PDA

View Full Version : Judge tosses gun permit suit


Sgt Raven
02-07-2008, 1:43 AM
http://www.sacbee.com/291/story/691108.html
Judge tosses gun permit suit Sheriff's office showed no bias in denying requests, he says
By Christina Jewett - cjewett@sacbee.com
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

A federal judge threw out a civil rights lawsuit Tuesday that alleged the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department had showed favoritism in granting concealed gun permits.

Judge Morrison C. England ruled that the Sheriff's Department denied permits to applicants on a rational basis, countering claims of unfair treatment.

England also ruled that the unsuccessful applicants failed to prove that the department violated their constitutional rights by favoring the sheriff's political supporters or campaign contributors.

Former Sheriff Lou Blanas had vehemently denied the favoritism charges in depositions taken in the case, but Sheriff John McGinness also a defendant recently stated that he would begin exercising his veto power over permits to avoid any appearance of favoritism.

Tuesday evening McGinness said he was happy with the ruling.

"I'm pleased," he said. "I think it's a vindication of the Sheriff's Department policy, and we're going to keep doing business the right way."

Sacramento attorney Gary Gorski maintained the case was thrown out on technicalities, basically because his plaintiffs did not dot their i's and cross their t's when they sought permits.

"It was an easy way out for the court to say, 'You didn't fill out the application,'" Gorski said.

He said he plans to sue the department again on behalf of others who were denied permits to carry guns.

A Bee review of concealed weapons applications, published in December, showed that more than 70 past and current permit holders had collectively contributed at least $200,000 to Blanas' campaigns, and others contributed $25,000 to McGinness.

The review also found that at least 30 of the 550 people issued local carry permits from 1996 to 2007 had records of criminal convictions ranging from drunken driving to grand theft. At least seven applicants who had been convicted of crimes failed to disclose them in their applications.

Informed of those findings, McGinness said he would improve the tracking of convictions that crop up between when permits are first approved and when they are renewed. He also called for an overhaul of permit record keeping.

McGinness said he'd be unlikely to grant permits to drunken-driving offenders and in mid-January revealed that he had subsequently revoked permits held by two people arrested on charges of driving under the influence.

John Lavra, the Sacramento attorney who defended the Sheriff's Department in the suit thrown out Tuesday, emphasized that the judge denied Gorski's allegations of bias toward campaign contributors.

"I think the decision was a good one and language and reasoning the court used in the decision justifies what we were saying all along," Lavra said.

England ruled that lead plaintiff David Mehl did not correctly fill out his gun-permit application, leaving him with no standing to make a claim of unfair denial against the county.

England also wrote that the department was within its rights to deny a permit to plaintiff Lok Lau, a former FBI agent who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and had been arrested twice on shoplifting charges.

"Lau's application was denied for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons having nothing to do with whether or not he was a campaign contributor," the judge's order says.

Gorski said since he filed the lawsuit, he has started work on a new case involving plaintiffs who deserved permits but were passed over, including a woman who was the victim of a carjacking and a man whose job includes evicting people.

He said he plans to file a federal racketeering lawsuit against the department on their behalf in coming days.

"What we have now is a stronger case," Gorski said. "Before we were thumbing through the dark and we didn't know what we were looking for."

Lavra is not finished with the first case, however. He said he is going to seek repayment of attorney's fees and costs from Gorski's plaintiffs.

CCWFacts
02-07-2008, 3:06 AM
Sacramento attorney Gary Gorski maintained the case was thrown out on technicalities, basically because his plaintiffs did not dot their i's and cross their t's when they sought permits.

That's how our system works. That's why if plaintiffs want to win they find competent attorneys. I knew that this guy would lose. He might as well be working for Sarah Brady. I wish he would move to anywhere other than California, because everything harms our cause. This is actually a big setback for CCW.

I knew this would happen with this lawsuit. The NRA should offer this guy a free house in any state other than California, on the condition that he never practice law in this state again.

Gorski said since he filed the lawsuit, he has started work on a new case involving plaintiffs who deserved permits but were passed over, including a woman who was the victim of a carjacking and a man whose job includes evicting people.

I wish he would just stop. I wish he would go away. Find some other job. I wish we could somehow educate these aggrieved people that they want nothing to do with this guy, they shouldn't waste 1 second of their time talking with him. Maybe we need to somehow search engine optimize a web page about him and hope that potential plaintiffs will Google him before hiring him.

Glock22Fan
02-07-2008, 7:21 AM
This is sad.

Just for the record, TBJ has always insisted that everything our clients do is done by the book. We have always said that the applicant must get everything right, form the first request for an application onwards.

I won't go into more details, but there were, in TBJ's eyes, a number of things that Gorski was doing wrong. We are saddened, but not surprised by this result.

bwiese
02-07-2008, 10:36 AM
One has to wonder if Gorski's actually working for the Bradys.

Certainly that's the de facto end result.

I think we need to go around and look at gun cases and make sure Offensive Twiddler Wannabees aren't taking on cases they shouldn't.

Billy Jack
02-07-2008, 10:56 AM
Billy Jack sense a disturbance in the force. I see people who do not know history of Federal suits posting misinformation. If you want factual information on why Sacramento case was dismissed and what is going on with other Federal cases visit our no spin zone http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/

Billy Jack


"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law.....just a fight for survival!"

Soldier415
02-07-2008, 11:00 AM
Billy Jack sense a disturbance in the force. I see people who do not know history of Federal suits posting misinformation. If you want factual information on why Sacramento case was dismissed and what is going on with other Federal cases visit our no spin zone http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/

Billy Jack


"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law.....just a fight for survival!"

