PDA

View Full Version : CALGUNS FOUNDATION PREVAILS IN VENTURA CARRY LICENSE RECORDS CASE


Pages : [1] 2

wildhawker
07-05-2011, 4:34 PM
Applications, Outcomes to be Turned Over to CGF

San Carlos, CA (Tuesday, July 5, 2011) – In a victory for gun rights and open government, the Ventura County Superior Court ruled in favor of the Calguns Foundation’s request for access to carry permit application records.

Filed in October of 2010, the case sought to compel the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Bob Brooks to disclose carry license application and denials. This information is used by the Foundation in its ongoing Carry License Sunshine Initiative to publish acceptable “good cause” statements so that other similarly situated individuals can obtain carry permits and to investigate for irregularities.

“We’re obviously very pleased with the outcome of this case,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of the Calguns Foundation. “We look forward to continuing our investigation of Ventura’s carry license program.”

Calling Ventura’s arguments “conjectural,” the decision makes clear that “ [the Foundation’s] interest [in carry licenses] is a legitimate one… neither specious nor overbroad.”

“We hope that other recalcitrant counties are paying attention,” notes Brandon Combs, a director of CGF and leader of the Sunshine Initiative. “The public has a fundamental right to know how its government is functioning.”

Calguns Foundation’s attorney, Mr. Jason Davis of Davis and Associates, said about the decision, "We're not done. We will continue to require that sheriffs follow well-established California law in their maintenance and conduct of carry licensing policy and procedures."

A downloadable copy of the Court’s Statement of Intended Decision may be found at CGF’s downloads library here (https://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/2-ventura.html). More information on Calguns Foundation’s Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative can be found at www.gotcarry.org. For more information on other Second Amendment-related litigation and educational efforts, please visit www.calgunsfoundation.org.

ivanimal
07-05-2011, 4:37 PM
This is great news.

taperxz
07-05-2011, 4:40 PM
WOW! A very important piece of the puzzle. This will help open up the flood gates for those wishing to apply!

Coded-Dude
07-05-2011, 4:40 PM
if you guys need help sifting through the denial pages......just say the word.

Ding126
07-05-2011, 4:42 PM
:King:

:party:

Thanks guys

HK4113
07-05-2011, 4:43 PM
So whats next on the list, LA?

bigcalidave
07-05-2011, 4:43 PM
Great news!

Joe
07-05-2011, 4:44 PM
Great news! I <3 Jason Davis and CGF

Santa Cruz Armory
07-05-2011, 4:45 PM
Great job guys!!

So whats next on the list, LA Santa Cruz?

Fixed it for ya. :)

MKE
07-05-2011, 4:47 PM
Wonder if all the remaining counties who've yet to disclose their CCW records will fall in line and cooperate. LA and SF could be the last hold outs, costing their tax payers unnecessary fees.

Lex Arma
07-05-2011, 4:52 PM
Congrats to Jason, Gene, Brandon and all who helped with this very significant win. You smoked em! :cool:

EBR Works
07-05-2011, 4:54 PM
Excellent news. Congrats CGF and all involved!

:jump:


.
.
.

Paladin
07-05-2011, 4:56 PM
2nd request: What's the deadline for Ventura to file an appeal?

Liberty1
07-05-2011, 4:58 PM
So whats next on the list, LA?

Sue them all, let the judge sort'em out!

wildhawker
07-05-2011, 5:02 PM
Wonder if all the remaining counties who've yet to disclose their CCW records will fall in line and cooperate. LA and SF could be the last hold outs, costing their tax payers unnecessary fees.

SF did disclose their records. LA, however...

Skidmark
07-05-2011, 5:02 PM
Thanks Gene, Brandon, CGF... and everyone involved in this, for all you do.

RKV
07-05-2011, 5:03 PM
Truly delightful reading. Found a judge who could read the black letter law and fairly interpret the relevant case law. As for the sheriff - you just got pwned. Hope you did your best to cover your cronies in the delay. /s Meanwhile it would very interesting to co-relate campaign contributions and CCW permits, paying attention to contributions from relatives, not just the CCW recipients.

thedrickel
07-05-2011, 5:03 PM
Hopefully San Mateo and the rest of the holdouts will now fall in line and produce the docs.

robcoe
07-05-2011, 5:07 PM
Nice, now if only they could get LA county.

hornswaggled
07-05-2011, 5:13 PM
Congrats!

What if all those applications were basically sent into the cylindrical filing cabinet?

1BigPea
07-05-2011, 5:17 PM
Love it! Great job to everyone involved. Hopefully Hutchins in OC is ready for a CalGuns court battle!

HowardW56
07-05-2011, 5:22 PM
Congrats!

What if all those applications were basically sent into the cylindrical filing cabinet?

The sheriff will have a lot of explaining to do...

oaklander
07-05-2011, 5:27 PM
This is way cool. . .

anthonyca
07-05-2011, 5:29 PM
Every time I start to loose hope in our country you guys come through with some big win.:)

Great job.

HowardW56
07-05-2011, 5:31 PM
This is way cool. . .


You bet it is!

craneman
07-05-2011, 5:37 PM
Thanks for all you guys do.

RRangel
07-05-2011, 5:50 PM
Some very good news. It looks like things are moving right along.

GOEX FFF
07-05-2011, 6:01 PM
As i sated in my post on the other thread

GREAT NEWS!!!! WTG CGF!

Congrats to Jason, Gene, Brandon and the rest of CGF!

wildhawker
07-05-2011, 6:23 PM
Let's do keep the comments focused on the issues of and parties to the lawsuit.

Thanks very much for your awesome support and many kind words.

-Brandon

Paladin
07-05-2011, 6:34 PM
Let's do keep the comments focused on the issues of and parties to the lawsuit.

2nd request: What's the deadline for Ventura to file an appeal?

Perhaps asking a 3rd time is a charm. . . .
When is the deadline for Ventura to file an appeal?

oni.dori
07-05-2011, 6:43 PM
Awesome job guys!! Much better news than I was expecting.

Nor-Cal
07-05-2011, 6:58 PM
Great job to everybody involved in this win!

goober
07-05-2011, 7:16 PM
woohoooo!!!
as stated in the other thread, great job & congrats, guys!!!

trashman
07-05-2011, 7:26 PM
Keep up the awesome work!

--Neill

Operator
07-05-2011, 7:46 PM
"recalcitrant"....Bloody hell Brandon that, theres big words for us folks in the central Valley....
Couldn't you just say "Jack ***** counties" ?

Great job to all.

Paladin
07-05-2011, 7:48 PM
WOW! A very important piece of the puzzle. This will help open up the flood gates for those wishing to apply!Moderators, you gave us a "two weeks" smilie.
:twoweeks:

Where's our "chess, not checkers" smilie? Perhaps showing a happy face w/sheriff's star moving a checker while on the other side of the board is a mini-Gene moving a knight? ;)

wildhawker
07-05-2011, 7:52 PM
Where's our "chess, not checkers" smilie? Perhaps showing a happy face w/sheriff's star moving a checker while on the other side of the board is a mini-Gene moving a knight? ;)

I would happily contribute to one of the graphics gurus creating a "chess" emoticon. :43:

goober
07-05-2011, 8:40 PM
go, not chess :D

dantodd
07-05-2011, 9:18 PM
go, not chess :D

Go may well be a more apt analogy for the level of strategic thinking that goes into he CGF plan. Chess and checkers, though, are played on the same board and is a more apt analogy for the differences in strategy.

Briancnelson
07-05-2011, 9:23 PM
Congratulations, that's a big win.

69Mach1
07-05-2011, 9:24 PM
This is great news.

Indeed., Congrats.

dantodd
07-05-2011, 9:40 PM
Really, one of the denied applicants needs to reapply with their stated good cause plus:

Sgt. James Bullington of the Ventura Sheriff's Office has stated under oath that it is the contention of the sheriff's office that my life is in danger because of the release of pages 11 and 13 of my CCW application. These are his words "The public dissemination of pages 11 and 13 of the CCW application and CCW licenses would generate crimes of opportunity that would not otherwise occur. The public dissemination of names combined with detailed CCW good cause statements and locational information would create a list of new possible victims for criminals."

KandyRedCoi
07-05-2011, 9:42 PM
woohoo!!!

wildhawker
07-05-2011, 9:56 PM
An amusing proposal on many levels. :43:

Really, one of the denied applicants needs to reapply with their stated good cause plus:

Sgt. James Bullington of the Ventura Sheriff's Office has stated under oath that it is the contention of the sheriff's office that my life is in danger because of the release of pages 11 and 13 of my CCW application. These are his words "The public dissemination of pages 11 and 13 of the CCW application and CCW licenses would generate crimes of opportunity that would not otherwise occur. The public dissemination of names combined with detailed CCW good cause statements and locational information would create a list of new possible victims for criminals."

peopleofthesun
07-05-2011, 10:05 PM
Great work guys!! Keep it up!

taperxz
07-05-2011, 10:06 PM
Really, one of the denied applicants needs to reapply with their stated good cause plus:

Sgt. James Bullington of the Ventura Sheriff's Office has stated under oath that it is the contention of the sheriff's office that my life is in danger because of the release of pages 11 and 13 of my CCW application. These are his words "The public dissemination of pages 11 and 13 of the CCW application and CCW licenses would generate crimes of opportunity that would not otherwise occur. The public dissemination of names combined with detailed CCW good cause statements and locational information would create a list of new possible victims for criminals."

Interestingly enough, what about the concerns of citizens who applied with similar problems as his and yet still denied? Is it possible that legal precedence can be set for when a denial of a ccw occurs that if the applicant were to be hurt by a perp described in a good cause statement that the Sheriff could be legally liable due to the denial?

morfeeis
07-05-2011, 10:09 PM
W2G guys, one more domino falls into place.....

dantodd
07-05-2011, 10:20 PM
An amusing proposal on many levels. :43:

Well, the sheriff said that in his discretion this information is dangerous so.... Was he having his Sgt. commit perjury or does he really believe the release would create a credible threat? I'm sure it won't be too hard to track down a friendly or two among the denied. There's no petard like your own petard.

choprzrul
07-05-2011, 10:24 PM
Interestingly enough, what about the concerns of citizens who applied with similar problems as his and yet still denied? Is it possible that legal precedence can be set for when a denial of a ccw occurs that if the applicant were to be hurt by a perp described in a good cause statement that the Sheriff could be legally liable due to the denial?

I attempted to explore this type of scenario here (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=447093), but never really got a good answer at what point someone would have standing to bring a civil suit.

.

hoffmang
07-05-2011, 10:26 PM
Well, the sheriff said that in his discretion this information is dangerous so.... Was he having his Sgt. commit perjury or does he really believe the release would create a credible threat? I'm sure it won't be too hard to track down a friendly or two among the denied. There's no petard like your own petard.

