PDA

View Full Version : A Warning to All Chiefs and Sheriffs with Illegal "Dual Issue" or "No Issue" Policies


Paladin
10-06-2007, 4:46 PM
This new notice from the Team Billy Jack website (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/):

Notice to all Chiefs and Sheriffs who are violating the 14th Amendment Rights of CCW applicants, with 'no issue' or 'Dual' policies. In 1990, it cost the taxpayers of Orange County $1.13 Million (current value $1.8M) in settlement and court costs to settle Guillory v. Gates.

Do you have $1.8 Million laying around?

What will your Supervisors/city council/media/voters think?

"I'm coming for you!" If you doubt my resolve, "Go ahead, make my day!"
Billy Jack

The gauntlet has been thrown down. Let the games begin! :D

RAD-CDPII
10-06-2007, 4:48 PM
I don't think the link is working???

Paladin
10-06-2007, 4:54 PM
I don't think the link is working???
Thanks, the stupid editor for some reason insist on making the close parenthesis and colon part of the link. I'll fix it.

Ck out my new sig line.

CCWFacts
10-06-2007, 5:07 PM
I fully support suing sheriffs like Baca and Hennessey and the others who are obstructionist and hostile to CCWs. I don't support suing sheriffs who are issuing but may have technical flaws in their policies (a five-year residence requirement, etc) that may leave them open to suits.

That said...

The reason why Guillory was able to get such a huge check from OC was because he was able to show he suffered economic harm as a result of the policies, and that economic harm formed the basis of the award. "Hey I'm a PI and not having this is ruining my business, so you need to compensate me for that harm." That lets him get damages.

In other cases, where there isn't an economic harm associated, damages like that are going to be very hard to get. There is no economic harm associated with "I can't defend myself". IANAL so I don't know the real legal basis but my understanding is that, in a case like that, the remedy would be to compel issuance of the permit and maybe cover legal fees, but no big checks.

The one place where damages could come up is if there is a tort. Someone says, "hey I have this situation and I need a permit", sheriff says "no", and the person gets hurt, and could have prevented that from happening had he had a permit. That's a tort and that could bankrupt a small county. I hope no one gets hurt but if you do have a need for a CCW, that's a good reason to apply even if you know you'll get denied.

Glock22Fan
10-06-2007, 8:30 PM
I don't support suing sheriffs who are issuing but may have technical flaws in their policies (a five-year residence requirement, etc) that may leave them open to suits.

a) why not?

b) They probably wouldn't be prime targets anyway, there are more interesting cases to take. When TBJ wins a few of those, these are the LEO's we hope will roll over and see reason without too much of a fight.

IANAL so I don't know the real legal basis but my understanding is that, in a case like that, the remedy would be to compel issuance of the permit and maybe cover legal fees, but no big checks.

Whether damages comes up or not is a moot point if these cases are settled out of court. Whether TBJ can talk about it or not after the settlement, you may presume that TBJ isn't going to settle for peanuts.

And remember, settlement figures are usually based on what it would cost if the whole thing went through all the court stages. This can easily run to six or seven figures, even if the costs at that time are somewhat lower.

Bizcuits
10-06-2007, 8:51 PM
I wish they'd do a suit in sacramento..

Glock22Fan
10-06-2007, 9:05 PM
I wish they'd do a suit in sacramento..

TBJ will consider any jurisdiction within California if there's a client with a cast-iron good cause.

sunborder
10-06-2007, 9:55 PM
In other cases, where there isn't an economic harm associated, damages like that are going to be very hard to get. There is no economic harm associated with "I can't defend myself". IANAL so I don't know the real legal basis but my understanding is that, in a case like that, the remedy would be to compel issuance of the permit and maybe cover legal fees, but no big checks.

Actually, I can envision an easy situation where someone might have non-employment related damages: Applies for CCW, is denied, sometime in the next few months/years, is the victim of a violent crime and is injured/killed and they or next of kin sue the city.

I hope something like that never happens (case I don't wish an attack on anyone), but if it did, it would be a cast-iron good cause.

CCWFacts
10-06-2007, 11:32 PM
a) why not? (sue sheriffs with minor technical violations

Because I regard those guys as political allies. They are people I want to support, not antagonize. That's all.

Whether damages comes up or not is a moot point if these cases are settled out of court. Whether TBJ can talk about it or not after the settlement,

Confidentiality in these settlements is pretty much a given I would assume.

And remember, settlement figures are usually based on what it would cost if the whole thing went through all the court stages.

I wasn't aware of that.

It would be delightful if Santa Cruz (or some other small county with a grossly horrible CCW policy) ended up having to shut down basic services or go into BK over something like this. A million dollar judgement in Santa Cruz would have a noticeable, direct impact on services, public safety, etc. They deserve it. Citizens, you have a choice of the moral superiority of knowing that the sheriff did everything he could do to deny a permit, or losing some basic services. Take your pick!

