the filing of the case but will invest upon a favorable resolution.

-Gene

Spaceghost
03-30-2011, 9:56 AM
This strategy makes a lot of sense to me. The press is fickle and filing a law suit happens every day, it's the results people find interesting.

The filing of an equal protection carry permit case isn't something that the wider media will find very interesting. A settlement or the conclusion of the case will be quite a bit more newsworthy. We did not invest a lot in the press push behind the filing of the case but will invest upon a favorable resolution.

-Gene

p_shooter
03-30-2011, 3:23 PM
The biggest obstacle I saw when living in Santa Clara County was that firearm ownership wasn't impossible, but it was largely impractical and horrendously inconvenient. For a place that has Santa Row and other mega shopping areas the miniscule and dismal selection of stores (Gun Vault being the sole exception) and the choice between total dumps (San Jose municipal and Reeds', the latter being run by pompous ***holes who think you're not "tacticool" enough for them), arm and a leg fees (Sunnyvale and that other gun club that's even more $$$$), or a 45 minute drive out of town (Metcalf) for ranges all of which encumbered by disgracefully retarded rules is a total disgrace and probably accounts for a large percentage of the lack of gun owners there. It's easier to do virtually everything else than buy, own, practice with, and use a firearm. Seriously, with a 10 day wait, a labyrinth of regulations, unfriendly neighbors, etc. it really was a matter of why bother.

Daily CCW is really the only thing that's practical, and thanks to Her Royal Jackass Highness that wasn't possible. That is probably 80% of the reason the anti gun culture is so able to thrive there.
Talk about Anti-gun culture...

My dad told me a story about when we first moved to the Bay Area from rural Oregon in the early 80's. There was a news segment with the headline "Gun Arsenal found in quiet neighborhood - Neighbors alarmed!".

My dad watched intently as the press snapped photos and police stood stoically by a table with a couple of bolt action rifles, a pump shotgun and half a dozen assorted revolvers and auto-loading pistols.

My dad easily had 4 times that many guns, most of which were old German, Belgian and Swiss rifles that his father "liberated" during the war. My dad hid his collection and never spoke of them until us kids were all grown up and gone. Probably a very smart thing to do, especially after the paranoia that followed in the wake of the Stockton school yard shooting.

When I got into shooting some years later he showed me this extensive collection of beautiful old rifles. I never knew he had such valuable firearms. He's even got an old FN auto-loading shotgun from WW1 era. :eek:

I wonder how many closet gun owners there are in SC County just waiting for the right climate to come out. I bet this county would see more than 2% for CCW apps...just a gut feeling. Heck, you can't even get a table at Metcalf anymore on a weekend unless you show up before 9. Wasn't like that 5 years ago. :cool:

Pat Riot
04-12-2011, 4:44 PM
Now that the complaint is filed, what is the next step? Is there a schedule to hear arguments? I also dont see it listed here:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present

blakdawg
04-12-2011, 4:58 PM
A case management conference is scheduled for June 21, 2011 but that won't be very interesting. The defense hasn't even filed an answer yet, and then there's going to be discovery - my personal (uninvolved in the case) guess is that nothing interesting that's externally visible will happen until early 2012 at best, but I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

Blackhawk556
04-12-2011, 5:26 PM
^^^^2012....The court system moves extremely slow.

Crom
04-13-2011, 10:04 AM
Now that the complaint is filed, what is the next step? Is there a schedule to hear arguments? I also dont see it listed here:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present

The case has been added to the Wiki. Thanks for the reminder.

nick
04-13-2011, 10:25 AM
Even if the MSM tries, as long as they name CGF, I'm sure there are PLENTY of pro-gun people who are not "gunnies" (hard-core pro-RKBA folk like you find on CGN), who's ears will perk up and then go on the internet to find us (CGF). (Here, I'm talking about various ourdoorsmen or Joe/Jane Average who wants to carry sometimes, but would NEVER join the NRA, etc.) From CGF they should learn about CGN and from both of those they'll find out all that the MSM Insiders don't want them to know about the fight for our RKBA.