:smilielol5:

-Gene

dantodd
07-05-2011, 10:34 PM
Interestingly enough, what about the concerns of citizens who applied with similar problems as his and yet still denied? Is it possible that legal precedence can be set for when a denial of a ccw occurs that if the applicant were to be hurt by a perp described in a good cause statement that the Sheriff could be legally liable due to the denial?

If one is denied with a GC that makes him similarly situated to one or more people who were approved they may well have a Federal Equal Protection case thanks to Guillory v. Gates. If that person was victimized and unable to defend himself due to the equal protection violation I would suspect that damages associated with the attack would also be recoverable. I also believe that if it is an EP case it is possible to pierce immunity.

nagorb
07-05-2011, 10:45 PM
Thanks!

FastFinger
07-05-2011, 11:10 PM
Sweeeeet!

Nice work, very nice work.

Blackhawk556
07-06-2011, 1:05 AM
Thanks CGF, it makes me happy to have automatic donations from my pay check gping to such a good cause.

PANTyRAiD
07-06-2011, 1:32 AM
As a new member who doesn't understand the implications of such a lawsuit, can someone explain to me what this win means exactly, and what benefit this will have on the 2a in CA?

Thanks.

Kharn
07-06-2011, 1:52 AM
If one is denied with a GC that makes him similarly situated to one or more people who were approved they may well have a Federal Equal Protection case thanks to Guillory v. Gates. If that person was victimized and unable to defend himself due to the equal protection violation I would suspect that damages associated with the attack would also be recoverable. I also believe that if it is an EP case it is possible to pierce immunity.Suing the govt over a 3rd party's actions is usually very hard to do.

goober
07-06-2011, 6:17 AM
Well, the sheriff said that in his discretion this information is dangerous so.... Was he having his Sgt. commit perjury or does he really believe the release would create a credible threat? I'm sure it won't be too hard to track down a friendly or two among the denied. There's no petard like your own petard.

and everyone knows, you NEVER go full petard :p

pitchbaby
07-06-2011, 7:37 AM
SF did disclose their records. LA, however...

Did you ever get anything from Placer? Time to "ask"?

Treb5
07-06-2011, 7:47 AM
Great work by all those involved.

socal2310
07-06-2011, 7:54 AM
As a new member who doesn't understand the implications of such a lawsuit, can someone explain to me what this win means exactly, and what benefit this will have on the 2a in CA?

Thanks.

Essentially, under established case law, the sheriff's department must treat all applicants equally. In other words, if my good cause statement is, "My work requires me to travel with large quantities of cash and expensive equipment," or "I am a woman Realtor and the course of my duties sometimes entails me being alone with unknown men in isolated locations," and I am granted a license then every non prohibited person with no "color" who has a similar good cause must be issued a license. We already strongly suspect that the VCSD (along with many other police agencies throughout the state) has not been following the law on this, but without the actual documents with their good cause statements, we didn't have actionable intel. One they release that information, anyone with good cause under their guidelines can tailor their good cause statement to establish eligibility and the sheriff's department must issue.

What we don't know is in precisely what manner, the new sheriff's (Geoff Dean) policy differs with that of Bob Brooks. It clearly has to be somewhat different since at least one person had their approval for a permit withdrawn after Dean took the wheel. It won't be too different since Dean made public statements (preserved by screenshot in many cases) that affirmed that he believed the SO's policies were fair and equitable.

Ryan

Anchors
07-06-2011, 8:22 AM
Sue them all, let the judge sort'em out!

:rofl2:

PANTyRAiD
07-06-2011, 1:07 PM
Essentially, under established case law, the sheriff's department must treat all applicants equally. In other words, if my good cause statement is, "My work requires me to travel with large quantities of cash and expensive equipment," or "I am a woman Realtor and the course of my duties sometimes entails me being alone with unknown men in isolated locations," and I am granted a license then every non prohibited person with no "color" who has a similar good cause must be issued a license. We already strongly suspect that the VCSD (along with many other police agencies throughout the state) has not been following the law on this, but without the actual documents with their good cause statements, we didn't have actionable intel. One they release that information, anyone with good cause under their guidelines can tailor their good cause statement to establish eligibility and the sheriff's department must issue.

What we don't know is in precisely what manner, the new sheriff's (Geoff Dean) policy differs with that of Bob Brooks. It clearly has to be somewhat different since at least one person had their approval for a permit withdrawn after Dean took the wheel. It won't be too different since Dean made public statements (preserved by screenshot in many cases) that affirmed that he believed the SO's policies were fair and equitable.

Ryan

Very cool. Thanks for taking the time to tell me that.

I have another question if you guys dont mind: Is Ventura county the only city that the records have been released in? Or has this lawsuit paved the way for CG foundation to obtain the records for all counties in CA?

I sure hope we don't need to sue each county individually...That would take ages. It sure is a good start though...

huck
07-06-2011, 1:07 PM
Another successful case. Thanks to all.

Why didn't the judge give them a deadline to produce the information? How long can we expect them to stonewall?

huck
07-06-2011, 1:10 PM
Very cool. Thanks for taking the time to tell me that.

I have another question if you guys dont mind: Is Ventura county the only city that the records have been released in? Or has this lawsuit paved the way for CG foundation to obtain the records for all counties in CA?

I sure hope we don't need to sue each county individually...That would take ages. It sure is a good start though...

Some counties have already complied. See this thread:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=367442

wildhawker
07-06-2011, 1:33 PM
Did you ever get anything from Placer? Time to "ask"?

Hang tight. We'll have some news on Initiative investigations ~ July 15.

-Brandon

Mikedril
07-06-2011, 1:41 PM
Another successful case. Thanks to all.

Why didn't the judge give them a deadline to produce the information? How long can we expect them to stonewall?


I believe he gave the county 45 days to produce the documents.

huck
07-06-2011, 1:49 PM
I believe he gave the county 45 days to produce the documents.

You're right. I missed that. Thanks.

IGOTDIRT4U
07-06-2011, 2:58 PM
Love it! Great job to everyone involved. Hopefully Hutchins in OC is ready for a CalGuns court battle!

There's no mystery in OC. Her only arbitrary 'thing' is restrictions. Those don't seem to follow any set pattern, when in fact they should have some standard.

uyoga
07-06-2011, 5:38 PM
From The Ventura County Star - a nice wrireup:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/06/judge-sides-with-gun-rights-group-on-concealed/

huck
07-06-2011, 5:46 PM
From The Ventura County Star - a nice wrireup:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/06/judge-sides-with-gun-rights-group-on-concealed/

Nice article. Thanks.

Someone was asking about this: "The decision will become final unless the county files an appeal within 15 days."

Paladin
07-06-2011, 10:01 PM
Hang tight. We'll have some news on Initiative investigations ~ July 15.

-Brandon

Calendar marked!

Perhaps asking a 3rd time is a charm. . . .
When is the deadline for Ventura to file an appeal?

I guess I'll just keep asking until I get an answer....
Request #4: When is the filing deadline for Ventura if they choose to appeal?

LAWABIDINGCITIZEN
07-06-2011, 10:23 PM
From The Ventura County Star - a nice wrireup:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/06/judge-sides-with-gun-rights-group-on-concealed/

As the prevailing party, Calguns also is entitled to have its legal costs reimbursed by the county, the judge wrote.

I bet this effort was VERY VERY VERY, MEGA MEGA MEGA, EXPENSIVE EXPENSIVE EXPENSIVE!

Come and feel the Pro-2A Joy!

Librarian
07-06-2011, 10:30 PM
Calendar marked!



I guess I'll just keep asking until I get an answer....
Request #4: When is the filing deadline for Ventura if they choose to appeal?

It's in the Ventura paper article, and quoted in post 70, right above the post I'm quoting.

Paladin
07-06-2011, 10:59 PM
It's in the Ventura paper article, and quoted in post 70, right above the post I'm quoting.
Thanks! I was going to read that in the morning. Now I see that, from the date of the judge's preliminary ruling, they have :twoweeks: + 1 day to decide.

Hmm. Wasn't there a post by Brandon somewhere about possible Sunshine Initiative news around July 15th??? ;) :D

eaglemike
07-06-2011, 11:04 PM
Here's an interesting leap of logic.....

The judge says something about the risk (due to release of data) being unproven..... Isn't this an interesting turn on the justification for a CCW denial because the risk isn't real enough?

(boy, those petards gotta hurt)

Paladin
07-06-2011, 11:06 PM
From The Ventura County Star - a nice wrireup:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/06/judge-sides-with-gun-rights-group-on-concealed/

From the article:
County officials argued . . . that redacting the private information as Calguns suggested would cost more than $14,600.

. . .

As the prevailing party, Calguns also is entitled to have its legal costs reimbursed by the county, the judge wrote.

I wonder if the cost of Ventura Co's attorney's (and anyone else involved) time and expenses + the cost of CGF's lawyers' & investigators' time and expenses will exceed $14,600? Kinda makes you think they fought on principle vs pragmatics. Shows the clout a sheriff can have in a county, even in these financially hard times.

Paladin
07-06-2011, 11:08 PM
Here's an interesting leap of logic.....

The judge says something about the risk (due to release of data) being unproven..... Isn't this an interesting turn on the justification for a CCW denial because the risk isn't real enough?

(boy, those petards gotta hurt)
Yeah, Ventura's "Good Cause" for not releasing them was "speculative". LOL! Smack down!

wildhawker
07-06-2011, 11:59 PM
To answer in re time for appeals:

2011 California Rules of Court
Rule 8.104. Time to appeal

(a) Normal time

Unless a statute or rule 8.108 provides otherwise, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of:

(1)60 days after the superior court clerk serves the party filing the notice of appeal with a document entitled "Notice of Entry" of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served;

(2)60 days after the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled "Notice of Entry" of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment, accompanied by proof of service; or

(3)180 days after entry of judgment.

(4)Service under (1) and (2) may be by any method permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure, including electronic service when permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rules 2.250-2.261.

(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2010; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.)

Scarecrow Repair
07-07-2011, 6:50 AM
Thanks! I was going to read that in the morning. Now I see that, from the date of the judge's preliminary ruling, they have :twoweeks: + 1 day to decide.

Ya know ... yer a bit impestuous there sonny. If ya had waited one minute, just a single solitary minute, ya coulda had TWO WEEKS exactly.

Youngsters these days, I tell ya ...

ETA how stupid I am myself. Sorry for the bum joke. If I had had the patience to fully comprehend "from the date of the judge's preliminary ruling", I mighta saved myself a facepalm.

VAReact
07-07-2011, 7:49 AM
$50 inbound to CGF. Great job! I also got inspired to pony up for a CRPA life membership, a fresh donation to the 2A foundation, and an NRA donation. Things are moving along!

HowardW56
07-07-2011, 8:29 AM
$50 inbound to CGF. Great job! I also got inspired to pony up for a CRPA life membership, a fresh donation to the 2A foundation, and an NRA donation. Things are moving along!


I did almost the identical thing last night....

CGF, SAF, and NRA

HowardW56
07-07-2011, 8:32 AM
Hang tight. We'll have some news on Initiative investigations ~ July 15.

