PDA

View Full Version : What every chief and sheriff needs to know about CCW issuance


Pages : [1] 2

Billy Jack
04-13-2008, 11:52 PM
I know many CLEOS and LEOS visit this site and may be reading our post. Let me allay your concerns about your department's CCW Policy and your perception of what my volunteers and I are involved in. Many of you are violating the Constitutional Rights of CCW applicants on a regular basis by your actions. Just as no one has a ‘right’ to a CCW you do not have the right to only issue to your personal friends, political contributors, public officials and others you feel beholden to. You need only look to Sacramento and Orange Counties or the city of Santa Maria to see what happens when you abuse your discretion rather than exercise it.

If you treat each applicant fairly, with respect and dignity you shall have nothing to fear from Billy Jack. If on the other hand you continue to perpetuate the 'Good Old Boys Club' that CCW issuance has been for years you will have problems with me and my volunteers. I shall use your own records or lack of them to destroy you. Is destroy too harsh a word? I think not. I am not Politically Correct but I am very effective. Would you like to avoid meeting Billy Jack? If yes, here is what you should do.

1) Draft a fair CCW Policy that reflects statute and Case Law.
2) Follow it
3) Set forth reasonable guidelines and requirements
4) Follow them
5) Require all applicants to comply with all provisions of your CCW Policy
6) Draft a realistic appeal policy for denials
7) Submit quarterly reports to the Board of Supervisors or City Council as appropriate listing:
a. Number of applications
b. Number denied
c. Number issued

Stop wasting taxpayer funds hiring attorneys to defend your illegal policies and practices and instead hire competent legal counsel to draft a CCW Policy that addresses the need to protect the general public and the rights of the applicants. None of us were born with a firearm in our hands or a badge in our pockets. Some civilians can actually be trusted to carry a firearm concealed. In a manner similar to the way we hire LEOS, you can interview, vet and train qualified civilians to carry concealed safely. If you do not want to take my suggestions you are going to have to deal with me or someone like me in your future. You can not make the Constitution go away by ignoring it. Each of you took an oath to uphold the law and I intend to make you honor that oath.

Billy Jack

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


californiaconcealedcarry.com

Ford8N
04-14-2008, 5:37 AM
Legal council has advised us that if we issue you a CCW and you shoot someone, we will get sued.

Call 911

Self protection is not a reason to issue a permit.

Ok, you can submit the paper work and fees but you will get denied anyway.

The Sheriff feels that less guns on the street makes everyone safer.

When you get in an automobile accident, you will shoot someone.

We don't have to show you the names or reasons we issued a license, that is confidential personal records.

ect.

.

.

.

taurussvt
04-14-2008, 6:14 AM
Legal council has advised us that if we issue you a CCW and you shoot someone, we will get sued.

Call 911

Self protection is not a reason to issue a permit.

Ok, you can submit the paper work and fees but you will get denied anyway.

The Sheriff feels that less guns on the street makes everyone safer.

When you get in an automobile accident, you will shoot someone.

We don't have to show you the names or reasons we issued a license, that is confidential personal records.

ect.

.

.

.
I really hope your post is just a joke, because of it isn't, that is a bunch of bull****.
You say that if you issue a CCW and the person it gets issued to shoots someone, you will get sued? I guess the guy with the permit just gets off? Maybe he'll go to red lobster to celebrate? Call 911? Do you know how long 911 really takes, assuming they come at all?
I've seen a person get the **** beat out of them all the while the 911 operator is saying that police are on the way. 5 minutes later is not good enough, not when your life is in danger.

You can tell the sherrif that I'll make him feel really safe and come pick up his guns. I'll also be over for any of his friends/family's guns, and lets not forget, all the guns of his fellow officers, their family's and friends. At that point only the OTHER criminals will have guns and we'll all be safer.

Just a question here, Do you personally know the first poster? You said that WHEN he gets in to an automobile accident, he will shoot somebody. Does this guy have that much history of getting in to ACCIDENTS, that you know he will get in to one? Also, has this person shot people in the past after all these other accidents? Maybe this person didn't shoot anyone yet because he didn't have a CCW. Maybe he stabbed some people, or perhaps broke off his antenna mast and whipped the **** out of some people? If this is the case, you guys should have no problem denying his application. He's obviously dangerous and should be behind bars.