Such as??? Such as the map below. Once they begin to realize all that the MSM hasn't been telling them re. Shall Issue (and our RKBA) around the country, they are ours! :43:

http://www.nraila.org/maps/rtc.jpg

This map needs updating. Even counting Canada and Mexico, we still only have 52 states, not 53 :)

chris12
04-13-2011, 11:08 AM
Some states are both shall issue and no permit required.

SJgunguy24
04-13-2011, 11:25 AM
Some states are both shall issue and no permit required.

Yes, because of reciprocity agreements between the states, you would need a CCW from your home state in order to carry in another friendly state.

Rivers
04-13-2011, 12:09 PM
This map needs updating. Even counting Canada and Mexico, we still only have 52 states, not 53 :)

And I thought we only had 50 states. Guess I missed something, or not. But Puerto Rico and Guam are protectorates, should have some CCW status.

hvengel
04-13-2011, 12:24 PM
This map needs updating. Even counting Canada and Mexico, we still only have 52 states, not 53 :)

I thought that Obama said there were 57 states? Now I'm confused. How many states are there?

goober
04-13-2011, 1:40 PM
This map needs updating. Even counting Canada and Mexico, we still only have 52 states, not 53 :)

Some states are both shall issue and no permit required.

this^
it says right in the legend that AK, AZ, and WY are (or will be) shall-issue AND no permit required :rolleyes:

Gryff
04-13-2011, 2:03 PM
This map needs updating. Even counting Canada and Mexico, we still only have 52 states, not 53 :)

Mexico's not a state. It's a geographic fungus.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-13-2011, 2:28 PM
this^
it says right in the legend that AK, AZ, and WY are (or will be) shall-issue AND no permit required :rolleyes:

Wyoming is an anamoly. It's Con Carry but only for it's own citizens.

notme92069
06-03-2011, 8:42 AM
Why did they file "Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge"?

HowardW56
06-03-2011, 9:58 AM
Why did they file "Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge"?


To slow the process down... If they decline to proceed before a Magistrate Judge, all issues have to be dealt with before the District Court Judge.

Purple K
06-28-2011, 6:26 PM
As of June 20, 2011:
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDERS RE: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.


So Ordered
The Case Management Conference set for July 8, 2011 is vacated until
further order of this Court. If the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, no
further action will be required. If the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied (in
whole or in part), the parties shall submit a joint request to have the Case
Management Conference placed back on the Court’s calendar on a mutually
convenient date.

ColdDeadHands1
06-28-2011, 6:42 PM
When did the illustrious sheriff file a MTD? Any idea on a decision date on this MTD?

They are taking a very defensive course with their actions.

bulgron
06-28-2011, 6:51 PM
When did the illustrious sheriff file a MTD? Any idea on a decision date on this MTD?

They are taking a very defensive course with their actions.

Isn't a Motion to Dismiss a pretty standard legal tactic? Seems like I hear about them a lot.

Purple K
06-28-2011, 7:01 PM
Additionally:

The parties are proposing to vacate Case Management Conference currently
set for July 8, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.
The Defendants have a Motion to Dismiss currently set for August 12, 2011
at 9:00 a.m. The parties, by and through undersigned counsel, believe that holding
a status conference, with direction from the Court after the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss will conserve the parties’ and judicial resources. Additionally, Plaintiffs’
Counsel Donald Kilmer has a readiness conference on a jury trial in Oakland that
conflicts with the current date.
The parties agree to stay all discovery not related to the Motion to Dismiss
until after the Court has made itS ruling on the motion.
Respectfully Submitted on June 20, 2011,

RudyN
06-28-2011, 7:14 PM
That is great! Good luck.

ColdDeadHands1
06-28-2011, 7:20 PM
That is great! Good luck.

Not in my book! To me all this means is more delay. No further action until 8/12. Nothing but stall tactics in my opinion.

Time is of the essence here. Every day this crap drags on is another day I cannot carry to protect my family.:mad:

RudyN
06-28-2011, 8:19 PM
Not in my book! To me all this means is more delay. No further action until 8/12. Nothing but stall tactics in my opinion.

