PDA

View Full Version : CALGUNS FOUNDATION SUES LOS ANGELES COUNTY, SHERIFF LEE BACA (3/9/12)


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 4:20 PM
San Carlos, CA (March 9, 2012) – Continuing its Carry License Sunshine and Compliance Initiative, The Calguns Foundation (CGF) has filed a lawsuit today in Los Angeles Superior Court against Los Angeles Sheriff Leroy “Lee” Baca, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Los Angeles County. The case, entitled Jennifer Lu, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al., challenges the Sheriff’s ban on accepting and processing applications for carry licenses submitted by city residents.

The Calguns Foundation is joined in the lawsuit, by three individual plaintiffs.

“Sheriff Baca made the unfortunate decision to repeat historical failure,” noted CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman. “Apparently, the Sheriff and County do not feel bound to follow the precedent they set when the California Court of Appeals ruled against them in 1976. We look forward to refreshing their memory.”

In the case of Salute v. Pitchess, the Court held that “[i]t is the duty of the sheriff to make . . . an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application” for a handgun carry license. Then-Los Angeles Sheriff Peter Pitchess had “a fixed policy of not granting applications . . . … except in a limited number of cases.”

California requires that people who desire to carry a handgun for self defense be licensed by the sheriff of the county in which they reside, or, at the applicants’ option, they can apply to their city’s chief of police. However, sheriffs cannot require applicants to first apply to and be denied by a city’s chief of police as a prerequisite to application.

“The State of California very intentionally established a standardized carry license framework: if you’re a sheriff, you have a duty to administer the carry license program for all residents of your county,” clarified Brandon Combs, an officer of CGF and director of the Carry License Initiative. “Sheriff Baca’s intent in enforcing these unlawful regulations is quite clear: make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding residents of Los Angeles County to defend their lives and those of their families. Not only does he treat some deserving applicants differently than others, he uses the rejections by cities’ chiefs of police - that his policy requires - as evidence against the applicants when they apply to him.”

“Jennifer Lu and the other plaintiffs have every reason to desire a handgun carry license, not the least of which is that it is their fundamental right under the Constitution as Federal courts in both West Virginia and Maryland ruled earlier this week,” said Jason Davis, attorney for the plaintiffs. “Sheriff Baca is circumventing state and constitutional law, and we’re confident that this case will bear that out.”

A copy of the complaint and case filings can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/lu_v_baca.

stix213
03-09-2012, 4:22 PM
Been wondering when this would get filed. Go get em! :44:

spgripside
03-09-2012, 4:24 PM
Hell yeah! Thank you.

mrrsquared79
03-09-2012, 4:26 PM
EPIC!!! Can't wait for this to trickle on down to the OC!!!

exklusve
03-09-2012, 4:26 PM
Just saw the email.

Nice!!!

Posted from Tapatalk.

cbaer5
03-09-2012, 4:26 PM
:hurray:Thank You:hurray:

FXR
03-09-2012, 4:27 PM
Great news! :jump: :44:

n2k
03-09-2012, 4:27 PM
Awesome.....keep up the fight.

orangeusa
03-09-2012, 4:27 PM
This is why I give to CGF. Thanks WH.. :)

berto
03-09-2012, 4:27 PM
Awesome.

zum
03-09-2012, 4:30 PM
don't forget to drop your money in the bucket!

thanks CGF

woods
03-09-2012, 4:30 PM
More fuel for the fire! Good job! :-)

curtisfong
03-09-2012, 4:32 PM
:jump:

FailedAngrMgmt
03-09-2012, 4:32 PM
good ****....thank you guys!

Wherryj
03-09-2012, 4:33 PM
Too bad CalGuns can't REALLY sue Sheriff Baca. If he was really sued, he would face the personal financial imposition of defending his clearly errant behavior. As it is, the tax payers of the region will pay for his defense, meaning that he learns absolutely NOTHING from the experience.

speeedracerr
03-09-2012, 4:34 PM
Holy Freaking Moly, I just received the email!!! YES SIR!!!! Awesome!!!

galactusnt
03-09-2012, 4:35 PM
Awesome:lurk5::lurk5:

safewaysecurity
03-09-2012, 4:42 PM
I'm still confused. Aren't there 2 other cases already in L.A doing just this? What's the difference between the 3.

Mrbroom
03-09-2012, 4:42 PM
And on the 8th day.. God created Cal-Guns Foundation!!!! AWESOME!!!

Maltese Falcon
03-09-2012, 4:42 PM
Go get them guys!!

$50 to CGF.

Use if for lunch or whatever...

.

NeenachGuy
03-09-2012, 4:44 PM
:popcorn:

Thanks CGF!

Donation Details
Confirmation number: 6WK95987RG523934B
Donation amount: $100.00 USD
Total: $100.00 USD
Purpose: Calguns Foundation - General Donation
Reference: 0042

gugoo
03-09-2012, 4:44 PM
I read through the filing and this lawsuit is to force LASD to review all LTC applications right?

Ding126
03-09-2012, 4:48 PM
What's the estimated time frame for a ruling? 6 months, 1-2 years?...The wheels of justice move so slow

Marthor
03-09-2012, 4:50 PM
This rules! I'm moving to LA county in a few months and it would be awesome to get this county's arse in line.

morfeeis
03-09-2012, 4:51 PM
This is great news!



Wait this is great news right?

The Cable Guy
03-09-2012, 4:52 PM
And so it begins. Exciting news!

AndrewMendez
03-09-2012, 4:56 PM
This just the start....LA County is a HUGE piece of meat that's on the chopping block. Piece by piece, we are gaining more and more momentum. Remember...freedom is not free.

huntercf
03-09-2012, 4:56 PM
:King:

HowardW56
03-09-2012, 4:57 PM
don't forget to drop your money in the bucket!

thanks CGF


I'm in for $100.00

Harrison_Bergeron
03-09-2012, 4:58 PM
If he still gets to decide what constitutes a good cause, then what does a win here accomplish?

HowardW56
03-09-2012, 5:00 PM
What's the estimated time frame for a ruling? 6 months, 1-2 years?...The wheels of justice move so slow

Yes they do move slowly, but they do move forward....

eville
03-09-2012, 5:01 PM
A sincere thank you.

scarville
03-09-2012, 5:04 PM
Well, Shoot! Now I gotta donate more money.

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 5:04 PM
I read through the filing and this lawsuit is to force LASD to review all LTC applications right?

This case is to compel the Los Angeles Sheriff [Baca] to accept and process all carry license applications under Cal. Penal Code Sec. 26150 et seq. [made by residents of the county and by eligible business applicants].

It may also have the effect of prompting other sheriffs currently enforcing a similar policy to revise it, quickly.

-Brandon

AndrewMendez
03-09-2012, 5:04 PM
If he still gets to decide what constitutes a good cause, then what does a win here accomplish?

Many lawsuits are already pending/in the works... ;)

CGF is playing Chess....long term.

The Gleam
03-09-2012, 5:05 PM
Best news I've heard in months! An no more of a deserving person to address the lawsuit towards.

THANKS!!! :patriot: :thumbsup:

:Ivan:


:inquis:

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 5:06 PM
What's the estimated time frame for a ruling? 6 months, 1-2 years?...The wheels of justice move so slow

A good question. Importantly, we're going for an injunction on the enforcement of the challenged sections of the policy. We could see this case concluded within 60-90 days.

-Brandon

ojisan
03-09-2012, 5:06 PM
:thumbsup:

"CGF: when you absolutely, positively have to sue every mfer in the room."

CCWFacts
03-09-2012, 5:07 PM
That is awesome. I'm reading the complaint now. As much as I would love to have a LTC right now, I actually hope that Sheriff Baca fights this endlessly and runs up enormous legal bills and is forced to buy Calguns Foundation something like this:

http://www.ssip.net/upload/bugatti-veyron-side-1_45.jpg

Connor P Price
03-09-2012, 5:09 PM
If he still gets to decide what constitutes a good cause, then what does a win here accomplish?

Richards is a separate case in which CGF is looking to establish that good cause is "self defense" and good moral character is "not otherwise prohibited." So success in that case will remove discretion from the sheriffs entirely. A win here forces compliance with the law and prevents any further funny business once discretion is gone. None of CGF's cases exist in a vacuum, they are all part of a wider strategy. I must say that strategy looks more and more genius with every case filed.

ETA: This case being filed is a great way to end an awesome week for gun rights. Thanks CGF!

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

stix213
03-09-2012, 5:10 PM
If he still gets to decide what constitutes a good cause, then what does a win here accomplish?

I'm sure the idea is to have the "good cause" issues handled by the already running and separate litigation targeting that specifically. It won't help much if we get rid of "good cause" but the sheriff won't even process apps.

HowardW56
03-09-2012, 5:10 PM
[QUOTE=CCWFacts;8189399]That is awesome. I'm reading the complaint now. As much as I would love to have a LTC right now, I actually hope that Sheriff Baca fights this endlessly and runs up enormous legal bills and is forced to FUND SIMILAR Calguns Foundation LAWSUITS!./QUOTE]


I fixed it!

Harrison_Bergeron
03-09-2012, 5:11 PM
Thank you for the clarification, I understand now.

Richards is a separate case in which CGF is looking to establish that good cause is "self defense" and good moral character is "not otherwise prohibited." So success in that case will remove discretion from the sheriffs entirely. A win here forces compliance with the law and prevents any further funny business once discretion is gone. None of CGF's cases exist in a vacuum, they are all part of a wider strategy. I must say that strategy looks more and more genius with every case filed.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

AndrewMendez
03-09-2012, 5:12 PM
I can't seem to download the complaint....is there anywhere else I can get it from?


ETA, I got it.

Gray Peterson
03-09-2012, 5:14 PM
If he still gets to decide what constitutes a good cause, then what does a win here accomplish?

To prevent him, post Richards & post SCOTUS carry case, from taking actions to keep people applying & getting the license. Given the literal flood of applicants that will hit LA county when that happen, we can't allow the sheriff to opt out.

It also sends a message that CGF isn't afraid of taking on the largest populated county in the United States.

Kodemonkey
03-09-2012, 5:15 PM
I just sponsored LA County a few weeks ago. Now that's a good return on my investment!

CHS
03-09-2012, 5:17 PM
Awesome!

But... We're still a may-issue state :(

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 5:21 PM
To prevent him, post Richards & post SCOTUS carry case, from taking actions to keep people applying & getting the license. Given the literal flood of applicants that will hit LA county when that happen, we can't allow the sheriff to opt out.

It also sends a message that CGF isn't afraid of taking on the largest populated county in the United States.

All of the above, and the more immediate effects of: [1] enforcing equal protection of the law; [2] reducing applicant costs, time, and administrative burdens; [3] compelling Baca to process applications that may very well qualify even under today's heightened standard for good cause; [4] eliminating a policy that has (and is intended to have) a chilling effect on those who would otherwise apply; [5] reminding those sworn to uphold the laws that if they think they can ignore the law and our Constitution whenever they like, they're flat ****ing wrong.

-Brandon

safewaysecurity
03-09-2012, 5:21 PM
Nobody has answered my question yet. What is the difference between this case and Davis v City of Los Angeles? Is it simply that one is on the city level and the other is challenging the sheriff?

Drivedabizness
03-09-2012, 5:23 PM
To prevent him, post Richards & post SCOTUS carry case, from taking actions to keep people applying & getting the license. Given the literal flood of applicants that will hit LA county when that happen, we can't allow the sheriff to opt out.

It also sends a message that CGF isn't afraid of taking on the largest populated county in the United States.

Maybe CalGuns could come up with an "use of automated tools approval workflow/flowchart" to provide to CLEO's like Sheriff Baca so that, when he loses, he doesn't pull a "Sheriff Jones" and do a de facto "I'm not accepting new applications for at least a year because I'm overwhelmed (on purpose) with the ones I have already" policy.

Here's hoping our fellows in L.A County get relief.

Connor P Price
03-09-2012, 5:24 PM
A good question. Importantly, we're going for an injunction on the enforcement of the challenged sections of the policy. We could see this case concluded within 60-90 days.

-Brandon

It would be great to start seeing injunctions issued, especially with the small group of attorneys working on this stuff that would free up valuable time. I like this.


It also sends a message that CGF isn't afraid of taking on the largest populated county in the United States.

Hopefully SF county takes this as notice that they are not immune either.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

AndrewMendez
03-09-2012, 5:26 PM
Nobody has answered my question yet. What is the difference between this case and Davis v City of Los Angeles? Is it simply that one is on the city level and the other is challenging the sheriff?

IIRC, this was only LA City.

HowardW56
03-09-2012, 5:26 PM
Here's hoping our fellows in L.A County get relief.

:iagree:

I'm in LA County..........................

AndrewMendez
03-09-2012, 5:27 PM
Maybe CalGuns could come up with an "use of automated tools approval workflow/flowchart" to provide to CLEO's like Sheriff Baca so that, when he loses, he doesn't pull a "Sheriff Jones" and do a de facto "I'm not accepting new applications for at least a year because I'm overwhelmed (on purpose) with the ones I have already" policy.

Here's hoping our fellows in L.A County get relief.

You mean this: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/CGF_Civilian_CCW_Guide.pdf

Connor P Price
03-09-2012, 5:30 PM
Nobody has answered my question yet. What is the difference between this case and Davis v City of Los Angeles? Is it simply that one is on the city level and the other is challenging the sheriff?

Strategically county sheriffs are much better targets. There are significantly fewer of them and they don't have the option of refusing to process apps like police chiefs do. Going after police chiefs seems foolish when they could just decide to stop processing apps if they lose.

I'm not familiar enough with the City case to really comment on the similarities though.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 5:30 PM
Nobody has answered my question yet. What is the difference between this case and Davis v City of Los Angeles? Is it simply that one is on the city level and the other is challenging the sheriff?