Now as far as not disclosing the information about CCW's I am not surprised you said that at all. The last time I checked local LE was a public entity. You are not part of a private company. You work for tax payers and are supposed to be held to a system of checks and balances. It is impossible to actually find out if you are, or are not doing YOUR JOB if you claim that everything is confidential.

Reformatted to be readable.

yellowfin
04-14-2008, 6:22 AM
*clap clap clap clap clap* :hurray::cheers2: Well said, Billy Jack. Keep up the good work!

taurussvt
04-14-2008, 6:25 AM
*clap clap clap clap clap* :hurray::cheers2: Well said, Billy Jack. Keep up the good work!

Why are you clapping for Billy Jack? He's a criminal who shoots people after he gets in car accidents.:confused:

TonyRumore
04-14-2008, 7:24 AM
It must be different in San Luis Obispo. My dad got his CCW in 1971 and my mom got hers in 1990. It was no trouble at all.

Tony Rumore
Tromix Corp

packnrat
04-14-2008, 7:56 AM
i have had a ccw (utah) for a number of years and i have not shot anybody?

am i doing something wrong?:confused:


:TFH:

.

hill billy
04-14-2008, 8:03 AM
I really hope your post is just a joke, because of it isn't, that is a bunch of bull****. I think the poster was listing some of the ridiculous reasons that police officials use to deny permits. Relax.


If guns cause crime, all mine are defective.:(

bulgron
04-14-2008, 8:32 AM
This state needs to go shall-issue so as to clear up the kind of confusion that this thread is about.

A free human being should never have to prove why it is that they need to exercise a fundamental human right.

AaronHorrocks
04-14-2008, 8:32 AM
I had a stalker whom had threatend my life dozens of times, and tried to kill me on several occasions. He was not bound by rules or paperwork.

One time he tried to run me down with his work truck, but luckily my truck was faster than his. :rolleyes:

I sure would have liked to be able to legally defend myself. Being unarmed and helpless, trying to dial 911 on a cell phone is not a good situation.

tiki
04-14-2008, 8:40 AM
Legal council has advised us that if we issue you a CCW and you shoot someone, we will get sued.

Call 911

Self protection is not a reason to issue a permit.

Ok, you can submit the paper work and fees but you will get denied anyway.

The Sheriff feels that less guns on the street makes everyone safer.

When you get in an automobile accident, you will shoot someone.

We don't have to show you the names or reasons we issued a license, that is confidential personal records.

ect.

.

.

.

Please tell me you were joking.

motorhead
04-14-2008, 8:50 AM
only san diego cops are allowed to shoot people after traffic accidents.

Vindiesel
04-14-2008, 8:51 AM
only san diego cops are allowed to shoot people after traffic accidents.

Niiiice

pullnshoot25
04-14-2008, 8:55 AM
I think that everyone has a right to self defense. Preferably, I would love a CCW permit but I would also love to have a policy change that allowed loaded open carry.

Omega13device
04-14-2008, 9:27 AM
Please tell me you were joking.

RELAX

He's just listing reasons LEOs give when denying CCW applications.

team06
04-14-2008, 9:43 AM
You need only look to Sacramento and Orange Counties or the city of Santa Maria to see what happens when you abuse your discretion rather than exercise it.

Billy Jack

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




How many people have been denied in Santa Maria? I know of 1, how many more are there?


team06

Ironchef
04-14-2008, 10:43 AM
yeah, i'd prefer the option to open or conceal carry depending on the situation, choice, etc.

i'd be interested to know when there started being laws that infringed on carrying rights. I realize many states are different now, but when and why did there start being such infringement. I realize Tombstone AZ was a while back, but I'm guessing it started earlier than that.

Billy Jack
04-14-2008, 11:21 AM
Team06, it is common in Civil Rights case for the defendant(s) to immediately create a "Token". It can be a minority employee, a female, gay or a handicapped person depending upon what the suit alleges. In Santa Maria's case it was necessary for Macagni to issue to someone he did not personally know or socialize with. You are that "Token" CCW. No offense meant to you but your GC would not cut it in the majority of the departments in California. If you want to know how many applicants Macagni has denied you can just ask him, it is public record. I would enjoy your CCW while you have it. When this case is over I believe Santa Maria will have a new Chief and a new CCW policy. I suspect he is on the verge of wanting to 'spend more time with his family' or 'seek other career opportunities'.