Time is of the essence here. Every day this crap drags on is another day I cannot carry to protect my family.:mad:

I wasn't talking about the motion as that wasn't in the thread when I posted. I was talking about the filing of the Complaint.

hoffmang
06-28-2011, 8:22 PM
Isn't a Motion to Dismiss a pretty standard legal tactic? Seems like I hear about them a lot.

Pretty standard in these sorts of civil rights cases, yes.

-Gene

dantodd
08-02-2011, 3:33 PM
For those interested the County filed a "Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss"

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.cand.238467/gov.uscourts.cand.238467.16.0.pdf

jwkincal
08-02-2011, 3:42 PM
"We deny your right to deny us our denial of your rights?"

Connor P Price
08-02-2011, 4:18 PM
For those interested the County filed a "Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss"

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.cand.238467/gov.uscourts.cand.238467.16.0.pdf

Thanks for the heads up on that one.

I'm confused about part of their Motion, hopefully somebody can school me.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of California Civil Code section 52.3 should be
dismissed because there is no private right of action to enforce the statute; only the Attorney
General may bring a claim pursuant to the statute. Plaintiffs have cited no authority to support
their conclusion that they can bring a claim pursuant to Section 52.3. Accordingly, Defendants’
motion to dismiss should be granted.

Here's the code:
(a)No governmental authority, or agent of a governmental authority, or person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, shall engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States or by the Constitution or laws of California.

(b)The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the name of the people to obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice of conduct specified in subdivision (a), whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of subdivision (a) has occurred.

Their logic doesn't follow, just because the "Attorney General may" doesn't mean nobody else can. Am I missing something? Is there some sort of precedent supporting their claim that I'm not aware of? Or is this just a hail mary?

Window_Seat
08-02-2011, 4:22 PM
"We deny your right to deny us our denial of your rights?"

:rofl: :laugh:

Erik.

ColdDeadHands1
08-02-2011, 4:31 PM
I'm worried about the outcome of the MTD hearing. The County's reply makes some arguments that may be convincing to a liberal leaning judge.

They really kept coming back to this basic point:
"Even though Plaintiffs have application materials for over 70 holders of concealed-weapons permits, they have pleaded no facts to support their conclusory allegations."

and

"Plaintiffs have couched this action as an equal-protection case but have not alleged facts to support that they are similarly situated to any individual who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon."

Why did "we" (the plaintiffs) not state facts in linking Scocca's good cause to any of the 70 approved GC's that CGF has in their possession?

Glock22Fan
08-02-2011, 5:11 PM
I'm worried about the outcome of the MTD hearing. The County's reply makes some arguments that may be convincing to a liberal leaning judge.

They really kept coming back to this basic point:
"Even though Plaintiffs have application materials for over 70 holders of concealed-weapons permits, they have pleaded no facts to support their conclusory allegations."

and

"Plaintiffs have couched this action as an equal-protection case but have not alleged facts to support that they are similarly situated to any individual who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon."

Why did "we" (the plaintiffs) not state facts in linking Scocca's good cause to any of the 70 approved GC's that CGF has in their possession?

Some of us have been wondering that. Preston handed over a lot of work product that simply hasn't surfaced. Not just Good Causes. Presumably, Kilmer thinks the case will stand without it. I hope he's right.

Paladin
09-03-2011, 9:11 AM
What's the next step in this case and when will it occur? (please skip the lame "two weeks" comments/emoticons)

HowardW56
09-03-2011, 10:23 AM
Some of us have been wondering that. Preston handed over a lot of work product that simply hasn't surfaced. Not just Good Causes. Presumably, Kilmer thinks the case will stand without it. I hope he's right.

That could make for a very interesting deposition....

yellowfin
09-03-2011, 10:37 AM
Some of us have been wondering that. Preston handed over a lot of work product that simply hasn't surfaced. Not just Good Causes. Hasn't surfaced as in it hasn't been employed yet, or the material got lost? Presumably, Kilmer thinks the case will stand without it. I hope he's right.Why take the gamble? Is there a reason not to want to win by 4 touchdowns instead of hoping to skate by on a field goal and no missed extra points?

hoffmang
09-03-2011, 10:48 AM
What's the next step in this case and when will it occur? (please skip the lame "two weeks" comments/emoticons)
We await a judge reassignment per the last order.
Hasn't surfaced as in it hasn't been employed yet, or the material got lost?

