PDA

View Full Version : How the CA "Shall Issue" CCW Movement May Play Out Over the Next 5 Years


Paladin
09-22-2007, 1:42 PM
Recently I've been reevaluating the best way to get CA to "Shall Issue." One way is to work for the next 9+ years for a political movement to slowly build up at these pro-CCW CA forums (here, CalCCW, and californiaccw.org). Another way is for Team Billy Jack (www.californiaconcealedcarry.com) to take down a few major urban discriminatory issuing sheriffs. Just to use as an example -- NOT based on ANY KNOWLEDGE of discriminatory issue in fact by these sheriffs -- let's say 3 from the following group: LA, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa and/or SD all got sued successfully by TBJ and had to resign in disgrace and/or pay out huge awards/settlements. The state capital and the Main Steam Media would have to take notice and CCW issuance would become a major CA political issue.

IMO, Schwarzenegger would then have to push legislation to "clean up" corruption in the issuance process. He would either push for a "Shall Issue" ballot initiative (doubtful after getting burnt on them last time), or try to get a coalition of Dems and Repubs to introduce a very restrictive "Shall Issue" bill. I doubt whether he'd try to push for "No Issue."

The CA Dem leadership would push for what: "Shall Issue" or "No Issue"? My guess is the latter. The national leadership of the Dem party is still very anti, despite new pro Dems in the federal legislature. They've been pushing more and more anti legislation in their state anti strongholds these past couple of years to placate their anti donor and activist bases. Thus I'm betting the Dems will try to use CA as their launching pad to "take back" the nation from the NRA. They've used us to introduce the AWB, the .50 cal ban, and are now vigorously pushing for Microstamping and a lead ammo ban, so they'll continue to use us for their pet anti "pilot projects."

Thus we must be prepared to fight the antis (like it or not, lead mainly by the Dems), when several big name CoPs/sheriffs fall to TBJ lawsuits. How can we successfully win against the majority anti Dems with the MSM supporting them? We have to get ourselves and as many pro-gun people we know on the CalNRA team and disciplined in making those calls, emails, faxes, and letters when the NRA leadership says it's time.

As for the time line: with the PRA law and CBS v. Block, TBJ lawsuits will be a LOT faster than the originally Guillory case. Let's say 2 years on average, since some may be settled out of court. Let's assume that BJ's got two suits that will be filed this year and assume they file 3 next year and each year after that. Let's assume that they'll go after some CoPs/"minor" county sheriffs for three years (2007 thru '09) to gain experience and to build a warchest before going after the major urban discriminatory issuing sheriffs in 2010 - '12. That means that around 2012 to '14, things in this state could get mighty interesting politically re CCWs.

Let's further assume that the Governator runs and wins reelection in 2010, so he'll still be in office. By then, we can also assume that at least two more states from the group of IO, WI, DE, MD, and RI will have gone "Shall Issue", bringing the total of Right-to-Carry states to at least 42. Since many counties in CA issue readily (Kern, Orange, Mendo, Fresno, San Bernadino, Shasta), "Shall Issue"-in-practice has already been shown to work within CA. Thus it will be difficult for major commentators on the MSM to portray "Shall Issue" as an extremist position. Actually, restrictive "May Issue" (8 states) and particularly "No Issue" (2 state) are now the extremist positions. Plus, "May Issue" in CA will be shown to discriminate against urbanites, regardless of their race. When urbanites find out that much of CA can get a CCW when they can't merely because of where they live (i.e., their sheriffs' policies), many may get ticked.

What should we do? (1) We don't want the CCW issuance to become a major political issue before we are ready and able to win the battle. That means that getting as many pro-gun people in CA on board with CalNRA is our highest priority. (2) Finding suitable plaintiffs for the truly big TBJ lawsuits will take some time, let's say a year. The investigative period will also take quit some time, let's say two years. So, referring potential plaintiffs to Team Billy Jack should be our second highest priority. According to TBJ's homepage, they are already planning to go hunting for some "big elephants": "We are very interested in applicants residing in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, and Santa Clara counties. These counties have histories of CCW abuse but we will consider any applicant with a good case" (www.californiaconcealedcarry.com).

