PDA

View Full Version : CGF Carry Strategy


hoffmang
08-21-2011, 9:48 PM
As I read around the web, I see a lot of confusion and lack of understanding about what CGF is up to to clean up and sanitize carrying a firearm in urban California.

I want to outline the strategy a bit as there have been enough public revelations to make it easy to help outline what's going on.

The way we see the carry problem here is that there are big issues and little issues that can be resolved both before and after a SCOTUS carry case.

Big Issue
The big issues are the Good Cause and Good Moral Character requirements of California law. Also, we're taking the narrowest and strongest view of carry which is that it will be heavily influenced by governments' ability to place time place and manner restrictions on it so long as loaded carry of some sort is allowed all to all non prohibiteds. That's why we filed Sykes which became Richards v. Prieto. That's also why SAF also filed, Palmer v. DC, Bateman v. Perdue (NC), Higtower v. Boston, Muller v. Maenza (NJ), Woolard v. Sheridan (MD), and Moore v. Madigan (IL). The whole point was to get SCOTUS to confirm there is a right to carry and may issue/discretionary laws are a prior restraint on the right to carry. Williams and Masciandaro are criminal actions that moved faster and may get us a SCOTUS carry case faster. We are currently cautiously optimistic that we'll get a a carry case decision from SCOTUS by 6/30/2012, but we're pretty confident that if that date isn't hit, it would certainly be complete by 6/30/2013.

Pre SCOTUS Clean Up - The Sunshine Initiative

1. The clean up of California can start now - even before we win the big issue. Amongst the things that need to be fixed are Sheriffs with no policy, Sheriffs who force you to waste money by (having insurance, getting a doctor's note, making you apply to a PD who will absolutely turn you down first, etc.) This effort can be seen by SF Sheriff's Office finally issuing a (bad) policy and is exemplified by Rossow v. Merced.

2. Also, some sheriffs tend to be far more lenient on good cause statements from people they "know" for whatever reason. As such we can force a lot of sheriffs to head toward shall issue now (while we wait on SCOTUS) with cases like Scocca in Santa Clara that rely on Guillory v. Gates. This was why we sued Ventura for not disclosing their good cause statements.

3. Further, non California residents really have no way to carry in California. That's why we filed Peterson v. Denver County Sheriff of the Week. We can prove the issue in the 10th Circuit (and get Californian's the ability to carry in Denver) and then re-import that decision.

4. California's license is pretty darn clean. Even 18 year olds can get it. However, we're watching NRA's handgun purchase and carry cases in Texas because we'll want to import those wins here too.

All of this means that, while we wait, more people get permits, more counties get closer to shall issue, and when SCOTUS hits, we can quickly remove all the silly roadblocks to getting permits once they're clearly our right - in many cases because we already have removed unlawful procedures in most of the California counties.

Post SCOTUS clean up.

1. Hold outs. We'll have a few. However, we should have fresh case law to prove that much of what they do is unlawful. Add that to the Ezell standard that denial of 2A rights is irreparable harm and we'll choose one or two counties to make examples of with TROs and PIs.

2. Too slow. Some counties will move too slowly - or are already too slow. Part of the plan with point 1, is to address that. Some time is allowed to complete the background checks, but after the initial crush of applicants 30-60 days is more than enough to process licenses.

3. Too expensive. Many gun owners can't afford the license. Government is going to have to make accommodations for them. Our initial license is expensive. It's ongoing maintenance is actually pretty cheap.

4. Other stuff. Psych evals will be killed by inference from a SCOTUS decision but we may have to pick on some issuer. More 42 USC 1988 fees for the attorneys!

A couple additional notes.

1. Licensed carry may be the bare minimum. Just as those of us closely watching Heller got a lot wider decision than we were expecting around carry, who knows how wide SCOTUS' carry decision will be. We're asking for the narrowest that gives us a real right because it's prudent. If we get more on the first bite, well... Things above may be stated too conservatively.

2. CGF has focused on Sheriffs because they can't weasel out like a PD can/could. However, that means in the future (and even now) sometimes the PD you live in could be a better option. We expect competition based on customer service between sheriffs and PD's to pop up after SCOTUS. That's the flip side of our relatively expensive initial permit - it's a decent revenue source for cash strapped agencies.

I'm sure there is something I've forgotten, but I hope this clarifies what we're up to a bit. There is nothing truly proprietary here - it's just the best way to go about making life easy for CA gun owners who want to carry a firearm. There are a couple of additional items/clean ups that I've not talked about as we need to hold those back until we file them, but suffice it to say that there is a plan and that it should be relatively easy for all who want to carry - hopefully starting July 4, 2012.

I expect the biggest problem to be the lines. I can already tell you that BoF is impressed at what we've done in a couple of counties already based on their "carry applications pending" stats.

You can read all the cases referenced above from the Litigation wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present).

-Gene

freonr22
08-21-2011, 10:00 PM
Tireless tenacity. My little daughters thank your efforts and diligence

Andy Taylor
08-21-2011, 10:02 PM
Gene, thanks again for all your work on this. Also thanks to all the others (to numerous to name, and I'm sure that I would miss some if I tried) who spend their time and money toward our cause. :)

Tarn_Helm
08-21-2011, 10:03 PM
As I read around the web, I see a lot of confusion and lack of understanding about what CGF is up to to clean up and sanitize carrying a firearm in urban California.

I want to outline the strategy a bit as there have been enough public revelations to make it easy to help outline what's going on.

The way we see the carry problem here is that there are big issues and little issues that can be resolved both before and after a SCOTUS carry case.

Big Issue
The big issues are the Good Cause and Good Moral Character requirements of California law. Also, we're taking the narrowest and strongest view of carry which is that it will be heavily influenced by governments' ability to place time place and manner restrictions on it so long as loaded carry of some sort is allowed all to all non prohibiteds. That's why we filed Sykes which became Richards v. Prieto. That's also why SAF also filed, Palmer v. DC, Bateman v. Perdue (NC), Higtower v. Boston, Muller v. Maenza (NJ), Woolard v. Sheridan (MD), and Moore v. Madigan (IL). The whole point was to get SCOTUS to confirm there is a right to carry and may issue/discretionary laws are a prior restraint on the right to carry. Williams and Masciandaro are criminal actions that moved faster and may get us a SCOTUS carry case faster. We are currently cautiously optimistic that we'll get a a carry case decision from SCOTUS by 6/30/2012, but we're pretty confident that if that date isn't hit, it would certainly be complete by 6/30/2013.

Pre SCOTUS Clean Up - The Sunshine Initiative

1. The clean up of California can start now - even before we win the big issue. Amongst the things that need to be fixed are Sheriffs with no policy, Sheriffs who force you to waste money by (having insurance, getting a doctor's note, making you apply to a PD who will absolutely turn you down first, etc.) This effort can be seen by SF Sheriff's Office finally issuing a (bad) policy and is exemplified by Rossow v. Merced.

2. Also, some sheriffs tend to be far more lenient on good cause statements from people they "know" for whatever reason. As such we can force a lot of sheriffs to head toward shall issue now (while we wait on SCOTUS) with cases like Scocca in Santa Clara that rely on Guillory v. Gates. This was why we sued Ventura for not disclosing their good cause statements.

3. Further, non California residents really have no way to carry in California. That's why we filed Peterson v. Denver County Sheriff of the Week. We can prove the issue in the 10th Circuit (and get Californian's the ability to carry in Denver) and then re-import that decision.

4. California's license is pretty darn clean. Even 18 year olds can get it. However, we're watching NRA's handgun purchase and carry cases in Texas because we'll want to import those wins here too.

All of this means that, while we wait, more people get permits, more counties get closer to shall issue, and when SCOTUS hits, we can quickly remove all the silly roadblocks to getting permits once they're clearly our right - in many cases because we already have removed unlawful procedures in most of the California counties.

Post SCOTUS clean up.

1. Hold outs. We'll have a few. However, we should have fresh case law to prove that much of what they do is unlawful. Add that to the Ezell standard that denial of 2A rights is irreparable harm and we'll choose one or two counties to make examples of with TROs and PIs.

2. Too slow. Some counties will move too slowly - or are already too slow. Part of the plan with point 1, is to address that. Some time is allowed to complete the background checks, but after the initial crush of applicants 30-60 days is more than enough to process licenses.

3. Too expensive. Many gun owners can't afford the license. Government is going to have to make accommodations for them. Our initial license is expensive. It's ongoing maintenance is actually pretty cheap.

4. Other stuff. Psych evals will be killed by inference from a SCOTUS decision but we may have to pick on some issuer. More 42 USC 1988 fees for the attorneys!

A couple additional notes.

1. Licensed carry may be the bare minimum. Just as those of us closely watching Heller got a lot wider decision than we were expecting around carry, who knows how wide SCOTUS' carry decision will be. We're asking for the narrowest that gives us a real right because it's prudent. If we get more on the first bite, well... Things above may be stated too conservatively.

2. CGF has focused on Sheriffs because they can't weasel out like a PD can/could. However, that means in the future (and even now) sometimes the PD you live in could be a better option. We expect competition based on customer service between sheriffs and PD's to pop up after SCOTUS. That's the flip side of our relatively expensive initial permit - it's a decent revenue source for cash strapped agencies.

I'm sure there is something I've forgotten, but I hope this clarifies what we're up to a bit. There is nothing truly proprietary here - it's just the best way to go about making life easy for CA gun owners who want to carry a firearm. There are a couple of additional items/clean ups that I've not talked about as we need to hold those back until we file them, but suffice it to say that there is a plan and that it should be relatively easy for all who want to carry - hopefully starting July 4, 2012.

I expect the biggest problem to be the lines. I can already tell you that BoF is impressed at what we've done in a couple of counties already based on their "carry applications pending" stats.

