PDA

View Full Version : CCW Lawsuit About to be Filed


Glock22Fan
03-07-2007, 10:48 AM
There is an announcement of Team Billy Jack's latest lawsuit at www.CaliforniaConcealedCarry.com. More details will be available as legal protocols permit.

Outlaw
03-07-2007, 11:32 AM
Thanks for the link.

kilword
03-07-2007, 5:28 PM
It's funny with the constitution the 1A cannot be infringed you have to right to say whatever you want pretty much. But the 2A you cant even "bare" arms you can keep them locked up at home so when your mugged or carjacked or attacked you know your firearms are safely locked up at home.
Just to play fair shouldn't they put the same type of restrictions they do on the 2a to the other amendments? that would be interesting... komi-fornia.
everyones so hub bub "cant infringe on free speach rights at all!" well should go the same for the 2a or any other amendment.

Hope sommething comes of this.

grammaton76
03-07-2007, 5:31 PM
I do kinda wish they'd say which county. The agency isn't as relevant to folks wishing they had CCW's, as the county would be.

madjack956
03-07-2007, 5:35 PM
Betcha it's Berdoo...

tango-52
03-07-2007, 5:42 PM
Hopefully not. It's my understanding that if you write your good cause properly, you can get issued fairly easily in San Bernardino. Hopefully it's some hard *** place like LA, San diego, Sacto or San Fran.

grammaton76
03-07-2007, 5:43 PM
SD isn't nearly as tough as some other counties, although I've heard that Kolender does like to add "permit invalid unless..." conditions to your permit here in SD.

Still, I'd very much love for it to be an SD thing.

tango-52
03-07-2007, 5:47 PM
SD's permit level has dropped consistently since he took office. He has publicly stated that he doesn't like CCw. I understand that it takes considerable political clout or donations to obtain one now.

nosewitdot
03-07-2007, 9:32 PM
he posed in the riverside forum a lot...so hopefully.....=)

Fate
03-07-2007, 10:08 PM
He was looking for a bullet proof poster boy to take down Sheriff Baca in LA. Maybe he found one!

Glock22Fan
03-08-2007, 8:12 AM
This case might be settled out of court, before the lawsuit is filed, with a non-disclosure agreement. The terms we would insist on would be beneficial for our client(s) and applicants in that area generally. Saying too much too early might embarrass the agency enough to make them play harder ball and make us invest more to get a win.

We will say what we ca, when we can.

tango-52
03-08-2007, 8:57 AM
So, does that mean that the agency involved will provide the complainant with a CCW to go away and shut up, but they will continue with their illegal policy? If so, then everyone will have to sue to get the right that they are being denied. Good for the complainant, but doesn't help anyone else.

soopafly
03-08-2007, 9:55 AM
it takes considerable political clout or donations

you mean bribes...let's not sugarcoat it.

bruss01
03-08-2007, 10:46 AM
I guess I don't understand what good an out-of-court settlement does, especially if there is a "non-disclosure" stipulation.

It doesn't set a legal precedent.

It doesn't affect any county but the one being sued.

Any "agreement" likely doesn't outlive the current sherriff who makes the agreement.

Other counties don't "tremble in their boots" because the terms of the settlement are not disclosed.

The guy the suit is aimed at helping, is in the same boat all over again if he moves to a different county.

Maybe there is something of REAL and LASTING benefit that I am missing here? Please educate me.

I DO understand that it takes longer and costs more money to pursue a binding legal decision, than to have a "behind closed doors" gentleman's agreement for a single sherriff, a single county. Make some news, generate some support, give folks the idea that there IS a process that has a hope in Hades worth supporting. I thought the point was real and lasting reform for all californians. Guess I missed something somewhere.

Seriously, I'm not being critical (at least I hope not) just not getting how this helps the over-all cause. Enlighten me, someone.

Glock22Fan
03-08-2007, 10:52 AM
So, does that mean that the agency involved will provide the complainant with a CCW to go away and shut up, but they will continue with their illegal policy? If so, then everyone will have to sue to get the right that they are being denied. Good for the complainant, but doesn't help anyone else.


Note: I did say "Applicants in that area generally."

Once an agency has settled a lawsuit in a claimant's favor, do you really think that they will leave themselves open to future claims on the same grounds? Especially as both costs and damages will have been awarded against them. Even back in Guillory v. Gates days, the cost to that county ran into 7 figures, not counting their own legal costs.