If it plays out the way I described, we can get to Shall Issue on the legislative agenda in half the expected time (about 5 years vs 10+ years after the first forum dedicated to CA CCW began).

Does that mean we should abandon a long-term political strategy, ignore the 2010 sheriffs races? No. It is never prudent to put all your eggs in one basket. But using TBJ lawsuits to force a political response to the corruption of the current May Issue law gets us to where we want to go a lot faster. The only risk is that we will not be strong enough at the time to win that political battle. Thus the focus on rallying around the NRA's state organization, CalNRA. They're the ones with the most resources, skills, experience and members to win this fight.

Bizcuits
09-22-2007, 2:54 PM
Considering the two face turn McGinness took, I'd think Sacramento would be more of an interest then a couple of those mentioned.

1911_sfca
09-22-2007, 7:23 PM
Another way is for Team Billy Jack to take down a few major urban discriminatory issuing sheriffs. Just to use as an example -- not based on ANY KNOWLEDGE of discriminatory issue in fact by these sheriffs -- let's say 3 from the following group: LA, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa and/or SD all got sued successfully by TBJ and had to resign in disgrace and/or pay out huge awards/settlements. The state capital and the Main Steam Media would have to take notice and CCW issuance would become a major CA political issue of the year.
(emphasis added.)

"Resign in disgrace?" "major CA political issue?" Sorry my friend, but I don't see this happening. There is plenty of political support for *not* issuing CCWs in these places. Sheriffs are political animals, and they know the climate in which they are elected. Most people don't know or care, and still wouldn't care even if it did somehow make it into the media.

MedSpec65
09-22-2007, 7:53 PM
(emphasis added.)

"Resign in disgrace?" "major CA political issue?" Sorry my friend, but I don't see this happening. There is plenty of political support for *not* issuing CCWs in these places. Sheriffs are political animals, and they know the climate in which they are elected. Most people don't know or care, and still wouldn't care even if it did somehow make it into the media.These Counties are dominated by voting liberal hoplophobes from hell. They don't spend ONE MINUTE of one day a month even THINKING about guns. They hate 'em, don't want to see 'em or hear about 'em. Anybody talking about making it easier for civilians to even OWN guns, much less carry them concealed makes them apoplectic. I've lurked around California Concealed Carry and read many posts by Billy Jack. If I was a multi-millionaire with plenty of disposable cash I might start walking into the offices of these elitist Police Chiefs and County Sheriffs and subject myself to the humiliation of going through the myriad legal steps necessary to get their attention. But when these people on these forums start talking about SUING the chief law enforcement officer of THE COUNTY THEY LIVE IN I've got to ask what planet are they living on. This is California; only the State of New Jersey exceeds the level of corruption here - screw around with your local police chief or county sheriff and you'll definitely have uniforms knocking on your door and you might lose your gun collection. Sorry to blow smoke on the parade, but I've lived in Northern California for 63 years. This is not the same place I grew up in. Get your Non-Resident Utah Permit and happily travel while armed in 26 other states. Or get your Guard and Gun cards and get a $13.50 an hour job as a bullet magnet for some bank or truck yard if you just have to carry a gun in public here in most California counties.

bulgron
09-22-2007, 8:17 PM
This is California; only the State of New Jersey exceeds the level of corruption here - screw around with your local police chief or county sheriff and you'll definitely have uniforms knocking on your door and you might lose your gun collection.

Yep, it takes courage to fight the establishment. Just ask Rosa Parks and the people who helped her start the civil rights movement.

But being afraid of LEO is probably the best reason in the world to push for these lawsuits.

California is a big place with a large population of pissed-off gun owners. We'll find our Rosa Parks. Probably, we'll find several.