-Brandon

Brandon

You know, now that you have made this announcement, some time on the 12th, someone will start asking, when you will release the info...

So you might as well do it now and not make us wait.... :D :D :D :D :D

boxbro
07-07-2011, 8:49 AM
So when is the smackdown gonna happen to L.A. ?

Quser.619
07-07-2011, 9:01 AM
I'm pretty sure they aren't done w/ the No Cal Sheriff yet, After all tears of your closest opponent are sweetest. Though I must admit Watching Bacca squirm will be highly entertaining.

I'm assuming given Peruta that SD is hand's off, so we San Diegians only get to savor others' victories - for now!

huck
07-07-2011, 1:03 PM
I wonder if the cost of Ventura Co's attorney's (and anyone else involved) time and expenses + the cost of CGF's lawyers' & investigators' time and expenses will exceed $14,600? Kinda makes you think they fought on principle vs pragmatics. Shows the clout a sheriff can have in a county, even in these financially hard times.

I doubt if the cost of redacting and preparing those pages ever had anything to do with this. It was just a convenient excuse.

Ledbetter
07-07-2011, 1:30 PM
Will this finally cause something, anything, to happen in Santa Barbara? Is it worth my while to send in more $, cause I haven't heard a word.

All the same, good win and congratulations.

wildhawker
07-07-2011, 1:34 PM
Will this finally cause something, anything, to happen in Santa Barbara? Is it worth my while to send in more $, cause I haven't heard a word.

All the same, good win and congratulations.

Santa Barbara has been available for a while: http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/ccw-initiative/130-santa-barbara.html

In terms of legal action, the strategy dictates which issues with which sheriffs to litigate, and at what time.

Thanks, truly, for your support!

Rhythm of Life
07-07-2011, 1:41 PM
Hell yeah, time to change my address to my parents house. Sure I live in Ventura County ;)

:D

Librarian
07-07-2011, 1:42 PM
Application of this order to Ventura is something that may influence other jurisdictions to release information according to other PRAR events.

May.

That's why there are other courts in CA.

Once the information is in hand, it must be analyzed.

Analyzed information might then be used to suggest further behavioral changes in those places.

Suggestions may be followed by pre-litigation demand letters.

Such letters would nearly certainly be followed by litigation - no idle threats.

The relief requested by the litigation would depend on what problems surface during the analysis of the data.

So, it's
request
>> PRAR
>>>> data or litigation
>>>>>> litigation result
>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>> analysis
>>>>>>>>>>> 'mend your ways' letters
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results or litigation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results of litigation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed behavior

>> FOR EVERY D****D COUNTY <<
until they all get the idea or the State or Federal Courts provide 'guidance' to them.

Obviously, it's cheaper all around if the counties and cities 'get it' sooner than later.

wildhawker
07-07-2011, 2:00 PM
The goal is to quickly get many of the cases into CA appellate courts, where decisions are binding across the entire state (Sheriffs, and PDs).

Where it makes sense or as necessary, we can come back around on 2A claims post-Richards, et al.

Application of this order to Ventura is something that may influence other jurisdictions to release information according to other PRAR events.

May.

That's why there are other courts in CA.

Once the information is in hand, it must be analyzed.

Analyzed information might then be used to suggest further behavioral changes in those places.

Suggestions may be followed by pre-litigation demand letters.

Such letters would nearly certainly be followed by litigation - no idle threats.

The relief requested by the litigation would depend on what problems surface during the analysis of the data.

So, it's
request
>> PRAR
>>>> data or litigation
>>>>>> litigation result
>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>> analysis
>>>>>>>>>>> 'mend your ways' letters
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results or litigation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results of litigation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed behavior

>> FOR EVERY D****D COUNTY <<
until they all get the idea or the State or Federal Courts provide 'guidance' to them.

Obviously, it's cheaper all around if the counties and cities 'get it' sooner than later.

ETA: Your order of operations is correct in the context of "first phase" Initiative actions. Things will start to happen a bit faster now, and with fewer steps; much of the back-end work was done in 2010 and 1Q 2011.

Flying Sig
07-11-2011, 6:43 AM
Great news!!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!

shooter4ever
07-12-2011, 10:29 PM
Awesome job guys! Keep up the pressure.

Connor P Price
07-13-2011, 12:06 AM
Remember that Christmas as a kid when you were able to sneak a peek at the cool new huffy bicycle your parents bought you, but you had to wait another 45 days or so before you could see how it actually felt to ride it?

Yeah, this case reminds me of that Christmas.

oni.dori
07-13-2011, 12:41 AM
Tell me about it Connor. I can almost smell the brand new plastic, and feel the card in my hand.

glbtrottr
07-13-2011, 7:42 AM
So....what about compliance and when?

choprzrul
07-13-2011, 8:07 AM
So....what about compliance and when?

....and don't forget: when is it going to start the landslide to get the rest of the counties in line?

.

GOEX FFF
07-15-2011, 10:25 AM
So according to the Ventura Star,
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/06/judge-sides-with-gun-rights-group-on-concealed/

VC had within 15 days to file an appeal.
The ruling was July 1st. Tomorrow would be their last day...

Anymore news on the County's decision?

Blackhawk556
07-15-2011, 10:51 AM
Is that 15 24Hr days from the 1st or is it 15days from the day?? ;)

wildhawker
07-15-2011, 10:52 AM
Ventura will almost certainly be filing a stipulation and [proposed] order regarding revisions to the intended decision with the Judge today. It's not over just yet.

-Brandon

GOEX FFF
07-15-2011, 11:00 AM
Ventura will almost certainly be filing a stipulation and [proposed] order regarding revisions to the intended decision with the Judge today. It's not over just yet.

-Brandon

Thanks Brandon, for the Update.

blakdawg
07-15-2011, 11:16 AM
Has anyone got a citation for the alleged 15-day appeal deadline? The ordinary rule in an unlimited civil case is 60 days, and I'm not having any luck finding an exception for writs of mandate.

wildhawker
07-15-2011, 11:40 AM
Has anyone got a citation for the alleged 15-day appeal deadline? The ordinary rule in an unlimited civil case is 60 days, and I'm not having any luck finding an exception for writs of mandate.

Ventura had 15 days from July 1 to file with the court an objection to the statement of intended decision. The appeals process is per Rule 8.104 as you say.

blakdawg
07-15-2011, 11:51 AM
Ventura had 15 days from July 1 to file with the court an objection to the statement of intended decision. The appeals process is per Rule 8.104 as you say.

That makes sense, thanks. It's probably asking too much to expect the media to recognize a distinction between asking the trial court to modify its ruling and asking an appellate court to overrule/overturn the trial court.

Kicker0429
07-15-2011, 12:18 PM
Hang tight. We'll have some news on Initiative investigations ~ July 15.

-Brandon

Okay, spill the beans.

Blackhawk556
07-15-2011, 12:23 PM
^^^^^^Yes Brandon, spill the beans already :)

Connor P Price
07-15-2011, 12:26 PM
Ventura will almost certainly be filing a stipulation and [proposed] order regarding revisions to the intended decision with the Judge today. It's not over just yet.

-Brandon

That should be an interesting one. They seem to think its going to take a significant amount of man hours (for a sworn deputy working overtime no less) can they ask for an extension to the time frame that was given? Or only for changes to the substance of the order?

ColdDeadHands1
07-15-2011, 12:27 PM
Brandon & Gene should post up their anniversaries, wife & kids BD's, dentist appointment dates, etc. We are so diligent at keeping track of their commitments they would never miss a thing! :D

Coded-Dude
07-15-2011, 12:33 PM
Brandon & Gene should post up their anniversaries, wife & kids BD's, dentist appointment dates, etc. We are so diligent at keeping track of their commitments they would never miss a thing! :D

can we revive the high cap mag ban thread while we are at it? :chris:

hoffmang
07-15-2011, 8:26 PM
can we revive the high cap mag ban thread while we are at it? :chris:

No. But things progress on that OT front.

We've been working with Ventura to come to agreement on what we need and where we agree and disagree. To the extent any disagreements remain, those will not get in the way of them providing the documents to us, but we did give them a small dose of more time. Just about :twoweeks: more.

-Gene

Someday
07-15-2011, 9:26 PM
Awesome, great work guys!

uyoga
07-16-2011, 6:45 AM
Ventura will almost certainly be filing a stipulation and [proposed] order regarding revisions to the intended decision with the Judge today. It's not over just yet.

-Brandon

Yes, they have. Item 27 on the Docket:

"Stipulation and Order (RE Revisions to Court's Statement of Decision routed to CR 42) received from County of Ventura on 07/15/2011"

Don't yet know what it says. Counsel should have been served with a copy, but I'm guessing it was "late in the day", as usual for this defendant.:chris:

hoffmang
07-16-2011, 9:12 AM
Yes, they have. Item 27 on the Docket:

"Stipulation and Order (RE Revisions to Court's Statement of Decision routed to CR 42) received from County of Ventura on 07/15/2011"

Don't yet know what it says. Counsel should have been served with a copy, but I'm guessing it was "late in the day", as usual for this defendant.:chris:

We're fully aware of the contents of that document, but there was one line that was not final. I don't want to post the pre-final version, but will post the final early next week when we have it back from Ventura.

-Gene

Pyrodyne
07-25-2011, 6:39 PM
:gene:

wildhawker
07-25-2011, 6:41 PM
:gene:

Grab you calendar and mark off 60 days from July 1. Then eat a sandwich and take a brief nap. ;)

-Brandon

atomicwedgy
07-25-2011, 7:01 PM
pardon the requested clarification, but

we wont be seeing the redacted statements now for 60 plus days due to their stipulation?

My application is awaiting the release of this information. Not looking forward to the appeals process, nor waiting another "two months"

wildhawker
07-25-2011, 7:31 PM
pardon the requested clarification, but

we wont be seeing the redacted statements now for 60 plus days due to their stipulation?

My application is awaiting the release of this information. Not looking forward to the appeals process, nor waiting another "two months"

The clock started on July 1. I'm sorry the condition of our jurisprudence is such that you cannot simply apply with self-defense as good cause, but for the time being, you'll have to remain patient. These things take real work and time.

-Brandon

monk
07-25-2011, 7:40 PM
Time to learn some meditation techniques.

blakdawg
07-25-2011, 8:08 PM
pardon the requested clarification, but

we wont be seeing the redacted statements now for 60 plus days due to their stipulation?

My application is awaiting the release of this information. Not looking forward to the appeals process, nor waiting another "two months"

It's possible you won't see the statements for years - if the county appeals, the judge will likely stay his order to release the documents, otherwise the appeal would be meaningless. Then the appeal happens. Then, potentially, a further petition for cert to the CA Supreme Court (the final authority re California's Public Records Act), and Supreme Court level proceedings .. then (worst case) back to the trial court, and more appeals.