You can read all the cases referenced above from the Litigation wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present).-Gene

What does the acronym "BoF" stand for?

And thank you!
;)

Flopper
08-21-2011, 10:05 PM
:punk:

wildhawker
08-21-2011, 10:08 PM
What does the acronym "BoF" stand for?

And thank you!
;)

California Dept. of Justice Bureau of Firearms.

-Brandon

quick draw mcgraw
08-21-2011, 10:08 PM
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Thanks for the summary Gene!!

Andric
08-21-2011, 10:13 PM
Getting off my *** and donating.

ke6guj
08-21-2011, 10:14 PM
What does the acronym "BoF" stand for?

And thank you!
;)Bureau of Firearms
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/index.php

Nor-Cal
08-21-2011, 10:28 PM
Keep up the great work CGF, all the hard work from every body at CGF is appreciated!:thumbsup:

monk
08-21-2011, 10:29 PM
Hope not to derail this thread but could someone explain to me why psych evals are bad? It seems to me that, at least a very basic eval would prevent, at least in small part, psychos from owning firearms. Is that out of line? I understand it's not within the purview of the 2nd amendment but it just seems like something we wont ever be able to kill in CA. Especially with people like the Virginia tech guy, etc. I'll take a PM if it's best.

Anyway, thanks for the work put in. I'm sure that, eventually, I'll have my right to carry. Time for a couple sandwiches.

hoffmang
08-21-2011, 10:38 PM
Hope not to derail this thread but could someone explain to me why psych evals are bad? It seems to me that, at least a very basic eval would prevent, at least in small part, psychos from owning firearms. Is that out of line? I understand it's not within the purview of the 2nd amendment but it just seems like something we wont ever be able to kill in CA. Especially with people like the Virginia tech guy, etc. I'll take a PM if it's best.


The $150 psych eval here isn't objective. The way to take away someone's right to keep or carry is for him to be adjudicated (by a judge and probably a jury) that he's a danger to himself or others.

The psych eval considered here is something usually used by LEA's to review potential peace officers to see if they're of the "right" temperament. That may very well make sense when we're going to give folks the right to intercede in society with force. However, one shouldn't lose your right to self defense simply because you might be a bit hot headed - not crazy.

-Gene

obeygiant
08-21-2011, 10:44 PM
Tireless tenacity. My little daughters thank your efforts and diligence

Couldn't have said it better myself.

oaklander
08-21-2011, 10:57 PM
The $150 psych eval here isn't objective. The way to take away someone's right to keep or carry is for him to be adjudicated (by a judge and probably a jury) that he's a danger to himself or others.

The psych eval considered here is something usually used by LEA's to review potential peace officers to see if they're of the "right" temperament. That may very well make sense when we're going to give folks the right to intercede in society with force. However, one shouldn't lose your right to self defense simply because you might be a bit hot headed - not crazy.

-Gene

YES! - also THREE other issues:

1) Evals can be "gamed" easily by truly "bad people." That means that they are not actually that effective. Think about how easy it is for a good con artists to fool people. . .

2) Evals reek to me of "poll tax" - what this means is that the whole eval process can be used to monetarily discourage people who do not have a lot of money from getting a permit.

3) Evals are very much dependent on understanding spoken and/or written ENGLISH. A right should not depend on how fluent you are in a given language. NOW - before people get all wierd about this, please let me remind you that MANY good people, who were born here, and who have had families living here for generations, simply can't read and write that well. Or speak well for that matter. My grandfather was at least "10th generation" in Georgia - I have ancestors who fought in the Civil War, I know their names, and I have a tintype of one them (his nickname was "TNT" BTW). Point is my grandfather likely would have had trouble with any sort of "test" like that. He was very sane, just not good at standard English.

My personal opinion is that a "permit" should be like any permit. Just fill out the form, and get the permit, as long as you are not convicted of VIOLENT FELONIES, or felonies that involve a lack or morals (like extortion, for example). . .

THIS is the way that MOST OTHER STATES do it - and it works very well. PERMIT HOLDERS IN EVERY STATE are more law abiding than the general public. I have seen the stats for Florida, and I know this is true.

THINK about it - if you have a permit, you sure don't want to lose it - and you are going to be EXTRA careful to obey ALL LAWS, due to this. . .

ALSO - people who have met me all know that I myself am kind of "silly" - I have tats, ride a loud bike, dress funny, and look funny. I am also a lawyer with the same boss for 15 years, I do ALL SORTS of volunteer work, and people generally like me and trust me, since they know that I am a good person (despite how I "look"). I myself would not want some 23 year old psych student, who perhaps knows nothing except what he/she read in a "book," to be the "decider" on whether *I* should have the right to defend myself and my family. Things like "evaluations" simply have too many variables, and are too easy for the "tester" (and the testee) to screw up.

In a way, they are kind of "soviet" - the whole concept reminds me of old Soviet Russia. "In Soviet Russia, you don't take the test - the test takes you - TO THE GULAG."

LOL

:D

Connor P Price
08-21-2011, 11:03 PM
It's nice to see the planned order of attack spelled out nice and clearly so theres no confusion. The time line is the tough part to deal with because of the inherent level off uncertainty about when we see a bear case in front of scotus. "Cautiously optimistic" seems like a good way to be feeling about getting in front of scotus this cycle.

Regarding Peterson v. Whoever from Denver, assuming a favorable decision in the 10th, could an attempt to bring non resident carry here result in a circuit split with the 9th? National carry as a possible result? (If we don't get it through Thune first.)

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

hoffmang
08-21-2011, 11:05 PM
Regarding Peterson v. Whoever from Denver, assuming a favorable decision in the 10th, could an attempt to bring non resident carry here result in a circuit split with the 9th? National carry as a possible result? (If we don't get it through Thune first.)

Winning in CA-10 is to dare CA-9 to split. That would just go towards a likely cert grant on the issue of "right to travel" applied to carry. It wouldn't automatically cause "National Carry" like federal legislation would, but it would put in a bare minimum that you'd have to be able to apply for and receive a permit in any state that didn't honor your reciprocity.

-Gene

Sgt Raven
08-21-2011, 11:09 PM
YES! - also THREE other issues:

1) Evals can be "gamed" easily by truly "bad people." That means that they are not actually that effective. Think about how easy it is for a good con artists to fool people. . .

2) Evals reek to me of "poll tax" - what this means is that the whole eval process can be used to monetarily discourage people who do not have a lot of money from getting a CCW.

3) Evals are very much dependent on understanding spoken and/or written ENGLISH. A right should not depend on how fluent you are in a given language. NOW - before people get all weird about this, please let me remind you that MANY good people, who were born here, and who have had families living here for generations, simply can't read and write that well. Or speak well for that matter. My grandfather was at least "10th generation" in Georgia - I have ancestors who fought in the Civil War, I know their names, and I have a tintype of one them (his nickname was "TNT" BTW). Point is my grandfather likely would have had trouble with any sort of "test" like that. He was very sane, just not good at standard English.

My personal opinion is that a CCW should be like any permit. Just fill out the form, and get the permit, as long as you are not convicted of VIOLENT FELONIES, or felonies that involve a lack or morals (like extortion, for example). . .

THIS is the way that MOST OTHER STATES do it - and it works very well. CCW HOLDERS IN EVERY STATE are more law abiding than the general public. I have seen the stats for Florida, and I know this is true.

THINK about it - if you have a CCW, you sure don't want to lose it - and you are going to be EXTRA careful to obey ALL LAWS, due to this. . .

ALSO - people who have met me all know that I myself am kind of "silly" - I have tats, ride a loud bike, dress funny, and look funny. I am also a lawyer with the same boss for 15 years, I do ALL SORTS of volunteer work, and people generally like me and trust me, since they know that I am a good person (despite how I "look"). I myself would not want some 23 year old psych student, who perhaps knows nothing except what he/she read in a "book," to be the "decider" on whether *I* should have the right to defend myself and my family. Things like "evaluations" simply have too many variables, and are too easy for the "tester" (and the testee) to screw up.

In a way, they are kind of "soviet" - the whole concept reminds me of old Soviet Russia. "In Soviet Russia, you don't take the test - the test takes you - TO THE GULAG."

LOL

:D

Hey Oak, I think you owe the 'swear jar' some money. :p

hoffmang
08-21-2011, 11:13 PM
As a side note, CGF and some assistance from Madison Society in Stanislaus have increased statewide carry license issuance by approximately 25% in the last 12 months.

That's a huge increase.

-Gene

epcii
08-21-2011, 11:21 PM
Godspeed.

Citizen 14
08-21-2011, 11:27 PM
Thank you, thank you thank you everyone, for all the hard work put in on all these issues!

Gray Peterson
08-21-2011, 11:32 PM
Winning in CA-10 is to dare CA-9 to split.

Can I also add that a split is especially more difficult for CA-9 to try when the plaintiff filing the suit is the same as the party which won in CA-10?

Just sayin.... :cool:

AndrewMendez
08-21-2011, 11:34 PM
Excellent write up Gene. Still though...can I be one of those people who say "I am leaving to a Free Country, because we can never change California!!" ???

hoffmang
08-21-2011, 11:36 PM
Excellent write up Gene. Still though...can I be one of those people who say "I am leaving to a Free Country, because we can never change California!!" ???

No because we don't condone lying here :43:

-Gene

the_quark
08-21-2011, 11:37 PM
Hope not to derail this thread but could someone explain to me why psych evals are bad? It seems to me that, at least a very basic eval would prevent, at least in small part, psychos from owning firearms. Is that out of line? I understand it's not within the purview of the 2nd amendment but it just seems like something we wont ever be able to kill in CA. Especially with people like the Virginia tech guy, etc. I'll take a PM if it's best.