You somewhat answered your own question. This case is v. the County and Sheriff Baca. Davis is v. City/LAPD and sought a writ to enforce an existing judgement.

More importantly, however, is that this case seeks to compel the sheriff to perform duties he is mandated to under the law, including the enforcement of a compliant policy that does not discriminate on the basis of one's city of residence [provided that the applicant is a LA County resident, or an eligible businessperson].

-Brandon

TKM
03-09-2012, 5:36 PM
Transaction Date : 3/9/2012


Thank you very much for your donation.


Me and Mr. Franklin say thank you for all of your hard work.

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 5:37 PM
Maybe CalGuns could come up with an "use of automated tools approval workflow/flowchart" to provide to CLEO's like Sheriff Baca so that, when he loses, he doesn't pull a "Sheriff Jones" and do a de facto "I'm not accepting new applications for at least a year because I'm overwhelmed (on purpose) with the ones I have already" policy.

Here's hoping our fellows in L.A County get relief.

We've done an extensive amount of work producing such documents (I haven't had time to update the flowchart Andrew linked, but it's substantively correct even after SB 610, etc.).

You can download the guides here (http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/9-carry.html); feel free to distribute them to your family, friends, and favorite licensing authorities.

Our Sunshine audits are here (http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/17-2011audit.html).

-Brandon

p.s. Outside of 2A post-bear litigation, we have a few things in store to address the "denial by delay" appointment scheduling problem.

goober
03-09-2012, 5:40 PM
http://www.mytinyphone.com/uploads/users/anaverry/173700.jpg

nice work

nick
03-09-2012, 5:42 PM
Proud to be the first LA County sponsor... Now I just need to up the ante when I get home. Fry the bastard! And thank you :)

mosinnagantm9130
03-09-2012, 5:52 PM
Good work CGF!

HowardW56
03-09-2012, 5:58 PM
Awesome!

But... We're still a may-issue state :(


For now....... :43:

77bawls
03-09-2012, 5:59 PM
“Jennifer Lu and the other plaintiffs have every reason to desire a handgun carry license, not the least of which is that it is their fundamental right under the Constitution as Federal courts in both West Virginia and Maryland ruled earlier this week,” said Jason Davis, attorney for the plaintiffs. “Sheriff Baca is circumventing state and constitutional law, and we’re confident that this case will bear that out.”

What did I miss?

HowardW56
03-09-2012, 6:02 PM
p.s. Outside of 2A post-bear litigation, we have a few things in store to address the "denial by delay" appointment scheduling problem.



:eek: :rolleyes:

monk
03-09-2012, 6:04 PM
This is awesome!! Glad it's happening.

Question though, did CGF finally get the LTC applications? I seem to remember that, maybe late 90's or early 2000's there was another lawsuit, apart from Salute, that forced LASD to hand them over? Am I lost in my history?

wildhawker
03-09-2012, 6:09 PM
This is awesome!! Glad it's happening.

Question though, did CGF finally get the LTC applications? I seem to remember that, maybe late 90's or early 2000's there was another lawsuit, apart from Salute, that forced LASD to hand them over? Am I lost in my history?

You're thinking of CBS, Inc. v. Block (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=cbs+v+block&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&case=13351098461979863274&scilh=0).

More news on this in 2...

-Brandon

00Medic
03-09-2012, 6:19 PM
This is a giant pool of awesome sauce!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you CGF. Donation(s) coming to you.

goober
03-09-2012, 6:26 PM
What did I miss?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=543946

ShooterDK
03-09-2012, 6:30 PM
Thank you Wildhawker. CGF donation inbound.

Uxi
03-09-2012, 6:31 PM
Awesome!

hoffmang
03-09-2012, 6:55 PM
1. Freedom is not free. Please donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1) today so we can continue to file more cases and pursue them all the way to SCOTUS if we have to.

2. Why LASD? Salute was against LASD. LASD has an illegal policy requiring applicants to waste time and money in violation of California Law. LASD can not stop issuing ever under CA law. LAPD can stop issuing and go what used to be called (g). Lost of people in LA County don't live in LA City and couldn't apply to LA City.

3. But aren't we may issue? Yes, yes we are. That's why Richards v. Prieto exists and raises exactly the same issues that Woolard v. Sheridan in Maryland raises. A Federal District Court in Maryland ruled that MD's almost identical law was unconstitutional. The way to get may issue where there is no open carry ended is to get SCOTUS to take the case. The main way to get SCOTUS to take a 2A case is to create a circuit split between non criminal 2A litigation. We're well underway on that.

At the end of the day, the Sunshine Initiative exists to clean up the tactical field of applying for a permit so that when the Supreme Court tells all governments that they can't violate the right to carry but can require permits, those permit processes are fair, follow the law, and simple to complete. It's called working in parallel.

Did I mention you should donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1)?

-Gene

tpc13
03-09-2012, 7:00 PM
It's about time he needs to retire. Stick it to him and his own policy's. Go get him and remind him he works for the people....

Gray Peterson
03-09-2012, 7:00 PM
Ok, for my own understanding...

If this sheriff is ignoreing the law, and a previous court order. That is breaking the law yes? that means he could be arrested by a citizen, yes?

So if the above is true, then could a citizen, issue said arrest. Thereby forcing the sheriff into the legal system?

Eugene Salute is dead, & the prayer for relief is different.

Arrest the sheriff? yeah, if you want to die....

HowardW56
03-09-2012, 7:00 PM
1. Freedom is not free. Please donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1) today so we can continue to file more cases and pursue them all the way to SCOTUS if we have to.

2. Why LASD? Salute was against LASD. LASD has an illegal policy requiring applicants to waste time and money in violation of California Law. LASD can not stop issuing ever under CA law. LAPD can stop issuing and go what used to be called (g). Lost of people in LA County don't live in LA City and couldn't apply to LA City.

3. But aren't we may issue? Yes, yes we are. That's why Richards v. Prieto exists and raises exactly the same issues that Woolard v. Sheridan in Maryland raises. A Federal District Court in Maryland ruled that MD's almost identical law was unconstitutional. The way to get may issue where there is no open carry ended is to get SCOTUS to take the case. The main way to get SCOTUS to take a 2A case is to create a circuit split between non criminal 2A litigation. We're well underway on that.

At the end of the day, the Sunshine Initiative exists to clean up the tactical field of applying for a permit so that when the Supreme Court tells all governments that they can't violate the right to carry but can require permits, those permit processes are fair, follow the law, and simple to complete. It's called working in parallel.

Did I mention you should donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1)?

-Gene

Geve

You only mentioned donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1) twice, it needs to be repeated and done often...


donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1)

donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1)

donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1)

donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1)

donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1)

Stonewalker
03-09-2012, 7:01 PM
Think about this - what good would Shall-Issue be if all 58 sherrifs created their own inconvenient and burdensome methods for administering LTC programs. Look at what is going on in Sac. The SOP of LTC issuance needs to be cleaned up in order for Shall-Issue to matterm
-------------------------


So happy to see things moving forward, you guys are amazing.

eaglemike
03-09-2012, 7:12 PM
1. Freedom is not free. Please donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1) today so we can continue to file more cases and pursue them all the way to SCOTUS if we have to.

2. Why LASD? Salute was against LASD. LASD has an illegal policy requiring applicants to waste time and money in violation of California Law. LASD can not stop issuing ever under CA law. LAPD can stop issuing and go what used to be called (g). Lost of people in LA County don't live in LA City and couldn't apply to LA City.

3. But aren't we may issue? Yes, yes we are. That's why Richards v. Prieto exists and raises exactly the same issues that Woolard v. Sheridan in Maryland raises. A Federal District Court in Maryland ruled that MD's almost identical law was unconstitutional. The way to get may issue where there is no open carry ended is to get SCOTUS to take the case. The main way to get SCOTUS to take a 2A case is to create a circuit split between non criminal 2A litigation. We're well underway on that.

At the end of the day, the Sunshine Initiative exists to clean up the tactical field of applying for a permit so that when the Supreme Court tells all governments that they can't violate the right to carry but can require permits, those permit processes are fair, follow the law, and simple to complete. It's called working in parallel.

Did I mention you should donate?

-Gene

Done! :)

Sgt Raven
03-09-2012, 7:42 PM
You're thinking of CBS, Inc. v. Block (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=cbs+v+block&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&case=13351098461979863274&scilh=0).

More news on this in 2...

-Brandon
:twoweeks:

Drivedabizness
03-09-2012, 7:43 PM
You mean this: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/CGF_Civilian_CCW_Guide.pdf

Ummmm NO!

The flowchart you reference is for applicants. Since Sheriff Jones has not figured out how to comply with either the law or his obligations under the lawsuit settlement, I've been hoping CGF would encourage him to do so...and maybe even suggest how he might (easily) vastly increase the # of applications his (stated) resources can process.

Of course, step 1 would be to follow the law and accept applications.

I get it - no one seems eager to push the good Sheriff. I'll keep playing the "look for a cancellation lottery" game.

Mute
03-09-2012, 7:43 PM
Can't wait to see where this takes us. Keep up the great work and go get him!

Drivedabizness
03-09-2012, 7:45 PM
We've done an extensive amount of work producing such documents (I haven't had time to update the flowchart Andrew linked, but it's substantively correct even after SB 610, etc.).

You can download the guides here (http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/9-carry.html); feel free to distribute them to your family, friends, and favorite licensing authorities.

Our Sunshine audits are here (http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/downloads/category/17-2011audit.html).

-Brandon

p.s. Outside of 2A post-bear litigation, we have a few things in store to address the "denial by delay" appointment scheduling problem.

Thanks, Brandon.

Your "p.s." made my day

MakeYaBootyBurn
03-09-2012, 7:49 PM
Can't what to hear the results! Thanks

NoJoke
03-09-2012, 7:58 PM
Digs even deeper into the pockets....time for making an installment to the CGF.


This legal stuff isn't free, is it?


Lets BUCK UP ladies and gentlemen and keep the heat ON HIGH! :43:

M. D. Van Norman
03-09-2012, 8:01 PM
Can’t wait for this to trickle on down to the OC!!!

I’m fairly certain that the Orange County sheriff will dutifully process your application … and decline to issue a license due to your lack of sufficiently enhanced cause.

AndrewMendez
03-09-2012, 8:04 PM
Ummmm NO!

The flowchart you reference is for applicants. Since Sheriff Jones has not figured out how to comply with either the law or his obligations under the lawsuit settlement, I've been hoping CGF would encourage him to do so...and maybe even suggest how he might (easily) vastly increase the # of applications his (stated) resources can process.

Of course, step 1 would be to follow the law and accept applications.

I get it - no one seems eager to push the good Sheriff. I'll keep playing the "look for a cancellation lottery" game.


:confused: Your telling me a issuing department can't use this, to ensure they are abiding by the law?

ColdDeadHands1
03-09-2012, 8:09 PM
This case is to compel the Los Angeles Sheriff to accept and process all carry license applications under Cal. Penal Code Sec. 26150 et seq. [made by residents of the county and by eligible business applicants].

[B]It may also have the effect of prompting other sheriffs currently enforcing a similar policy to revise it, quickly.

-Brandon

I bet Sheriff Smith is rethinking her unfortunate policy of not accepting applications right now! So... when are we going to test her out? I think I sense some strategy here. :chris:

greasemonkey
03-09-2012, 8:09 PM
Andrew, let's be realistic here, the flow chart is based on relevant PC & standing court precedent. Since the issuing departments obviously don't operate within PC, they'd have no use for this restrictive flow chart.
:confused: Your telling me a issuing department can't use this, to ensure they are abiding by the law?

shawnyteee
03-09-2012, 8:11 PM
Awesome. You guys can support by also buying amazon products through this link.

http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=calgunfounda-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=390957

Drivedabizness
03-09-2012, 8:12 PM
:confused: Your telling me a issuing department can't use this, to ensure they are abiding by the law?

I'm telling you this guy is clearly (and we all know it) ignoring the law.

What would be even more "good faith" (since he is refusing to "get it" on is own) would be to say "here Sheriff, so and so are meeting demand this way".

Tarn_Helm
03-09-2012, 8:22 PM
1. Freedom is not free. Please donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1) today so we can continue to file more cases and pursue them all the way to SCOTUS if we have to.

2. Why LASD? Salute was against LASD. LASD has an illegal policy requiring applicants to waste time and money in violation of California Law. LASD can not stop issuing ever under CA law. LAPD can stop issuing and go what used to be called (g). Lost of people in LA County don't live in LA City and couldn't apply to LA City.

3. But aren't we may issue? Yes, yes we are. That's why Richards v. Prieto exists and raises exactly the same issues that Woolard v. Sheridan in Maryland raises. A Federal District Court in Maryland ruled that MD's almost identical law was unconstitutional. The way to get may issue where there is no open carry ended is to get SCOTUS to take the case. The main way to get SCOTUS to take a 2A case is to create a circuit split between non criminal 2A litigation. We're well underway on that.

At the end of the day, the Sunshine Initiative exists to clean up the tactical field of applying for a permit so that when the Supreme Court tells all governments that they can't violate the right to carry but can require permits, those permit processes are fair, follow the law, and simple to complete. It's called working in parallel.

Did I mention you should donate (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1)?

-Gene

Just donated $250.00.

Keep fighting.

I'll keep working and supporting.

We have to turn this thing around--right now--and get LTC in this state.
:chris:
rMV-fenGP1g
(Please pardon the lame visuals in this video.)

J.S.Riesch
03-09-2012, 8:31 PM
very good ,just in time

Andric
03-09-2012, 8:35 PM
Donated, thank you very much!

Glad you are taking on my county!

Blackhawk556
03-09-2012, 8:47 PM
A good question. Importantly, we're going for an injunction on the enforcement of the challenged sections of the policy. We could see this case concluded within 60-90 days.