MedSpec65
09-22-2007, 8:31 PM
Yep, it takes courage to fight the establishment. Just ask Rosa Parks and the people who helped her start the civil rights movement.

But being afraid of LEO is probably the best reason in the world to push for these lawsuits.

California is a big place with a large population of pissed-off gun owners. We'll find our Rosa Parks. Probably, we'll find several.Good Luck! Hope you're right!

1911_sfca
09-22-2007, 8:43 PM
Yep, it takes courage to fight the establishment. Just ask Rosa Parks and the people who helped her start the civil rights movement.

But being afraid of LEO is probably the best reason in the world to push for these lawsuits.

California is a big place with a large population of pissed-off gun owners. We'll find our Rosa Parks. Probably, we'll find several.

Good luck on trying to present CCW as a "Rosa Parks" civil rights issue in occupied PRK. Report back on your progress, if possible.

CCWFacts
09-22-2007, 8:46 PM
Sheriffs are political animals, and they know the climate in which they are elected. Most people don't know or care, and still wouldn't care even if it did somehow make it into the media.

You look at a map of which counties fell to Feinstein last time:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2e/CASen06Counties.png/180px-CASen06Counties.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CASen06Counties.png)

and you look at a map of which counties issue.... and it's clear what's going on with these sheriffs.

Paladin
09-22-2007, 8:47 PM
(emphasis added.)

"Resign in disgrace?" "major CA political issue?" Sorry my friend, but I don't see this happening. There is plenty of political support for *not* issuing CCWs in these places. Sheriffs are political animals, and they know the climate in which they are elected. Most people don't know or care, and still wouldn't care even if it did somehow make it into the media.When some CoPs/sheriffs find themselves being hauled off to prison, that does qualify as "resigning in disgrace" IMO. When that happens to a few sheriffs of major urban counties all because of illegal CCW practices (I won't reveal any details here, at this time) that will raise cries of political corruption and a push for reform. Remember, sheriffs are non-partisan positions, so neither Dems nor Repubs will stick their necks out very far to protect them. Local political climate is one thing, but violating the law and getting sent to jail trumps all that and that will make it into the MSM.

JMO. Time will tell 'cause Billy's a comin' :D

Paladin
09-22-2007, 9:08 PM
If I was a multi-millionaire with plenty of disposable cash I might start walking into the offices of these elitist Police Chiefs and County Sheriffs and subject myself to the humiliation of going through the myriad legal steps necessary to get their attention.I don't think Kurt McCloud, who's working as a "nuclear security officer" (http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2007/09/19/news/centralcoast/news03.txt) is a multi-millionaire. I'll email him to see if he's willing to answer this question. I'll also email Billy Jack to see if he was a "multi-millionaire" when he litigated his suit. But a question to you: Upon what do you base your assertion that you need to be a "multi-millionaire" to prevail in one of these suits? But when these people on these forums start talking about SUING the chief law enforcement officer of THE COUNTY THEY LIVE IN I've got to ask what planet are they living on. This is California; only the State of New Jersey exceeds the level of corruption here - screw around with your local police chief or county sheriff and you'll definitely have uniforms knocking on your door and you might lose your gun collection.You speak very authoritatively, yet "Billy Jack" did just that and he came out quite well after winning his suit. What do you base this statement upon?
Sorry to blow smoke on the parade, but I've lived in Northern California for 63 years. This is not the same place I grew up in. Get your Non-Resident Utah Permit and happily travel while armed in 26 other states. Or get your Guard and Gun cards and get a $13.50 an hour job as a bullet magnet for some bank or truck yard if you just have to carry a gun in public here in most California counties.Or move to a permissive issuing county in the state (see my sig line). Or get in touch w/TBJ to see if they can help you get one where you are.

hoffmang
09-22-2007, 10:39 PM
There are two paths here.

One is, there are a couple of very good plaintiffs in San Mateo County and I know of a couple in Sanoma County and Santa Clara County.