Gene addressed this a little bit, but this sort of question is a bit of a passion of mine (aside from whether guns are involved or not).

The fact is that there's no objective standard for who's crazy and who isn't. There are tests and checklists that psychologists can administer, but there hasn't been a lot of study of what their error bars are, and there are studies that claim a lot of false positives - people who aren't psychopaths who are categorized as being so.

If you set up a system where one individual psychiatrist gets to decide who does or does not have the right to carry, you will inevitably end up with lots of false positives. People that rub the Doctor the wrong way; or was there when he was having a bad day, or who exhibit a few of the behaviors classified as "psychopathic" (such as being a "smooth talker").

Richard Feynman tells the story of almost getting drafted for the Japanese occupation after World War II (he'd been a physicist at Los Alamos so understandably he was ineligible for the draft). The psychiatrist asked him if he ever spoke to his wife, who'd died young, and only a few years before. Feynman - the arch rationalist who believed in no bunk - replied "sure," imagining him standing beside her grave and talking aloud while thinking about her, maybe even addressing her. Perfectly normal human behavior. The psychiatrist marked him 4F.

Anyway, the big problem right now is that a government official has an arbitrary and capricious power over our right to bear arms - giving that official a white coat and an official checklist of personality traits with no objective standard really doesn't improve much.

Put another way - there are times and places where I have no doubt psychiatrists would've disqualified black, or gay, or unmarried-but-living-with-someone people as being too "abnormal" to be trusted with bearing a gun. I'm not interested in giving yet another government official arbitrary power to deny people their rights.

We shouldn't even have to get a permit at all - do I have to get a permit from a psychiatrist to practice my religion? But, with what we have, we should make it as easy and nondiscriminatory as possible.

freonr22
08-21-2011, 11:50 PM
I had never read your signature before Brett. wow!

the_quark
08-22-2011, 12:01 AM
I had never read your signature before Brett. wow!

It's mostly back from when I was more of a lurker and then people would be like "who the heck is this guy?" ;)

That said I know I've been quiet lately because most of my gun time has been taken up with a lot of Treasurer backlog. I'll be posting more soon on that I hope.

oaklander
08-22-2011, 12:09 AM
Hey Oak, I think you owe the 'swear jar' some money. :p

Ooops - will edit!!!

510dat
08-22-2011, 12:13 AM
Here's question related to the OP, and at this point hypothetical.

In the not-so-distant-future when CA is essentially Shall-Issue, Sheriffs will still presumably have the authority to revoke an LTC, and some sheriffs will be more enthusiastic than others in doing so. How will CGN deal with situations in which someone has their LTC revoked for clothing malfunctions that reveal their handgun?

Rephrased, there are presumably some sheriffs who will grant LTCs, and then routinely revoke them for minor or trivial reasons (too many speeding tickets, wardrobe malfunctions ="brandishing", etc) as a backdoor mechanism for limiting carry.

Given Ezell, and (hopefully) a right to carry in some fashion, if that form of carry in CA is strictly concealed, will there be a mechanism in place to prevent LTC revocation abuse? Or alternately, mandating that LOC is ok in the case of a non-criminally revoked LTC?

I hope I'm being clear.

taperxz
08-22-2011, 12:14 AM
Excellent thread!!;)

oaklander
08-22-2011, 12:19 AM
Yes, I am convinced that most politicians, business leaders, and celebrities could NEVER pass one of the tests - for the reason outlined below (for starters).

The idea of "what is normal" is something that philosophers have debated for hundreds of years. I spent an entire semester in law school actually studying the whole "5150" process, for example. JUST THAT ONE THING.

Let me tell folks that the process used in this state to determine "5150" is almost entirely random and simply depends on the mood of the judge. That is scary stuff, when rights are involved. This whole issue is something that I expect to see litigation on, and soon. It just leaves too much to random chance, and leaves too much in the hands of so-called "experts."

LOOK - I've talked to "expert witnesses" in legal cases, and I can tell you that a lot of what they "think" depends on which side is paying them. Sad, and true. . .

To repeat, we never want a right to depend on a single person, who may have motives (or foibles). To repeat again, this is old school SOVIET thinking. This is not American thinking.

That is the best way to put it. . .

People that rub the Doctor the wrong way; or was there when he was having a bad day, or who exhibit a few of the behaviors classified as "psychopathic" (such as being a "smooth talker").

Gray Peterson
08-22-2011, 12:25 AM
Here's question related to the OP, and at this point hypothetical.

In the not-so-distant-future when CA is essentially Shall-Issue, Sheriffs will still presumably have the authority to revoke an LTC, and some sheriffs will be more enthusiastic than others in doing so. How will CGN deal with situations in which someone has their LTC for clothing malfunctions that reveal their handgun?

Rephrased, there are presumably some sheriffs who will grant LTCs, and then routinely revoke them for minor or trivial reasons (too many speeding tickets, wardrobe malfunctions ="brandishing", etc) as a backdoor mechanism for limiting carry.

Given Ezell, and (hopefully) a right to carry in some fashion, if that form of carry in CA is strictly concealed, will there be a mechanism in place to prevent LTC revocation abuse? Or alternately, mandating that LOC is ok in the case of a non-criminally revoked LTC?

I hope I'm being clear.

There would be no need to fear this. See the statement by Gene here:

The whole point was to get SCOTUS to confirm there is a right to carry and may issue/discretionary laws are a prior restraint on the right to carry.

If we have it to where good cause=self defense and good moral character="not prohibited", then free-firing revocation of this sort would not be acceptable. Just like the psych eval, we would need 1 county to pull a stupid, but other than that, it would be short work.

Remember that once there is a right to carry identified by the courts, the 14th amendment's requirements are clear: "no state shall....deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

hoffmang
08-22-2011, 12:29 AM
Rephrased, there are presumably some sheriffs who will grant LTCs, and then routinely revoke them for minor or trivial reasons (too many speeding tickets, wardrobe malfunctions ="brandishing", etc) as a backdoor mechanism for limiting carry.

Once you have a permit to exercise a fundamental right, revocation will be basically subject to a property right and all but strict scrutiny. You're going to have to be, at minimum, charged with a serious crime of violence to get even a suspension. To get revoked, you're going to have to be adjudicated into a category that is prohibited.

Some sheriff may not initially understand that, but CGF will stand ready to have a federal judge explain it to him in small words he can understand.

-Gene

taperxz
08-22-2011, 12:32 AM
Once you have a permit to exercise a fundamental right, revocation will be basically subject to a property right and all but strict scrutiny. You're going to have to be, at minimum, charged with a serious crime of violence to get even a suspension. To get revoked, you're going to have to be adjudicated into a category that is prohibited.

Some sheriff may not initially understand that, but CGF will stand ready to have a federal judge explain it to him in small words he can understand.

-Gene
What about restrictions the sheriff can put on the LTC?

BigSurf
08-22-2011, 12:35 AM
From what little I know, it seems IF successful in gaining a CC license- it is most likely to be restricted to one particular model handgun. WHY?
To me that is like saying I am only licensed to drive a Honda Civic, 5-speed manual, but not the Automatic; nor a Ford Mustang. I can see the distinction with an 18 wheeler...

Why should there be such model limitations once one has qualified to carry a legal handgun? Do other states have limits for particular models to qualify, or a blanket license for a pistol?
Has this ever been challenged? should it be?
The time/monetary cost of secondary pieces seems to fall in line with similar arguments made above of undue costs.

Thanks for indulging the curious.

510dat
08-22-2011, 12:37 AM
To get revoked, you're going to have to be adjudicated into a category that is prohibited.

Excellent, and thank you for clarifying.

KylaGWolf
08-22-2011, 12:37 AM
YES! - also THREE other issues:

1) Evals can be "gamed" easily by truly "bad people." That means that they are not actually that effective. Think about how easy it is for a good con artists to fool people. . .

2) Evals reek to me of "poll tax" - what this means is that the whole eval process can be used to monetarily discourage people who do not have a lot of money from getting a permit.

3) Evals are very much dependent on understanding spoken and/or written ENGLISH. A right should not depend on how fluent you are in a given language. NOW - before people get all wierd about this, please let me remind you that MANY good people, who were born here, and who have had families living here for generations, simply can't read and write that well. Or speak well for that matter. My grandfather was at least "10th generation" in Georgia - I have ancestors who fought in the Civil War, I know their names, and I have a tintype of one them (his nickname was "TNT" BTW). Point is my grandfather likely would have had trouble with any sort of "test" like that. He was very sane, just not good at standard English.

My personal opinion is that a "permit" should be like any permit. Just fill out the form, and get the permit, as long as you are not convicted of VIOLENT FELONIES, or felonies that involve a lack or morals (like extortion, for example). . .

THIS is the way that MOST OTHER STATES do it - and it works very well. PERMIT HOLDERS IN EVERY STATE are more law abiding than the general public. I have seen the stats for Florida, and I know this is true.

THINK about it - if you have a permit, you sure don't want to lose it - and you are going to be EXTRA careful to obey ALL LAWS, due to this. . .

ALSO - people who have met me all know that I myself am kind of "silly" - I have tats, ride a loud bike, dress funny, and look funny. I am also a lawyer with the same boss for 15 years, I do ALL SORTS of volunteer work, and people generally like me and trust me, since they know that I am a good person (despite how I "look"). I myself would not want some 23 year old psych student, who perhaps knows nothing except what he/she read in a "book," to be the "decider" on whether *I* should have the right to defend myself and my family. Things like "evaluations" simply have too many variables, and are too easy for the "tester" (and the testee) to screw up.

In a way, they are kind of "soviet" - the whole concept reminds me of old Soviet Russia. "In Soviet Russia, you don't take the test - the test takes you - TO THE GULAG."