-Brandon

Wow! 90 days would be amazing.

Liberty1
03-09-2012, 8:58 PM
Thank you B! And all the BoD! And our Bill o'Rights lawyers!!!

LoadedM333
03-09-2012, 9:13 PM
Awesome!:hurray:

tcd511
03-09-2012, 9:14 PM
So who should my donation go to? Cgn or cgf? Way to go guys! Finally Los Angeles county

greasemonkey
03-09-2012, 9:20 PM
To support the business that hosts the discussions and public coordination efforts, Calguns.net; to support the lawsuits, education and legal defense funds, the CalGuns Foundation.

http://store.calgunsfoundation.org/

So who should my donation go to? Cgn or cgf? Way to go guys! Finally Los Angeles county

GOEX FFF
03-09-2012, 9:36 PM
Yet another awesome chess move by CGF!

:thumbsup: Brandon!

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/steamroller.gif

TKM
03-09-2012, 10:06 PM
So who should my donation go to? Cgn or cgf? Way to go guys! Finally Los Angeles county


For the day to day cool gun stuff and friends I support CGN.

For the Fight the dirty rotten bastards who have chosen to oppose my Second Amendment Rights I support the CGF. As well as the NRA and the CRPA and a few others.

Is FTDRBWHCTOMSAR taken?

You can not have too many friends in the fight to restore basic human rights. You should not expect to win by wishing really really hard. That's the hope and change nonsense.

If I have to pick up the tab for some office equipment or some of the impedimenta of the day to day struggle, I will do so cheerfully.

Gio
03-09-2012, 10:14 PM
Awesome!!! Thanks for the hard work you guys are doing to get our LTC rights restored in CA :)

CCWFacts
03-09-2012, 10:17 PM
A question from an LA County resident: what's the next action? When is it time to apply?

I know that when Sacramento went shall-issue, they got booked solid and it's a year wait. Maryland may face a similar problem. When should LA residents get started? I'm ready to apply as soon as the time is right.

2nd Shot
03-09-2012, 10:20 PM
Woo-hah! As a resident of LA County, I offer the following sentiment: FINISH HIM!!

a308garand
03-09-2012, 10:36 PM
A question from an LA County resident: what's the next action? When is it time to apply?

I know that when Sacramento went shall-issue, they got booked solid and it's a year wait. Maryland may face a similar problem. When should LA residents get started? I'm ready to apply as soon as the time is right.

+1, when do we start sending in application paperwork?
:)

Paladin
03-09-2012, 10:52 PM
:patriot: :thumbsup:

If he still gets to decide what constitutes a good cause, then what does a win here accomplish?

Imagine CGF is King Arthur and Sheriff Baca and the other urban sheriffs are the Black Knight....

2eMkth8FWno

Each lawsuit we win gets us one step (or limb) closer to winning the fight! :94:

This case is to compel the Los Angeles Sheriff to accept and process all carry license applications under Cal. Penal Code Sec. 26150 et seq. [made by residents of the county and by eligible business applicants].

[B]It may also have the effect of prompting other sheriffs currently enforcing a similar policy to revise it, quickly.

-BrandonLast time I checked, Alameda Co.'s Sheriff Ahern had that policy too....

greasemonkey
03-09-2012, 10:55 PM
Make sure you subscribe to the L.A. County thread in the License to Carry Initiative sub-forum:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352761

A question from an LA County resident: what's the next action? When is it time to apply?

I know that when Sacramento went shall-issue, they got booked solid and it's a year wait. Maryland may face a similar problem. When should LA residents get started? I'm ready to apply as soon as the time is right.

Woo-hah! As a resident of LA County, I offer the following sentiment: FINISH HIM!!

+1, when do we start sending in application paperwork?
:)

CCWFacts
03-09-2012, 11:09 PM
Make sure you subscribe to the L.A. County thread in the License to Carry Initiative sub-forum:

Oh I've been following it from its very first post!

The moment it's "time to apply" I'll be there. I'll take the day off work and get my paperwork together and submit that day.

Casey
03-09-2012, 11:12 PM
So this action compels the Sherif to take applications from residents who's cities have a police chief and do not contract for the sheriffs services. How will that help those of us who live in LA county in cities that do contract for sheriff services ? How will it be any different for us if this case is won since good cause is still at the discretion of the Sherif.

Paladin
03-09-2012, 11:20 PM
Last time I checked, Alameda Co.'s Sheriff Ahern had that policy too....
So, if CGF gets the injunction against LA Co (before mid-June 2012), will they then have volunteers apply in the other counties (such as Alameda), that require residents of issuing cities (such as Oakland), apply with their sheriffs to see if that policy is still in place???

I feel sooo sad for Alameda County Sheriff Ahern: first the homeowners insurance umbrella policy requirement got banned by Sacto and soon his requirement that residents of issuing cities first get denied by their CoPs before apply with him will be shot down.

So sad.... :D

greasemonkey
03-09-2012, 11:26 PM
Please do note that this is not the only License to Carry lawsuit. It is called the License to Carry Initiative because it's an ongoing process. Other lawsuits in other Counties/districts will benefit more than just the County in which they're won.

So this action compels the Sherif to take applications from residents who's cities have a police chief and do not contract for the sheriffs services. How will that help those of us who live in LA county in cities that do contract for sheriff services ? How will it be any different for us if this case is won since good cause is still at the discretion of the Sherif.

Librarian
03-09-2012, 11:32 PM
A question from an LA County resident: what's the next action? When is it time to apply?
Because of the kind of thing this asks for, Brandon suggested 60-90 days. If that holds, around the middle of June. Further info when the case is decided, I expect.

So this action compels the Sherif to take applications from residents who's cities have a police chief and do not contract for the sheriffs services. How will that help those of us who live in LA county in cities that do contract for sheriff services ? How will it be any different for us if this case is won since good cause is still at the discretion of the Sherif.

It means you can bypass the cities, if they are 'problems', and the SO has to accept the apps. Doesn't mean he has to issue the licenses.

Gray Peterson
03-09-2012, 11:48 PM
So this action compels the Sherif to take applications from residents who's cities have a police chief and do not contract for the sheriffs services. How will that help those of us who live in LA county in cities that do contract for sheriff services ? How will it be any different for us if this case is won since good cause is still at the discretion of the Sherif.

Please read the whole thread.

wildhawker
03-10-2012, 12:23 AM
So, if CGF gets the injunction against LA Co (before mid-June 2012), will they then have volunteers apply in the other counties (such as Alameda), that require residents of issuing cities (such as Oakland), apply with their sheriffs to see if that policy is still in place???

I feel sooo sad for Alameda County Sheriff Ahern: first the homeowners insurance umbrella policy requirement got banned by Sacto and soon his requirement that residents of issuing cities first get denied by their CoPs before apply with him will be shot down.

So sad.... :D

If one were a fly on the wall of the Alameda County Counsel's Office, you might have overheard some conversations going to being 'nudged'. Some other flies on walls in other counties counsel might have heard similar conversations.

We hope the outcome here saves taxpayers in those counties from having to unnecessarily pay for the recalcitrance of their elected officers who set and enforce the policies for handgun carry license applications.

-Brandon

locosway
03-10-2012, 12:50 AM
To help the cause, I'll be donating 10% of all sales from my April 25th Tactical Pistol (http://www.rymantactical.com/courses/pistol/defensive-pistol-1/) class to CGF.

http://i39.tinypic.com/290vpg3.jpg

kcbrown
03-10-2012, 1:20 AM
What's this I hear? Another lawsuit being filed against a good-for-nothing rights-violating freedom-hating piece of crap that calls himself a government "official", and his cronies?

Music to my ears! :43:


$500 inbound to CGF!

Baja Daze
03-10-2012, 2:54 AM
This is totally awesome news! And I am in no way a fan of Sheriff Moonbeam, how ironic...the Sheriff needs to obey and follow the law!!

If you can't make him see the light, make him feel the heat! :43:

floridaone2
03-10-2012, 5:32 AM
First donation inbound...........Thank you guys keep it up:)

tcd511
03-10-2012, 5:53 AM
Thanks Greasemonkey for clarifying CGN and CGF for me. Great work guys! Donation Sent.

fouber
03-10-2012, 7:00 AM
Thank you CGF this is awesome =^..^=

SanPedroShooter
03-10-2012, 7:14 AM
http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/ad189/brentx39/mordor-1.jpg

CGF does.....

LHC30
03-10-2012, 7:26 AM
Baca and his CCW staff are simply ARROGANT! that comes from repeated first hand dealings....

Donation sent to this very worthy cause....

r3dn3ck
03-10-2012, 7:34 AM
fark em' up, fark em up, waaaaaay up. Go CGF!

sighere
03-10-2012, 8:27 AM
Ok, so if Calguns and the plaintiff prevail in this case that means they can skip the step of being denied by their local PD and go directly to the LASO denial. What a huge victory! Talk about nibbling at the far flung corners of the issue. This advances the cause not at all. Cannot money and time be spent more efficiently?

smogcity
03-10-2012, 8:38 AM
Please put the checkers away and blow the dust off your chess set :facepalm:

Ok, so if Calguns and the plaintiff prevail in this case that means they can skip the step of being denied by their local PD and go directly to the LASO denial. What a huge victory! Talk about nibbling at the far flung corners of the issue. This advances the cause not at all. Cannot money and time be spent more efficiently?

HowardW56
03-10-2012, 8:41 AM
Ok, so if Calguns and the plaintiff prevail in this case that means they can skip the step of being denied by their local PD and go directly to the LASO denial. What a huge victory! Talk about nibbling at the far flung corners of the issue. This advances the cause not at all. Cannot money and time be spent more efficiently?

You should read Genes post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8190112&postcount=74)....

Yugo
03-10-2012, 8:43 AM
Thank you! Sorry there's something in my eyes..... Donation will be sent Monday.

Paladin
03-10-2012, 8:53 AM
Ok, so if Calguns and the plaintiff prevail in this case that means they can skip the step of being denied by their local PD and go directly to the LASO denial. What a huge victory! Talk about nibbling at the far flung corners of the issue. This advances the cause not at all. Cannot money and time be spent more efficiently?This is important work being done while we wait for SCOTUS to take a carry case and -- assuming Obama or his replacement does NOT appoint another anti to the Court -- while we wait for winning Shall Issue (or equivalent) for the entire nation.

Once we win that, this will have already removed what would have been a major bottleneck for many applicants in several large, urban counties, saving those applicants time, money, and effort.

Think of these legal actions as cannon balls knocking holes in the walls of a castle while we wait for the moat to drain. Once the "moat" is drained (winning Shall Issue by "draining away" GC & GMC requirements), the "holes" in the castle's walls will make it that much easier for our "hoards" of serfs (LTC applicants), rush in to claim their prize (LTCs).

sighere
03-10-2012, 8:55 AM
You should read Genes post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8190112&postcount=74)....
I fully get it. Lots of parallel paths can be followed on a multi front fight. Just questioning whether or not this would be even in the top 20 "prongs" of this multifaceted endeavor. IMHO this one would be pretty far down the list of "possible" causes of action to file. Priorities, money, time....

HowardW56
03-10-2012, 9:06 AM
You should read Genes post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8190112&postcount=74)....

I fully get it. Lots of parallel paths can be followed on a multi front fight. Just questioning whether or not this would be even in the top 20 "prongs" of this multifaceted endeavor. IMHO this one would be pretty far down the list of "possible" causes of action to file. Priorities, money, time....

If you'll read exhibit B to the complaint you'll see that the Undersheriff, Paul Tanaka, handed CGF all the evidence needed in the form of a declaration that was filed in another case in the US District Court in Los Angeles. This one should be a slam dunk, the Sheriff's policies violate the provisions of Salute v. Pitchess (http://romandad.com/salute.pdf)

IVC
03-10-2012, 9:12 AM
Ok, so if Calguns and the plaintiff prevail in this case that means they can skip the step of being denied by their local PD and go directly to the LASO denial. What a huge victory! Talk about nibbling at the far flung corners of the issue. This advances the cause not at all. Cannot money and time be spent more efficiently?

Hockey games are won by working hard in the corners. You might want to close your eyes and yell Geronimo through the middle, but those usually don't end well. The other side has a nasty habit of playing what is known as "defense".

sighere
03-10-2012, 9:33 AM
Hockey games are won by working hard in the corners. You might want to close your eyes and yell Geronimo through the middle, but those usually don't end well. The other side has a nasty habit of playing what is known as "defense".

I'm sure way down the line when LA and SF are forced into a "shall issue" scenario, the next thing they will try will be to ignore or refuse to accept applications. So, would it be a useful decision to have in the quiver? yes. Priority and high value? No.

HowardW56
03-10-2012, 9:45 AM
Ok, so if Calguns and the plaintiff prevail in this case that means they can skip the step of being denied by their local PD and go directly to the LASO denial. What a huge victory! Talk about nibbling at the far flung corners of the issue. This advances the cause not at all. Cannot money and time be spent more efficiently?

I fully get it. Lots of parallel paths can be followed on a multi front fight. Just questioning whether or not this would be even in the top 20 "prongs" of this multifaceted endeavor. IMHO this one would be pretty far down the list of "possible" causes of action to file. Priorities, money, time....

I'm sure way down the line when LA and SF are forced into a "shall issue" scenario, the next thing they will try will be to ignore or refuse to accept applications. So, would it be a useful decision to have in the quiver? yes. Priority and high value? No.


I'm sorry that CGF's litigation strategy doesn't fit with your list of priorities.

I don't claim to know or fully understand their entire litigation strategy, but I have faith that their end goals are in line with mine.

So far they have had successes and set backs (I won't call the cases that are being appealed a defeat) but they continue to move forward in all of our interest...