If you only have to wait two more months, that'll be pretty good, all things considered.

wildhawker
07-25-2011, 8:22 PM
It's possible you won't see the statements for years - if the county appeals, the judge will likely stay his order to release the documents, otherwise the appeal would be meaningless. Then the appeal happens. Then, potentially, a further petition for cert to the CA Supreme Court (the final authority re California's Public Records Act), and Supreme Court level proceedings .. then (worst case) back to the trial court, and more appeals.

If you only have to wait two more months, that'll be pretty good, all things considered.

It's possible, though not currently expected, that Ventura will appeal the release of the documents. Any substantive issues worth litigating further would likely not center on the records' disclosure, but re-production costs.

monk
07-25-2011, 8:39 PM
We won! As Brandon said, "60 days from July 1"

end of conversation:D

I think you may be short a couple days.

GOEX FFF
07-26-2011, 3:28 AM
How would Ventura get 60 days to appeal, since the ruling states 45 days from the 1st to turn them over?

socal2310
07-26-2011, 6:08 AM
How would Ventura get 60 days to appeal, since the ruling states 45 days from the 1st to turn them over?

Because the Calguns Foundation decided not to contest their request for a fifteen day extension. Probably something along the lines of, "If you give us a little more time, we promise to be good and not appeal."

Ryan

GOEX FFF
07-26-2011, 6:24 AM
Because the Calguns Foundation decided not to contest their request for a fifteen day extension. Probably something along the lines of, "If you give us a little more time, we promise to be good and not appeal."

Ryan


Ahh, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

jdberger
07-26-2011, 2:17 PM
Grab you calendar and mark off 60 days from July 1. Then eat a sandwich and take a brief nap. ;)

-Brandon

August 30

I have a handy little wheel... :D

advocatusdiaboli
07-26-2011, 5:13 PM
Chip, chip, chip away at their obfuscation and denial of rights. Thank you Gene and Brandon et al. A right infringed is no right at all.

kcbrown
07-26-2011, 5:30 PM
It's possible, though not currently expected, that Ventura will appeal the release of the documents. Any substantive issues worth litigating further would likely not center on the records' disclosure, but re-production costs.

What, exactly, is their incentive to not appeal, and at the very last minute as well?

The worst that happens is that they get smacked down again. But that puts them right back where they already are. So no loss to them there.

Don't say anything about the money. They're spending the taxpayers' money, not theirs, so it's no skin off their backs if they lose. And, additionally, they get to complain to the high heavens about how much these eeeeevil pro-gun types are forcing them to spend all this money when they would prefer to spend it on welfare or something.

Sounds like no loss at all to them, and a win to them if they manage to get something extra out of the appeal. Oh, and did I mention that by appealing, they buy themselves additional time to continue in their corrupt ways and additional time to actually comply with the order in the event they lose the appeal?


Such is the way of things when the people involved in government don't have personal financial liability for their actions.

HowardW56
07-26-2011, 5:41 PM
What, exactly, is their incentive to not appeal, and at the very last minute as well?

The worst that happens is that they get smacked down again. But that puts them right back where they already are. So no loss to them there.

Don't say anything about the money. They're spending the taxpayers' money, not theirs, so it's no skin off their backs if they lose. And, additionally, they get to complain to the high heavens about how much these eeeeevil pro-gun types are forcing them to spend all this money when they would prefer to spend it on welfare or something.

Sounds like no loss at all to them, and a win to them if they manage to get something extra out of the appeal. Oh, and did I mention that by appealing, they buy themselves additional time to continue in their corrupt ways and additional time to actually comply with the order in the event they lose the appeal?


Such is the way of things when the people involved in government don't have personal financial liability for their actions.

If they were to appeal... There is the issue of costs, their own and CGF's....

They are already paying both sides costs now...

kcbrown
07-26-2011, 5:59 PM
If they were to appeal... There is the issue of costs, their own and CGF's....

They are already paying both sides costs now...

As I said, money isn't a problem for them. It's not their money. If they lose, they don't have to care, in large part because the amount of money they'd lose as a result of such an action is a pittance compared with the amount of money the city has available to it.

A million dollars is a big pile of money to a municipality like Pleasant Hill. It's pocket change to a high-population-density county like Ventura, which has a revenue stream of about $300 million per year. And the amounts we're talking about with respect to this action are probably nowhere near even that.


And a loss for CGF would hurt CGF much more than a loss for Ventura would hurt Ventura.

wildhawker
07-26-2011, 7:10 PM
Sure it is.

This costs comes from their budget, and local governments can't print their own money. They are all hurting for cash. They would lose, again, on appeal, and then they'll be out $100k+. Where does that come from? Ventura isn't a relatively large county, or Oakland.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/apr/19/officials-project-7-million-gap-for-ventura/

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/22/states-trial-courts-including-ventura-county-7/

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jul/24/sheriff-dean-focuses-on-cutting-costs/

-Brandon

As I said, money isn't a problem for them. It's not their money. If they lose, they don't have to care, in large part because the amount of money they'd lose as a result of such an action is a pittance compared with the amount of money the city has available to it.

A million dollars is a big pile of money to a municipality like Pleasant Hill. It's pocket change to a high-population-density county like Ventura, which has a revenue stream of about $300 million per year. And the amounts we're talking about with respect to this action are probably nowhere near even that.

And a loss for CGF would hurt CGF much more than a loss for Ventura would hurt Ventura.

hoffmang
07-26-2011, 7:41 PM
County Counsel and the sheriff don't wish to have their budgets in the supes' crosshairs. Losing staff sucks for them as that's the only way they measure their professional worth.

Supes will cut funding as an indirect way to get them from doing stupid stuff that makes the budget harder to close (and could get a Supe unelected.)

Politician's and bureaucrats incentives run to employment and budget.

-Gene

wash
07-26-2011, 8:12 PM
As I learned at a Sunnyvale city council meeting, a well run city has essentially two bank accounts that all of their spending comes out of. There is a contingency fund that they try to never tap in to and what Sunnyvale calls a BS Fund (budget stabilization) which they try to keep at a level at least equal to 15% of their annual revenue multiplied by two so that if they strike hard times and revenue declines 15% they can go two years before draining that account and leaving the contingency fund as their only liquid asset.

The council uses the balance of the BS fund as a way to tell if they are spending too much money.

A one time expense like paying legal fees for a firearm lawsuit will come directly out of the BS fund and when it gets below the target level, programs start to get cut, librarians get laid off and even police and firemen get downsized.

Sunnyvale is actually doing well with their budget because the city council is pretty fiscally conservative and took advantage of stimulus funds to do a lot of needed repaving and other inferstructure improvement but they are only maybe 4-5 million dollars away from the target so many less well funded local governments are already below their targets. They will feel the pain immediately.

blakdawg
07-26-2011, 8:37 PM
While the $ stuff is interesting, none of us have much insight into the two biggest factors, IMHO - how much dirty laundry will be revealed when the data is public, and how much the sheriff/county actually cares about the privacy of the applicants.

If there's a lot of dirt - or if they've been issuing to friends & family with "self defense" as GC and will now have to issue to the great unwashed masses on the same GC - they may want to drag out the inevitable if it gets them through another election or to retirement, and let the next guys deal with the fallout.

And if the county supervisors who are in charge of the budget are on the current list of CCW holders, and want to maintain their privileged status . . .

wildhawker
07-26-2011, 9:10 PM
I don't disagree with your analysis, especially as to incentives, except to say that I truly don't think we're going to see that here.

-Brandon

While the $ stuff is interesting, none of us have much insight into the two biggest factors, IMHO - how much dirty laundry will be revealed when the data is public, and how much the sheriff/county actually cares about the privacy of the applicants.

If there's a lot of dirt - or if they've been issuing to friends & family with "self defense" as GC and will now have to issue to the great unwashed masses on the same GC - they may want to drag out the inevitable if it gets them through another election or to retirement, and let the next guys deal with the fallout.

And if the county supervisors who are in charge of the budget are on the current list of CCW holders, and want to maintain their privileged status . . .

kcbrown
07-26-2011, 10:16 PM
County Counsel and the sheriff don't wish to have their budgets in the supes' crosshairs. Losing staff sucks for them as that's the only way they measure their professional worth.


Funny, I thought they measured their professional worth in terms of how many people's rights they manage to violate. :D



Supes will cut funding as an indirect way to get them from doing stupid stuff that makes the budget harder to close (and could get a Supe unelected.)

Politician's and bureaucrats incentives run to employment and budget.


Uh huh. And that fiscal conservatism is so strong in California cities and counties that most of those governments are well in the black.

Oh, wait...



Oakland, to name but one example, passed an ammunition ordinance knowing full well that they'd be sued and would have to pay the costs. That point was, after all, brought up numerous times at the council meeting. And that's the city council, composed of the very same politicians you claim are so amazingly concerned about the fiscal state of affairs and who have direct control over the budget (and thus, presumably, are most susceptible to being kicked out).

And need we mention San Francisco's concealed carry "policy"? Those guys are obviously itching to be taken to court. Again.


Sorry, but the evidence doesn't support you on this. If even city council members in large municipalities are so brazen as to pass anti-gun ordinances with full knowledge that they'll have their a*ses handed to them in court to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, why in the world should anyone believe an anti-gun sheriff's department would be any more concerned about such things when they don't even have direct responsibility for the budget?


The only reason I can see that they wouldn't appeal is if they think there is no chance of winning the appeal and they have "better" things to do with the money. As anti-gun as Ventura county is, I'm not sure how many such "better" things they'd find. I could easily see them appealing it just for the fun of it.

wildhawker
07-26-2011, 10:18 PM
KC, you seem to assume all governmental actors behave identically and with the same motivations. That is incorrect, and Ventura County is not as anti-gun as you assert.

-Brandon

kcbrown
07-26-2011, 11:30 PM
KC, you seem to assume all governmental actors behave identically and with the same motivations. That is incorrect, and Ventura County is not as anti-gun as you assert.


I thought Ventura's unwillingness to issue CCWs to normal people was, itself, prima facie evidence of their anti-gun stance?

But I'll take your word for it that they're not as anti-gun as I think, since you're assuredly in a much better position to assess that than I am.


Gene didn't single out any specific circumstances or set of motivations with respect to Ventura that would make them behave differently than, say, Oakland. Their revenue stream is about $300 million per year (source (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/apr/19/officials-project-7-million-gap-for-ventura/)). Ventura county's population is about 800,000. Oakland's is 400,000. I don't know what Oakland's revenue stream is. I would guess it's similar. From a purely fiscal perspective (which, of course, is vastly oversimplistic), I don't see why one would behave markedly different from the other.

wash
07-26-2011, 11:43 PM
Oakland might be different because their politicians pander to baby mommas and gang members. I don't think Ventura is very similar.

Also you're comparing city politicians to a county sherriff. Even if both are corrupt, they would be corrupt in different ways.

hoffmang
07-27-2011, 12:15 AM
Gene didn't single out any specific circumstances or set of motivations with respect to Ventura that would make them behave differently than, say, Oakland.