LOL

:D


You brought up a very good point. While I have always had a way above average reading level. To the degree of I was reading college level books by the time I was 11 I suck at writing. I absolutely hate to do so which is why I was so glad to get a C in my college English class because there were something like 12 papers that had to be done for the class.

As to the whole thing with psych tests the only problem I can see arising is if the sheriffs office wants to keep people from getting the LTC then their might be a very skewed test in the favor or your failing the test.

Gray Peterson
08-22-2011, 12:42 AM
What about restrictions the sheriff can put on the LTC?

Violating a restriction is not a criminal offense. Good luck revoking...

hoffmang
08-22-2011, 12:45 AM
What about restrictions the sheriff can put on the LTC?
Should have been mentioned in the "post SCOTUS" section. Very, very few can survive.

Why should there be such model limitations once one has qualified to carry a legal handgun? Do other states have limits for particular models to qualify, or a blanket license for a pistol?

This is an old law that many states slowly got rid of. Nevada just finally dropped that requirement for example. There is no limit on the number, but some issuing agencies try to enforce a limit. We'll push back on the number of guns, but it may be hard as a practical matter to get rid of the guns listed on the license.

-Gene

taperxz
08-22-2011, 12:45 AM
Violating a restriction is not a criminal offense. Good luck revoking...

Would you say thats the way it is now? Or part of the CGF plan?

Mainly will your idea/quote need to come up in court?

hoffmang
08-22-2011, 12:48 AM
Would you say thats the way it is now? Or part of the CGF plan?

Mainly will your idea/quote need to come up in court?

The courts consider revocation purely discretionary right now. As soon as we have a SCOTUS carry decision, that changes.

-Gene

Connor P Price
08-22-2011, 12:59 AM
Winning in CA-10 is to dare CA-9 to split. That would just go towards a likely cert grant on the issue of "right to travel" applied to carry. It wouldn't automatically cause "National Carry" like federal legislation would, but it would put in a bare minimum that you'd have to be able to apply for and receive a permit in any state that didn't honor your reciprocity.

-Gene

Legislation is certainly preferable, it'd be nice to have carry licenses work just like drivers licenses so that you never have to apply in any state but the one in which you reside. If legislation takes to long, the benefit of a route to carry in any state is still an awesome outcome of the CGF plan. I like the options that opens up.

Can I also add that a split is especially more difficult for CA-9 to try when the plaintiff filing the suit is the same as the party which won in CA-10?

Just sayin.... :cool:

Talk about similarly situated plaintiffs! Gotta love that.

Excellent write up Gene. Still though...can I be one of those people who say "I am leaving to a Free Country, because we can never change California!!" ???

I'm planning to leave to the free world, but I've gotta say the only thing that makes it hard to leave is wanting to be here when the changes are in full effect. I've got no doubt in the world they're coming. I'll just have to come visit as I'll still have family here, chances are incredibly high that I wont be able to carry in CA until part two of the Gray Peterson plan is complete.

I always get a kick out of those that leave because they think the fight is lost, the only reason I want to stay is because I know the fight is going to be won!

CaliforniaCarry
08-22-2011, 1:51 AM
I'm planning to leave to the free world, but I've gotta say the only thing that makes it hard to leave is wanting to be here when the changes are in full effect. I've got no doubt in the world they're coming. I'll just have to come visit as I'll still have family here, chances are incredibly high that I wont be able to carry in CA until part two of the Gray Peterson plan is complete.

I always get a kick out of those that leave because they think the fight is lost, the only reason I want to stay is because I know the fight is going to be won!

100% this. I will likely be leaving CA soon as well to pursue a career opportunity. I will probably be returning in 3-4 years, and am extremely sad that I won't be here to celebrate victory with my CA brethren; to feel the relief as the burden is lifted. I feel like the fight is already won - it's just a matter of time.

Five years ago I wanted to get out of this state more than anything because I felt like the fight was lost - now this fight is the only reason I want to stay.

My Texan friends are going to think I'm crazy for continuing to donate to a CA gun rights group. But I'd be crazy not to!

wildhawker
08-22-2011, 2:05 AM
It's posts like yours that make us smile and fight on at 2am while facing down a 2 hour drive to a [day job] client 4 hours from now.

Thanks for the encouragement.

-Brandon

100% this. I will likely be leaving CA soon as well to pursue a career opportunity. I will probably be returning in 3-4 years, and am extremely sad that I won't be here to celebrate victory with my CA brethren; to feel the relief as the burden is lifted. I feel like the fight is already won - it's just a matter of time.

Five years ago I wanted to get out of this state more than anything because I felt like the fight was lost - now this fight is the only reason I want to stay.

My Texan friends are going to think I'm crazy for continuing to donate to a CA gun rights group. But I'd be crazy not to!

freonr22
08-22-2011, 2:10 AM
Legislation is certainly preferable, it'd be nice to have carry licenses work just like drivers licenses so that you never have to apply in any state but the one in which you reside. If legislation takes to long, the benefit of a route to carry in any state is still an awesome outcome of the CGF plan. I like the options that opens up.



Talk about similarly situated plaintiffs! Gotta love that.



I'm planning to leave to the free world, but I've gotta say the only thing that makes it hard to leave is wanting to be here when the changes are in full effect. I've got no doubt in the world they're coming. I'll just have to come visit as I'll still have family here, chances are incredibly high that I wont be able to carry in CA until part two of the Gray Peterson plan is complete.

I always get a kick out of those that leave because they think the fight is lost, the only reason I want to stay is because I know the fight is going to be won!

I've been hearing a phrase I like recently. " don't leave 5 minutes before the miracle"

ccmc
08-22-2011, 5:18 AM
non California residents really have no way to carry in California. That's why we filed Peterson v. Denver County Sheriff of the Week. We can prove the issue in the 10th Circuit (and get Californian's the ability to carry in Denver) and then re-import that decision.


If I'm Colorado I say the problem isn't with our law, but with the other states' laws. We recognize licenses from residents of any state that recognizes ours. The only difference between Colorado and Florida in that regard is that Florida allows non-residents to apply for a Florida CWFL whereas Colorado doesn't. And isn't OC legal for all in Colorado outside of Denver? I face a similar situation in Oregon where I can legally OC outside of Portland, Salem and a couple of other cities, but I cannot apply for an Oregon CHL since they only accept applications from residents of bordering states. In California I have basically ZERO options.

So what is the end game in the Denver case? To allow non-residents to apply for CO licenses or to overturn Denver's ban on OC?

Havoc70
08-22-2011, 5:25 AM
As a side note, CGF and some assistance from Madison Society in Stanislaus have increased statewide carry license issuance by approximately 25% in the last 12 months.

That's a huge increase.

-Gene

It will be interesting to see what happens to crime statistics as this percentage grows. As it is right now, I'd imagine members of the criminal element feel somewhat emboldened by the low percentage of people that carry. I suspect that feeling will rapidly decrease as the percentage of the populace that is armed increases.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-22-2011, 6:45 AM
I always get a kick out of those that leave because they think the fight is lost, the only reason I want to stay is because I know the fight is going to be won!


And the weather. Don't forget the weather.


The Raisuli

Inyoite
08-22-2011, 7:38 AM
As a side note, CGF and some assistance from Madison Society in Stanislaus have increased statewide carry license issuance by approximately 25% in the last 12 months.

That's a huge increase.

-GeneThis shouldn't be a side note - this should be in bright neon lights with streamers & balloons & fireworks & dancing girls!!!!

It's posts like yours that make us smile and fight on at 2am while facing down a 2 hour drive to a [day job] client 4 hours from now.

Thanks for the encouragement.

-Brandon
And it's the work you guys are doing that make us smile, knowing that very talented someones are actually fighting on the right side of the issue. Thanks for all you do. I know most of you do it in addition to whatever keeps the roof over your head and the heat on, and it probably feels a little thankless sometimes. THANK YOU!

Stonewalker
08-22-2011, 7:54 AM
As I read around the web, I see a lot of confusion and lack of understanding about what CGF is up to to clean up and sanitize carrying a firearm in urban California.

I want to outline the strategy a bit as there have been enough public revelations to make it easy to help outline what's going on.

The way we see the carry problem here is that there are big issues and little issues that can be resolved both before and after a SCOTUS carry case.

Big Issue
The big issues are the Good Cause and Good Moral Character requirements of California law. Also, we're taking the narrowest and strongest view of carry which is that it will be heavily influenced by governments' ability to place time place and manner restrictions on it so long as loaded carry of some sort is allowed all to all non prohibiteds. That's why we filed Sykes which became Richards v. Prieto. That's also why SAF also filed, Palmer v. DC, Bateman v. Perdue (NC), Higtower v. Boston, Muller v. Maenza (NJ), Woolard v. Sheridan (MD), and Moore v. Madigan (IL). The whole point was to get SCOTUS to confirm there is a right to carry and may issue/discretionary laws are a prior restraint on the right to carry. Williams and Masciandaro are criminal actions that moved faster and may get us a SCOTUS carry case faster. We are currently cautiously optimistic that we'll get a a carry case decision from SCOTUS by 6/30/2012, but we're pretty confident that if that date isn't hit, it would certainly be complete by 6/30/2013.

Pre SCOTUS Clean Up - The Sunshine Initiative

1. The clean up of California can start now - even before we win the big issue. Amongst the things that need to be fixed are Sheriffs with no policy, Sheriffs who force you to waste money by (having insurance, getting a doctor's note, making you apply to a PD who will absolutely turn you down first, etc.) This effort can be seen by SF Sheriff's Office finally issuing a (bad) policy and is exemplified by Rossow v. Merced.

2. Also, some sheriffs tend to be far more lenient on good cause statements from people they "know" for whatever reason. As such we can force a lot of sheriffs to head toward shall issue now (while we wait on SCOTUS) with cases like Scocca in Santa Clara that rely on Guillory v. Gates. This was why we sued Ventura for not disclosing their good cause statements.