Gray Peterson
03-10-2012, 9:52 AM
I fully get it. Lots of parallel paths can be followed on a multi front fight. Just questioning whether or not this would be even in the top 20 "prongs" of this multifaceted endeavor. IMHO this one would be pretty far down the list of "possible" causes of action to file. Priorities, money, time....

People donated to the initiative, including you as an LA specifically, for this purpose of getting the sheriffs in line legally. Why are you complaining?

Brandon & I started this initiative to reduce the need to go to a federal court on every issue. That's one of the primary purposes of the initiative.

Would you rather deal with all of the illegalities in state law now? Or would you rather wait until after we win carry at SCOTUS when there's an application flood, where we will be contending with stuff related to the flood & have to hammer them on that stuff?

We picked the biggest bully on the yard & hit him over the head with a folded up steel chair, that steel chair being Salute.

sighere
03-10-2012, 10:11 AM
Maybe my comments are misconstrued as complaining. Last thing I would do. Any and all lawsuits that make these guys have to go to depo's, produce documents, justify their policies, back up their statements, comport their actions to the constitution and laws etc... is a good thing. And yes, I am a contributor and will continue to do so. Essentially, I'm just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion. I think it is important for all of us to back as many organizations as possible and leave things like strategy and execution to the organizations themselves. But, the organizations that we support need to hear our feedback, ideas, criticisms, as well as props and complements! That said, to paraphrase someone on these boards "....glad that (LASO) is one of the M.F.'rs in the room that's being sued!"

FastFinger
03-10-2012, 10:22 AM
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/525/snakeswallowingbaca.jpg

IVC
03-10-2012, 11:17 AM
I'm just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion.

This is commendable, except that you cannot throw down an emotional "it's not the right timing" subjective statement, repeat it several times, then call it a discussion.

What specific course of action do you suggest that *cannot* or *is not* currently running in parallel and is negatively affected by this battle?

motorhead
03-10-2012, 11:26 AM
couldn't happen to a nicer CLEO. as the chinese say, may he live in interesting times.

Bolillo
03-10-2012, 11:45 AM
Little something for the SoCal brethren:

TransactionDate 3/10/2012
Transaction Amount $ 50.00
Order Number 229

monk
03-10-2012, 11:48 AM
Maybe my comments are misconstrued as complaining. Last thing I would do. Any and all lawsuits that make these guys have to go to depo's, produce documents, justify their policies, back up their statements, comport their actions to the constitution and laws etc... is a good thing. And yes, I am a contributor and will continue to do so. Essentially, I'm just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion. I think it is important for all of us to back as many organizations as possible and leave things like strategy and execution to the organizations themselves. But, the organizations that we support need to hear our feedback, ideas, criticisms, as well as props and complements! That said, to paraphrase someone on these boards "....glad that (LASO) is one of the M.F.'rs in the room that's being sued!"


I think I understand where you're coming from, correct me if I'm wrong.

You feel that while a lawsuit forcing LASD to accept applications and not impose extra fees is good, it's not the right priority, or at least not as important as, say, shall issue. Or you would hope that the lawsuit would at least force them to accept "self defense" as GC. Correct?

If you go back to page 2 or 3, I asked Brandon what about that lawsuit that forced LASD to give CGF the accepted and denied LTC applications. He seemed to imply that this was a part of their strategy.

And, someone else correct me here, assuming they finally get the applications showing who was approved and denied and why, and they force the sheriff to accept applications, it would follow that he would then be forced to allow "self defense" as GC if he's issuing for his buddies. And if not, then that would be the basis of a third, and hopefully, final lawsuit.

Make sense?

Tarn_Helm
03-10-2012, 11:58 AM
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/525/snakeswallowingbaca.jpg

I guess some folks need to take that class in the Sheriff's Academy on Civil Rights . . . perhaps the content of that class will have to be re-written . . .
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/DontTreadonMe_WethePeople.jpg

Gray Peterson
03-10-2012, 12:01 PM
This is commendable, except that you cannot throw down an emotional "it's not the right timing" subjective statement, repeat it several times, then call it a discussion.

What specific course of action do you suggest that *cannot* or *is not* currently running in parallel and is negatively affected by this battle?

I'd say this is the very definition of a backpedal. ...

Connor P Price
03-10-2012, 12:02 PM
Maybe my comments are misconstrued as complaining. Last thing I would do. Any and all lawsuits that make these guys have to go to depo's, produce documents, justify their policies, back up their statements, comport their actions to the constitution and laws etc... is a good thing. And yes, I am a contributor and will continue to do so. Essentially, I'm just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion. I think it is important for all of us to back as many organizations as possible and leave things like strategy and execution to the organizations themselves. But, the organizations that we support need to hear our feedback, ideas, criticisms, as well as props and complements! That said, to paraphrase someone on these boards "....glad that (LASO) is one of the M.F.'rs in the room that's being sued!"

I'm confused as to what you might think is a higher priority which isn't already being litigated?

Shall issue? Already in the works with Richards, and if that's not enough you may notice that Peterson, Woolard, Kachalsky, and more are all working their way up to SCOTUS to be certain that issue is resolved as soon as possible by the highest authority in the land.

Assault Weapons Ban? Being worked on. Roster? Also in the works. Magazine capacity restrictions? Plan has started and is in a holding pattern I believe.

So with everything else being litigated whats a higher priority than making sure that all 58 sheriffs are in compliance with the law? Once shall issue is in the bag its going to be crucial that they aren't able to use this type of refusal to process applications as a way of denying applicants post shall issue. Shall issue would mean nothing without these lawsuits making sure that sheriffs don't have any wiggle room left so I see this as the highest priority.

Sobriquet
03-10-2012, 12:05 PM
I'm sure way down the line when LA and SF are forced into a "shall issue" scenario, the next thing they will try will be to ignore or refuse to accept applications. So, would it be a useful decision to have in the quiver? yes. Priority and high value? No.

I understand and appreciate your frustration. The problem here is that it's beyond our power to rush along a SCOTUS "bear" decision. Nothing short of that will change the behavior of counties like Los Angeles. That leaves us with two choices: (i) fight the fights we can now; or (ii) fight the same fights after a "bear" case. Option 2 only makes sense where we need that precedent to win. Why would we set ourselves up for further unnecessary delay down the road?

We're closer to the goal line with Woolard. I still can't believe Palmer v DC has taken this long.

thomascrowe
03-10-2012, 12:13 PM
Way to go!!!

sighere
03-10-2012, 12:34 PM
I'm confused as to what you might think is a higher priority which isn't already being litigated?

Shall issue? Already in the works with Richards, and if that's not enough you may notice that Peterson, Woolard, Kachalsky, and more are all working their way up to SCOTUS to be certain that issue is resolved as soon as possible by the highest authority in the land.

Assault Weapons Ban? Being worked on. Roster? Also in the works. Magazine capacity restrictions? Plan has started and is in a holding pattern I believe.

So with everything else being litigated whats a higher priority than making sure that all 58 sheriffs are in compliance with the law? Once shall issue is in the bag its going to be crucial that they aren't able to use this type of refusal to process applications as a way of denying applicants post shall issue. Shall issue would mean nothing without these lawsuits making sure that sheriffs don't have any wiggle room left so I see this as the highest priority.

True lots of things currently being litigated and I think we're all in anticipation of a few important decisions coming say within the next.....two weeks.....or so. Could it be that at the moment there are enough pokers in the fire?

Connor P Price
03-10-2012, 12:38 PM
True lots of things currently being litigated and I think we're all in anticipation of a few important decisions coming say within the next.....two weeks.....or so. Could it be that at the moment there are enough pokers in the fire?

Enough pokers in the fire? I suppose there would come a point that additional lawsuits would be unwise if either lawyer time or money were running to thin. I don't have inside knowledge about either of those resources but I put all my trust in the Foundation to make the right decision there.

HowardW56
03-10-2012, 12:42 PM
True lots of things currently being litigated and I think we're all in anticipation of a few important decisions coming say within the next.....two weeks.....or so. Could it be that at the moment there are enough pokers in the fire?

The attorneys are doing quite a job of keeping all the litigation moving forward... I'm confident that they wouldn't initiate more litigation than they can manage.

hoffmang
03-10-2012, 12:46 PM
Assault Weapons Ban? Being worked on. Roster? Also in the works. Magazine capacity restrictions? Plan has started and is in a holding pattern I believe.

This is the current reality. A note on the magazine case. It's being held up by a specific case that is on the SCOTUS docket and I can't really say more than that. Other than that issue, I'm certainly not sure about which items you think we should be challenging that we're not challenging are higher priorities? I mean this only slightly tongue in cheek, but we have so many suits filed people often over look what we're already challenging.

The only things I can think of off the top of my head that we're waiting on is long arm registration (though CA may not be the best place for that fight and it waits on the final resolution of Heller II. There are a couple of unannounced projects already underway...

As to why this matters, 4,968,558 Californians live in cities in LA County (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Los_Angeles_County,_California) that are not the City of Los Angeles. It's no small group of people we're trying to clean the path up for. If you apply the "3% will want carry licenses number" to that we're talking about 147,000 applicants who will be saved a total of $14,700,000.00. The state of Mayland which Woolard just freed only has 5.8M people...

Finally, let me re-articulate the idea behind the Sunshine and Compliance Initiative. The Sunshine part is to get the policies available and the actual cause statements public. The Compliance part is to get the actual process of applying - regardless of denial or acceptance - complying with State law. The point is that while we wait to get Carry resolved in SCOTUS (and note CGF sponsored carry case Peterson v. Denver on second oral argument in CA-10) we can go ahead and get the process ready for the inevitable CRUSH of more than 1,000,000 Californians applying for their carry licenses in the weeks after the Supreme Court says, "no really, we did say in Heller that you have a right to bear arms in public and may issue where no open carry is allowed is unconstitutional."

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
03-10-2012, 12:58 PM
I also like to think of it as getting them gradually accustomed to demoralizing defeats and humiliation. Oh, yes, and paying for the privilege.

IVC
03-10-2012, 1:03 PM
Could it be that at the moment there are enough pokers in the fire?

That's the idea. If this was a random action by a vigilante there would certainly be cause for concern. However, this is a centrally-planned action on a technical, narrow and well defined issue. Not particularly "exciting" or "ground shattering," but fundamental in moving forward efficiently. Kind of like eating your veggies when you are a kid.

Tarn_Helm
03-10-2012, 1:03 PM
. . . The point is that while we wait to get Carry resolved in SCOTUS (and note CGF sponsored carry case Peterson v. Denver on second oral argument in CA-10) we can go ahead and get the process ready for the inevitable CRUSH of more than 1,000,000 Californians applying for their carry licenses in the weeks after the Supreme Court says, "no really, we did say in Heller that you have a right to bear arms in public and may issue where no open carry is allowed is unconstitutional."

-Gene (truncated by me)

Thank you for clarifying and summarizing this for everyone.

Comments like these ^ are why I donate to CGF.

Note: Folks, please try to scrape together any amount for CGF.

If every person who got on this site today gave even 1 dollar, it would make a huge difference.

Most can afford more than that.

Give what you can and urge all your buddies here to do the same.
:oji:

speedrrracer
03-10-2012, 1:40 PM
Honored to have donated to so worthy a cause -- many thanks to CGF!

Good luck to LA County from San Diego County!

FreshTapCoke
03-10-2012, 2:57 PM
Ok, so if Calguns and the plaintiff prevail in this case that means they can skip the step of being denied by their local PD and go directly to the LASO denial. What a huge victory! Talk about nibbling at the far flung corners of the issue. This advances the cause not at all. Cannot money and time be spent more efficiently?

:eek:

I have to admit, in my gut, I feel the same way. But I know the people of CGF are smarter than most, especially regarding firearms laws. We should trust in their strategy.

wildhawker
03-10-2012, 3:05 PM
There is not a single thing that can be done to affect the current discretionary system that is not already being done. Once you accept that, then you can begin to understand why everything else is so important to address sooner rather than later.

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
03-10-2012, 3:07 PM
Finally, let me re-articulate the idea behind the Sunshine and Compliance Initiative. The Sunshine part is to get the policies available and the actual cause statements public. The Compliance part is to get the actual process of applying - regardless of denial or acceptance - complying with State law. The point is that while we wait to get Carry resolved in SCOTUS (and note CGF sponsored carry case Peterson v. Denver on second oral argument in CA-10) we can go ahead and get the process ready for the inevitable CRUSH of more than 1,000,000 Californians applying for their carry licenses in the weeks after the Supreme Court says, "no really, we did say in Heller that you have a right to bear arms in public and may issue where no open carry is allowed is unconstitutional."

-Gene

In case some people reading don't know, the Peterson case is my case.

scrat
03-10-2012, 3:11 PM
HELL YA

greasemonkey
03-10-2012, 6:46 PM
(truncated by me)

Thank you for clarifying and summarizing this for everyone.

Comments like these ^ are why I donate to CGF.

Note: Folks, please try to scrape together any amount for CGF.

If every person who got on this site today gave even 1 dollar, it would make a huge difference.

Most can afford more than that.

Give what you can and urge all your buddies here to do the same.
:oji:
$10/month is pretty easy to do. See the following web-page (or click the "Donate" drop-down link on www.CalGunsFoundation.org)
https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1



https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-h6aIroiXPVY/T1wfgy87ZfI/AAAAAAAAGSQ/Bh2tOIxcJow/s1024/donateCGF.png

speedrrracer
03-10-2012, 7:16 PM
In case some people reading don't know, the Peterson case is my case.

You mean your case your case? :eek: As in the Peterson ain't coincidental?

Or...?

wildhawker
03-10-2012, 7:18 PM
You mean your case your case? :eek: As in the Peterson ain't coincidental?

Or...?

Yes. Gray Peterson is Peterson.