I have been looking at CCW policies all over California for over 20 years and Macagni's policy and better yet, its lack of implementation is pretty outrageous. You can continue to be an advocate for him as long as you desire, it will not change what is in his files. As to your GC, I really do not care. A "Token" CCW will not change his prior bad conduct. But every man needs a hero and you have apparently selected yours.

Billy Jack


"When Chief Macagni breaks the law, then there isn't any law...just a fight for survival!"


californiaconcealedcarry.com

Gryff
04-14-2008, 11:25 AM
i have had a ccw (utah) for a number of years and i have not shot anybody?

am i doing something wrong?:confused:

Yeah, you're probably jerking the trigger and missing low and left. :D

But seriously, Chiefs and Sheriffs are so used to dealing with dirtbags, they just assume we all have no capacity to exercise logic and restraint. My guiding rule for using a weapon is simple: "Is this worth going to prison for the rest of my life over?" Being in the Bay Area, I just assume that I'll be prosecuted for shooting someone in self-defense. Therefore, what I am willing to give up my freedom over? Protecting my wife and kids? Yes. Protecting my car stereo (or even my car)? No.

Piper
04-14-2008, 12:21 PM
Team06, it is common in Civil Rights case for the defendant(s) to immediately create a "Token". It can be a minority employee, a female, gay or a handicapped person depending upon what the suit alleges. In Santa Maria's case it was necessary for Macagni to issue to someone he did not personally know or socialize with. You are that "Token" CCW. No offense meant to you but your GC would not cut in the majority of the departments in California. If you want to know how many applicants Macagni has denied you can just ask him, it is public record. I would enjoy your CCW while you have it. When this case is over I believe Santa Maria will have a new Chief and a new CCW policy. I suspect he is on the verge of wanting to 'spend more time with his family' or 'seek other career opportunities'.

I have been looking at CCW policies all over California for over 20 years and Macagni's policy and better yet, its lack of implementation is pretty outrageous. You can continue to be an advocate for him as long as you desire, it will not change what is in his files. As to your GC, I really do not care. A "Token" CCW will not change his prior bad conduct. But every man needs a hero and you have apparently selected yours.

Billy Jack


"When Chief Macagni breaks the law, then there isn't any law...just a fight for survival!"


californiaconcealedcarry.com

The last time I received a CCW was in 1977. I was in Washington state and my "good cause" statement was sports and protection.

So my question is, what percentage of the population has a "valid" "good cause?" I don't carry large sums of money or other items of intrinsic value, which means I probably don't qualify. But I have a rather large resume of firearms training from the military and law enforcement. I just find it interesting that if LE can't find one thing to disqualify you on, they will find something else.

The law says that you must be of good moral character, have a good reason and not be a felon. Well, the last is easy, but the other two are rather subjective criteria. Of course we all know how morally pure celebrities or people who can contribute significantly to a campaign are.

And so, that's why I think that the whole CCW issue should be shall issue and administered by Ca DOJ so that it infact is as objective as getting "permission" to purchase a firearm.

Ford8N
04-14-2008, 5:19 PM
RELAX

He's just listing reasons LEOs give when denying CCW applications.

Correct

I should have used the joke smiley :p


But it is good that people get upset, better to prepare them when the Sheriff denies them the CCW using those reasons and to have the counter argument ready.

retired
04-14-2008, 11:29 PM
And so, that's why I think that the whole CCW issue should be shall issue and administered by Ca DOJ so that it infact is as objective as getting "permission" to purchase a firearm.

See Piper, I knew we would agree on something one day.:D

leelaw
04-14-2008, 11:31 PM
WHAT EVERY CHIEF AND SHERIFF NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT CCW ISSUANCE

WHAT EVERY POSTER ON AN INTERNET FORUM NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT MAKING A THREAD TITLE:

All caps is yelling and poor internet etiquette.

Don't edit it back to all caps.

Piper
04-15-2008, 9:15 AM
See Piper, I knew we would agree on something one day.:D

I don't know about you, but my feeling is local LE can't screw it up and throw in their own interpretation if they can't touch it.

Glock22Fan
04-15-2008, 9:26 AM
I don't know about you, but my feeling is local LE can't screw it up and throw in their own interpretation if they can't touch it.

It should be a central body of some sort. Whether this is the DoJ or some other organization doesn't really matter as long as they interpret and apply the law correctly, evenly and fairly and are answerable for their actions.