3. Further, non California residents really have no way to carry in California. That's why we filed Peterson v. Denver County Sheriff of the Week. We can prove the issue in the 10th Circuit (and get Californian's the ability to carry in Denver) and then re-import that decision.

4. California's license is pretty darn clean. Even 18 year olds can get it. However, we're watching NRA's handgun purchase and carry cases in Texas because we'll want to import those wins here too.

All of this means that, while we wait, more people get permits, more counties get closer to shall issue, and when SCOTUS hits, we can quickly remove all the silly roadblocks to getting permits once they're clearly our right - in many cases because we already have removed unlawful procedures in most of the California counties.

Post SCOTUS clean up.

1. Hold outs. We'll have a few. However, we should have fresh case law to prove that much of what they do is unlawful. Add that to the Ezell standard that denial of 2A rights is irreparable harm and we'll choose one or two counties to make examples of with TROs and PIs.

2. Too slow. Some counties will move too slowly - or are already too slow. Part of the plan with point 1, is to address that. Some time is allowed to complete the background checks, but after the initial crush of applicants 30-60 days is more than enough to process licenses.

3. Too expensive. Many gun owners can't afford the license. Government is going to have to make accommodations for them. Our initial license is expensive. It's ongoing maintenance is actually pretty cheap.

4. Other stuff. Psych evals will be killed by inference from a SCOTUS decision but we may have to pick on some issuer. More 42 USC 1988 fees for the attorneys!

A couple additional notes.

1. Licensed carry may be the bare minimum. Just as those of us closely watching Heller got a lot wider decision than we were expecting around carry, who knows how wide SCOTUS' carry decision will be. We're asking for the narrowest that gives us a real right because it's prudent. If we get more on the first bite, well... Things above may be stated too conservatively.

2. CGF has focused on Sheriffs because they can't weasel out like a PD can/could. However, that means in the future (and even now) sometimes the PD you live in could be a better option. We expect competition based on customer service between sheriffs and PD's to pop up after SCOTUS. That's the flip side of our relatively expensive initial permit - it's a decent revenue source for cash strapped agencies.

I'm sure there is something I've forgotten, but I hope this clarifies what we're up to a bit. There is nothing truly proprietary here - it's just the best way to go about making life easy for CA gun owners who want to carry a firearm. There are a couple of additional items/clean ups that I've not talked about as we need to hold those back until we file them, but suffice it to say that there is a plan and that it should be relatively easy for all who want to carry - hopefully starting July 4, 2012.

I expect the biggest problem to be the lines. I can already tell you that BoF is impressed at what we've done in a couple of counties already based on their "carry applications pending" stats.

You can read all the cases referenced above from the Litigation wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present).

-Gene



Gene, perhaps you could lay out the whole LTC-GFSZ thing. At this point, licenses are necessary to carry a firearm in many CA cities in order to avoid violating the Federal GFSZ Act.

putput
08-22-2011, 7:56 AM
Many thanks for the update and the hard work!

wildhawker
08-22-2011, 7:56 AM
Gene, perhaps you could lay out the whole LTC-GFSZ thing. At this point, licenses are necessary to carry a firearm in many CA cities in order to avoid violating the Federal GFSZ Act.

You substantively answered your own inquiry.

-Brandon

HowardW56
08-22-2011, 8:02 AM
Outstanding thread, excellent explanation CGF guys!

:clap:

Contribution Inbound....

Date: August 22nd, 2011 8:05 AM
Transaction #: 51394507LG691152A

CitaDeL
08-22-2011, 8:04 AM
Once you have a permit to exercise a fundamental right, revocation will be basically subject to a property right and all but strict scrutiny. You're going to have to be, at minimum, charged with a serious crime of violence to get even a suspension. To get revoked, you're going to have to be adjudicated into a category that is prohibited.

Some sheriff may not initially understand that, but CGF will stand ready to have a federal judge explain it to him in small words he can understand.
-Gene

Have you picked a sheriff to receive this explanation yet?;)

wildhawker
08-22-2011, 8:13 AM
:whistling:

HowardW56
08-22-2011, 8:14 AM
:whistling:

:rofl:

Andy Taylor
08-22-2011, 8:24 AM
A personal note on the psyc eval. A friend of mine took one of these as pre-employment for a LEO job. The evaluator asked about alcohol use. He said he did not drink, at all. That was the truth. He was asked why. He said because several members of his family are alcoholics, and he chose to avoid that possibility by not drinking at all. He failed the eval because he was "pre-disposed to alcoholism"
Bad enough he didn't get the job, but would any of us want to loose a right to protect ourselves, because we have blood-family who are alcoholics, and we took steps to insure we didn't fall into that pit?

jeferd
08-22-2011, 8:30 AM
Outstanding job guys!! Another donation on the way

Maestro Pistolero
08-22-2011, 8:31 AM
We recognize licenses from residents of any state that recognizes ours.That's not good enough. As I have pointed out, states have no business and no justification for withholding the rights of the people as bargaining chips between their respective governments.

sholling
08-22-2011, 8:37 AM
Once you have a permit to exercise a fundamental right, revocation will be basically subject to a property right and all but strict scrutiny. You're going to have to be, at minimum, charged with a serious crime of violence to get even a suspension. To get revoked, you're going to have to be adjudicated into a category that is prohibited.

Some sheriff may not initially understand that, but CGF will stand ready to have a federal judge explain it to him in small words he can understand.

-Gene

Gene,

Along the same lines how about sheriffs that put silly restriction on what you can carry. For example at least one county bans laser aiming devices (e.g. Crimson Trace) while others require (or did at one time) that there may be no modifications whatsoever which could include (depending on their mood) things like improved sights, tritium sights, or short triggers for those of us with small hands. Or those that restrict where you carry.

Stonewalker
08-22-2011, 8:46 AM
You substantively answered your own inquiry.

-Brandon

Sure, but I was suggesting he change the OP for the purpose of clarifying (what I feel is) the main problem with open carry in CA. Even if you wanted to call an unloaded firearm a "functional firearm", you still couldn't legally carry in many CA cities.

I think this clarification might smooth over some fringe confusion over CGF's position on LTC vs. OC.

ccmc
08-22-2011, 8:48 AM
That's not good enough. As I have pointed out, states have no business and no justification for withholding the rights of the people as bargaining chips between their respective governments.

No argument from me, but a judge may see it a different way. There have been rulings that basically say that there may be an option for either open OR concealed carry, but not necessarily both. You left out most of my post. Who knows whether or not Colorado has been trying to negotiate a reciprocity agreement with Washington, and if so, what the stumbling blocks are. It wasn't too long ago that Florida and Washington agreed to reciprocity, and I'm certain it's not Florida that's standing in the way of reciprocity with states like California or New York.

Maestro Pistolero
08-22-2011, 9:05 AM
No argument from me, but a judge may see it a different way. Understood. The reply was in the context of our position on the matter, and hopefully the reality in the near future.

Crom
08-22-2011, 9:29 AM
As a side note, CGF and some assistance from Madison Society in Stanislaus have increased statewide carry license issuance by approximately 25% in the last 12 months.

That's a huge increase.

-Gene

That is truly remarkable! We're talking like 6,000+ permits.

jumpthestack
08-22-2011, 11:01 AM
Good stuff. FYI the donation page seems to be broken. http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate

I selected 50.00, filled in my email and clicked on the Paypal link, and I get:

Sorry. A non-recoverable error has occurred.
We can't load the requested web page. This page requires cookies to be enabled in your browser settings. Please check this setting and enable cookies (if they are not enabled). Then try again. If this error persists, contact the site adminstrator for assistance.

Site Administrators: This error may indicate that users are accessing this page using a domain or URL other than the configured Base URL. EXAMPLE: Base URL is http://example.org, but some users are accessing the page via http://www.example.org or a domain alias like http://myotherexample.org.

Error type: Could not find a valid session key.


Tried Firefox and Chrome on Mac OS X.

Untamed1972
08-22-2011, 11:13 AM
Hope not to derail this thread but could someone explain to me why psych evals are bad? It seems to me that, at least a very basic eval would prevent, at least in small part, psychos from owning firearms. Is that out of line? I understand it's not within the purview of the 2nd amendment but it just seems like something we wont ever be able to kill in CA. Especially with people like the Virginia tech guy, etc. I'll take a PM if it's best.

Anyway, thanks for the work put in. I'm sure that, eventually, I'll have my right to carry. Time for a couple sandwiches.

Psych evals are rather subjective. So you're talking about putting the decision over whether or not you can exercise your 2A rights in the hands of a single individual who will be evaluating you on a fairly nebulous, subjective set of criteria that is hard for someone else to challenge, review or overturn.

Also.....the many years of shall-issue in other states simply has not produced evidence of masses of crazy people applying for permits. Crazy people dont tend to bother with permits, they just steal guns and do what they wanna do anyway.

Simple fact is....if you're not prohibited from owning guns......you shouldn't be prohibited from carrying one either.

Untamed1972
08-22-2011, 11:19 AM
As a side note, CGF and some assistance from Madison Society in Stanislaus have increased statewide carry license issuance by approximately 25% in the last 12 months.

That's a huge increase.

-Gene


I really wish SD Sheriff Gore would stop being such a D-head and Gov't Goon and just get with the effin' program already!!!

BajaJames83
08-22-2011, 11:25 AM
great job keep it up..

Untamed1972
08-22-2011, 11:26 AM
Once you have a permit to exercise a fundamental right, revocation will be basically subject to a property right and all but strict scrutiny. You're going to have to be, at minimum, charged with a serious crime of violence to get even a suspension. To get revoked, you're going to have to be adjudicated into a category that is prohibited.