-Brandon

HowardW56
03-10-2012, 7:31 PM
Yes. Gray Peterson is Peterson.

-Brandon


I thought everyone knew that....

Rossi357
03-10-2012, 7:55 PM
Gotta get Baca squared away for shall issue.

Purple K
03-10-2012, 8:19 PM
Bravo Gentlemen, bravo!

Scarecrow Repair
03-10-2012, 9:31 PM
after the Supreme Court says, "no really, we did say in Heller that you have a right to bear arms in public and may issue where no open carry is allowed is unconstitutional."

-Gene

Contrary to some posters, I get lost sometimes in the numerous cases going forward; I have no doubt everything is useful in this chess game, and some things which seem so obvious as soon as they come to light were not even in my vocabulary the instant before. But this triggered something I hadn't thought about before and may have lost in all the flurry of activity.

I did have it in the back of my mind that when the law was passed banning open carry, it could actually be useful, as concealed carry would then be the only route left to any kind of carry, which even Heller hinted at being guaranteed. But this quote makes me wonder ... if a state allows open carry, does it weaken this argument, even tho open carry is not useful in school zones and other places?

ODG23
03-10-2012, 10:23 PM
:gunsmilie:

Tacobandit
03-10-2012, 10:41 PM
I dont know, seems like a waste to me, why not simply combine this with a self defense is good cause lawsuit with the recent rulings to back it up? Why waste the funds of something of this nature?

hoffmang
03-10-2012, 11:01 PM
But this quote makes me wonder ... if a state allows open carry, does it weaken this argument, even tho open carry is not useful in school zones and other places?

Reading the tea leaves, a discretionary/may issue concealed carry law may be Federally constitutional where you can otherwise loaded open carry, yes. However, the state has a lot of latitude to choose one or the other but can't inhibit both.

-Gene

safewaysecurity
03-10-2012, 11:14 PM
Reading the tea leaves, a discretionary/may issue concealed carry law may be Federally constitutional where you can otherwise loaded open carry, yes. However, the state has a lot of latitude to choose one or the other but can't inhibit both.

-Gene

What is the compelling state interest in a state that allows concealed carry criminalizing open carry? Their best argument would be that they don't want guns visible because guns are scary and they do not want to promote gun culture, which you could argue falls into 1st amendment territory. Once someone has a gun then they have a gun and the public safety interests are off the table. Don't see how they could really restrict open carry if there was a shall-issue system in place. If the argument is simply that because they have one form of carry then they don't need to have the other, isn't that basically the same argument D.C used when they said you could own rifles and shotguns and therefore handguns could be banned?

wildhawker
03-10-2012, 11:26 PM
I dont know, seems like a waste to me, why not simply combine this with a self defense is good cause lawsuit with the recent rulings to back it up? Why waste the funds of something of this nature?

We *already* have a case at the Ninth Circuit that seeks to compel licensing authorities to accept "self defense" as "good cause" and one's status as 'not-prohibited' to be sufficient "moral character". It's called Richards v. Prieto (http://bit.ly/xb17Bw) and it's currently fully briefed and stayed pending Nordyke. Richards, or some other case that goes before the US Supreme Court, will provided the basis for further constitutional litigation on "bear".

Any further 2A "bear" lawsuits would be superfluous.

This case seeks to compel California's sheriffs, as mandated licensing authorities, to perform their statutory duties - namely, to accept, process, and make a determination on every application under Penal Code section 26150, et seq. - and not discriminate on the basis of city of residence [within their county of jurisdiction].

There are no "wasted funds" here. It's a key piece to the program and it's very possible our attorney fees are recoverable.

-Brandon

greasemonkey
03-10-2012, 11:58 PM
We *already* have a case at the Ninth Circuit that seeks to compel licensing authorities to accept "self defense" as "good cause" and one's status as 'not-prohibited' to be sufficient "moral character". It's called Richards v. Prieto (http://bit.ly/xb17Bw) and it's currently fully briefed and stayed pending Nordyke. Richards, or some other case that goes before the US Supreme Court, will provided the basis for further constitutional litigation on "bear".

Any further 2A "bear" lawsuits would be superfluous.

This case seeks to compel California's sheriffs, as mandated licensing authorities, to perform their statutory duties - namely, to accept, process, and make a determination on every application under Penal Code section 26150, et seq. - and not discriminate on the basis of city of residence [within their county of jurisdiction].


There are no "wasted funds" here. It's a key piece to the program and it's very possible our attorney fees are recoverable.

-Brandon
Hey have you guys ever thought of just doing one lawsuit to make all the bad gun laws go away in California? That'd take a lot less time and money to just do one lawsuit. I'm surprised you didn't know that. #ohhijonbirdt
Just throwing it out there as an idea, just for the sake of discussion though, not implying how CGF is doing it is wrong, it's just not how it should be done.
:43::facepalm::eek::rolleyes: (/satire)

kaligaran
03-11-2012, 1:00 AM
Go get 'em CGF!!!!

SanPedroShooter
03-11-2012, 6:49 AM
I am excited to hear the counties defense, 'well er yes... we arent exactly following the law.. but trust us, its for the children...'

tcd511
03-11-2012, 7:11 AM
Make sure you subscribe to the L.A. County thread in the License to Carry Initiative sub-forum:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=352761

Come on everyone. Most people piss $10.00 away. Set mine up today.:)

ddestruel
03-11-2012, 8:29 AM
Hey have you guys ever thought of just doing one lawsuit to make all the bad gun laws go away in California? That'd take a lot less time and money to just do one lawsuit. I'm surprised you didn't know that. #ohhijonbirdt
Just throwing it out there as an idea, just for the sake of discussion though, not implying how CGF is doing it is wrong, it's just not how it should be done.
:43::facepalm::eek::rolleyes: (/satire)


Death by a thousand cuts.

If heller had pursued incorporation, carry and recognizing the right all at once we might be in a worse spot looking at some of the justices comments.

This way with so many cases around the country tailored to address so many different angles, when the big question finally makes it to the big time there will be fewer ways for the anti's continue to claim the high ground

old151
03-11-2012, 8:38 AM
Yes they do move slowly, but they do move forward....

What would move the court faster?

MAYBE we can get Obama to put in a good word for all Californians..lol

adrenaline
03-11-2012, 8:41 AM
Ohhh....I'm definitely interested in this. I'm not an LTCer who's in the mindset of yay I got mines too bad for the rest.

I think the whole state should be shall issue. Maybe when LA falls, they all will....maybe?:mnl:

HowardW56
03-11-2012, 8:45 AM
What would move the court faster?

MAYBE we can get Obama to put in a good word for all Californians..lol

If you have 50 Mil for a PAC, that could work......... NOT/Maybe?

hoffmang
03-11-2012, 8:54 AM
What is the compelling state interest in a state that allows concealed carry criminalizing open carry?

The most compelling state interest in requiring concealed carry is that it furthers the peace keeping duties of the law abiding. Demonstrably only about 3%-5% of the eligible population will get a permit and not all of those carry every day. Requiring concealment keeps criminals guessing while having the added benefit of limiting the costs of silly people scared of firearms calling in "man with a gun."

The herd immunity interest is a very compelling government interest that goes right to the heart of the reason we all have a right to bear arms outside. The few end up protecting the many.

-Gene

girlswithguns
03-11-2012, 8:54 AM
Does anyone have the case number? It's not on the linked complaint. Thanks.

HowardW56
03-11-2012, 9:00 AM
Does anyone have the case number? It's not on the linked complaint. Thanks.


Case Number: BC480493
JENNIFER LYNN LU ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL


We should all support The Calguns Foundation.... DONATE (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1)


That's a hint..... :)

sighere
03-11-2012, 9:16 AM
We *already* have a case at the Ninth Circuit that seeks to compel licensing authorities to accept "self defense" as "good cause" and one's status as 'not-prohibited' to be sufficient "moral character". It's called Richards v. Prieto (http://bit.ly/xb17Bw) and it's currently fully briefed and stayed pending Nordyke. Richards, or some other case that goes before the US Supreme Court, will provided the basis for further constitutional litigation on "bear".

Any further 2A "bear" lawsuits would be superfluous.

This case seeks to compel California's sheriffs, as mandated licensing authorities, to perform their statutory duties - namely, to accept, process, and make a determination on every application under Penal Code section 26150, et seq. - and not discriminate on the basis of city of residence [within their county of jurisdiction].

There are no "wasted funds" here. It's a key piece to the program and it's very possible our attorney fees are recoverable.

-Brandon

Richards, if it goes our way, would no doubt be the coup that I think all of us have been waiting for. A couple interesting things may sideline Richards though. Remember that it is pre open carry ban. It is possible that it may get kicked back to the starting line for reconsideration in this light.

Additionally, while it's sitting around stayed for Nordyke (just a mere 2 weeks I'm sure!) we now have the Woolard case from MD that is GOLDEN! So, Richards is also pre-Woolard. To be clear, Woolard can only help, not hurt, and it's not a circuit decision, and it's certainly not binding on any courts in the 9th, but it sure is a nice decision. So Richards may or may not benefit to the limited amount it could from Woolard.

Bottom line, if Richards gets the can kicked back up the road to the lower court it could bet set back at least a year. Thus, a few other cases out there are not "superflous" if this happens.

A few cases that don't appear to be on the Calguns cas wiki are the 2 Jon Birdt cases now making their way through the federal court. They allege that the discretion practiced by LASD in one case and LASD and Torrance Police in the other is not constitutional. Essentially it prays for the exact ruling that came down in Woolard. If Richards flames out or is pushed back down it is entirely possible that these 2 cases will assume the pole position in this arena. Thompson v Baca and Torrance PD and Raulinaitis v Baca have the advantage of not yet being decided before the open carry ban, so the judge can't go for the easy punt and say "they have open carry, so no case...." Additionally, the court has been notified of the Woolard decision just to sweeten the pot a little. The Thompson decision is expected.... oh... in 2 weeks or so.

See: http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Thomson_MSJ.pdf http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Opp_LASD_MSJ.pdf and http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/sup_reply.pdf

HowardW56
03-11-2012, 9:31 AM
Richards, if it goes our way, would no doubt be the coup that I think all of us have been waiting for. A couple interesting things may sideline Richards though. Remember that it is pre open carry ban. It is possible that it may get kicked back to the starting line for reconsideration in this light.

Additionally, while it's sitting around stayed for Nordyke (just a mere 2 weeks I'm sure!) we now have the Woolard case from MD that is GOLDEN! So, Richards is also pre-Woolard. To be clear, Woolard can only help, not hurt, and it's not a circuit decision, and it's certainly not binding on any courts in the 9th, but it sure is a nice decision. So Richards may or may not benefit to the limited amount it could from Woolard.

Bottom line, if Richards gets the can kicked back up the road to the lower court it could bet set back at least a year. Thus, a few other cases out there are not "superflous" if this happens.

A few cases that don't appear to be on the Calguns cas wiki are the 2 Jon Birdt cases now making their way through the federal court. They allege that the discretion practiced by LASD in one case and LASD and Torrance Police in the other is not constitutional. Essentially it prays for the exact ruling that came down in Woolard. If Richards flames out or is pushed back down it is entirely possible that these 2 cases will assume the pole position in this arena. Thompson v Baca and Torrance PD and Raulinaitis v Baca have the advantage of not yet being decided before the open carry ban, so the judge can't go for the easy punt and say "they have open carry, so no case...." Additionally, the court has been notified of the Woolard decision just to sweeten the pot a little. The Thompson decision is expected.... oh... in 2 weeks or so.

See: http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Thomson_MSJ.pdf http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Opp_LASD_MSJ.pdf and http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/sup_reply.pdf


Jon, is that you? Long time no see..... ;)

d_c_mar
03-11-2012, 9:32 AM
It was such a great birthday present on Friday when I got this email. Just got back from Florida, where I carry pretty much everywhere. Now I feel naked without it. Mas kept telling me to move to Florida, but I really love this state for other reasons. So, keep up the good fight!! Let's clean up this state!! Hopefully, another $100 will help!

Remember folks, Warren Zevon once said "Send lawyers, guns and money, the s**t has hit the fan!"

They've already got the RIGHT lawyers, and I'm pretty sure they have plenty of guns of their own already, so there's only one thing left they really need. Dig deep!!!

sighere
03-11-2012, 9:39 AM
Jon, is that you? Long time no see..... ;)

No, not Jon. I know him though....

HowardW56
03-11-2012, 9:45 AM
No, not Jon. I know him though....


Oh OK....

greasemonkey
03-11-2012, 9:48 AM
:43::facepalm::eek::rolleyes: (/satire)Death by a thousand cuts.

If heller had pursued incorporation, carry and recognizing the right all at once we might be in a worse spot looking at some of the justices comments.

This way with so many cases around the country tailored to address so many different angles, when the big question finally makes it to the big time there will be fewer ways for the anti's continue to claim the high ground
"4 smileys + (/satire)" and my post was still taken seriously??



.

hoffmang
03-11-2012, 9:51 AM
Richards, if it goes our way, would no doubt be the coup that I think all of us have been waiting for.

...

A few cases that don't appear to be on the Calguns cas wiki are the 2 Jon Birdt cases now making their way through the federal court.

There is a reason Birdts filings aren't there. Copycat cases that lose aren't even in the ballpark to set the standard.

If Richards is summarily remanded in light of AB-144 that's a huge win. Also, all pure carry cases are frozen effectively in the 9th circuit until the Nordyke en banc court returns an opinion and that's probably December 2012.