In Ventura, the party affiliation of the voting population is almost balanced so the chance of any Supe being unelected remains much higher than in Oakland where corruption and a lack of party balance means incumbents are unthreatened.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/31/gop-might-keep-local-edge-despite-surge-of/?print=1

-Gene

kcbrown
07-27-2011, 3:41 AM
In Ventura, the party affiliation of the voting population is almost balanced so the chance of any Supe being unelected remains much higher than in Oakland where corruption and a lack of party balance means incumbents are unthreatened.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/31/gop-might-keep-local-edge-despite-surge-of/?print=1


Ah, now that makes sense. And the reasoning behind choosing Ventura as a target now suddenly becomes clear. :43:

Thanks Gene!

kcbrown
07-27-2011, 4:02 AM
In Ventura, the party affiliation of the voting population is almost balanced so the chance of any Supe being unelected remains much higher than in Oakland where corruption and a lack of party balance means incumbents are unthreatened.


Given how balanced the voting population is, why is the sheriff there so anti-gun (at least, relative to what one would expect in such a balanced area)?

glbtrottr
07-27-2011, 6:27 AM
So what is the next step on this, and when will it take place?

Mikedril
07-27-2011, 6:50 AM
Given how balanced the voting population is, why is the sheriff there so anti-gun (at least, relative to what one would expect in such a balanced area)?

Most of the LEO in VC have an attitude that they are better than us commoners IMHO.

I see this lawsuit as ammunition for the next sheriff's election! :D

socal2310
07-27-2011, 7:10 AM
Given how balanced the voting population is, why is the sheriff there so anti-gun (at least, relative to what one would expect in such a balanced area)?

It's probably mostly a function of, "That's how it's always been done."

They have a good ole' boys club and those who have the right connections are granted concealed carry permits essentially pro forma. The evidence that they are not anti-gun is that in addition to the aforementioned good ole boys club, they also usually issue to those with a higher than average exposure to targeted stranger on stranger crime (business owners who make cash deposits, real-estate agents among others).

I think they honestly believe things are done the way they ought to be done and they responded predictably to that threat and they really thought they could win (regardless of what council might have said to them about their chances). Recall that sheriffs are virtually untouchable once they achieve office, so their policies have little to do with public preferences (they dissemble with the best on the campaign trail prior to election).

Ryan

wildhawker
07-27-2011, 9:07 AM
Ah, now that makes sense. And the reasoning behind choosing Ventura as a target now suddenly becomes clear. :43:

Thanks Gene!

A factor, but not anywhere near the only.

-Brandon

wildhawker
07-27-2011, 9:09 AM
So what is the next step on this, and when will it take place?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6838756&postcount=114

Pyrodyne
07-27-2011, 7:59 PM
As I said, money isn't a problem for them. It's not their money. If they lose, they don't have to care, in large part because the amount of money they'd lose as a result of such an action is a pittance compared with the amount of money the city has available to it.

A million dollars is a big pile of money to a municipality like Pleasant Hill. It's pocket change to a high-population-density county like Ventura, which has a revenue stream of about $300 million per year. And the amounts we're talking about with respect to this action are probably nowhere near even that.


And a loss for CGF would hurt CGF much more than a loss for Ventura would hurt Ventura.

I suppose with that flush $300 million they could afford to at least dump some fill dirt on the many potholes that are big enough to swallow Cadillacs...

Seriously.

They haven't even paid the company that installed the red light cameras, which gives me a bit of a warm, satisfied feeling. :D

kcbrown
07-27-2011, 8:25 PM
I suppose with that flush $300 million they could afford to at least dump some fill dirt on the many potholes that are big enough to swallow Cadillacs...

Seriously.


Heh.

Well, they can't spare the expenses for doing something useful like that, but to violate the rights of the citizenry? That's different. :D



They haven't even paid the company that installed the red light cameras, which gives me a bit of a warm, satisfied feeling. :D

That is surprising, because that's exactly the sort of thing that warms the cockles of the hearts of those in government...

Remember, to government, 1984 is a blueprint, not a work of fiction...



(Of course, I exaggerate, but not as much as I wish I were...)

uyoga
07-27-2011, 8:40 PM
It is becoming increasingly obvious that Brandon, et al., "know" something the rest of us don't.

I'm willing to limp along with that premise; eat my sandwich, and take my short nap.

Will set my alarm clock for 9/1 and see what that day has brought.

dantodd
07-27-2011, 8:57 PM
Is there a copy of the Stipulation up yet?

wildhawker
07-27-2011, 9:09 PM
Is there a copy of the Stipulation up yet?

I haven't seen it on the website.

Flying Sig
08-04-2011, 4:26 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6838756&postcount=114

Ok, so when I get back from dove hunting, I'll PM you.

1911_sfca
08-04-2011, 6:33 PM
SF did disclose their records. LA, however...

I'm curious to know whether my denial is in the SF records.. How far back do they go? Mine was end of 2004..before I became a peace officer.

jdberger
08-05-2011, 8:43 AM
As I learned at a Sunnyvale city council meeting, a well run city has essentially two bank accounts that all of their spending comes out of. There is a contingency fund that they try to never tap in to and what Sunnyvale calls a BS Fund (budget stabilization) which they try to keep at a level at least equal to 15% of their annual revenue multiplied by two so that if they strike hard times and revenue declines 15% they can go two years before draining that account and leaving the contingency fund as their only liquid asset.

The council uses the balance of the BS fund as a way to tell if they are spending too much money.

A one time expense like paying legal fees for a firearm lawsuit will come directly out of the BS fund and when it gets below the target level, programs start to get cut, librarians get laid off and even police and firemen get downsized.

Sunnyvale is actually doing well with their budget because the city council is pretty fiscally conservative and took advantage of stimulus funds to do a lot of needed repaving and other inferstructure improvement but they are only maybe 4-5 million dollars away from the target so many less well funded local governments are already below their targets. They will feel the pain immediately.

Thanks for this analysis, Wash. Very helpful.

wildhawker
08-05-2011, 9:03 AM
I'm curious to know whether my denial is in the SF records.. How far back do they go? Mine was end of 2004..before I became a peace officer.

SF's records did not reach back that far.

bwiese
08-05-2011, 9:46 AM
Given how balanced the voting population is, why is the sheriff there so anti-gun (at least, relative to what one would expect in such a balanced area)?

Ordinary folks, even fairly conservative folks, vote a "law 'n' order" sheriff.

The gun issue usu doesn't come up., the incumbent stays in if no percieved scandal and crime stays in check. The handpicked successor commonly drops in as the Annointed One and the voters hope the overall situation is maintained.

Even in the most shall-issue counties in CA, CCW applications (issuance?) are at best 1%-2% of the voter base.

wildhawker
08-05-2011, 9:49 AM
Ordinary folks, even fairly conservative folks, vote a "law 'n' order" sheriff.

The gun issue usu doesn't come up., the incumbent stays in if no percieved scandal and crime stays in check. The handpicked successor commonly drops in as the Annointed One and the voters hope the overall situation is maintained.

Even in the most shall-issue counties in CA, CCW applications (issuance?) are at best 1%-2% of the voter base.

Well, FWIW, 2010 data show Tuolumne and Tulare counties are issued to ~4% of population. I'll run the numbers against SOS registered voters for the 2011 CCW audit as it might be interesting to look at.

AlexDD
08-06-2011, 9:56 AM
The issue with Sheriffs is that I believe that they have to be sworn LEOs to run. IIRC this was changed in the last few decades.

I think things would be a lot different or more maleable if the law was changed to allow non-sworn to run.

Sherrifs are one of the few law enforcement positions that are elected. All the local chiefs are appointed and report to a civilian City Manager before anyone says that having a civilian is an issue.

Back east, when the tenured chiefs, yes tenured, were issues they would create a Civilian Director of Public Safety that the chiefs would have to report. This happens rarely, though.

I think it is more of tradition that we are stuck with this process of politically immune sheriffs. I use to think it was a good thing to have an elected sheriff but my opinion has since changed due to the power balance in law enforcement politics. It also focuses all the politics on public safety. An appointed sheriff would need to balance the position of it's elected board.

A bit off topic, and this situation is unlikely to change.

PS. In the old days, before this initiative, I think it is would be doable for the City Manger to get a CCW using that position as justification. FWIW I recall a new article that both the CM and Asst CM had CCWs in Riverside.

GOEX FFF
08-06-2011, 10:01 PM
The issue with Sheriffs is that I believe that they have to be sworn LEOs to run. IIRC this was changed in the last few decades.

I think things would be a lot different or more maleable if the law was changed to allow non-sworn to run.

Sherrifs are one of the few law enforcement positions that are elected. All the local chiefs are appointed and report to a civilian City Manager before anyone says that having a civilian is an issue.

Back east, when the tenured chiefs, yes tenured, were issues they would create a Civilian Director of Public Safety that the chiefs would have to report. This happens rarely, though.

I think it is more of tradition that we are stuck with this process of politically immune sheriffs. I use to think it was a good thing to have an elected sheriff but my opinion has since changed due to the power balance in law enforcement politics. It also focuses all the politics on public safety. An appointed sheriff would need to balance the position of it's elected board.

A bit off topic, and this situation is unlikely to change.

PS. In the old days, before this initiative, I think it is would be doable for the City Manger to get a CCW License to Carry using that position as justification. FWIW I recall a new article that both the CM and Asst CM had CCWs Licenses to Carry in Riverside.

Insightful AlexDD, thanks. :)

And just a little fix. :)

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=463664

boxbro
08-24-2011, 9:15 AM
Grab you calendar and mark off 60 days from July 1. Then eat a sandwich and take a brief nap. ;)

-Brandon

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/wakeup.jpg

:lurk5:

Burbur
08-24-2011, 2:27 PM
Are you up from your nap early?

The countdown is on. Does the CGF have an adequate pool of analysts to go from piles of application files to usable data? If not, where do I sign up?

atomicwedgy
08-24-2011, 8:01 PM
+1 Ill help. 7 days more, a nap and then a quick sandwich

boxbro
08-25-2011, 8:32 AM
Are you up from your nap early?

Yeah, I can only nap for so long.
I figured it's time to wake up, grab some popcorn, and wait for the show to start.

Connor P Price
08-30-2011, 9:07 AM
http://seemslegit.com/_images/ac4b04935d87751566d3d3feffbd429d/3324%20-%20blt%20food%20huge%20sandwich.jpg

Got my sandwich ready. I know I wont see them today, but somebody is getting their mitts on some good cause statements. Probably in USPS hands at the very least. I just can't contain my excitement.

hoffmang
08-30-2011, 12:09 PM
We are less than two weeks.

-Gene

HowardW56
08-30-2011, 1:26 PM
We are less than two weeks.

-Gene

Good thing...

I've had just about all the sandwiches and naps that I can stand....

Connor P Price
08-30-2011, 2:02 PM
We are less than two weeks.

-Gene

Only on CGN is that an incredibly loaded statement.

Good thing...

I've had just about all the sandwiches and naps that I can stand....

You and me both!