Some sheriff may not initially understand that, but CGF will stand ready to have a federal judge explain it to him in small words he can understand.
-Gene

:rofl2: :thumbsup:

ETA: Will those small words be something like "Marshalls, please escort Sheriff So-and-So to a cell where he can think about what he's done wrong and until he firgures out how to fix it!"

Gray Peterson
08-22-2011, 11:47 AM
If I'm Colorado I say the problem isn't with our law, but with the other states' laws. We recognize licenses from residents of any state that recognizes ours.

They tried to make the same argument in district court. The district court judge did not even consider that argument at all when making their decision.

The only difference between Colorado and Florida in that regard is that Florida allows non-residents to apply for a Florida CWFL whereas Colorado doesn't. And isn't OC legal for all in Colorado outside of Denver? I face a similar situation in Oregon where I can legally OC outside of Portland, Salem and a couple of other cities, but I cannot apply for an Oregon CHL since they only accept applications from residents of bordering states. In California I have basically ZERO options.

This will be dealt with in terms of Oregon but in a different manner. I cannot personally challenge that issue due to the fact that I already have an Oregon license.

I might also point out that Oregon's situation is similar to Colorado's, in there is a mandate for a state license to be used in order to carry there.

So what is the end game in the Denver case? To allow non-residents to apply for CO licenses or to overturn Denver's ban on OC?

The former. This is triggered by Denver's adoption of the state license to it's general carry ban. Remember, again, Denver does not have an OC ban per se. They have a complete ban on firearms carry without a Denver CHL.

notme92069
08-22-2011, 12:01 PM
I really wish SD Sheriff Gore would stop being such a D-head and Gov't Goon and just get with the effin' program already!!!

I'm right with you on that one...

OleCuss
08-22-2011, 12:09 PM
A personal note on the psyc eval. A friend of mine took one of these as pre-employment for a LEO job. The evaluator asked about alcohol use. He said he did not drink, at all. That was the truth. He was asked why. He said because several members of his family are alcoholics, and he chose to avoid that possibility by not drinking at all. He failed the eval because he was "pre-disposed to alcoholism"
Bad enough he didn't get the job, but would any of us want to loose a right to protect ourselves, because we have blood-family who are alcoholics, and we took steps to insure we didn't fall into that pit?

Beautiful illustration of how nutty psych evals can be.

And it really is pitiful to see someone come into a doctor's office for a note saying that they are physically and psychologically OK for a carry license. The man/woman is frequently really worried that the doctor is an anti-gun nut-case who will mess them over on their RKBA.

dantodd
08-22-2011, 2:12 PM
Stonewalled. What you appear to be missing is that LTC doesn't mean concealed and that OC doesn't mean without a permit.. Re-read the thread with that understanding and your question has been pretty fully answered.

BigDogatPlay
08-22-2011, 2:15 PM
When I opened the thread I thought at first, "WTH is Gene doing spilling so much?" But the beauty of the strategy all along is that is so simple and so rooted in common sense.

This is why I keep going to gun shows, wearing the blue shirt and spreading the word.

GOEX FFF
08-22-2011, 2:27 PM
100% this. I will likely be leaving CA soon as well to pursue a career opportunity. I will probably be returning in 3-4 years, and am extremely sad that I won't be here to celebrate victory with my CA brethren; to feel the relief as the burden is lifted. I feel like the fight is already won - it's just a matter of time.

Five years ago I wanted to get out of this state more than anything because I felt like the fight was lost - now this fight is the only reason I want to stay.

My Texan friends are going to think I'm crazy for continuing to donate to a CA gun rights group. But I'd be crazy not to!


^^^100000000000%

I'm a 35 year CA native and I've seen a better 2A CA in the past, and I've also seen the destruction of the 2A here too.
I've wanted for years, to leave this state for many reasons.
If I ever do, I would undoubtably continue to support CGF 100% as if I still resided here.

I dont ever wanna know what we CA gunnies would have done, or what we would be like without CGF, NRA/CRPA and will continue to support in every way I can, no matter where I am.
CGF/NRA/CRPA are our guardian angels, and I THANK YOU!

Paladin
08-22-2011, 5:30 PM
As a side note, CGF and some assistance from Madison Society in Stanislaus have increased statewide carry license issuance by approximately 25% in the last 12 months.

That's a huge increase.

-Gene
As someone posted, this makes one side of me feel like . . . :party:

But, unfortunately, another side of me remembered that means the ENTIRE state of CA now has ALMOST as many LTCers as just Wayne COUNTY in Michigan! :mad: (Yes, the bold CAPS were on purpose 'cause I'm ticked at how our major urban sheriffs force us to be easy prey for BGs.)

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=449940

hoffmang
08-22-2011, 5:38 PM
If I'm Colorado I say the problem isn't with our law, but with the other states' laws.
There are two problems with that. There is no rational basis for CO to honor GA resident permits but not WA resident permits. It's really a Privilege or Immunities/right to travel problem. The second problem is that it effectively bans carry in Denver.

Along the same lines how about sheriffs that put silly restriction on what you can carry. For example at least one county bans laser aiming devices (e.g. Crimson Trace) while others require (or did at one time) that there may be no modifications whatsoever which could include (depending on their mood) things like improved sights, tritium sights, or short triggers for those of us with small hands. Or those that restrict where you carry.
A sheriff is going to have to be able to show how such a restriction serves a compelling government interest. It's our position that making shooters less accurate can never be a state interest.

-Gene

pitchbaby
08-22-2011, 6:01 PM
Although I intend to seek residence out of state at some point... I don't have the slightest clue when work will materialize in Arizona... so with that.... is there anything in my neck of the woods that can be done/changed/worked on that perhaps hasn't been previously discussed? Please let me know... even if it only means I am paving the way for others if it so happens that I end up leaving here sooner rather than later... I am still very willing to put in the leg work!

Stonewalker
08-22-2011, 7:05 PM
Stonewalled. What you appear to be missing is that LTC doesn't mean concealed and that OC doesn't mean without a permit.. Re-read the thread with that understanding and your question has been pretty fully answered.

I assume you are referring to me, Stonewalker! Although I can be a stubborn bastard at times :) I brought up Open Carry for a couple of reasons. I know there has been some misinformation about CGF and OC, and this has caused some animosity among the hardcore OC'ers. I don't think OC'ers in CA are obtaining LTC in any shape or form, and THIS is the activity that is extremely hard to legally do in many CA cities. Effectively impossible.

I'm not asking a question, I'm positing that it would be beneficial for everyone to clarify CGF's motive for our LTC goals in regards to unlicensed OC. The only reason I bring this up is because of Mr. Nichols' lawsuit and all the rancor he has caused.

CaliforniaLiberal
08-22-2011, 7:16 PM
Good stuff. FYI the donation page seems to be broken. http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate

I selected 50.00, filled in my email and clicked on the Paypal link, and I get:



Tried Firefox and Chrome on Mac OS X.


OOOPS!

Go directly to your PayPal account and pay from there. Use paypal@calgunsfoundation.org

Thanks for the correction!

HowardW56
08-22-2011, 7:30 PM
Go directly to your PayPal account and pay from there. Use calguns.net@gmail.com


Mine have all gone to: paypal@calgunsfoundation.org (paypal@calgunsfoundation.org)

Window_Seat
08-22-2011, 9:09 PM
What about restrictions the sheriff can put on the LTC?

This would cause massive equal protection issues... Remember, that when carry rights are afforded to us, those who are "connected" with the Sheriff might not exactly like the idea of us normal peasants carrying for self defense/protection, but they will have a much bigger problem with having to give up their restriction-less LTC in the name of depriving us of the same thing.

Erik.

ColdDeadHands1
08-22-2011, 10:11 PM
:rofl2: :thumbsup:

ETA: Will those small words be something like "Marshalls, please escort Sheriff So-and-So to a cell where he SHE can think about what he's SHE'S done wrong and until he SHE firgures out how to fix it!"

Fixed it for you! :D

http://www.sherifflauriesmith.com/Resources/sherifflauriesmi.jpeg

sholling
08-22-2011, 10:58 PM
A sheriff is going to have to be able to show how such a restriction serves a compelling government interest. It's our position that making shooters less accurate can never be a state interest.

-Gene
Thank you sir!

tankerman
08-22-2011, 11:53 PM
How to deal with a Sheriff that discourages CCW applicants by including as part of the policy that being denied for a CCW permit removes a person from future consideration for CCW a permit?

Preemptive punishment, BS.

hoffmang
08-23-2011, 12:03 AM
How to deal with a Sheriff that discourages CCW applicants by including as part of the policy that being denied for a CCW permit removes a person from future consideration for CCW a permit?

That's already illegal per Salute v. Pitchess. Just ignore it. Apply. If you're turned down reapply when you feel like it. If there is a problem, email or call us as we'd enjoy continuing our education mission...

-Gene

kimber_ss
08-23-2011, 1:05 AM
Please continue your stellar performance, to enforce the abolishing of a maligned process under the ruse of public safety, which quashes 2A rights and effectively puts private citizens at risk of criminal violence.

Kid Stanislaus
08-23-2011, 6:26 AM
Hope not to derail this thread but could someone explain to me why psych evals are bad?


Probably because the entire field of psychiatry is just one huge pile of brown stinky bovine extract!:eek:

Patrick-2
08-23-2011, 6:42 AM
Gene,

Your outline is pretty much the defining outline for the national movement. Thanks for posting it and for putting the scare in the other side.

ccmc
08-23-2011, 6:47 AM
There are two problems with that. There is no rational basis for CO to honor GA resident permits but not WA resident permits. It's really a Privilege or Immunities/right to travel problem. The second problem is that it effectively bans carry in Denver.