Second, there are going to be some hard choices for the courts about what the word "bear" means post Parker/Heller.

You don't need to be a millionaire to win these CCW cases. You do need to have your stuff very clean and have a few thousand bucks around to help cover the costs of filing.

-Gene

CCWFacts
09-22-2007, 10:58 PM
You don't need to be a millionaire to win these CCW cases. You do need to have your stuff very clean and have a few thousand bucks around to help cover the costs of filing.

That is a good point. These guys don't want these cases to go to court. If a plaintiff has everything in order, and can plunk down $10k or so, that is probably enough to do the trick, and there are a whole lot of people who would be willing to spend that much money to a) get a CCW in this state and b) have the pleasure of getting it in such a way.

And once we get some legal teams who specialize in this area, it will become even more routine.

If a boilerplate lawsuit could be done for, say, $3k or so, a whole lot of people would go for that.

hoffmang
09-22-2007, 11:02 PM
I'd estimate $15K to make sure you made it through the district court, but that's also not $15K up front. Its probably 3 payments of $5K each over about 120 days and it can be split amongst a couple of county residents who care. If you win, you'll get that money back, but you have to be willing to assume you'll lose it as some of these cases will go to the appeals court and you may or may not be able to keep going then.

-Gene

MedSpec65
09-23-2007, 7:42 AM
:kest:I'd estimate $15K to make sure you made it through the district court, but that's also not $15K up front. Its probably 3 payments of $5K each over about 120 days and it can be split amongst a couple of county residents who care. If you win, you'll get that money back, but you have to be willing to assume you'll lose it as some of these cases will go to the appeals court and you may or may not be able to keep going then.

-GeneSorry about my "multi-millionaire" excessive characterization, but reserving $15K to "possibly" secure a permit is a luxury expenditure in IMHO. On a personal note: I've been a Registered California Process Server in San Mateo and San Francisco Counties for over 15 years. I knock on more hostile doors than many LEO's and have been verbally assaulted, battered and threatened on numerous occasions through the years. One jerk even popped off a couple of rounds from a 30-30 at me in South City a few years ago. Every Proof of Service I sign and is filed on people I serve has my County Registration number on it and my name and address is readily accessible at the County Clerk's office in Redwood City. You can be assured I have researched this issue exhaustively. I am approaching 65 years of age and have health problems. You couldn't pay me to walk into my local police chief's office and even reveal to him I am a gun owner, much less my philandering Las Vegas party-boy County Sheriff Greg Munk who barely has the trust of his own employees.

Paladin
01-01-2008, 10:00 AM
There are two paths here.

One is, there are a couple of very good plaintiffs in San Mateo County and I know of a couple in Sanoma County and Santa Clara County.Forgot to ask: Did they ever get in touch w/Team Billy Jack (link in my sig line) or another attorney?

Rob P.
01-01-2008, 10:35 AM
To get CCW in california we need to throw out the "shall issue" campaign and start a new one.

Creeping incrementalism works.

Decent and unbiased CCW issuance begins with ONE STANDARD for everyone. That means that only ONE bureaucracy should be responsible for following that standard.

The system, as it is now, has 58 different standards based on 58 different standards of discretion. This is a disgrace.

Push for the DOJ to become the issuing dept for statewide CCW. Once the DOJ is the go-to place, THEN work on defining and refining the standard. The more refinement is done the closer to "shall issue" we get.

Think DMV for firearms LTC. Drivers' licenses are easy to get because the standard is low. Why should a state-wide permit for CCW be any different?

Fjold
01-01-2008, 11:13 AM
To get CCW in california we need to throw out the "shall issue" campaign and start a new one.

Creeping incrementalism works.

Decent and unbiased CCW issuance begins with ONE STANDARD for everyone. That means that only ONE bureaucracy should be responsible for following that standard.

The system, as it is now, has 58 different standards based on 58 different standards of discretion. This is a disgrace.