RKV
08-30-2011, 4:52 PM
So did the Sheriff ship the (improperly redacted) forms to NY and post them book rate to ensure that Calguns got them as late as possible? Or has an appeal been filed looking to further delay delivery?

HowardW56
08-30-2011, 6:36 PM
The Sheriff couldn't just acknowledge the loss and deliver the documents a week later... He would have looked like a liar with the complaints about the work involved...

Blackhawk556
08-30-2011, 9:04 PM
So on the 1st we will start getting the first batch of good cause statements from Ventura County?

Or can we expect more delays like always?

atomicwedgy
08-30-2011, 9:07 PM
obvious anticipation

thank you all that have contributed time and money to the CGF process. I am just thankful they have chosen my county early

Connor P Price
08-30-2011, 10:32 PM
So did the Sheriff ship the (improperly redacted) forms to NY and post them book rate to ensure that Calguns got them as late as possible? Or has an appeal been filed looking to further delay delivery?

No appeal has been filed. Tomorrow marks the final day of the 60 days that were given, the original 45 plus 15 that CGF graciously agreed to. I suppose an appeal might be permissible tomorrow, but considering the circumstances would be incredibly bad form. File that under "not at all likely."

So on the 1st we will start getting the first batch of good cause statements from Ventura County?

Or can we expect more delays like always?

I believe sunshine initiative volunteers will be going through everything, scanning, uploading and converting to PDF's etc. once they have the paperwork in hand. "Two weeks" can mean a lot of things here, however I have a feeling Gene's above comment was meant to be taken literally.

kcbrown
08-30-2011, 11:55 PM
"Two weeks" can mean a lot of things here, however I have a feeling Gene's above comment was meant to be taken literally.


You never really know with Gene... :chris:

:D

Connor P Price
08-31-2011, 12:08 AM
You never really know with Gene... :chris:

:D

I'm of the mind that you never really know with anyone. I could have sworn I saw an optimistic upbeat reaction to a brief the other day by none other than... you! The times they are a changin. lol, just playin with ya.

hoffmang
08-31-2011, 12:16 AM
Some bits arrived somewhere :D

-Gene

kcbrown
08-31-2011, 12:17 AM
I'm of the mind that you never really know with anyone. I could have sworn I saw an optimistic upbeat reaction to a brief the other day by none other than... you! The times they are a changin. lol, just playin with ya.

LOL! Enjoy it while it lasts.... :D

Gura's briefs are always a pleasure to read, but that one was particularly good, especially the opening sentence. Just pure awesomeness.


I think Gura's at his best when the opposition is at its most antagonistic...

Connor P Price
08-31-2011, 12:49 AM
Some bits arrived somewhere :D

-Gene

Bits or Bytes? :cool2:

E Pluribus Unum
08-31-2011, 1:04 AM
This is the best part:


Petitioner is the prevailing party and is entitled to its statutory costs of suit pursuant to a cost bill.
Petitioner is entitled by statute to its reasonable attorneys fees. These will be determined by noticed motion.


If we start hitting these counties in the pocket book, it will deter other counties from fighting it.

radioburning
08-31-2011, 1:10 AM
love it!

kcbrown
08-31-2011, 1:12 AM
If we start hitting these counties in the pocket book, it will deter other counties from fighting it.

Depends on the counties in question, but generally not. The cost of paying for litigation, even when the cost is paid to the opposition, is trivial compared with the revenue available to the counties.

The only counties that will be deterred by litigation costs are those that are very poor.

Blackhawk556
08-31-2011, 9:49 AM
@@@@Originally Posted by hoffmang Some bits arrived somewhere -Gene...........awesome! Any goodies you want to share with us right now? :)

wildhawker
08-31-2011, 12:23 PM
@@@@Originally Posted by hoffmang Some bits arrived somewhere -Gene...........awesome! Any goodies you want to share with us right now? :)

As soon as the team's finished redacting we'll post at CGF and announce here.

Expect 2 different files: 1) approved GC's under current Sheriff Dean, and 2) approved GC's under former Sheriff Bob Brooks.

-Brandon

ColdDeadHands1
08-31-2011, 12:57 PM
Just curious, why is the CGF doing the redacting? I thought that was the Sheriff's responsibility and one of their primary arguments against releasing the data (would need to work OT, etc).

Regardless, thanks for the effort from the CGF!

socal2310
08-31-2011, 1:07 PM
Just curious, why is the CGF doing the redacting? I thought that was the Sheriff's responsibility and one of their primary arguments against releasing the data (would need to work OT, etc).

Regardless, thanks for the effort from the CGF!

Just a guess, but there were some items that could prove useful in future litigation, but are not particularly needed by applicants (name of spouse...).

Ryan

wildhawker
08-31-2011, 1:16 PM
Just curious, why is the CGF doing the redacting? I thought that was the Sheriff's responsibility and one of their primary arguments against releasing the data (would need to work OT, etc).

Regardless, thanks for the effort from the CGF!

We don't "out" our people. The info from the VCSO has info - beyond the sensitive info they redacted - that we simply do not wish to distribute.

-Brandon

wash
08-31-2011, 1:41 PM
The sheriffs that want to keep us in the dark and continue using LTC issuance as a campaign financing tool are always using the excuse that completing public records requests for LTC applications will expose personal information.

I'm pretty sure that CGF does not like to expose anyone's information and would prefer that LTC applications be made private as soon as LTCs are granted in a shall issue manner.

E Pluribus Unum
08-31-2011, 1:47 PM
Depends on the counties in question, but generally not. The cost of paying for litigation, even when the cost is paid to the opposition, is trivial compared with the revenue available to the counties.

The only counties that will be deterred by litigation costs are those that are very poor.

I think every county is hurting now. Now that the state has sucked up all the local court fines and various fees, county budgets are very tight across the board.

joefreas
08-31-2011, 3:25 PM
As soon as the team's finished redacting we'll post at CGF and announce here.

Expect 2 different files: 1) approved GC's under current Sheriff Dean, and 2) approved GC's under former Sheriff Bob Brooks.

-Brandon

VVVVVVVVEERRRYNICE!!!

kcbrown
08-31-2011, 3:32 PM
I think every county is hurting now. Now that the state has sucked up all the local court fines and various fees, county budgets are very tight across the board.


I don't think you understand the sheer amount of money these counties are pulling in.


Even when people are financially hurting, they'll still spend a few dollars here and a few dollars there, even when they don't strictly need to.

You would agree that a million dollars is an awful lot to pay for litigation costs in a lawsuit, right? To put that in perspective, San Francisco's bill for the gun ban suit they lost was half that.

If an even reasonably populous county (e.g., Ventura, which has a population of around 800,000) loses a million dollar lawsuit, in comparison to their revenue that would be the equivalent of someone who is making $100,000 per year (after taxes) losing just $300.


It really is a pittance from their perspective, and it's money that they didn't even earn. No, the only counties that are going to care about the cost of litigation are the poor, sparsely populated counties. But those are the ones that are generally on the shall-issue bandwagon anyway, so they're not on the radar.


You can't look at the finances of a county from the point of view of an individual. The amounts of money involved seem very high to us, but in relative terms the amounts of money involved in lawsuits are very, very low.

yellowfin
08-31-2011, 3:54 PM
OK, so hit them with something that's appropriately uncomfortable for them. In fact, why haven't we done so already? Isn't that the point of legal action in the first place, to make them not want to do it again?

kcbrown
08-31-2011, 4:40 PM
OK, so hit them with something that's appropriately uncomfortable for them. In fact, why haven't we done so already? Isn't that the point of legal action in the first place, to make them not want to do it again?

Because we don't get to decide how much the judgment is for. The judge does. And he generally sets it based on his own views of what a "large" amount is -- and guess what that is normally based on? Yep: personal experience.

Which is to say, the judges generally make the very same mistakes that others here, who think that municipalities and counties are going to even care about the costs of litigation, do: they think about the money in terms of absolute amounts and compare that with what to them is large, not in terms of amounts that would be large relative to the income and assets of the target of the suit.

Drivedabizness
08-31-2011, 7:21 PM
OK - let me ask a theoretical here.

Despite CGF's willingness to "play nice" County after County keeps up what my old Sr. DI would call "silly-*** games".

The Counties don't care -even if they are finally forced to pay damages or even attorneys fees (hasn't happened yet and won't in the foreseeable future so it's not a factor) they will simply tap their insurance - correct?

Why not make defendants out of the insurance companies that indemnify government entities that a reasonable person knows, or should know, are violating the rights of their citizens? That would, I would think, provide the proper frame of mind - in a hurry.

Window_Seat
08-31-2011, 7:42 PM
Counsel, et al:

This ? might have been asked before, but...

Can GC statements under one Sheriff be used for 14A EP purposes while another Sheriff is in Office?

Erik.

Connor P Price
08-31-2011, 7:47 PM
Counsel, et al:

This ? might have been asked before, but...

Can GC statements under one Sheriff be used for 14A EP purposes while another Sheriff is in Office?

Erik.

I've been curious about that as well. I'm guessing no, but the only way to be sure would be to litigate.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

wildhawker
08-31-2011, 7:57 PM
Counsel, et al:

This ? might have been asked before, but...

Can GC statements under one Sheriff be used for 14A EP purposes while another Sheriff is in Office?

Erik.

I would not at all be inclined to litigate a 14A EP case that turns on the previous sheriff's application of discretion.

-Brandon

ETA: In the instant matter of Ventura, I don't expect you'll find a lack of opportunity to get your application approved...

HowardW56
08-31-2011, 8:01 PM
I would not at all be inclined to litigate a 14A EP case that turns on the previous sheriff's application of discretion.

-Brandon

..

I'm inclined to bet that you won't be faced with that issue......... :eek:

choprzrul
08-31-2011, 8:11 PM
As team CGF travels north from Ventura county, can you stop off @ SLOSD & distribute an attitude adjustment? This whole Ventura thing is making me start to drool.....

.

I would not at all be inclined to litigate a 14A EP case that turns on the previous sheriff's application of discretion.

-Brandon

ETA: In the instant matter of Ventura, I don't expect you'll find a lack of opportunity to get your application approved...

HowardW56
08-31-2011, 8:29 PM
As team CGF travels north from Ventura county, can you stop off @ SLOSD & distribute an attitude adjustment? This whole Ventura thing is making me start to drool.....

.

I'm hoping that they take a while before they head back north...

Los Angeles County is deserving of some attention.....

vintagearms
08-31-2011, 8:33 PM
As soon as the team's finished redacting we'll post at CGF and announce here.

Expect 2 different files: 1) approved GC's under current Sheriff Dean, and 2) approved GC's under former Sheriff Bob Brooks.

-Brandon

Thanx. Waiting...impatiently to file for my CCW.

HowardW56
08-31-2011, 8:36 PM
Thanx. Waiting...impatiently to file for my CCW.