(I know in SF a large chunks of residents would think spending $1mil to block issuance of a single CCW is a worthwhile way to spend money.)

radioactivelego
10-07-2007, 12:30 AM
Because I regard those guys as political allies. They are people I want to support, not antagonize. That's all.LASD hands out CCW's to celebrities and those that boost it's warchest. OCSD has it's fair share of scandal as well. Why in the world would you consider them your political allies?

gn3hz3ku1*
10-07-2007, 2:16 AM
LASD hands out CCW's to celebrities and those that boost it's warchest. OCSD has it's fair share of scandal as well. Why in the world would you consider them your political allies?

baca :( :iagree:

45R
10-07-2007, 4:48 AM
This new notice from the Team Billy Jack website (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/):

Notice to all Chiefs and Sheriffs who are violating the 14th Amendment Rights of CCW applicants, with 'no issue' or 'Dual' policies. In 1990, it cost the taxpayers of Orange County $1.13 Million (current value $1.8M) in settlement and court costs to settle Guillory v. Gates.

Do you have $1.8 Million laying around?

What will your Supervisors/city council/media/voters think?

"I'm coming for you!" If you doubt my resolve, "Go ahead, make my day!"
Billy Jack

The gauntlet has been thrown down. Let the games begin! :D

So what happened to the money that Orange County lost?

CCWFacts
10-07-2007, 10:20 AM
LASD hands out CCW's to celebrities and those that boost it's warchest. OCSD has it's fair share of scandal as well. Why in the world would you consider them your political allies?

Ha ha, if you think LASD is my ally....

LASD are the bad guys. Sheriff Bacca is running a blatantly corrupt program. In some ways he's an example of the worst issuance program in CA. I would be happy if they were sued and lost $100mil. They should be sued for any violation of law that you can find on them.

OCSD on the other hand is running a great program which should be the model for urban CCW issuance in California. Ordinary people can get them there, including people who are not rich, not in some kind of cash business, etc. If you have a clean record and you carefully consider what kind of risk factors might apply, you have a high likelihood of getting a CCW there. I don't see what the complaint would be about that or why anyone would sue.

Glock22Fan
10-07-2007, 10:25 AM
Radioactive,

CCWFacts was not including LASD in his "Don't sue" list, he named LASD sheriff Baca as one who should be sued. (oh, reading on I see he's answered this point already).

On the "b" list (sheriffs who issue but have illegal clauses such as long residency requirements & no issue to non-citizens)), we would hope that once TBJ gets a reputation amongst sheriffs for delivering the goods, "b" list sheriffs would be open to listening to reason about dropping clauses that are clearly illegal. Would anyone favor allowing such a sheriff to not issue to a battered wife with a TRO, just because she hasn't lived there long enough? This is surely a case for Felipe's preferred method of sitting down with the sheriff and a nice cup of tea before getting too involved in court cases, but reserving the right to issue a law suit if necessary.

CCWFacts
10-07-2007, 11:51 AM
All these illegal residence duration requirements or citizenship are things that can, indeed, be worked out over a cup of tea. Also, those may be the written requirements but I'm quite certain that there is more flexibility to them than is apparent in the written documents. If the Sheriff sees that the applicant has a deed to a house and a full-time job in the county, and the guy's children are in school there, there probably is some flexibility in those requirements. They exist to deter people in SF and LA from using issuing counties as residences of CCW convenience. If it's obvious that that is not the situation, those requirements are probably waivable. I would bet money that all the sheriffs who have such policies waive them in some instances. Again, that means that the sheriff is issuing outside his written policy which is even more actionable, so they should be more careful.

Those requirements aren't there out of malice, they are there out of ignorance. We spend a lot more time going over this stuff than sheriffs do. Sheriffs spend their time on other more important stuff (catching criminals, running jails, etc).

Certainly I would not want someone who needs a CCW in a hurry (stalking situation etc) to be denied one.

Piper
10-08-2007, 11:39 AM
I have an awesome book entitled " Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic", written by Clayton Cramer. In this book, he describes the evolution of CCW laws and essentially says that these laws were created without constitutional consideration. Go figure. California's CCW laws appear to be as a result of migration of people from the southern states during the Gold Rush.

The point I'm making here is that I believe that CCW laws will be easier to challenge once SCOTUS has ruled favorably for Second Amendment rights.

ARRRR-15
10-08-2007, 12:19 PM
Actually, I can envision an easy situation where someone might have non-employment related damages: Applies for CCW, is denied, sometime in the next few months/years, is the victim of a violent crime and is injured/killed and they or next of kin sue the city.

I hope something like that never happens (case I don't wish an attack on anyone), but if it did, it would be a cast-iron good cause.

Let's all go out and apply then when we all get denied, we'll take turns beating the crap out of eachother in dark parking lots.:p:D

Glock22Fan
10-08-2007, 1:26 PM
Actually, I can envision an easy situation where someone might have non-employment related damages: Applies for CCW, is denied, sometime in the next few months/years, is the victim of a violent crime and is injured/killed and they or next of kin sue the city.

I hope something like that never happens (case I don't wish an attack on anyone), but if it did, it would be a cast-iron good cause.

Sadly, it is well established that law enforcement has no duty to defend you, and no liability for your injuries, even if they denied you a CCW and thereby failed to allow you to defend yourself.

Furthermore, it wouldn't be a good cause, unless you could prove that you being attacked was going to happen again. "Well, so you've been attacked. As most people only get attacked once, that statistically reduces your chances of being attacked again."