That's like saying there's no rational basis for Florida to honor Washington resident permits but not California resident permits. Both Florida and Colorado have decided they will honor any state's resident permits as long as that state honors the Florida and/or Colorado resident permit. I'm not making a judgement on the validity of such a claim, only saying the impediment to CO/WA reciprocity may be Washington, not Colorado, just as the impediment to FL/CA reciprocity is most assuredly not Florida but California.

On the second point - I have a Florida resident CWFL which is recognized in Colorado. Are you saying that it is not recognized in Denver? I hadn't heard that before. There is something similar in Philadelphia ie OC is legal in PA, but only legal in Philadelphia if you have a PA carry permit.

ccmc
08-23-2011, 7:06 AM
They tried to make the same argument in district court. The district court judge did not even consider that argument at all when making their decision.



This will be dealt with in terms of Oregon but in a different manner. I cannot personally challenge that issue due to the fact that I already have an Oregon license.

I might also point out that Oregon's situation is similar to Colorado's, in there is a mandate for a state license to be used in order to carry there.



The former. This is triggered by Denver's adoption of the state license to it's general carry ban. Remember, again, Denver does not have an OC ban per se. They have a complete ban on firearms carry without a Denver CHL.

Appreciate the information. Interesting that CO made that argument. When you say the district court judge didn't consider it in making the decision, does that mean CO is not continuing to make that argument in the latest case?

I thought in Oregon that OC was legal for all in all but a few cities, and in those cities an Oregon CHL is required which is unobtainable for non-Oregon residents except those in CA, ID, NV and WA. From my own selfish perspective that puts Oregon somewhere between Colorado and California for legal carry options. There was a legislative move in Oregon earlier this year to recognize other states' CWFLs. Passed the Oregon House, but got killed by democrats in the Oregon Senate :(

Is there a separate (from Colorado) Denver CHL similar to the situation in New York where a NY license is not valid in New York City without the NYC license or endorsement?

Untamed1972
08-23-2011, 8:12 AM
That's like saying there's no rational basis for Florida to honor Washington resident permits but not California resident permits. Both Florida and Colorado have decided they will honor any state's resident permits as long as that state honors the Florida and/or Colorado resident permit. I'm not making a judgement on the validity of such a claim, only saying the impediment to CO/WA reciprocity may be Washington, not Colorado, just as the impediment to FL/CA reciprocity is most assuredly not Florida but California.

On the second point - I have a Florida resident CWFL which is recognized in Colorado. Are you saying that it is not recognized in Denver? I hadn't heard that before. There is something similar in Philadelphia ie OC is legal in PA, but only legal in Philadelphia if you have a PA carry permit.

The difference being that FL will issue a non-resident permit to a CA resident. CO (Or Denver at least) wont issue permits to not non-residents.

Untamed1972
08-23-2011, 8:16 AM
Appreciate the information. Interesting that CO made that argument. When you say the district court judge didn't consider it in making the decision, does that mean CO is not continuing to make that argument in the latest case?

I thought in Oregon that OC was legal for all in all but a few cities, and in those cities an Oregon CHL is required which is unobtainable for non-Oregon residents except those in CA, ID, NV and WA. From my own selfish perspective that puts Oregon somewhere between Colorado and California for legal carry options. There was a legislative move in Oregon earlier this year to recognize other states' CWFLs. Passed the Oregon House, but got killed by democrats in the Oregon Senate :(

Is there a separate (from Colorado) Denver CHL similar to the situation in New York where a NY license is not valid in New York City without the NYC license or endorsement?

If I am not mistaken, it believe there is nothing in OR law that prevents Sheriffs from issue LTCs to non-residents (See all the Sheriff Palmer / Grant County threads) it's just that Most OR Sheriffs refuse to do so.....but some do.

AEC1
08-23-2011, 8:24 AM
Gene, I love hearing what you have to say, 99% of the time... I am building my standard cap mag fund still....

choprzrul
08-23-2011, 8:37 AM
I wonder if it would be instructive to send Gene's OP to my sheriff? Would Parkinson see the writing on the wall and cave?

.

taperxz
08-23-2011, 8:44 AM
I wonder if it would be instructive to send Gene's OP to my sheriff? Would Parkinson see the writing on the wall and cave?

.

Probably not! He would want to see CGF and lawyers jump through all the hoops first before they lose their perceived power. Its about them first not our rights.

Paladin
08-23-2011, 8:54 AM
Post SCOTUS clean up.

...

3. Too expensive. Many gun owners can't afford the license. Government is going to have to make accommodations for them. Our initial license is expensive. It's ongoing maintenance is actually pretty cheap.Any details re. how this will be fixed?

ccmc
08-23-2011, 1:33 PM
If I am not mistaken, it believe there is nothing in OR law that prevents Sheriffs from issue LTCs to non-residents (See all the Sheriff Palmer / Grant County threads) it's just that Most OR Sheriffs refuse to do so.....but some do.

No, I'm pretty sure Oregon law states that non-resident Oregon CHLs can only be issued to residents of states that immediately border Oregon. Both Grant and Josephine County sheriffs have confirmed that to me. Handgunlaw,us says the same thing.

ccmc
08-23-2011, 1:35 PM
The difference being that FL will issue a non-resident permit to a CA resident. CO (Or Denver at least) wont issue permits to not non-residents.

I'm well aware of that. Now how about California :) ?

gunsmith
08-23-2011, 9:31 PM
Winning in CA-10 is to dare CA-9 to split. That would just go towards a likely cert grant on the issue of "right to travel" applied to carry. It wouldn't automatically cause "National Carry" like federal legislation would, but it would put in a bare minimum that you'd have to be able to apply for and receive a permit in any state that didn't honor your reciprocity.

-Gene ahhh, I was wondering how I can carry in CA, I'm 60 miles away from modoc, I'm sure they would issue & if California puts up a fuss we get another huge SCOTUS win...LOL!

WRT psyche evals, if they are so good why didn't they stop the NYPD officer that just got caught raping a young women, or that ex cop that was prominent on AMW that raped a 9yr old girl?

monk
08-23-2011, 9:44 PM
Speaking of this, I was going to speak with the interim Chief of Police for the city of San Fernando. I tried getting him to answer via email what his policies where but he says, and to be honest I can see his point of view, he can only do so via phone. I just need to find the time to do so.

CitaDeL
08-23-2011, 9:46 PM
Have you picked a sheriff to receive this explanation yet?;)
^ This +
:whistling:
^ This+
No response from Hoffmang= To me... Sumthin's up.

I guess that will have to be good enough for me...:rolleyes:

trashman
08-23-2011, 10:21 PM
Just catching up to this thread - thanks to Gene for the concise explanation. I'm looking forward to seeing this effort evolve, particularly as I spent part of the day wrapping up a certain application for a certain license in a certain county with a certain sheriff....

--Neill

hoffmang
08-23-2011, 10:26 PM
That's like saying there's no rational basis for Florida to honor Washington resident permits but not California resident permits. Both Florida and Colorado have decided they will honor any state's resident permits as long as that state honors the Florida and/or Colorado resident permit. I'm not making a judgement on the validity of such a claim, only saying the impediment to CO/WA reciprocity may be Washington, not Colorado, just as the impediment to FL/CA reciprocity is most assuredly not Florida but California.
You're confusing an individual's fundamental right to not be treated unfavorably when travelling to another state, with a state's interest in leveraging up on citizens to get their own resident's privileges. It's just not constitutional based on the right to travel.

On the second point - I have a Florida resident CWFL which is recognized in Colorado. Are you saying that it is not recognized in Denver? I hadn't heard that before. There is something similar in Philadelphia ie OC is legal in PA, but only legal in Philadelphia if you have a PA carry permit.
FL carry licenses issued to FL residents are honored in Denver. FL Non Resident carry licenses aren't honored in Denver. When not in Denver, one can open carry. When in Denver, a California resident with a CA carry license and a FL carry license CAN NOT BEAR ARMS.

-Gene

rob474
08-23-2011, 10:53 PM
That's already illegal per Salute v. Pitchess. Just ignore it. Apply. If you're turned down reapply when you feel like it. If there is a problem, email or call us as we'd enjoy continuing our education mission...

-Gene

wow great i was really wondering about this that makes me feel better about going and applying sooner then later now. i want to say thanks for everyone's hard work and i will be donating as soon has i get paid
thank you once again
rob

wildhawker
08-23-2011, 11:37 PM
Just catching up to this thread - thanks to Gene for the concise explanation. I'm looking forward to seeing this effort evolve, particularly as I spent part of the day wrapping up a certain application for a certain license in a certain county with a certain sheriff....

--Neill

:79::twoweeks::inquis:

Rossi357
08-23-2011, 11:48 PM
Are there any rumors floating around on what Chicago has planned in the way of an appeal of Ezell?

hoffmang
08-23-2011, 11:50 PM
Are there any rumors floating around on what Chicago has planned in the way of an appeal of Ezell?

They chose not to appeal Ezell and are now back in district court. They have modified the ordinance once and the rumor is that they will modify it again.

Ezell is binding CA-7 precedent and, I predict, will remain so for a very long time.

-Gene

ccmc
08-24-2011, 5:32 AM
You're confusing an individual's fundamental right to not be treated unfavorably when travelling to another state, with a state's interest in leveraging up on citizens to get their own resident's privileges. It's just not constitutional based on the right to travel.


FL carry licenses issued to FL residents are honored in Denver. FL Non Resident carry licenses aren't honored in Denver. When not in Denver, one can open carry. When in Denver, a California resident with a CA carry license and a FL carry license CAN NOT BEAR ARMS.

-Gene

I'm not confused - really :)

I just posted what is, not what should be. I've got carry licenses from several states, but there are still a few where I CAN NOT BEAR ARMS (Hello California :)). I'd sure like to see the day I can drive I-10 from Jacksonville to Santa Monica and have the option not to have to disarm before Blythe.