Do you always refer to yourself in the third-person?

rue
02-07-2008, 11:12 AM
Rue's mad that the sheriff in his town is giving away CCW's to his buddies then when the Sacramento Bee calls him on it he finds a few scape goats with DUI's and revokes their CCW's to look like he's doing his job or something. Rue thinks the Sac county CCW situation is ridiculous. :43:

Glock22Fan
02-07-2008, 11:21 AM
Do you always refer to yourself in the third-person?

Billy Jack frequently does, don't know about Rue. You get used to it.

Soldier415
02-07-2008, 11:23 AM
Frequently. You get used to it.

Actually, I tune out whatever the third person referrer has to say after that point :rolleyes:

Glock22Fan
02-07-2008, 11:26 AM
Actually, I tune out whatever the third person referrer has to say after that point :rolleyes:


You have the right to ignore anything you like (or don't like).

Of course, you might miss out on something that way.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-07-2008, 11:35 AM
How can anyone argue with Gorski's sophisticated legal strategy?

"What we have now is a stronger case," Gorski said. "Before we were thumbing through the dark and we didn't know what we were looking for."

Is this guy for real?:rolleyes::D

CCWFacts
02-07-2008, 12:10 PM
How can anyone argue with Gorski's sophisticated legal strategy?

"What we have now is a stronger case," Gorski said. "Before we were thumbing through the dark and we didn't know what we were looking for."

Is this guy for real?:rolleyes::D

This guy is a moron. He's the one who strengthened our assault weapons ban with his efforts in the Silveira case:

http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2003/Silveira-Threat.htm

He's an idiot:

Garry Gorski makes a fool of himself in the SF Chron (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN210896.DTL)

If this were the old days we would run him out of town on a rail. Unfortunately there's probably nothing we can do to make him go away, other than perhaps start a web page where we publicize all this and get it a high enough page rank in Google that any potential plaintiff will see it before retaining this loser.

Is he really working for the Bradys? I doubt it, but he couldn't be doing a more effective job for them if he were.

Oh by the way, not only did Gorski completely botch the case and waste his client's time and money, now his client is going to get sued for legal fees!

Lavra is not finished with the first case, however. He said he is going to seek repayment of attorney's fees and costs from Gorski's plaintiffs.

This should be publicized in some way that any of Gorksi's future clients understand that a) they will lose b) they will personally set back gun rights in California by being involved with this guy and c) they could get sued for attorney fees!

scottj
02-07-2008, 12:34 PM
I don't understand how the court denying someone standing in a poorly thought out lawsuit sets back CCW in CA. It doesn't appear to establish new case law. So what gives?

CCWFacts
02-07-2008, 12:39 PM
No, this case doesn't create new case law (unlike Gorksi's earlier triumph in his assault weapons case). The problem here is it's a defeat for our side. Every time we lose our enemies get bolder. This particular time, there seemed to be major problems in the CCW issuance practices, and the case lost and made the newspapers especially in Sacramento. That is bad. And it also resulted in the plaintiffs not getting permits, being out some money, and now perhaps being sued for attorney fees.

We need some publicized victories in this legal area to make the various issuing authorities in this state have a little bit of fear every time they deny a permit. Now we got the opposite of that.

Soldier415
02-07-2008, 12:43 PM
You have the right to ignore anything you like (or don't like).

Of course, you might miss out on something that way.

Soldier415 thinks that then if people want what they have to say to be heard and accorded respect, they should knock off the third person speaking ;)

Glock22Fan
02-07-2008, 12:55 PM
Soldier415 thinks that then if people want what they have to say to be heard and accorded respect, they should knock off the third person speaking ;)

:rolleyes::rolleyes::D

MrTuffPaws
02-07-2008, 3:37 PM
Well son of a *****.

Rob P.
02-07-2008, 6:31 PM
:nono:

This is supposed to be a family oriented program.

DVSmith
02-07-2008, 6:36 PM
Soldier415 thinks that then if people want what they have to say to be heard and accorded respect, they should knock off the third person speaking ;)

Do you wear a funny hat too? I don't think it works without the hat... just sayin...

SensFan
02-07-2008, 10:06 PM
Well son of a *****.

You Rang?

MrTuffPaws
02-07-2008, 10:26 PM
:nono:

This is supposed to be a family oriented program.

If persons under 18 could go and buy guns in CA, I would consider it. Until then, watch your own house.

hoffmang
02-07-2008, 11:00 PM
I dunno.. I kind of like it. At least Gorski was kept busy in only screwing up Sacramento's CCW case history...

-Gene

Soldier415
02-08-2008, 7:34 AM
Well son of a *****.

My mother never saw the irony in calling me that when I was a teenager. I would just smile and nod...:p

stator
02-08-2008, 4:55 PM
Let me see if I can possibly simplify this for you:

If you want competent attorneys to represent your gun rights, then go out and hire one, two, or three!

It beats sitting on the sidelines and being an armchair quarterback.

jerryg1776
02-09-2008, 4:43 PM
Well son of a *****.

You Rang?

I was going to ask that but thought he was starting a post in the third person... ;-)

Bad Voodoo
02-09-2008, 4:50 PM
I dunno.. I kind of like it. At least Gorski was kept busy in only screwing up Sacramento's CCW case history...

-Gene

And like everything else that happens in CA it will spread like the plague.

DVSmith
02-09-2008, 5:02 PM
Well son of a *****.

You Rang?

I was going to ask that but thought he was starting a post in the third person... ;-)

I'm sorry... but that is just freakin FUNNY!! LMAO!!