Then we need to either get the current A.G. to issue a new, more favorable, opinion on what is Good Cause (including "Self Protection"), or get the law changed to something much nearer "Shall Issue."

Piper
04-15-2008, 9:35 AM
It should be a central body of some sort. Whether this is the DoJ or some other organization doesn't really matter as long as they interpret and apply the law correctly, evenly and fairly and are answerable for their actions.

Then we need to either get the current A.G. to issue a new, more favorable, opinion on what is Good Cause (including "Self Protection"), or get the law changed to something much nearer "Shall Issue."

"Good cause" seems to be the deal killer when it comes to most people applying for a CCW. A good cause of "self protection" seems like a logical statement since that is why a person wants to carry.

The thing that boggles my mind is the term self defense. If a person carries pepper spray or a taser for self defense, it's okay. However, if a person carries a stout stick or a firearm and utters or indicates in anyway that these items are for self defense, that's a huge issue. How wrong is that?

The other thought that comes to mind is how proof is exibited and a CCW applied for. I think a corner of the DMV would be ideal and an endorsement on the CDL would work.

bulgron
04-15-2008, 9:47 AM
"Good cause" seems to be the deal killer when it comes to most people applying for a CCW. A good cause of "self protection" seems like a logical statement since that is why a person wants to carry.

This is one of the biggest things I'm looking for in Heller -- whether it in anyway indicates that the 2A protects an individual's right to self-defense. If it says that, then we can be off to the races on either gutting or completely eliminating good cause statements from firearm laws (14A incorporation issues aside, of course).

All permit systems for gun carry and ownership should be shall-issue as a matter of course, nationwide. If a type of carry is allowed at all by the state, then the permit (if one is required) must be available to all law-abiding residents of the United States as a matter of constitutional principles.

More, types of carry and ownership should not differ between off-duty LEO and non-LEO, ever, although this comes from 14A equal protection. So if they're going to allow off-duty LEO to carry concealed, then they have to allow general civilian access to concealed carry too.

Those two points is what I'm hoping post-Heller lawsuits bring us. Anything less than that is just plain wrong.

justakid
04-15-2008, 11:13 AM
If on the other hand you continue to perpetuate the 'Good Old Boys Club' that CCW issuance has been for years you will have problems with me and my volunteers. I shall use your own records or lack of them to destroy you. Is destroy too harsh a word? I think not. I am not Politically Correct but I am very effective. Would you like to avoid meeting Billy Jack? If yes, here is what you should do.

1) Draft a fair CCW Policy that reflects statute and Case Law.
2) Follow it
3) Set forth reasonable guidelines and requirements
4) Follow them
5) Require all applicants to comply with all provisions of your CCW Policy
6) Draft a realistic appeal policy for denials
7) Submit quarterly reports to the Board of Supervisors or City Council as appropriate listing:
a. Number of applications
b. Number denied
c. Number issued

Stop wasting taxpayer funds hiring attorneys to defend your illegal policies and practices and instead hire competent legal counsel to draft a CCW Policy that addresses the need to protect the general public and the rights of the applicants. None of us were born with a firearm in our hands or a badge in our pockets. Some civilians can actually be trusted to carry a firearm concealed. In a manner similar to the way we hire LEOS, you can interview, vet and train qualified civilians to carry concealed safely. If you do not want to take my suggestions you are going to have to deal with me or someone like me in your future. You can not make the Constitution go away by ignoring it. Each of you took an oath to uphold the law and I intend to make you honor that oath.

Billy Jack

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


californiaconcealedcarry.com

fwiw

I think you are a lunatic and down right out of your mind. You think this is the way to talk to people? Maybe people would listen if you talked to them like civil human beings.

bwiese
04-15-2008, 11:41 AM
fwiw
I think you are a lunatic and down right out of your mind. You think this is the way to talk to people? Maybe people would listen if you talked to them like civil human beings.

Yes, you're indeed "just a kid" ...

... so I guess that might be an excuse for why you don't know who BillyJack and "Team Billy Jack" are.

You wouldn't have to talk to people that politely either, when you have a winning appeals court decision named after you that's the groundwork for driving future CCW issues in CA. He's likely done more for gun rights in CA than you could even conceive.

Anyway, TBJ's posting here is less to us than to the LE agencies that do read this site - and thus the strident tone is wholly warranted: "we're coming after you and your illegal CCW policies written by a 3rd party business [Lexipol]".