Push for the DOJ to become the issuing dept for statewide CCW. Once the DOJ is the go-to place, THEN work on defining and refining the standard. The more refinement is done the closer to "shall issue" we get.

Think DMV for firearms LTC. Drivers' licenses are easy to get because the standard is low. Why should a state-wide permit for CCW be any different?


I disagree completely with the above!

If the DOJ sets standardized rules for issuance of permits then the Sacramento/San Francisco/Los Angeles politicos will develop them and the number of CCW permit holders will be 1% of what they are right now.

That's the fastest way to lose our right to carry.

Rob P.
01-01-2008, 11:25 AM
I disagree completely with the above!

If the DOJ sets standardized rules for issuance of permits then the Sacramento/San Francisco/Los Angeles politicos will develop them and the number of CCW permit holders will be 1% of what they are right now.

That's the fastest way to lose our right to carry.

Which would be provable discrimination and an unconstitutional "de facto" ban on firearms for average californians. Discrimination is easier to prove when only the rich/famous are allowed the privilege and the info is in one place. It's harder to prove when the info is spread all across the map and mixed with good & bad issue fog.

robitrocks
01-01-2008, 12:21 PM
Which would be provable discrimination and an unconstitutional "de facto" ban on firearms for average californians. Discrimination is easier to prove when only the rich/famous are allowed the privilege and the info is in one place. It's harder to prove when the info is spread all across the map and mixed with good & bad issue fog.
But they don't care. Cal DOJ has effectively banned all SBR issuance in CA. CCW would be no different. :eek:

Fjold
01-01-2008, 12:40 PM
Which would be provable discrimination and an unconstitutional "de facto" ban on firearms for average californians. Discrimination is easier to prove when only the rich/famous are allowed the privilege and the info is in one place. It's harder to prove when the info is spread all across the map and mixed with good & bad issue fog.

They could set the standard such as "provable threats against a person's life with extraordinary lack of police resources". That way even if you could prove a threat, the minute that the threat could be mitigated through arrest of the person etc. they could take your permit away.

In regards to the politically connected and celebrity status, most politicians don't even want to issue those so with the DOJ controlling the permit issuing the elected sheriffs couldn't even be pressured to issue those.

The permits would be rarely issued and revocation when they are not immediately needed common.

There's no discrimination if they are given out for (their definition of) need only and no political/celebrity status is allowed.

chris
01-01-2008, 2:32 PM
Originally Posted by bulgron
Yep, it takes courage to fight the establishment. Just ask Rosa Parks and the people who helped her start the civil rights movement.

But being afraid of LEO is probably the best reason in the world to push for these lawsuits.

California is a big place with a large population of pissed-off gun owners. We'll find our Rosa Parks. Probably, we'll find several.

and alot of those pissed off guin owners want someone else to do it for them. ie write letters, call, fax, e-mail and so on. i firmly believe that the new year there is more of a chance of losing more rights because of victories for the anti's last year. thanks to sam parades and the like. i think we are going to take it in the shorts hairs and no one is gonna use lube.

unless DC v. Heller goes our way.

as for corruption and New Jersey don't forget Illinois they are right up there too.

MedSpec65
01-01-2008, 2:48 PM
Doing an end-run around the legislative or initiative process and attempting to use the judiciary to impose unpopular laws on us is what LIBERAL EGG-SUCKING DOGS do! Even if you could find a DA who would indict their own county sheriff or some local chief for "Corruption in The Permit Process", it's still a long road to "Shall Issue" in a State like California. The one advantage we have is the voter's initiative process. Keep using it.

GuyW
01-02-2008, 4:49 PM
To get CCW in california we need to throw out the "shall issue" campaign and start a new one.

Creeping incrementalism works.

...The system, as it is now, has 58 different standards based on 58 different standards.....

No - Chiefs of Police can issue per the PC, too. In fact, the fastest growth of CCW issuance might come thru getting Chiefs to start issuing. This is a local issue, and a local pressure group can be as effective at CCWs as stopping a new development as one example).