Carry outside of the home is going to be decided by one of Peterson CO CA-10, Moore IL CA-7, Hightower MA CA-1, Kachalsky NY CA-2, Piszczatoski NJ CA-3, or Woolard MD CA-4. CA-10 is in the lead and is considered a rocket docket. Due to the Preliminary Injunction and Ezell, CA-7/Moore will move very quickly as well. Way before anything happens in the 9th on any core carry case here there will be one or two Court of Appeals carry decision. That probably also means that cert will be granted before anything can happen in California. With cert and a then a decision, all of the CA-9 cases will be stayed for cert and then remanded quickly in light of whatever SCOTUS case wins.

As such, Richards and all of the cases are likely to be "won" but they'll just each be individual fee motions and individual injunctions. Once the rule is set by SCOTUS it doesn't really take a case in each place in California.

-Gene

HowardW56
03-11-2012, 9:51 AM
Hey have you guys ever thought of just doing one lawsuit to make all the bad gun laws go away in California? That'd take a lot less time and money to just do one lawsuit. I'm surprised you didn't know that. #ohhijonbirdt
Just throwing it out there as an idea, just for the sake of discussion though, not implying how CGF is doing it is wrong, it's just not how it should be done.
:43::facepalm::eek::rolleyes: (/satire)

Death by a thousand cuts.

If heller had pursued incorporation, carry and recognizing the right all at once we might be in a worse spot looking at some of the justices comments.

This way with so many cases around the country tailored to address so many different angles, when the big question finally makes it to the big time there will be fewer ways for the anti's continue to claim the high ground

"4 smileys + (/satire)" and my post was still taken seriously??



.

:eek: :rolleyes:

brassburnz
03-11-2012, 11:26 AM
I don't usually read every post in a thread, but this one is so important it took me a couple of hours to get through everything, including the pleadings.

What this case and all the other cases mentioned in the thread really boils down to is this, what happens when and if they get to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually to the US Supreme Court?

I don't see anyone leaving the 9th Circuit any time soon, plus there are a lot of them, but the Justices on the Supreme Court, that's another story. Four of the nine are over 70 years old.

Right now, the Court is:
Antonin Scalia, 76-Reagan appointee
Anthony Kennedy, 75 -Reagan
Clarence Thomas, 62- GHW Bush
Sam Alito, 61- GW Bush
John Roberts, 56-GW Bush

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 79 -Clinton
Steven Breyer, 73-Clinton
Sonia Sotomayor, 57 -Obama
Elena Kagan, 41-Obama

If Obama is re-elected for a second term, he'll have the chance to replace Ruth Ginsburg and Steven Breyer with another Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan. And you better pray for the health of Justices Scalia and Kennedy or Obama might have a chance to replace them as well.

To paraphrase Hoffmang,

in November:

vote

vote

vote

or you may see all of Calguns' hard work to protect our 2nd Amendment rights go right down the drain.

NoJoke
03-11-2012, 12:04 PM
Case Number: BC480493
JENNIFER LYNN LU ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL


We should all support The Calguns Foundation.... DONATE (https://interland3.donorperfect.net/weblink/weblink.aspx?name=calgunsfnd&id=1)


That's a hint..... :)

Donate twice! :cool::cool::cool:

Librarian
03-11-2012, 12:23 PM
Carry outside of the home is going to be decided by one of Peterson CO CA-10, Moore IL CA-7, Hightower MA CA-1, Kachalsky NY CA-2, Piszczatoski NJ CA-3, or Woolard MD CA-4. CA-10 is in the lead and is considered a rocket docket. Due to the Preliminary Injunction and Ezell, CA-7/Moore will move very quickly as well. Way before anything happens in the 9th on any core carry case here there will be one or two Court of Appeals carry decision. That probably also means that cert will be granted before anything can happen in California. With cert and a then a decision, all of the CA-9 cases will be stayed for cert and then remanded quickly in light of whatever SCOTUS case wins.

I wonder how long ago it was that I would not have understood a word of the above ...

d_c_mar
03-11-2012, 1:28 PM
I wonder how long ago it was that I would not have understood a word of the above ...

I'm guessing it was a long, long time back when you didn't understand federal appeals court stuff. Just sayin.

greasemonkey
03-11-2012, 1:39 PM
:eek: :rolleyes:

:chris:

Gray Peterson
03-11-2012, 1:39 PM
There is a reason Birdts filings aren't there. Copycat cases that lose aren't even in the ballpark to set the standard.

If Richards is summarily remanded in light of AB-144 that's a huge win. Also, all pure carry cases are frozen effectively in the 9th circuit until the Nordyke en banc court returns an opinion and that's probably December 2012.

Carry outside of the home is going to be decided by one of Peterson CO CA-10, Moore IL CA-7, Hightower MA CA-1, Kachalsky NY CA-2, Piszczatoski NJ CA-3, or Woolard MD CA-4. CA-10 is in the lead and is considered a rocket docket. Due to the Preliminary Injunction and Ezell, CA-7/Moore will move very quickly as well. Way before anything happens in the 9th on any core carry case here there will be one or two Court of Appeals carry decision. That probably also means that cert will be granted before anything can happen in California. With cert and a then a decision, all of the CA-9 cases will be stayed for cert and then remanded quickly in light of whatever SCOTUS case wins.

As such, Richards and all of the cases are likely to be "won" but they'll just each be individual fee motions and individual injunctions. Once the rule is set by SCOTUS it doesn't really take a case in each place in California.

-Gene

The other question is "who will appeal our win". Of course, if we (the pro-rights side in general) lose either Moore or Peterson, an appeal is pretty much a forgone certainty. There's also a question of who's going to appeal upwards if the anti-rights side loses.

This is my form of tea-leave reading. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, I am not my own attorney, I'm just a guy, sorta like Gene, who is an enthusiast of the issue, and a reader of history. This is posted so people can make sense of what might happen.

Illnois

The Illinois Attorney General's Office will certainly appeal to SCOTUS if their ban is struck down and there's no replacement law. However, there's the Legislative and state judicial factors to consider, as well as the ISRA/NRA case in the southern District of Illinois, that being Shepard. In the 7th Circuit filing for Moore, the plaintiff's counsel made this statement:

In Ezell, faced with the prospect of losing its total gun range ban,
Chicago warned of a “regulatory vacuum” that would be left between an
injunction and subsequent regulatory efforts. This Court dismissed the
concerns. “[W]e note that [Chicago] faced a similar dilemma after the
Supreme Court decided McDonald. The sky did not fall. The City
Council moved with dispatch and enacted the Ordinance just four days
later.” Ezell, 651 F.3d at 711. Chicago immediately enacted its post-
Ezell gun range regulations upon issuance of this Court’s opinion, the
same day, and those regulations took effect before the District Court
had an opportunity to enjoin the old prohibition.

It is not for the Plaintiffs, nor for the Court, to determine precisely
whether and what regulation of the right to carry guns Illinois should
adopt. Forty-nine ready examples abound, most of which are not in
constitutional dispute. If new regulations replace the prohibition, they
would have to be considered on their own merits. Ezell, 651 F.3d at 711.
But for now, the state’s total proscription of the people’s right to bear
arms must end.

Illinois State Legislature

The Illinois House of Representatives is considering a concealed carry bill, which was 4 votes short last year.

-7kTe4iX9KI

Shepard

There's also the Shepard factor. The judge there (who is 87 years old and was appointed by President Reagan). He has three choices: Follow Moore, follow Woollard, or stay the case until Moore goes through the 7th Circuit process. If he chooses the follow Woollard, there will likely be more votes to flip to 71 needed in the House, as the idea of only needing a $10 FOID card with no training required to carry openly or concealed will not be palatable.

People v. Aguilar

There's also People v. Aguilar in the State Supreme Court. This is a criminal case. If that strikes down the ban to the level asked for in Moore and Shepard, it *may* moot their cases. If the State Supreme Court rules, it may decide to reinterpret their state constitutional RKBA's "police power" text in light of McDonald giving the floor which they may not cross. Text is more important than Constitutional Convention intent (the last one was in 1970, IIRC). If the state Supreme Court reinterprets the state RKBA provision, in a manner similar to what the Michigan State Supreme Court did in Michigan State Police v. Sitz (in regards to search/seizure). In order to do that, the ILSC must overrule Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, which followed the lead of Quilici v. Village of Mortgage Grove in the federal 7th Circuit.

There are two distinct claims:

1) Whether under the state or federal constitution allows for banning all carry outside of home.

2) Is the ban applicable to Mr. Aguilar in specific.

ILSC only takes up cases on discretionary review, so I think the likely hood is very high that they will overturn Kalodimos.

Brief of certain Illinois State Legislators (http://www.isra.org/lawsuits/Aguilar/aguilar_brief091911.pdf)

Mr. Aguilar may still be screwed by virtue of the fact that he's only 17 years old, however.

So it's all coming to a head in Illinois later this year. I personally hope we get a positive decision in Moore, similar to Ezell. It's difficult to put the genie back into the bottle once that occurs. Given Illinois pre-disposition to appeal a bad ruling, the Legislature may preempt the AG from that. That gets people being able to carry sooner than late next year, and allows the 7th Circuit ruling to stand in tension to other courts that may be tempted to make bad rulings. If the Legislature cannot fix it, however, the IAG will appeal. Count on it.

Denver and Colorado

This is a much more difficult question. Unlike the 7th Circuit in Ezell, there is no Ezell like civil cases in the 10th Circuit post-Heller.

In the first oral argument, the panel seemed to focus like a laser on the "was there an open carry claim filed"? If the panel did fully believe so, we would have been sent back down immediately for filing a second amended complaint rather than asking for amicus to argue with us (the NRA-CRDF amicus is what triggered their line of questioning). Also, the district court's decision was made up of substantial legal errors which would have resulted in the same ruling if they had remanded for amendment.

The Second Oral Argument I expect the panel to be a lot more educated on the subject than merely reading the case that week. They've had 5 months to understand it better.

That being said, this is more focused on "who would appeal", and "what would prevent an appeal". Though Denver gave up it's ability to do oral argument (which they may intensely regret, more on that in a moment), they can still file appeals up to SCOTUS.

Denver fought for three years to maintain their open carry ban, and they did so all the way to the State Supreme Court. In the minority chance that Denver's open carry banned is tossed, they will likely appeal upwards. There's simply too much dislike in the urban city for open carrying of handguns, a dislike that continues to this day. This is similar to DC's mentality. They also will similarly appeal if because of their OC ban, they and they alone must process non-resident licenses. (we asked to the court to have Denver's Manager of Safety be injuncted against enforcing the non-resident licensing ban).

AG Suthers may appeal, but they are a wild card factor.

There is a palpable hate between the state and the city in regards to this situation. They are pointing fingers and blaming each other for what's going on, and Denver took it's ball and went home, before they figured out their OC ban was in jeopardy, or that their OC ban may cause a side effect consequence that they can't do an oral argument against. Oops.

There's the possibility of Legislative enactment by the state, however they will not be in session when the 10th Circuit hands down it's ruling, and by the time the session has started and if there's a SCOTUS cert grant, oral arguments may already occur or be scheduled. Laws do not typically take effect until July of the year it's passed. It will be too late.


Other Cases

The states which have AG's who would reflexively appeal a loss and at least one House which is so anti-gun and would not pass any Legislative fixes are:

New York (AG Eric Schneidermann is an anti-gun crazy and the New York Assembly will never pass shall-issue under any circumstances).

Maryland (AG Douglas Gansler is also an anti-gun crazy, and there's only a minority chance that the General Assembly there will fix, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee has said flat out that gun carriers are "nuts" and that he will not allow carry to pass his committee even if the 4th Circuit rules it unconstitutional, leaving the issue for MSP to just issue for self defense).

New Jersey (AG's are appointed by the Governor, and Chris Christie doesn't believe the common rabble should have guns, and the majority of the New Jersey Legislature think Heller was wrong, so no relief there).

DC (this is an obvious, despite the long delays of Palmer, the city council will never pass carry, and they will appeal).

Remember, if we lose ANY of these cases in the circuits, there's a split and we appeal. This is a wierd situation were we want to lose at least once in a circuit to get SCOTUS resolution. If I were part of the anti-rights movement, that's not a palatable position to be in....

brassburnz
03-11-2012, 2:01 PM
Remember, if we lose ANY of these cases in the circuits, there's a split and we appeal. This is a wierd situation were we want to lose at least once in a circuit to get SCOTUS resolution. If I were part of the anti-rights movement, that's not a palatable position to be in....

And this just underscores the reason why Obama can't have a second term and possibly change the balance of the Supreme Court.

Tarn_Helm
03-11-2012, 2:32 PM
And this just underscores the reason why Obama can't have a second term and possibly change the balance of the Supreme Court.

I agree.

Now what we have to do is stop the politicians from splitting us into "interest groups."

What I mean is that if I have to support gay rights (a cause I cannot relate to at a gut level because I am not gay) by writing a letter in support of them or showing up at a gay rights rally wearing a "Pink Pistols" t-shirt, I'll do it.

I don't care what consenting adults do in their sex lives, and the government should not be passing judgment over anyone's private sexual practices--any more than it should be "regulating" my gun rights.

CA chapters listed here (http://go4impact.com/pinkpistols3/chapters/).

L.A.-area folks can get involved here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pinkpistols-la/).

Final thought: We have to convince as many folks as possible-including gays--that the return of Republicans to the POTUS will not result in criminalization of LGBT activities in the SCOTUS.
:cool:

kcbrown
03-11-2012, 2:46 PM
The most compelling state interest in requiring concealed carry is that it furthers the peace keeping duties of the law abiding. Demonstrably only about 3%-5% of the eligible population will get a permit and not all of those carry every day. Requiring concealment keeps criminals guessing while having the added benefit of limiting the costs of silly people scared of firearms calling in "man with a gun."


Strictly speaking, this is incorrect. Requiring concealed carry is not what keeps criminals guessing, allowing it in such a way that a nontrivial number of people will carry concealed (which implies a minimum number of barriers to it and strongly suggests shall-issue even when open carrying is available) is. Therefore, it is an invalid argument in support of a ban on open carry.