[Talking to gov't agencies civilly, when they are run by antigunners, is pretty useless. DOJ BoF is a perfect example, and is how Gene Hoffman got agents to back off on off-list Saiga rifles.]

thedrickel
04-15-2008, 11:55 AM
fwiw

I think you are a lunatic and down right out of your mind. You think this is the way to talk to people? Maybe people would listen if you talked to them like civil human beings.

Clues for sale . . . . Clues for sale . . . :smilielol5:

Glock22Fan
04-15-2008, 12:05 PM
On TBJ's and Billy Jack's behalf, Thank you, Bill.

Troutman
04-15-2008, 12:34 PM
Yes, you're indeed "just a kid" ...

... so I guess that might be an excuse for why you don't know who BillyJack and "Team Billy Jack" are.

You wouldn't have to talk to people that politely either, when you have a winning appeals court decision named after you that's the groundwork for driving future CCW issues in CA. He's likely done more for gun rights in CA than you could even conceive.

Anyway, TBJ's posting here is less to us than to the LE agencies that do read this site - and thus the strident tone is wholly warranted: "we're coming after you and your illegal CCW policies written by a 3rd party business [Lexipol]".

[Talking to gov't agencies civilly, when they are run by antigunners, is pretty useless. DOJ BoF is a perfect example, and is how Gene Hoffman got agents to back off on off-list Saiga rifles.]

He knows exactly who BJ is.

I would like to ask a couple of questions...

When BJ won the appeal, did he get a CCW immediately?
Also, other than some PRAs can anyone point to one county that is issuing more CCW's directly as a result of Gilroy v. ?

Glock22Fan
04-15-2008, 12:42 PM
Also, other than some PRAs can anyone point to one county that is issuing more CCW's directly as a result of Gilroy v. ?

And you don't think that O.C. has been issuing more freely since Gates lost against B.J.?

He knows exactly who BJ is. . . . . result of Gilroy v. ?

But apparently you don't.

Troutman
04-15-2008, 12:46 PM
And you don't think that O.C. has been issuing more freely since Gates lost against B.J.?



But apparently you don't.

My apologies for misspelling.

OC is an interesting case as the true change came with a new sheriff. Are you saying that Preston was instrumental in this?

Question stands re: his CCW issuance.

Glock22Fan
04-15-2008, 1:01 PM
My apologies for misspelling.

Question stands re: his CCW issuance.

I suspect that you know full well that Preston moved out of that county and received a CCW in his new county. He also took with him a 7-figure sum for agreeing, in part, to not pursue a CCW in O.C.

OC is an interesting case as the true change came with a new sheriff. Are you saying that Preston was instrumental in this?

Are you saying that the new sheriff wasn't influenced by the overwhelming defeat inflicted on the old sheriff and the possibility that it could happen to him?

If you don't think that "Guillory" was influential, you should obtain the most recent ruling by the judge in the Santa Maria case and see how often he referred to Guillory v. Gates.

justakid
04-15-2008, 1:03 PM
Yes, you're indeed "just a kid" ...

... so I guess that might be an excuse for why you don't know who BillyJack and "Team Billy Jack" are.

You wouldn't have to talk to people that politely either, when you have a winning appeals court decision named after you that's the groundwork for driving future CCW issues in CA. He's likely done more for gun rights in CA than you could even conceive.

Anyway, TBJ's posting here is less to us than to the LE agencies that do read this site - and thus the strident tone is wholly warranted: "we're coming after you and your illegal CCW policies written by a 3rd party business [Lexipol]".

[Talking to gov't agencies civilly, when they are run by antigunners, is pretty useless. DOJ BoF is a perfect example, and is how Gene Hoffman got agents to back off on off-list Saiga rifles.]


I may be justakid but I am not stupid.

You mean by winning an appeals case, that you sign a release that you won't apply in Orange County for 5 years, or any other county for 3 years.

Driving future for CCW issues? Cite one case were somebody has gotten one CCW from this groundwork. Better yet, one city or county that has changed their policies because of this case?

As was stated above, OC only changed because the Sheriff changed. Are you trying to say that Mike Carona considered this case when he developed his CCW policy?

Hey the facts are the facts.

bulgron
04-15-2008, 1:24 PM
I may be justakid but I am not stupid.