M5police
01-02-2008, 5:05 PM
We need someone to take one for the team and get elected to a low paying political job with plenty of political kickbacks. lol. Joking aside.

With the Pro CCW movement we need to specify the fees involved too. Currently the fees are outrageous in CA to obtain a CCW that needs to be renewed every 2 years. Close to a thousand dollars depending on counties. The rules should be more inline with neighboring states. Classes in NV well at least in the Las Vegas area are $60 dollars for the class and $105 for the police background check and fingerprint fee, which is doable for the average citizen. Also we need to specify on permit that once you qualify with a revolver or a semi auto, the permit bearer shall be able to carry any firearm within that class of weapons. NV has a bs clause that you have to qualify and list each firearm you carry. Well since dealers charge $20.00 per gun to qualify, it can add up for adding addition firearms to your permit. Eliminate that part entirely and just carry what you want after you qualify for both types of firearms with renewals every 5 years.

Paladin
01-02-2008, 6:10 PM
With the Pro CCW movement we need to specify the fees involved too. Currently the fees are outrageous in CA to obtain a CCW that needs to be renewed every 2 years. Close to a thousand dollars depending on counties. The rules should be more inline with neighboring states. Classes in NV well at least in the Las Vegas area are $60 dollars for the class and $105 for the police background check and fingerprint fee, which is doable for the average citizen.We can't have that. Then the working poor in major urban areas will be able to defend themselves, crime would go down, and CA chiefs and sheriffs might not be able to justify their virtual "standing armies." :rolleyes: If their departments get cut, sheriffs might have to lose a star or two on their collars. :D

Ghettos now are "virtual colosseums" where law-abiding minorities are thrown to the thugs instead of to the lions. If they got CCWs, and crime went down, things would get so peaceful they might be less likely to resort to drugs to mentally escape their situation and might actually be able to improve their academic and economic standing. :eek: Then the "Reverends" Sharpton and Jackson might have to get real jobs. :rolleyes: You don't really think the antis and Sharpton & Jackson are conspiring to keeping their "community" unarmed and crying out for bigger gov't, do you? :TFH:

hoffmang
01-02-2008, 7:46 PM
Paladin,

I'll get those folks in touch. The answer to your question above is no.

-Gene

Paladin
01-03-2008, 7:31 PM
"Resign in disgrace?" "major CA political issue?" Sorry my friend, but I don't see this happening. There is plenty of political support for *not* issuing CCWs in these places. Sheriffs are political animals, and they know the climate in which they are elected. Most people don't know or care, and still wouldn't care even if it did somehow make it into the media.Well, with Blanas you may be right in that he is already out of office. But you are wrong in that he may end up in the Big House (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=898772#post898772).

As far as other chiefs/sheriffs: I can hardly wait for Team Billy Jack to file more lawsuits so we see how and where they end up. :D

aileron
01-03-2008, 8:26 PM
You look at a map of which counties fell to Feinstein last time:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2e/CASen06Counties.png/180px-CASen06Counties.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CASen06Counties.png)



Crap were surrounded. Why does the WHOLE coast have to go to them except one tinsy winsy little spot.

No offense everyone, but if you think I'm a republican because of my comment you would be wrong. I'm a libertarian of sorts, neither DEM nor REP, so I hold them both in contempt. :rolleyes:

vandal
01-03-2008, 10:36 PM
Please take the fight to Contra Costa! It is disgusting the games that are played here.

SecondAmendmentgirl
01-04-2008, 4:32 AM
Thus I'm betting the Dems will try to use CA as their launching pad to "take back" the nation from the NRA. They've used us to introduce the AWB, the .50 cal ban, and are now vigorously pushing for Microstamping and a no-lead ammo ban, so they'll continue to use us for their pet anti "pilot projects."

AGREED and it's nice to see someone trying to be proactive and explore viable routes towards "shall issue", I live in the SF bay area, so I'm in the extreme part of the state.