I think that (talking generically), once an agency is been shown openly to be in breach of the law, then they are unlikely to stick with the same policy. Indeed, if it goes to court, the (federal) judge may order otherwise, or it might be part of a settlement agreement. If it goes to court again on a second charge, I think the judge might well get really nasty with them for not listening the first time around.

This, each and every win benefit others in that area. As we start toppling agencies, we will get a domino effect - no agency will want to be next.

Glock22Fan
03-08-2007, 11:04 AM
I guess I don't understand what good an out-of-court settlement does, especially if there is a "non-disclosure" stipulation.

It doesn't set a legal precedent.

It doesn't affect any county but the one being sued.

Any "agreement" likely doesn't outlive the current sherriff who makes the agreement.

Other counties don't "tremble in their boots" because the terms of the settlement are not disclosed.

The guy the suit is aimed at helping, is in the same boat all over again if he moves to a different county.

Maybe there is something of REAL and LASTING benefit that I am missing here? Please educate me.

I DO understand that it takes longer and costs more money to pursue a binding legal decision, than to have a "behind closed doors" gentleman's agreement for a single sherriff, a single county. Make some news, generate some support, give folks the idea that there IS a process that has a hope in Hades worth supporting. I thought the point was real and lasting reform for all californians. Guess I missed something somewhere.

Seriously, I'm not being critical (at least I hope not) just not getting how this helps the over-all cause. Enlighten me, someone.

Yes, and no.

Do not underestimate the power of an out of court settlement. Future sheriffs will know that they are open to a similar lawsuit if they attempt to renege on such a deal. Their counsel will know that they will lose in that case - the Sheriff is not autonomous, he or she answers to the holders of the pursestrings.

Also, word will get around in the law enforcement community.

Suppose we win an out of court settlement (and this is hypothetical at present) based on our belief that legal residents who are not US citizens are entitled to a CCW on the same basis as US citizens (already proven in court in LVPD v. Dorsey (aka Englebert Humperdinck)). That sheriff will have to start considering non-citizens in the same light as citizens. His/her counsel will tell them that is the case, and if they ignore it, they may well be liable personally for future damages. Win a few of these, and other sheriffs WILL hear of the policy changes (they do talk amongst each other) and change their policies to avoid the fight.

If there are no more challenges within, say, twenty years, maybe the sheriffs then will backslide a little (we see this in L.A. County, where the lessons of Salute v. Pitchess and CBS v. Block are now being forgotten).

Yea, wouldn't it be great if we could have one court case that would make all sheriffs/chiefs issue on a "Shall Issue" basis forever. In the meantime, we are drinking the ocean one gulp at a time. Any small improvement is an improvement. Doing nothing is exactly that.

grammaton76
03-08-2007, 11:17 AM
Let's not forget that, should the county start granting CCW's (even if they don't disclose why) and their issuance rate goes up, more folks will apply. Which means more folks will have CCW's.

Most critically, a large, installed pool of current CCW holders is a good voting bloc. When sherrif X refuses their renewal, or denies a holder's son or daughter who just came of age, that's grounds for anger against the sheriff. Enough vocal, betrayed CCW holders can make it hard for a sherrif to remain in office, if we get the issuance up to a good amount before the new "anti-CCW" sherrif gets in.

MrTuffPaws
03-08-2007, 12:07 PM
It's funny with the constitution the 1A cannot be infringed you have to right to say whatever you want pretty much. But the 2A you cant even "bare" arms you can keep them locked up at home so when your mugged or carjacked or attacked you know your firearms are safely locked up at home.
Just to play fair shouldn't they put the same type of restrictions they do on the 2a to the other amendments? that would be interesting... komi-fornia.
everyones so hub bub "cant infringe on free speach rights at all!" well should go the same for the 2a or any other amendment.

Hope sommething comes of this.

That is because the 1st has been encorporated and all states must follow it. The 2nd has not. We have to wait until the SCotUS rules on it again. In other words, I would not hold your breath.

tango-52
03-08-2007, 12:50 PM
Suppose we win an out of court settlement (and this is hypothetical at present) based on our belief that legal residents who are not US citizens are entitled to a CCW on the same basis as US citizens (already proven in court in LVPD v. Dorsey (aka Englebert Humperdinck)). That sheriff will have to start considering non-citizens in the same light as citizens. His/her counsel will tell them that is the case, and if they ignore it, they may well be liable personally for future damages. Win a few of these, and other sheriffs WILL hear of the policy changes (they do talk amongst each other) and change their policies to avoid the fight.