Paladin
08-24-2011, 6:47 AM
:inquis:
:confused:

They should when they've gotten a pre-litigation demand letter from the Calguns Foundation! :chris: ;)

Untamed1972
08-24-2011, 8:51 AM
No, I'm pretty sure Oregon law states that non-resident Oregon CHLs can only be issued to residents of states that immediately border Oregon. Both Grant and Josephine County sheriffs have confirmed that to me. Handgunlaw,us says the same thing.

Then I stand corrected. I must have missed in the other threads that non-resident permits were restricted to residents of border states.

Untamed1972
08-24-2011, 8:58 AM
^ This+
No response from Hoffmang= To me... Sumthin's up.

I guess that will have to be good enough for me...:rolleyes:

Dont you know that :whistling: is code for "upcoming CGF sucker punch followed by a Court Ordered Biatch Slap"? LOL :D

ccmc
08-24-2011, 9:11 AM
Then I stand corrected. I must have missed in the other threads that non-resident permits were restricted to residents of border states.

It is a pretty bizarre law.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 10:17 AM
I assume you are referring to me, Stonewalker! Although I can be a stubborn bastard at times :) I brought up Open Carry for a couple of reasons. I know there has been some misinformation about CGF and OC, and this has caused some animosity among the hardcore OC'ers. I don't think OC'ers in CA are obtaining LTC in any shape or form, and THIS is the activity that is extremely hard to legally do in many CA cities. Effectively impossible.

I'm not asking a question, I'm positing that it would be beneficial for everyone to clarify CGF's motive for our LTC goals in regards to unlicensed OC. The only reason I bring this up is because of Mr. Nichols' lawsuit and all the rancor he has caused.

Sorry, my iPad screwed up your username.

You seem to still be missing the point. I get that you were bringing up a political issue trying to inject UOC discussion intocthe thread. But an LTC doesn't mean a license to carry a concealed firearm. In fact, small counties can issue an open carry LTC.

When we attack he permit process as strictly a license to carry it puts the government into the position of defending the restriction on open vs. concealed carry. This also means that defending LTC is defending all forms of carry, not just open or concealed.

You can be very confident that CA will not allow unlicensed carry in the near future. There is no indication that the supreme court will invalidate a licensing requirement as long as a license is readily available.

wazdat
08-24-2011, 10:33 AM
Gene,

My wife has asked me several times why I spend so much time on the forum.

I had her read your summary and now she "gets it". :yes:

Thanks.

Stonewalker
08-24-2011, 10:35 AM
Sorry, my iPad screwed up your username.

You seem to still be missing the point. I get that you were bringing up a political issue trying to inject UOC discussion intocthe thread. But an LTC doesn't mean a license to carry a concealed firearm. In fact, small counties can issue an open carry LTC.

This I understand.

When we attack he permit process as strictly a license to carry it puts the government into the position of defending the restriction on open vs. concealed carry. This also means that defending LTC is defending all forms of carry, not just open or concealed.

You can be very confident that CA will not allow unlicensed carry in the near future. There is no indication that the supreme court will invalidate a licensing requirement as long as a license is readily available.

This, however, I had not really considered, and is pure genius. I guess my point is overtaken by a larger fight in that context. "Bear" clearly means carry in case of a conflict, the SCOTUS even laid that out and backed it up with historical context in Heller V DC. Framing "CCW" as a LTC argument forces the courts to consider "bear" instead of "concealed carry". I get it now.

choprzrul
08-24-2011, 10:43 AM
Gene,

My wife has asked me several times why I spend so much time on the forum.

I had her read your summary and now she "gets it". :yes:

Thanks.

^^This post is full of WIN^^

.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 11:12 AM
This, however, I had not really considered, and is pure genius. I guess my point is overtaken by a larger fight in that context. "Bear" clearly means carry in case of a conflict, the SCOTUS even laid that out and backed it up with historical context in Heller V DC. Framing "CCW" as a LTC argument forces the courts to consider "bear" instead of "concealed carry". I get it now.

the first part is to do what we can to change the discourse. Heller did suggest that concealed carry can be banned as a proper time, manner and place (TMP) restriction. The good thing is that it is not a portion of the holding and wasn't necessary analysis for the court to come to its conclusion in the case. My guess is that is was bread and circus to get Kennedy on board and since it isn't binding we can fix this later when the makeup of the court is more attractive.

We have to take a long-term approach. In 30 years the pool of potential Supreme Ciurt appointees will have gone through their whole career under Heller and they will view 2a as a fundamental right. There are a lot of things that we can do once there aren't really any anti-rights people on the court. Read some of Adam Winkler's writing to see where the 2A debate will be in 30 years.

Ubermcoupe
08-24-2011, 2:12 PM
...the only reason I want to stay is because I know the fight is going to be won!

Here, Here.

Even while in NYC I am browsing this forum looking forward to what I will come back to. :)

hoffmang
08-24-2011, 2:16 PM
When we attack he permit process as strictly a license to carry it puts the government into the position of defending the restriction on open vs. concealed carry. This also means that defending LTC is defending all forms of carry, not just open or concealed.

I just wanted to underscore the above. There are a lot of states like Tennessee that require a license to open or concealed carry. California was that way until 2009 IIRC.

We have to get people bearing arms outside of their homes first. Then we can move on to the niceties of manner restrictions.

-Gene

Patrick-2
08-25-2011, 5:53 AM
I just wanted to underscore the above. There are a lot of states like Tennessee that require a license to open or concealed carry. California was that way until 2009 IIRC.

We have to get people bearing arms outside of their homes first. Then we can move on to the niceties of time/place/manner restrictions.

-Gene

And I will underscore Gene's point that the fight is not over after the next Supreme Court win.

dantodd
08-25-2011, 10:04 AM
And I will underscore Gene's point that the fight is not over after the next Supreme Court win.

It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking the briefs in one case accepting certain restrictions imply that the leadership or lawyers think that such restrictions are acceptable. It doesn't. We have to accept certain restrictions wrt the case at hand. For example Heller says that certain restrictions may be acceptable so we don't challenge those restrictions in a case that is designed to establish the core right. We are not bound to these stipulations in future cases and can challenge those restrictions in separate actions.

If we accept that a state can choose between open and concealed carry in Williams, for example, we are not enjoined from bringing a future case challenging a law completely prohibiting one manner of carry on the basis that there is no compelling interest for the prohibition.

Anonymous Coward
08-25-2011, 6:09 PM
Here's an article on a law suit that Alaskan firement filed against Law Enforcement Psychological Services. I believe that service is also used by some californian sheriff's offices.

http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/053102/ala_053102ala0070001.shtml

Some quotes (Lenhard is the person doing the evaluation. Worell is being evaluated):

During oral screening, interview Richard Lenhart asked applicant Craig Worrell detailed questions about the past and present sex lives of Worrell and his fiancee.

''Lenhart laughed at Worrell's answer about his fiancee's sex life, then commented on Worrell's fiancee's sexual experience,'' according to the complaint. ''Lenhart then asked Worrell whether his sex life was good.''

Worrell's screening occurred the afternoon of Sept. 11, shortly after the terrorist attacks on the East Coast.
Worrell expressed sadness about the firefighters lost in the line of duty in New York,'' according to the complaint. ''In reply, Lenhart said, you have to give the terrorists credit for wiping out as many people as possible.'''

peopleofthesun
08-25-2011, 9:22 PM
Gene thank you for taking the time to make this very informative post. Thank you and everyone else involved for what you have done and are doing. We appreciate everything you guys do.

Paladin
08-31-2011, 1:18 AM
Post SCOTUS clean up.

...

3. Too expensive. Many gun owners can't afford the license. Government is going to have to make accommodations for them. Our initial license is expensive. It's ongoing maintenance is actually pretty cheap.
Any details re. how this will be fixed?
Bump

wildhawker
08-31-2011, 1:31 AM
Bump

I have to know - what's your expectation of just a few volunteers who have lives, families, and "real" work to take care of in addition to all of the many RKBA efforts?

Is the silence, possibly, a bit of a hint? I'm going to send Window_Seat over with a sandwich with instructions to not leave until you've eaten it.

-Brandon

Liberty1
08-31-2011, 1:45 AM
...I'm going to send Window_Seat over with a sandwich with instructions to not leave until you've eaten it.

-Brandon

And sleeping pills!

Paladin
08-31-2011, 7:05 AM
I have to know - what's your expectation of just a few volunteers who have lives, families, and "real" work to take care of in addition to all of the many RKBA efforts?

Is the silence, possibly, a bit of a hint? I'm going to send Window_Seat over with a sandwich with instructions to not leave until you've eaten it.

-Brandon

1) I was asking "how", not "when." Gene already stated "Post-SCOTUS" re. when.

2) Gene had given some details on "how" for all the other things, so I thought he may have skipped giving a "how" for this by mistake.

3) I do not assume silence is a hint because I do not assume you guys read every post I make. Rather, to me, it is reasonable to assume some slip thru the cracks.

4) PM sent re. #4

As I've posted many times before, I appreciate all the work that you -- and all the others -- donate to the cause. Thanks again.

Paladin
09-16-2011, 6:31 PM
I was thinking about the OP today and would like to suggest that a version of it be posted at gotcarry.org's homepage so that newbies will see where we're planning on going, how we're planning on getting there, and roughly when we expect to arrive.

hoffmang
09-17-2011, 2:05 PM
I was thinking about the OP today and would like to suggest that a version of it be posted at gotcarry.org's homepage so that newbies will see where we're planning on going, how we're planning on getting there, and roughly when we expect to arrive.

You certainly have my permission to share it.

-Gene