Discovery hasn't been opened and Federal Court is simply notice pleading. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure

Once past the MTD and into discovery, much of that will appear (unless they just settle.)

-Gene

ETA: And then all of the GC statements will go up if not sooner.

tabrisnet
09-03-2011, 1:36 PM
Why take the gamble? Is there a reason not to want to win by 4 touchdowns instead of hoping to skate by on a field goal and no missed extra points?

Always questions of factual disputes. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm really just armchair lawyering here (in my car)&hellip;

A) the plaintiff has a lot of material to use against the sheriff.

B) but it's probably not certified. Always dangerous to present claims of malfeasance when it's your word against an elected official or law enforcement (same with a judge or high executive), as the court is normally obligated to grant more weight to them.

C) By holding off on presenting the evidence until it has been provided in formal discovery (or reasonably corroborated by same), we let the sheriff do the work of certification (lying in discovery has it's own circle of hell^W^W^W contempt of court charge).


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.621030,-120.657533

HowardW56
09-04-2011, 6:47 AM
C) By holding off on presenting the evidence until it has been provided in formal discovery (or reasonably corroborated by same), we let the sheriff do the work of certification (lying in discovery has it's own circle of hell^W^W^W contempt of court charge).


;)

In discovery it is dangerous for the defendant to be anything less than absolutely truthful and forthcoming when demands for documents are made...

More so when they believe you may already have some, if not all, of the information....

There is no obligation to disclose the evidence, yet.......

Mr Blu
09-11-2011, 1:40 PM
I'm glad things are moving, at whatever pace they are, but I am a little lost on the "timeline" of events here.

Should the "filing of a suit" be considered step 1 and the verdict be step 10, what step are we at right now with this suit???

I am new, there are a LOT of threads to read involving CCW's and my legal jargon is nonexistent.

If I have broken a forum rule, offended someone or looked plain stupid asking this question, please forgive me.

I'm infantry and thinking isn't one of our best talents.

hoffmang
09-11-2011, 3:55 PM
We figured out why our judge had to leave the case. He's been nominated to become a judge on the DC Circuit Court of appeals. That doesn't leave him a lot of time to try cases as he's likely to be confirmed.

-Gene

hoffmang
09-11-2011, 6:55 PM
HowardW56 correctly points out that I'm mildly incorrect above. Judge Fogel was selected to head the Federal Judicial Center (http://www.uscourts.gov/news/NewsView/11-07-01/Judge_Jeremy_Fogel_Selected_to_Head_Federal_Judici al_Center.aspx#.Tm06AfSY_xY.email) which means he is going to DC for a few years. No appointment by Congress necessary since it was done by the Judiciary itself.

Anyway, that explains the case reassignment.

-Gene

Lex Arma
09-12-2011, 8:51 AM
HowardW56 correctly points out that I'm mildly incorrect above. Judge Fogel was selected to head the Federal Judicial Center (http://www.uscourts.gov/news/NewsView/11-07-01/Judge_Jeremy_Fogel_Selected_to_Head_Federal_Judici al_Center.aspx#.Tm06AfSY_xY.email) which means he is going to DC for a few years. No appointment by Congress necessary since it was done by the Judiciary itself.

Anyway, that explains the case reassignment.

-Gene

Gene's case of mild incorrectness is actaully my bad. I learned of the appointment from a reporter covering the Scocca case and she told me he had been nominated to the DC Circuit by the Obama Administration.

Mr Blu
10-05-2011, 7:41 PM
Are there any new developments in this case????

I do searches for it online and so on, but all I get are 3 month old hits or this page.

HowardW56
10-05-2011, 7:49 PM
Are there any new developments in this case????

I do searches for it online and so on, but all I get are 3 month old hits or this page.

On September 26th the case was finally reassigned to the
Honorable Edward M. Chen in the San Francisco division of the court...

Mr Blu
10-05-2011, 7:51 PM
Thanks.

At least something is going on. I was getting worried that SCC had been pushed the back burner.