Also, the argument you propose presupposes that open carry does not act as a significant deterrent in and of itself. Is there any data supporting that assertion?

Gray Peterson
03-11-2012, 3:48 PM
And this just underscores the reason why Obama can't have a second term and possibly change the balance of the Supreme Court.

It would be stupid for CGF or any other legal foundation in the gun movement to plan legal strategy that's reliant on our current President losing the re election campaign.

Funtimes
03-11-2012, 7:26 PM
I say focus the $$$ on the Senate =p lets go 61 R's.

hoffmang
03-11-2012, 7:35 PM
Strictly speaking, this is incorrect. Requiring concealed carry is not what keeps criminals guessing, allowing it in such a way that a nontrivial number of people will carry concealed (which implies a minimum number of barriers to it and strongly suggests shall-issue even when open carrying is available) is. Therefore, it is an invalid argument in support of a ban on open carry.

Also, the argument you propose presupposes that open carry does not act as a significant deterrent in and of itself. Is there any data supporting that assertion?

You do realize you've wasted however many seconds of your life it took you to post that? Kleck is your cite and I was not strictly speaking - I was elipsing a solid argument.

-Gene

brassburnz
03-11-2012, 8:09 PM
It would be stupid for CGF or any other legal foundation in the gun movement to plan legal strategy that's reliant on our current President losing the re election campaign.

I agree. But it would also be stupid for any legal foundation in the gun movement to ignore the fact that at 41 years of age, Elena Kagan has 30 to 40 more years to shape the landscape of our 2nd Amendment rights, perhaps as the Chief Justice, and that Sonia Sotomayor has another 20 to 30 years to do the same.

If Obama is allowed to appoint a few more 40 something Justices, some of us won't be around to see what happens to our gun rights in 2030 and beyond.

hoffmang
03-11-2012, 8:55 PM
I agree. But it would also be stupid for any legal foundation in the gun movement to ignore the fact that at 41 years of age, Elena Kagan has 30 to 40 more years to shape the landscape of our 2nd Amendment rights, perhaps as the Chief Justice, and that Sonia Sotomayor has another 20 to 30 years to do the same.

If Obama is allowed to appoint a few more 40 something Justices, some of us won't be around to see what happens to our gun rights in 2030 and beyond.

1. Your argument actually shows why time is of the essence. We must get these decisions complete before one of the Heller 5 dies or resigns absent a Republican President.

2. The reality is that even contentious 5-4 decisions take a VERY long time even erode a litte. Witness Roe v. Wade that has less popular support and no textual support yet remains solidly the law of the land even though there should be 5 for repeal.

3. The social change is most important. Get the cases through the 5 now and the polls will just keep moving in our favor. Move the polls far enough, get 1,000,000 issued LTCs in California - the politics will protect the Supreme Court decisions and vice-versa. The reason we're going to win carry has more to do with 43 shall issue states than it does much of anything else.

-Gene

Baja Jones
03-11-2012, 9:09 PM
Just dropped a small contribution.
Thanks for the diligence.

sharxbyte
03-11-2012, 9:11 PM
Good luck LA crowd! Unfortunately Sacramento has enlisted a very effective system of saying

Unfortunately at this time our calendar for “New Concealed Weapons Permit Applications” is booked through the end of 2012. We are not yet accepting applications for 2013. Please continue to check the website for cancelled appointments.

T-T yay.

dave_cg
03-11-2012, 9:12 PM
3. The social change is most important. Get the cases through the 5 now and the polls will just keep moving in our favor. Move the polls far enough, get 1,000,000 issued LTCs in California - the politics will protect the Supreme Court decisions and vice-versa. The reason we're going to win carry has more to do with 43 shall issue states than it does much of anything else.
-Gene

It never really struck me before, but when you put it that way it is clear that once we get shall-issue, I should go get an LTC just to bump the statistics by one. While I don't feel any compelling need for LTC for my own situation, it still is important to contribute my bump to the number at the bottom of the spreadsheet, just to "show the flag" so to speak, when the politicians are deciding who's Cherrios they will or won't pee in today.

wildhawker
03-11-2012, 9:18 PM
Good luck LA crowd! Unfortunately Sacramento has enlisted a very effective system of saying

T-T yay.

I mentioned earlier that there are a few different vehicles to addressing that problem, both pre and post-bear.

-Brandon

wildhawker
03-11-2012, 9:20 PM
It never really struck me before, but when you put it that way it is clear that once we get shall-issue, I should go get an LTC just to bump the statistics by one. While I don't feel any compelling need for LTC for my own situation, it still is important to contribute my bump to the number at the bottom of the spreadsheet, just to "show the flag" so to speak, when the politicians are deciding who's Cherrios they will or won't pee in today.

When carry in public is accessible and normalized across the U.S., the gun control lobby's back breaks.

-Brandon

spgripside
03-11-2012, 9:24 PM
When carry in public is accessible and normalized across the U.S., the gun control lobby's back breaks.

-Brandon

Two weeks?

monk
03-11-2012, 9:29 PM
Good luck LA crowd! Unfortunately Sacramento has enlisted a very effective system of saying



T-T yay.


Lol, I don't doubt LA will be 100% the same way. This means I need to save up for that LC9 or XDSC9 I've been planning on having as my LTC gun. As soon as the notice comes to apply, I'll have it ready.

wildhawker
03-11-2012, 9:43 PM
There is a reason Birdts filings aren't there. Copycat cases that lose aren't even in the ballpark to set the standard.

One could reasonably argue that Peruta v. Gore fits that description also. It may be, in fact, the 'OG' botched copycat case.

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
03-11-2012, 10:25 PM
It never really struck me before, but when you put it that way it is clear that once we get shall-issue, I should go get an LTC just to bump the statistics by one. While I don't feel any compelling need for LTC for my own situation, it still is important to contribute my bump to the number at the bottom of the spreadsheet, just to "show the flag" so to speak, when the politicians are deciding who's Cherrios they will or won't pee in today.

Over the years, I've paid for 8 Washington State CPL's for people to get them started (at $60 a pop). All of them have renewed their licenses to carry since.

safewaysecurity
03-11-2012, 10:37 PM
The most compelling state interest in requiring concealed carry is that it furthers the peace keeping duties of the law abiding. Demonstrably only about 3%-5% of the eligible population will get a permit and not all of those carry every day. Requiring concealment keeps criminals guessing while having the added benefit of limiting the costs of silly people scared of firearms calling in "man with a gun."

The herd immunity interest is a very compelling government interest that goes right to the heart of the reason we all have a right to bear arms outside. The few end up protecting the many.

-Gene

Doesn't sound legitimate. Sounds like a lot of nonsense. People mistakenly calling police doesn't sound like a compelling state interest. You could make the argument that open carry is a deterrent and that not everyone would open carry if both options were available. Criminals still wouldn't know who is and who isn't armed, all they would know is that 1 person for sure is armed. I don't see how an intellectually honest judge could rule that it's constitutional to ban open carry while concealed carry is permitted even under intermediate scrutiny.

ErikTheRed
03-11-2012, 11:01 PM
I don't live in LA County but I certainly understand the positive statewide implications. A win here is good for ALL of California. Donation going out Friday!

Clinton
03-11-2012, 11:51 PM
This is great news! I love it when we get a chance to stick it to anti-2A people. I live in a CCW friendly county, but it need to be statewide. Just donated a little to help make it happen. GO CGF!

Gray Peterson
03-12-2012, 12:52 AM
Doesn't sound legitimate. Sounds like a lot of nonsense. People mistakenly calling police doesn't sound like a compelling state interest. You could make the argument that open carry is a deterrent and that not everyone would open carry if both options were available. Criminals still wouldn't know who is and who isn't armed, all they would know is that 1 person for sure is armed. I don't see how an intellectually honest judge could rule that it's constitutional to ban open carry while concealed carry is permitted even under intermediate scrutiny.

And yet, with the exception of Woollard, every single federal district judge in every civil carry case engaged in complete and total intellectual dishonesty to come to the decision that they did.

Remember that the only right to carry that's accessible in the mentality to most Americans is concealed, not open.

RobG
03-12-2012, 3:32 AM
Can you imagine how long it will take to process LTC's for 3-5% of nearly 10 million LA county residents :eek: If they ever do issue, you best get in line with a quickness.

Tarn_Helm
03-12-2012, 5:47 AM
1. Your argument actually shows why time is of the essence. We must get these decisions complete before one of the Heller 5 dies or resigns absent a Republican President.

2. The reality is that even contentious 5-4 decisions take a VERY long time even erode a litte. Witness Roe v. Wade that has less popular support and no textual support yet remains solidly the law of the land even though there should be 5 for repeal.

3. The social change is most important. Get the cases through the 5 now and the polls will just keep moving in our favor. Move the polls far enough, get 1,000,000 issued LTCs in California - the politics will protect the Supreme Court decisions and vice-versa. The reason we're going to win carry has more to do with 43 shall issue states than it does much of anything else.

-Gene

Does it follow, then, from what you have posted above, that, whatever misgivings a Second Amendment supporter might have about the opposition (i.e., Republicans) in the upcoming presidential elections, it is necessary for all Second Amendment supporters nationwide to vote out the current (i.e., Democrat) administration in order to 1) push forward our agenda of turning the remaining may-issue/no-issue states to shall-issue 2) prevent the Democrats from appointing two more anti-Second-Amendment justices to the SCOTUS during the 2012-2016 term?

Basically, what I am asking is whether you advocate that we here espouse and practice single-issue (i.e., Second Amendment first, foremost, and above all) in the upcoming presidential election?

For example, if I oppose the overturning of, say, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas) (or other cases protecting gay rights), are you saying that, for now, gays rights will remain essentially safe if the Republican candidate (Mitt Romney) were to get elected in November of 2012?

If so, I agree with you.

But I would like to see for myself here in black and white what your thinking is on this issue, namely, whether it is necessary and prudent for us to vote on a single-issue (Second Amendment) basis at least this one time.

(For the record, I already am and shall ever remain a single-issue voter whose single issue is the Second Amendment.)

I look forward to your response.
:cool:

kimber_ss
03-12-2012, 5:47 AM
The line for LA County LTC issuance, might be a little longer than the one where Elvis steps off an alien aircraft for one last concert. /JK

ccmc
03-12-2012, 5:55 AM
Can you imagine how long it will take to process LTC's for 3-5% of nearly 10 million LA county residents :eek: If they ever do issue, you best get in line with a quickness.

This is what I don't understand. How is it that states like Florida can process applications in 90 days or less for the entire country when states like California with a gigantic public sector and a full time legislature are so horribly inefficient?

smogcity
03-12-2012, 6:25 AM
Because Florida wants to process the application.

In LA you can get a marriage license very easily because the government encourages marriage. If we force LTC, it's inevitable they will bog us down in a logistical nightmare due to their desire to discourage this activity. God bless CGF and Jason Davis for all you do!

This is what I don't understand. How is it that states like Florida can process applications in 90 days or less for the entire country when states like California with a gigantic public sector and a full time legislature are so horribly inefficient?

Kodemonkey
03-12-2012, 8:27 AM
This is what I don't understand. How is it that states like Florida can process applications in 90 days or less for the entire country when states like California with a gigantic public sector and a full time legislature are so horribly inefficient?

It's called denial of rights through bureaucratic red tape and delay.

If by some act of God LA country were to become shall issue, I am near certain Baca would make sure it took an entire election cycle to get a permit. Baca would cry "we don't have enough resources", assign the dumbest individual he could find to run the licensing office and laugh as he continued his campaign of victim disarmament.

resident-shooter
03-12-2012, 8:43 AM
I assume Maryland case had something to do with it, but anyways. This is a big fish. If LA falls, preferably in us supreme.... that will be one 700lb precedent that antiz will see in their nightmayrz

IVC
03-12-2012, 9:15 AM
It's called denial of rights through bureaucratic red tape and delay.

Don't despair as this is a well known tactic that has been used in the past for serious abuses of other rights. Courts know very well how it works and have effective ways of dealing with it. The folks who are on our side also know very well how to handle such a situation. An initial delay might be annoying, but it will be fixed.

Kodemonkey
03-12-2012, 10:27 AM
Don't despair as this is a well known tactic that has been used in the past for serious abuses of other rights. Courts know very well how it works and have effective ways of dealing with it. The folks who are on our side also know very well how to handle such a situation. An initial delay might be annoying, but it will be fixed.

I hope you are right. But look how long LAPD has been able to drag their feet. We are still trying to get enforcement of Assenza from 1994.

IVC
03-12-2012, 10:45 AM
I hope you are right. But look how long LAPD has been able to drag their feet. We are still trying to get enforcement of Assenza from 1994.

Different issues. The current effort is to sort out technical details and prepare the *infrastructure* for such time when LASO/LAPD are forced to issue licenses. Currently, the real right denial is through the "may issue" state law, not the technical details of an application which will be denied anyway on different grounds.

Once they *have to* issue LTC-s, but end up dragging their feet is when the hammer will fall hard.

bulgron
03-12-2012, 10:47 AM
I hope you are right. But look how long LAPD has been able to drag their feet. We are still trying to get enforcement of Assenza from 1994.

In at least a few states, a failure to issue the permit (or deny it, with an explanation of why you can't have one) within a set amount of time is the same as issuing the permit. Just a potential strategy for future consideration, if this ever truly becomes an issue.

HowardW56
03-12-2012, 10:48 AM
I hope you are right. But look how long LAPD has been able to drag their feet. We are still trying to get enforcement of Assenza from 1994.


I believe the Assenza settlement worked for a while, then LAPD fell back into their old habits and the plaintiffs & attorney got older...