You mean by winning an appeals case, that you sign a release that you won't apply in Orange County for 5 years, or any other county for 3 years.

Driving future for CCW issues? Cite one case were somebody has gotten one CCW from this groundwork. Better yet, one city or county that has changed their policies because of this case?

As was stated above, OC only changed because the Sheriff changed. Are you trying to say that Mike Carona considered this case when he developed his CCW policy?

Hey the facts are the facts.

I think TBJ's current tactics are designed to make sure that people who have cause can get a CCW in any county in California by driving the cost of illegal CCW issuance policies through the roof for the bad counties.

Unless something fundamental changes in California, TBJ's current activities will do exactly nothing for those of us that do not have cause under the law.

However, if we can somehow change the definition of "good cause" to include self-defense, then the things that TBJ are doing right now will become pure gold for us. I continue to have hopes that one of the things that will flow from Heller is either forcing good cause statements to recognize self-defense as a valid cause, or to have GC statements declared unconstitutional on their face. But that's many years off, if it will ever happen.

Also, Billy Jack is well-known for his abrasive style. I, personally, think this hurts California gun owners more than it helps us. But, hey, each to his own, right?

Glock22Fan
04-15-2008, 1:37 PM
Also, Billy Jack is well-known for his abrasive style

So are some of our detractors. We got this anonymously the other day:

Only to you. What no response in third person with your stupid avatar? The outrageous TEAM BILLY JACK what a great resource and what a joke, you who claims to be such an expert in CCW and wanting your 15 min of fame again. My friend was right to put this question to you. Even when you get caught giving mis-information you just disappear. I will enjoy showing this to my friends as an example of how smart you are.

Some lovely people around, aren't there?

Hillbilly Rebel
04-15-2008, 1:52 PM
Team BJ - you think all Sheriffs read this site? By now, most of them know about your previous cases yet have they changed? No. Most of us here know what you are doing, so no reason to post something like this just for the benefit of this site. Has your ego not been boosted enough lately? Have you fallen out of the limelight and felt you needed to post this here, as opposed to sending these letters directly to each Sheriff in CA and then letting us know that you did that? I'd much rather see a post like that, then seeing some of the responses, which probably won't happen, from those sheriffs.

bulgron
04-15-2008, 1:53 PM
Some lovely people around, aren't there?

Indeed.

But for the most part I try to rise about the nastiness and the abrasiveness, because when I talk about these things I'm usually talking to people who are fence straddlers leaning towards anti-gun. Coming across too strong or too abrasive only hurts my arguments.

Of course, I do lose my temper from time to time, but mostly I try to say what I have to say with a smile and a polite tone of voice.

I suppose Billy Jack has moved past all the politeness, given that he's dragging cities and counties into court. So maybe coming across as a pit bull really does work for him.

Each to his own, right?

Glock22Fan
04-15-2008, 1:53 PM
Each to his own, right?

Sure thing, Bulgron, and I don't think that you and I are far apart in our opinions.

I think TBJ's current tactics are designed to make sure that people who have cause can get a CCW in any county in California by driving the cost of illegal CCW issuance policies through the roof for the bad counties.

Exactly

Unless something fundamental changes in California, TBJ's current activities will do exactly nothing for those of us that do not have cause under the law.

The problem is that "Cause under the law" is open to interpretation. Some sheriffs interpret it loosely, such as in Kern County. We hope that as our law suits start hurting, sheriffs will be more open to a somewhat looser interpretation. We can't expect "personal protection" to fly in San Francisco and Los Angeles, but we may get much nearer it than we are now in many/most of the currently restrictive counties/cities.

Some of us hope to change the law. Some of us are trying to get fairer treatment within the existing law. There's no reason for these to conflict.

DVSmith
04-15-2008, 2:06 PM
So are some of our detractors. We got this anonymously the other day:

Only to you. What no response in third person with your stupid avatar? The outrageous TEAM BILLY JACK what a great resource and what a joke, you who claims to be such an expert in CCW and wanting your 15 min of fame again. My friend was right to put this question to you. Even when you get caught giving mis-information you just disappear. I will enjoy showing this to my friends as an example of how smart you are.


Some lovely people around, aren't there?

I have to admit that BJ's propensity for writing in the third person and his abrasive approach is a bit off-putting. Of course the OP wasn't in the third person... is BJ changing his MO?