So, you guys went to a county that was already pretty much shall-issue, like Tehama or Glenn Counties, and sued them because they had some bone-head requirement for being a citizen. Well, it is good to clear that up, but I don't see where the trickle-down effect to non-issuing counties will be. Hopefully, it won't just piss off the sheriff and have him change the policy to very restricted. I won't get my hopes up on this one.

xrMike
03-08-2007, 1:25 PM
Suppose we win an out of court settlement (and this is hypothetical at present) based on our belief that legal residents who are not US citizens are entitled to a CCW on the same basis as US citizens (already proven in court in LVPD v. Dorsey (aka Englebert Humperdinck)). That sheriff will have to start considering non-citizens in the same light as citizens.I totally appreciate what you're trying to do, and understand the whole "1-step-at-a-time" approach you are advocating; however, I simply CANNOT get excited or feel good about a NON-U.S. citizen winning a court case that grants him a right that I (U.S.-born) cannot also apply for and obtain for myself.

The number of legal-resident aliens applying for CCW is mighty small, I bet.

I know... baby steps and all. Good luck. I guess it's a start.

Maybe my kids' kids will someday be able to CCW without having to show "good cause", since the right to self-defense ought to be good cause enough.

Glock22Fan
03-08-2007, 2:03 PM
So, you guys went to a county that was already pretty much shall-issue, like Tehama or Glenn Counties, and sued them because they had some bone-head requirement for being a citizen. Well, it is good to clear that up, but I don't see where the trickle-down effect to non-issuing counties will be. Hopefully, it won't just piss off the sheriff and have him change the policy to very restricted. I won't get my hopes up on this one.

Totally wrong. The agency in question has less than a dozen permits out and the case is nothing to do with citizenship.

I said that the citizenship case was hypothetical. It was just an example of the sort of case that should win.

tango-52
03-08-2007, 2:20 PM
Thanks for the clarification, couldn't tell from what you had posted. It made it look like you guys were just going after the low-hanging fruit.

JALLEN
03-08-2007, 2:20 PM
The case is to be filed in the Central District of California, so it involves one of the following counties, or an activity therein:

LOS ANGELES, ORANGE, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA

San Diego and Imperial are in the Southern District of California.

bear93445
03-08-2007, 2:29 PM
The case is to be filed in the Central District of California, so it involves one of the following counties, or an activity therein:

LOS ANGELES, ORANGE, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA

San Diego and Imperial are in the Southern District of California.

Does this mean that all the counties within the Central District would be affected?

tango-52
03-08-2007, 2:30 PM
Based upon the nebulous information given so far, I wonder if this is against a County Sheriff, or a podunk chief or Barney Fife type.

Glock22Fan
03-08-2007, 2:31 PM
The case is to be filed in the Central District of California, so it involves one of the following counties, or an activity therein:

LOS ANGELES, ORANGE, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA

San Diego and Imperial are in the Southern District of California.

Correct. Anyone know how many Police Departments there are within those counties which also issue CCW's?

Quite a few.

And there the clues stop. Anyone heard of a legal expression "sub judice?"

tango-52
03-08-2007, 2:32 PM
It won't affect any one other than that agency if it is all wrapped up in a non-disclosure agreement. And then it will only affect issuance to that individual, since, theoretically, no one will be able to discuss the case or its outcome.

Glock22Fan
03-08-2007, 2:54 PM
It won't affect any one other than that agency if it is all wrapped up in a non-disclosure agreement. And then it will only affect issuance to that individual, since, theoretically, no one will be able to discuss the case or its outcome.

1) It depends on whether it does end in a non-disclosure agreement or it goes to trial

2) Depends what conditions are attached to the agreement. Theoretically, part of the settlement could be that the Sheriff/Chief gives $10,000 to charity every time he/she denies a permit. (OK, for those of you who like it put in simple terms, yes, this isn't going to be one of the actual terms, but is just a hypothetical example.) More realistically, the sheriff/chief may agree to adopt different, non-discriminatory practices in future. If the Sheriff then breaches these, then the non-disclosure side of the agreement is automatically null and void, and becomes grounds for a new lawsuit.

And for those who still want to quibble;

1) We have (14th amendment expert) attorneys advising us; have you?

2) We can go in again against the same sheriff/chief with a new client. And not even have to do much more in the way of discovery. How often do you think they want to pay out tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands in costs and damages?

3) What are YOU doing to further the agenda?