Burt Jacobson, the attorney in Assenza was admitted to the California Bar in 1957... If there wasn't anyone familiar enough and willing to keep LAPD in line, they were going to do whatever they wanted...

monk
03-12-2012, 10:56 AM
In at least a few states, a failure to issue the permit (or deny it, with an explanation of why you can't have one) within a set amount of time is the same as issuing the permit. Just a potential strategy for future consideration, if this ever truly becomes an issue.

I thought that after the passage of the LTC reform this became law? As well as the removal of a need to take a class?

randian
03-12-2012, 11:01 AM
If Obama is allowed to appoint a few more 40 something Justices, some of us won't be around to see what happens to our gun rights in 2030 and beyond.
Even if SCOTUS ruled that we have no right to bear arms outside the home that doesn't by itself invalidate licensing schemes or state constitutional provisions allowing carry outside the home. SCOTUS would have to go even farther and either make state-level preemption invalid, legislate from the bench and mandate may-issue, or rule that you may not legally bear arms outside the home at all, in order for them to screw over the shall-issue states.

Unless they're going to rule sua sponte, what set of facts gets SCOTUS an opportunity to make such a ruling? It's one thing to say "yes, NJ may prohibit bearing arms outside the home", it's quite another to add "everybody else must do so as well". "Must everybody be like us?" is not a question a may-issue jurisdiction is going to try to certify for SCOTUS consideration.

wildhawker
03-12-2012, 11:06 AM
I assume Maryland case had something to do with it, but anyways. This is a big fish. If LA falls, preferably in us supreme.... that will be one 700lb precedent that antiz will see in their nightmayrz

This case is independent of the Woollard outcome and seeks to enjoin enforcement of certain policies and practices by LASD.

-Brandon

wildhawker
03-12-2012, 11:08 AM
I thought that after the passage of the LTC reform this became law? As well as the removal of a need to take a class?

Not quite. Here's SB 610 as chaptered: link (http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_610_bill_20111009_chaptered.html).

In essence, it restates what was already written in law.

-Brandon

randian
03-12-2012, 11:11 AM
Once they *have to* issue LTC-s, but end up dragging their feet is when the hammer will fall hard.
How so? Who is going to process permits if LAPD doesn't? Is FBI going to show up and actually put chief LEOs in jail for contempt? Fines? No problem, there is no end to what can be looted from the taxpayers.

Let's just say I have great difficulty imagining these things actually being done rather than threatened. If Holder is still AG there is absolutely no question they won't be done.

Librarian
03-12-2012, 11:17 AM
I thought that after the passage of the LTC reform this became law? As well as the removal of a need to take a class?

There hasn't been LTC reform yet. Last year's AB 610 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_610_bill_20111009_chaptered.html) was a useful but very minor bill that reinforced the idea of written explanations for denial within a time period, restated the order of payment of fees, and prohibited those liability insurance policies.

ETA ... as Brandon said a few minutes more quickly than I ...

Lc17smp
03-12-2012, 11:23 AM
Just set up a reoccurring payment. (bank billpay) And its tax deductible also. Win - Win. Thanks Calguns. Its gonna feel very strange some day leaving the house CC'ing. Very good but strange. :thumbsup:

kcbrown
03-12-2012, 12:15 PM
You do realize you've wasted however many seconds of your life it took you to post that? Kleck is your cite and I was not strictly speaking - I was elipsing a solid argument.


Thanks. Can you be more specific with respect to the cite? Kleck has a decent amount of published work. Which of those works shows that the introduction of open carry into a shall-issue concealed carry environment yields a significant increase in crime rates, or that removal of open carry from an environment where both open carry and concealed carry are allowed on at least a shall-issue basis yields a significant decrease in crime rates?

Mr_Monkeywrench
03-12-2012, 1:28 PM
Can you imagine how long it will take to process LTC's for 3-5% of nearly 10 million LA county residents :eek: If they ever do issue, you best get in line with a quickness.

I think a good way to look at these things is to take a chapter from history. As we all know, the RKBA is a civil rights issue. When the domino's began to fall in the south from segregation, it wasn't over night that things changed and blacks were given immediate equality (though maybe legislatively, but not actually). It took a lot of grass roots community organizing, law suits, and bringing the issue to boil in the public conversation to initiate real change.

I was reading Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter From the Birmingham Jail the other day for a class and I could not help but see the parallels for equality he was fighting for to the equality we are fighting for. They are both civil rights and equal protection cases. If we are going to win this, we must be patient, articulate, unwavering, and united.

And as to whats going on in Los Angeles (where I am not a resident) County, we need to stand united. I applaud the men who are working on this case because as Dr. King said when asked why he was getting involved in Alabama when he was from Georgia, he promptly replied in his letter, "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere."

IVC
03-12-2012, 1:41 PM
How so? Who is going to process permits if LAPD doesn't? Is FBI going to show up and actually put chief LEOs in jail for contempt? Fines? No problem, there is no end to what can be looted from the taxpayers.

Let's just say I have great difficulty imagining these things actually being done rather than threatened. If Holder is still AG there is absolutely no question they won't be done.

Contempt of court cannot be transferred to the tax payers. It doesn't come out of the petty cash.

If it was "empty threats", we would still have segregation in the south. And no sheriff can do anything about it.

avneet
03-12-2012, 1:44 PM
Awesome work guys.

CCWFacts
03-12-2012, 3:27 PM
When carry in public is accessible and normalized across the U.S., the gun control lobby's back breaks.

I have long believed that. I have observed that no state that has ever gone shall-issue has subsequently backed off from that, in other words, shall-issue is irreversible, probably due in part to the loss aversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion) effect. In fact they tend to expand their CCW programs. I also note that no state that has ever gone shall-issue has subsequently passed any gun control legislation.

(Someone might jump in to point out that Colorado passed a restriction on their LTC law, and that's the one very small case of very minor back-pedalling I am aware of. That, out of 43 states, all of which have progressively expanded their LTC programs, by adding reciprocity, removing restrictions, etc.)

This is why CCW reform is the most important thing there is for the gun rights movement. Once we have it in California and New York, gun control is finished in this country, at least until demographic changes overtake us in 2042.

hoffmang
03-12-2012, 10:02 PM
Doesn't sound legitimate. Sounds like a lot of nonsense.
You skipped the hard part and went after a straw man. Property crimes (no one is around) increase while violent crimes decrease (someone is around) in states that liberalize concealed carry.
Does it follow, then, from what you have posted above, that, whatever misgivings a Second Amendment supporter might have about the opposition (i.e., Republicans) in the upcoming presidential elections, it is necessary for all Second Amendment supporters nationwide to vote out the current (i.e., Democrat) administration in order to 1) push forward our agenda of turning the remaining may-issue/no-issue states to shall-issue 2) prevent the Democrats from appointing two more anti-Second-Amendment justices to the SCOTUS during the 2012-2016 term?
Someone ran an interesting calculation that we had about a 43% chance of losing one of the Heller 5 to death or accidental death during a second Obama term. As such, yes, it is important to get any republican administration over the current one.
Thanks. Can you be more specific with respect to the cite? Kleck has a decent amount of published work. Which of those works shows that the introduction of open carry into a shall-issue concealed carry environment yields a significant increase in crime rates, or that removal of open carry from an environment where both open carry and concealed carry are allowed on at least a shall-issue basis yields a significant decrease in crime rates?
Thanks. Can you do some actual work instead of asking me to go do your reading for you? If not, my general rate for consulting services is about $600/hr and I'll send you the contract and require only a 5 hour prepayment - fully refundable for that which you don't use of course. Also note that you're assuming it has to be a perfect fit and be careful. Quite a few states that had LOC no permit added concealed carry and had violent crime reductions. That's the kind of evidence that would even show the tight fit.

Can you show me the state that had LOC no permit and had more than 0.01% of the population open carrying before 2000? I used to live in one and I met exactly 1 guy in 21 years there before 1996. You kind of have to have people actually, you know, carry openly for open carry to be a deterrent to violent crime.

-Gene

MultiCaliber
03-12-2012, 10:07 PM
Go get them, boys! :43:

Connor P Price
03-12-2012, 10:26 PM
Can you show me the state that had LOC no permit and had more than 0.01% of the population open carrying before 2000? I used to live in one and I met exactly 1 guy in 21 years there before 1996. You kind of have to have people actually, you know, carry openly for open carry to be a deterrent to violent crime.

-Gene

This x2.

Open carrying of firearms carries a stigma in many populous areas. Before constitutional carry Arizona had a good number of open carriers, but they seem to be the exception. Most places even where open carry is legal don't tend to see all that many open carriers. They catch to much flak from anti's and don't want to deal with the hassle.

I would guess that if CA became and unlicensed open carry state there would be incredibly few open carriers in the more populous areas. The majority of people would remain squeamish because they don't want to be judged. If on the other hand CA becomes shall issue concealed carry I would guess that there will be more people carrying because they wont have to be judged.

Of course this is my guesswork rather than statistical fact but it seems fairly intuitive to me.

hoffmang
03-12-2012, 10:55 PM
Open carrying of firearms carries a stigma in many populous areas. Before constitutional carry Arizona had a good number of open carriers, but they seem to be the exception. Most places even where open carry is legal don't tend to see all that many open carriers. They catch to much flak from anti's and don't want to deal with the hassle.

And I do want to add to my analysis above that I have nothing against open carry. Do it myself in appropriate times and places (TN hotel at breakfast and on the way to and from a range - but concealed for dinner) and I'd love tobe able to do it here - especially during the day on a Saturday as I work in the yard or hit Home Depot... I also think that the pure original meaning was LOC but concealed was regulable. However the trend is that concealed licenses shall be objective and easy to obtain in 43 states where many very pro gun states like Florida and Texas will prohibit open carry. That trend is going to be very persuasive with the Supreme Court.

-Gene

kcbrown
03-12-2012, 11:32 PM
And I do want to add to my analysis above that I have nothing against open carry. Do it myself in appropriate times and places (TN hotel at breakfast and on the way to and from a range - but concealed for dinner) and I'd love tobe able to do it here - especially during the day on a Saturday as I work in the yard or hit Home Depot... I also think that the pure original meaning was LOC but concealed was regulable. However the trend is that concealed licenses shall be objective and easy to obtain in 43 states where many very pro gun states like Florida and Texas will prohibit open carry. That trend is going to be very persuasive with the Supreme Court.


As it should be.

Regardless of what one thinks about open carry, we need to get concealed carry first here in California, and there's a lot of downside to freely available open carry here which has nothing to do with crime statistics, a downside which will take time to address.

bubbagump
03-13-2012, 7:34 AM
I will make a donation on Friday!

HisDivineShadow
03-13-2012, 8:00 AM
$100 donation sent. Order #270

Kestryll
03-13-2012, 11:42 AM
Citizens Arrest topic moved to it's own thread here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=547296

Let's keep this thread on topic.

Kestryll
03-13-2012, 11:45 AM
So who should my donation go to? Cgn or cgf? Way to go guys! Finally Los Angeles county

Just to reiterate since I did not see this question earlier:

If you can give to one group, ALWAYS make it CGF first.

CEDaytonaRydr
03-13-2012, 12:19 PM
Give 'em hell, boys!!! :clap:

ccmc
03-13-2012, 12:20 PM
And I do want to add to my analysis above that I have nothing against open carry. Do it myself in appropriate times and places (TN hotel at breakfast and on the way to and from a range - but concealed for dinner) and I'd love tobe able to do it here - especially during the day on a Saturday as I work in the yard or hit Home Depot... I also think that the pure original meaning was LOC but concealed was regulable. However the trend is that concealed licenses shall be objective and easy to obtain in 43 states where many very pro gun states like Florida and Texas will prohibit open carry. That trend is going to be very persuasive with the Supreme Court.

-Gene

I thought LOC was legal on your own property in CA. Not true? The joke on Florida gun forums is that the fastest way to kill a bill in the FL legislature is to add LOC to it. We came close last year - it passed the Florida House, but got watered down in the Florida Senate to "brief" exposure. No action during this year's 60 day legislative session - some are predicting it will be on next year's agenda. I don't see it. 50 million tourists visit Florida every year, many of them from Europe - the tourism lobby is very strong here, and strongly against OC. Even so OC is legal in certain circumstances ie to/from hunting, fishing, camping, also to/from the range, and obviously on your own property.

wildhawker
03-13-2012, 12:27 PM
I thought LOC was legal on your own property in CA. Not true?

See, People v. Overturf (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=people+v.+overturf+firearm&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&case=11511363154400806687&scilh=0) and People v. Strider (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=people+v.+strider&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&case=3393446215002445785&scilh=0).

-Brandon

randian
03-13-2012, 12:32 PM
the tourism lobby is very strong here, and strongly against OC.
A bunch of nervous nellies. I doubt the average European tourist has any idea that an OCer could be anything other than a plainclothes cop. The tourism lobby also lobbied hard to keep oil exploration away from Florida, despite the needed jobs and tax revenue that would generate. Lots of oil derricks off of California's coast and they still have plenty of tourists.

Untamed1972
03-13-2012, 12:52 PM
Can you imagine how long it will take to process LTC's for 3-5% of nearly 10 million LA county residents :eek: If they ever do issue, you best get in line with a quickness.

You must also remember that 90%+ of the current CA LTC application process is designed to basically dig into your life deep enough to find an excuse to deny you.....which is why the application is so long, and the process is so long.

An AZ CCW app is a single 2-sided sheet, which is essentially nothing more than the same questions asked on a 4473 form when you but a gun from a dealer.....ie, all they wanna know is if you're prohibited from posessing a firearm. It can be obtained thru the mail with a total turn around time of 3 weeks or less.

If CA Sheriffs did this, via the NICS instant background check, then with minimal administrative staff they could process LTCs very quickly. Cut out all the interview and investigative background check crap and all the time, expense and resource drain goes away.