It won't be long now...... :D

Gray Peterson
08-31-2011, 8:42 PM
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa288/Blitzer0101/cats/newLOLcats/Yous_seez.jpg

:willy_nilly:

HowardW56
08-31-2011, 8:45 PM
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa288/Blitzer0101/cats/newLOLcats/Yous_seez.jpg

:willy_nilly:

:shock::online2long::popcorn:


I've seen alot...... :43:

Connor P Price
09-01-2011, 12:50 AM
:shock::online2long::popcorn:


I've seen alot...... :43:

And it is good!

HowardW56
09-01-2011, 3:54 AM
And it is good!

Yup, yup, yup....... :43:

E Pluribus Unum
09-01-2011, 10:19 AM
I don't think you understand the sheer amount of money these counties are pulling in.


Even when people are financially hurting, they'll still spend a few dollars here and a few dollars there, even when they don't strictly need to.

You would agree that a million dollars is an awful lot to pay for litigation costs in a lawsuit, right? To put that in perspective, San Francisco's bill for the gun ban suit they lost was half that.

If an even reasonably populous county (e.g., Ventura, which has a population of around 800,000) loses a million dollar lawsuit, in comparison to their revenue that would be the equivalent of someone who is making $100,000 per year (after taxes) losing just $300.


It really is a pittance from their perspective, and it's money that they didn't even earn. No, the only counties that are going to care about the cost of litigation are the poor, sparsely populated counties. But those are the ones that are generally on the shall-issue bandwagon anyway, so they're not on the radar.


You can't look at the finances of a county from the point of view of an individual. The amounts of money involved seem very high to us, but in relative terms the amounts of money involved in lawsuits are very, very low.

Well, maybe counties should start thinking of it that way. Kern is laying off teachers, and not hiring cops/firemen because they don't have the budget. I assume this is going on in SF and Ventura too. $500,000 could easily pay for a teacher, or a fireman...

Librarian
09-01-2011, 11:36 AM
Well, maybe counties should start thinking of it that way. Kern is laying off teachers, and not hiring cops/firemen because they don't have the budget. I assume this is going on in SF and Ventura too. $500,000 could easily pay for a teacher, or a fireman...

True - but that's a point that has to be made by the voters to the city council or the board of supervisors.

Someone needs to convince the voters that fighting illegal civil-rights battles with their firefighter money is stupid.

The syllogism should go
- gun rights are civil rights **
- opposing civil rights is not a proper duty of government
- our government is highly likely to lose civil rights lawsuits **
- lawsuits are expensive
- lawsuits are, in many cases, avoidable
- laying off firefighters and police while at the same time spending money opposing civil rights in lawsuits that will lose is stupid.

THEREFORE, support civil rights and do not spend money on futile lawsuits that are morally wrong and financially ruinous.

(Or something like that.)

** CGF and others are in the process of making these 'True' for use in the syllogism.

kcbrown
09-01-2011, 12:59 PM
True - but that's a point that has to be made by the voters to the city council or the board of supervisors.

Someone needs to convince the voters that fighting illegal civil-rights battles with their firefighter money is stupid.

The syllogism should go
- gun rights are civil rights **
- opposing civil rights is not a proper duty of government
- our government is highly likely to lose civil rights lawsuits **
- lawsuits are expensive
- lawsuits are, in many cases, avoidable
- laying off firefighters and police while at the same time spending money opposing civil rights in lawsuits that will lose is stupid.

THEREFORE, support civil rights and do not spend money on futile lawsuits that are morally wrong and financially ruinous.

(Or something like that.)

** CGF and others are in the process of making these 'True' for use in the syllogism.

Yep. And until the first two items become clear to the voters, the counties and municipalities will not only continue to fight us in court, they'll use it as an attempt to make us look like the "bad guys" ("Those gun nuts are forcing us to spend money in court that we'd rather use for firemen and teachers, and all because we're trying to make you safer!").

Gray Peterson
09-01-2011, 1:09 PM
Yep. And until the first two items become clear to the voters, the counties and municipalities will not only continue to fight us in court, they'll use it as an attempt to make us look like the "bad guys" ("Those gun nuts are forcing us to spend money in court that we'd rather use for firemen and teachers, and all because we're trying to make you safer!").

The underlined doesn't matter.

Untamed1972
09-01-2011, 1:24 PM
Yep. And until the first two items become clear to the voters, the counties and municipalities will not only continue to fight us in court, they'll use it as an attempt to make us look like the "bad guys" ("Those gun nuts are forcing us to spend money in court that we'd rather use for firemen and teachers, and all because we're trying to make you safer!").

They could try and paint that picture.......but after a couple of losses isn't it quite obvious who the badguy is? It's the guy who the court has to keep telling to cease and desist their violations of civil rights.

Perhaps we need to start painting the picture back:

If the X county Sheriff is willing to violate "this" civil right......which others are next? Is that how you expect your Sheriff to act?

kcbrown
09-01-2011, 1:52 PM
The underlined doesn't matter.

I agree it doesn't matter to the eventual outcome, since the eventual outcome is going to be had through the courts.

It only matters in terms of how long the counties and municipalities continue to fight the legal fights. And even that is going to be limited by the wins we'll be getting through the courts. I fully expect we'll hit those limits before the bigger counties and municipalities stop trying to fight. Frankly, that's probably good for us in the end. Kinda like Chicago. :43:

Overbear
09-01-2011, 2:16 PM
The underlined doesn't matter.

It will in the public eye and in the court of popular opinion. You and a few others here like to pretend that doesn't matter, but it DOES. You turn John Q Public aganst us and we are ****ed.

if the anti's get with the counties/states and spin this as "omg look at the amount of money the gun lobby is costing you taxpayers because they keep sueing the city/county" then we look very bad, and could loose in the big game.

1859sharps
09-01-2011, 2:27 PM
If you correctly explain why you need to go to court to get carry laws fixed and why you need to have carry rights restored, most John Q public will understand. Particularly when the news carries report after report of police/sheriffs cutting their forces.

It's quite right now, but only months ago it was a fairly daily headline up here in NorCal.

Also, pubic opinion is changing. I know someone who when I met her 20 years ago thought guns were evil, didn't want anything to do with them, hated them etc. now she is talking about wanting to buy one. her husband is a little hesitant, but has always been gun friendly, just not really into them.

John Q public just might surprise you. particularly the "younger" generations. And they are the one's that matter as they are coming to "power". Baby boomers are the source of much of our current violations against the 2nd and they are becoming less and less relevant everyday.

Connor P Price
09-01-2011, 2:27 PM
It will in the public eye and in the court of popular opinion. You and a few others here like to pretend that doesn't matter, but it DOES. You turn John Q Public aganst us and we are ****ed.

if the anti's get with the counties/states and spin this as "omg look at the amount of money the gun lobby is costing you taxpayers because they keep sueing the city/county" then we look very bad, and could loose in the big game.

It simply wont go down that way because we will continue to win in the courts. Nobody will believe the expenditures are the fault of the "gun lobby" when the courts continually side with rights rather than with the infringing governments.

hoffmang
09-01-2011, 2:55 PM
We cease to be "gun nuts" when courts rule in our favor.

-Gene

HowardW56
09-01-2011, 3:00 PM
We cease to be "gun nuts" when courts rule in our favor.

-Gene


:King:


:laugh:

kcbrown
09-01-2011, 3:39 PM
We cease to be "gun nuts" when courts rule in our favor.


Courts already have ruled in our favor. Hasn't changed the "gun nuts" dynamic yet.

But yeah, get enough court wins and we may see a change in that regard.


Then again, corporations haven't ceased to be "evil corporations" just because the courts have ruled (e.g., Citizens United) in their favor (Citizens United was decided properly but hasn't changed people's views one whit)...


What will win us the day in the end is the fact that we are, in fact, fighting for the right to live. Winning hearts and minds doesn't happen just through the courts. The civil rights movement won in large part because its proponents managed to convince the next generation of people of the rightness of their cause.

dantodd
09-01-2011, 4:55 PM
Courts already have ruled in our favor. Hasn't changed the "gun nuts" dynamic yet.



You haven't noticed a lessening of the gun nut meme in the general culture? Not more gun shows? Nor, the occasional fair treatment in the press? Maybe guns shown favorably, or at least neutrally, in mainstream tv shows?

kcbrown
09-01-2011, 5:35 PM
You haven't noticed a lessening of the gun nut meme in the general culture? Not more gun shows? Nor, the occasional fair treatment in the press? Maybe guns shown favorably, or at least neutrally, in mainstream tv shows?

Now that you mention it, I guess I have noticed a slight change in the mainstream media. Slight.

But the fact that there's any change at all in the mainstream media says quite a lot.


And note that I'm still perhaps a bit too California-centric. Maybe the changes in the rest of the country are more drastic, but then, most of the rest of the country hasn't been nearly as anti-gun as California to begin with.


The California mainstream media still looks pretty darned anti-gun to me, even if it has softened slightly...

wildhawker
09-01-2011, 5:41 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_crhrcLnqk40/S7uMYtmr-jI/AAAAAAAAAGI/91RehkzUvNM/s1600/ist2_5342490-glass-is-half-full.jpg

bsim
09-01-2011, 5:43 PM
^^ as a consultant, I say you have twice the amount of glass that you need.

kcbrown
09-01-2011, 5:46 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_crhrcLnqk40/S7uMYtmr-jI/AAAAAAAAAGI/91RehkzUvNM/s1600/ist2_5342490-glass-is-half-full.jpg

That glass is half-full linearly, but less than half-full by volume. :D

Connor P Price
09-01-2011, 6:19 PM
That glass is half-full linearly, but less than half-full by volume. :D

Haha! Signature kcbrown.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

wildhawker
09-01-2011, 6:23 PM
That glass is half-full linearly, but less than half-full by volume. :D

I ****ing knew you were going to do that! Actually thought about using another photo because of it.

:chris:

-Brandon

kcbrown
09-01-2011, 6:26 PM
I ****ing knew you were going to do that! Actually thought about using another photo because of it.

:chris:

-Brandon

:rofl2:

hoffmang
09-01-2011, 6:42 PM
Let me try this again for the criminally pessimistic.

When we filed this suit in Ventura people thought we were gun nuts. As such, it was somewhat easy for the government to push back on us. When we won, the media painted the other side as looney to have opposed us.

Politicians don't like being painted dumb in the media. Politician's (who may be county counsel or advised by same) don't like losing in the media. Ignore the cash - but the cash helps, because it adds more politics to the situation. Counsel or Sheriff has to explain to BoS why he wasted the money come budget time.

-Gene

trashman
09-01-2011, 7:05 PM
Now that you mention it, I guess I have noticed a slight change in the mainstream media. Slight.

But the fact that there's any change at all in the mainstream media says quite a lot.

[...]

The California mainstream media still looks pretty darned anti-gun to me, even if it has softened slightly...

I think you've conflated "mainstream national media" with "local media outlets in california".

See - thing is, even in this day and age (probably more precisely, especially in this day and age with) local news media outlets have to compete with Facebook, Gawker, Egotastic, etc., in order to grab eyeballs for advertising and market share.