IAmASensFan
03-08-2007, 3:43 PM
I'm totally for your going after sheriffs/chiefs who don't issue to non citizens. There are folks in this state that are permanent residents, who need CCW's (remember folks, there are more than just illegal mexicans in California).

The state allows issuance to non citizens, disallowing it is an example of some sheriffs exclusionary tactics.

Good Job

Yes, and no.

Do not underestimate the power of an out of court settlement. Future sheriffs will know that they are open to a similar lawsuit if they attempt to renege on such a deal. Their counsel will know that they will lose in that case - the Sheriff is not autonomous, he or she answers to the holders of the pursestrings.

Also, word will get around in the law enforcement community.

Suppose we win an out of court settlement (and this is hypothetical at present) based on our belief that legal residents who are not US citizens are entitled to a CCW on the same basis as US citizens (already proven in court in LVPD v. Dorsey (aka Englebert Humperdinck)). That sheriff will have to start considering non-citizens in the same light as citizens. His/her counsel will tell them that is the case, and if they ignore it, they may well be liable personally for future damages. Win a few of these, and other sheriffs WILL hear of the policy changes (they do talk amongst each other) and change their policies to avoid the fight.

If there are no more challenges within, say, twenty years, maybe the sheriffs then will backslide a little (we see this in L.A. County, where the lessons of Salute v. Pitchess and CBS v. Block are now being forgotten).

Yea, wouldn't it be great if we could have one court case that would make all sheriffs/chiefs issue on a "Shall Issue" basis forever. In the meantime, we are drinking the ocean one gulp at a time. Any small improvement is an improvement. Doing nothing is exactly that.

IAmASensFan
03-08-2007, 3:44 PM
I put my dibs on SLO

The case is to be filed in the Central District of California, so it involves one of the following counties, or an activity therein:

LOS ANGELES, ORANGE, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA

San Diego and Imperial are in the Southern District of California.

Glock22Fan
03-08-2007, 4:20 PM
I'm totally for your going after sheriffs/chiefs who don't issue to non citizens. There are folks in this state that are permanent residents, who need CCW's .

As I was such a person myself for several years, I totally agree. As and when we get such a person prepared to go through with it, in an area that offers promise, we will undoubtedly pursue it. Hasn't happened yet.

Paladin
03-08-2007, 4:48 PM
More details will be available as legal protocols permit.Are you talking a few: days? weeks? months? years?

choochboost
03-08-2007, 5:29 PM
I put my dibs on SLO
Me too.

Glock22Fan
03-08-2007, 6:09 PM
Are you talking a few: days? weeks? months? years?

If all goes well, we should be filing within less than eight weeks, maybe less. However, there are sometimes last minute hiccups, such as people getting sick.

tango-52
03-08-2007, 7:21 PM
Eight weeks? Man, I really won't hold my breath then. Good luck with it.

Bill_in_SD
04-05-2007, 4:28 PM
Any updates? I know, 4 weeks left to go......

Bill in SD

626Tony
04-05-2007, 10:07 PM
I need to stay posted on this!

MadMex
04-06-2007, 8:35 PM
God bless sheriff Bonner of Placer County.

Glock22Fan
04-11-2007, 6:55 PM
We've had a slight delay, caused by the attorneys wanting to review everything and make sure nothing is missing, but it is on schedule for very soon.

I'll keep everyone in touch.

In the meantime, I hope you have checked out http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/gettingstarted/ccwarticle.html in which we have described the CCW system in California, and (hopefully) answered many of the questions.

626Tony
04-11-2007, 11:09 PM
i need to stay posted also

TacFan
04-11-2007, 11:16 PM
keep us informed please

Bill_in_SD
04-20-2007, 9:42 AM
-bump-

Directshot
04-20-2007, 10:00 AM
. But the 2A you cant even "bare" arms you can keep them locked up at home so when your mugged or carjacked or attacked you know your firearms are safely locked up at home..

Sure sounds like Washington DC to me....

CalNRA
04-20-2007, 10:16 AM
is there anyway we can help? donations, calls at the right time to flood the non-emergency lines at the said PD, etc?

Glock22Fan
04-20-2007, 3:01 PM
In case anyone hasn't seen it yet, we have republished Ted Nugent's articles on the horrors of "Gun Free Zones" at: http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/news/nugent.html
There's also an interview (video) with Suzanne Hupp at http://keyetv.com/video/?id=12666@keye.dayport.com that's worth watching.