And they do it the same way they've done it for at least three decades: by starting the lead-in to every commercial break with "WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT [insert subject] COULD KILL YOUR FAMILY!!"

Anything -- ANYTHING gun-related is only gonna get played one way in a California local news media outlet. It has nothing to do with subject matter accuracy any more than "playing for the love the game" has to do with baseball players who toil in AA-ball just for a chance to play in Major League Baseball.

In both cases the "talent" is just treading water until they get called up to the Majors -- nobody has ambition to work at a local news outlet any more than any player has ambition to just work in AA ball.

At least in baseball there is an incentive to excel (performance statistics are meticulously tracked and analyzed).

So, from my perspective, any effort you invest in analyzing local news media treatment of guns is just wasted. It's a trailing indicator of public opinion.

--Neill

choprzrul
09-01-2011, 7:46 PM
Social media, forums, news articles, email sigs, you name it; we must ALL begin to finish our electronic communications with this:

Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights


It must become our tag line. It must begin to start to sink in to the psychy of all Americans. We have the high ground. We must stand up and proclaim it.

.

HowardW56
09-01-2011, 7:50 PM
criminally pessimistic

-Gene


:rofl2:

Rafale
09-01-2011, 8:13 PM
good news and congrats!

RiverRunner
09-01-2011, 8:25 PM
First off, thanks for the hard work on this.:cheers2: I have a question--how are the applications to be made public being accounted for? In other words, how do we make sure that certain applications with inconvenient GC statements aren't "lost"? Are the applications serially numbered in some way that makes it obvious when one is missing?

I realize that this is under a court order, but when it comes to trusting government officials...I like the "trust but verify" approach. :)

dantodd
09-01-2011, 8:28 PM
the cash helps, because it adds more politics to the situation. Counsel or Sheriff has to explain to BoS why he wasted the money come budget time.

-Gene

Maybe the Ventura Sheriff will think twice about ignoring the next CGF letter/PRA.

hoffmang
09-01-2011, 8:48 PM
In other words, how do we make sure that certain applications with inconvenient GC statements aren't "lost"?

We compare counts to what is reported to CA DOJ. If they issue a license and don't report it to CA DOJ, the holder will come up as not having a license when a LEO runs the license.

And in this case, there are plenty of amusing GCs.

-Gene

kcbrown
09-01-2011, 8:55 PM
Let me try this again for the criminally pessimistic.


:rofl2:


Who? Moi?

:D




When we filed this suit in Ventura people thought we were gun nuts. As such, it was somewhat easy for the government to push back on us. When we won, the media painted the other side as looney to have opposed us.


That was fast. Which media? The local media in Ventura County?

Why does the media preferentially side with the courts instead of with their own agenda?



Politicians don't like being painted dumb in the media. Politician's (who may be county counsel or advised by same) don't like losing in the media. Ignore the cash - but the cash helps, because it adds more politics to the situation. Counsel or Sheriff has to explain to BoS why he wasted the money come budget time.


No question that the cash helps. Not saying it doesn't. Only saying that it's not going to be the primary thing that pushes these counties and municipalities over the edge onto our side, because by itself it's merely a minor inconvenience. The effects in the media and on people's perceptions are of much greater importance.


But what I like most about this whole thing is that the more they resist, the better our position gets! See Chicago for a great example of that. If that dynamic doesn't apply here, I'd like to know why not.

Mikedril
09-01-2011, 9:12 PM
Let me try this again for the criminally pessimistic.

When we filed this suit in Ventura people thought we were gun nuts. As such, it was somewhat easy for the government to push back on us. When we won, the media painted the other side as looney to have opposed us.

Politicians don't like being painted dumb in the media. Politician's (who may be county counsel or advised by same) don't like losing in the media. Ignore the cash - but the cash helps, because it adds more politics to the situation. Counsel or Sheriff has to explain to BoS why he wasted the money come budget time.

-Gene

As I stated a month or so ago, "I see this as ammunition for the next Sheriff election" It's up to Sheriff Dean's reaction to this weather the ballot weapon is aimed in his direction or not!!!

hoffmang
09-01-2011, 9:15 PM
Why does the media preferentially side with the courts instead of with their own agenda?

The public trusts the courts more than the media and the media is aware of that.

-Gene

kcbrown
09-01-2011, 9:45 PM
The public trusts the courts more than the media and the media is aware of that.


Now that is something I wasn't aware of.

And it changes everything. Everything.


Because now, suddenly, the fight in the courts is the only fight there really is. The rest is just a sideshow (or is enabled as a consequence thereof), at least as regards changing hearts and minds.


Thanks, Gene, that puts a lot of things into a brand new, and unexpected, perspective.

E Pluribus Unum
09-01-2011, 10:50 PM
We cease to be "gun nuts" when courts rule in our favor.

-Gene

That is true generally... but this is not necessarily a "win" per se in that it only helps you argue the cases to come with cold hard facts.

Having a court rule that you have a right to see the information is a far cry from having a court rule that the "good cause" clause is unconstitutional...

This is a war of inches, I understand that, but the two are different. :)

I would say that we cease to be "gun nuts" when a court rules on the latter, and not the former.

Blackhawk556
09-01-2011, 10:50 PM
We compare counts to what is reported to CA DOJ. If they issue a license and don't report it to CA DOJ, the holder will come up as not having a license when a LEO runs the license.

And in this case, there are plenty of amusing GCs.

-Gene

:willy_nilly:I can't wait anymore

kcbrown
09-01-2011, 11:21 PM
Now that is something I wasn't aware of.

And it changes everything. Everything.


Because now, suddenly, the fight in the courts is the only fight there really is. The rest is just a sideshow (or is enabled as a consequence thereof), at least as regards changing hearts and minds.


Thanks, Gene, that puts a lot of things into a brand new, and unexpected, perspective.

I do have one question, though, related to the above:

Was there the sea change in San Francisco's media stance after we won the gun ban lawsuit there? If not, doesn't that cast doubt on the reasoning I responded to above?

dantodd
09-02-2011, 12:33 AM
I do have one question, though, related to the above:

Was there the sea change in San Francisco's media stance after we won the gun ban lawsuit there? If not, doesn't that cast doubt on the reasoning I responded to above?

San Francisco Media is a tough nut to crack. It's like turning the Bradys.

But this quote about the Sacramento and El Dorado county sheriff's races was interesting;
In both counties, elections for sheriff were dominated by the weapons permit issue. Critics of concealed weapon permits were scarce.


This is from the Sacramento Bee taken from this thread: http://mobile.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=473497

kcbrown
09-02-2011, 3:27 AM
San Francisco Media is a tough nut to crack. It's like turning the Bradys.


Well, if San Francisco is so tough to crack, then why should we expect any less of Los Angeles, or Orange County, or Oakland, or San Jose, or any other highly populated area?

Sacramento is already "in the bag" with their shall-issue LTC policy, so there's no real action to be had there. I admit, though, that it is a bit surprising to me that we won there so easily. I don't understand the dynamics of that area to know exactly why we did.


San Francisco is an existence proof that Gene's assertion isn't entirely accurate, and I'd wager that, generally, the more highly populated the anti-gun area, the tougher the media will be to sway to our side through court wins (and possibly through other means as well). Worse, the more highly populated the anti-gun area, the more important the area will be in terms of winning hearts and minds, because popularity determines political outcomes.

So the most important areas to win are also the hardest to win according to the above model.


And, therefore, my original comments stand (ETA: most especially the bit about the most populous areas laughing the hardest at the notion that fighting RKBA lawsuits will somehow be "financially ruinous" to them, since the above means that not only will the cost of fighting be insignificant relative to their revenue stream, but it'll also be the least significant in terms of the effects on the views of the population).


How disappointing... :(


Unless, of course, you guys can cite some other reason the media in highly-populated anti-gun strongholds would magically be swayed to our side by court wins... :D

GOEX FFF
09-02-2011, 7:26 AM
We cease to be "gun nuts" when courts rule in our favor.

-Gene

But.....but...we're all so cute. ;)

http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/gun_nut.jpg

http://images4.cafepress.com/image/7707374_125x125.png

http://th08.deviantart.net/fs71/150/i/2010/007/f/7/Gun_Nut_by_Painkilla2.jpg

boxbro
09-02-2011, 9:42 AM
And in this case, there are plenty of amusing GCs.

Damn you Gene, I've got blue balls here.

HowardW56
09-02-2011, 9:45 AM
Damn you Gene, I've got blue balls here.

Here, I'll help you (Or make it worse) :p

Yes they are very interesting.....

boxbro
09-02-2011, 10:03 AM
Here, I'll help you (Or make it worse) :p

:smilielol5:

Yes they are very interesting.....

The BB's or the GC's ?

HowardW56
09-02-2011, 10:07 AM
:smilielol5:



The BB's or the GC's ?


GC's are interesting....... :shock:

YOUR BB issue is entertaining....:laugh:

newbee1111
09-02-2011, 10:23 AM
Well, if San Francisco is so tough to crack, then why should we expect any less of Los Angeles, or Orange County, or Oakland, or San Jose, or any other highly populated area?



It seems like the government in San Francisco and LEOs in San Francisco are opposed to guns and carry permits as a matter of principle. Almost nobody gets a carry permit.

In Los Angeles and Orange County its not nearly as politicized. Carry permits are obtainable, if you are big campaign donor or are a celebrity. Its not any more fair than San Francisco but the permits are treated as political currency rather than licenses to commit mayhem issued by the devil. As far as I know there has been no attempt to put something like Prop H on the ballot in LA or Orange country, there wouldn't be the support for it.

kcbrown
09-02-2011, 1:34 PM
Man, I really suck at politics. I keep trying to apply a demographic approach to it and that apparently doesn't work at all. I think I'll stop trying to do any kind of meaningful analysis of it, because I apparently don't understand it at all...

Thanks, newbee1111, for the explanation. That makes sense in terms of how we'd get substantially different outcomes between the regions, but unfortunately it doesn't tell me why SF and LA are so different (I wouldn't expect them to be, but apparently they are), especially since LA is the heart of the film industry (which I always thought was ultra-socialist, no?).

kcbrown
09-02-2011, 1:41 PM
And, of course, all the previous raises another question: what's it going to take to knock over San Francisco, to win the hearts and minds of the entire SF bay area, which represents a significant population area?

curtisfong
09-02-2011, 1:44 PM
LA is the heart of the film industry (which I always thought was ultra-socialist, no?).

Ridiculous. The film industry is like any other huge industry. They are ultra-capitalist and buy politicians whenever possible if the ROI is right.

NEVER confuse actors for the real movers. They're "royalty". Facades. fakes, and phonies for the stupid masses that run interference for the people who actually run the show.

kcbrown
09-02-2011, 1:49 PM
Ridiculous. The film industry is like any other huge industry. They are ultra-capitalist and buy politicians whenever possible if the ROI is right.

NEVER confuse actors for the real movers. They're "royalty". Facades. fakes, and phonies for the stupid masses that run interference for the people who actually run the show.

See? Told you I suck at politics. :D