ETA: And just out of curiosity, why the BJ persona? I would think he would appear more credible using his name.

kermit315
04-15-2008, 2:15 PM
Seems to be alot of people around here giving TBJ a hard time over his methods, however I dont see anybody else stepping up to the plate and doing anything to make the situation any better for ANYBODY (at least nobody responding in this thread).

It is well known that LE do read this site, including DOJ-BoF, and I am sure many local LE entities. Maybe they will finally get the picture that people are tired of being pissed on by the crap going on in this state.

Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, however coming into his thread to "thread crap" is in poor taste. If you cant offer anything constructive, why dont you leave well enough alone.

DVSmith
04-15-2008, 2:32 PM
Seems to be alot of people around here giving TBJ a hard time over his methods, however I dont see anybody else stepping up to the plate and doing anything to make the situation any better for ANYBODY (at least nobody responding in this thread).

It is well known that LE do read this site, including DOJ-BoF, and I am sure many local LE entities. Maybe they will finally get the picture that people are tired of being pissed on by the crap going on in this state.

Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, however coming into his thread to "thread crap" is in poor taste. If you cant offer anything constructive, why dont you leave well enough alone.

Critiquing methods is constructive. BTW isn't that what you are doing too?

There are other groups making headway in CCW issues as well. One group is promoting the idea of increasing CCW count in those counties that will issue as a way of making CCW more mainstream as well as raising the political heft of pro CCW groups.

GuyW
04-15-2008, 2:38 PM
When the critics pay the bills, they'll have standing to criticise Billy Jack's work...

Until then - it's his money, time, and ballgame.

We need a multitude of CCW approaches in CA.

Glock22Fan
04-15-2008, 2:41 PM
Critiquing methods is constructive.

Personally, I haven't seen any constructive criticism on this thread, just the tired old "I don't like Billy Jack and I'm going to barf out the same old destructive criticisms."

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way." General Patton, I believe. Also known to be somewhat idiosyncratic.

DVSmith
04-15-2008, 2:42 PM
When the critics pay the bills, they'll have standing to criticise Billy Jack's work...

Until then - it's his money, time, and ballgame..

I don't pay any eco activists bills and I criticize their work all the time.

We need a multitude of CCW approaches in CA.

Agreed

Billy Jack
04-15-2008, 2:45 PM
To my supporters, you have my heart felt thanks. To my detractors there is a lovely Gaelic phrase that I would like to use but I will not. There are many more things going on that I am unable to post about. I received regular Intel from inside 'the beast' that confirms that CLEOS are reading my posts and they are very concerned. We know this from legal documents that are floating around the Internet. Sometimes I feel like Frank Serpico of NYPD. I know where a lot of 'bodies' are buried.

My client's interests come first. If I were not representing people in Federal litigation I could and would share much more. I will tell you this much about LAPD's Chief Bratton. There is enough evidence in his personal and the 'magic 19' CCW files to assure he will never be Homeland Security Director. Nothing confidential, just a careful review of public records. In a Deposition he will resemble Humprey Bogart's character in 'The Caine Mutiny'. I will even supply the ball bearings. Do you think I am on his Christmas list?

Billy Jack

wahzoo
04-15-2008, 2:46 PM
I'm new here, and I don't want to make anyone mad, but I hate when people yap about things they have little first hand knowledge or experience...

Anyone who has dealt with municipalities on a regular basis, knows they make up their own rules, even if it goes against existing legislation. Why? Because the legislation just doesn't suit them. There is no penalty for violating legislation such that exists in the Government code and others.

Example; The Government code gives a LE agency 10 days to release a report of a traffic collision after a request has been submitted by an involved party or a reason for denial.

Get in a crash anywhere in the City of Los Angeles and see how long it takes. Your looking at 6 months if your lucky.

They are suppose to have the records available for public inspection during regular business hours, but they don't...

Try to explain this to them... They don't care, you are not important... They will do what they want until, good people like BJ forces them to see the error in their ways... Talk nice to them all you want, they are laughing at you!

I don't mean to single out any one agency, as there are many...

I know for a fact to get a CCW in most areas of California you must be FOC, (Friends of Chief)... Your not an FOC, you can forget about it...

Understand LE is reactive! They are there to clean up the mess... If you rely on them to protect you, your going to be a victim. They will then take your statement, if you can give one... provided they find who victimized you, later show you a six-pack of people who all look like each other and if you don't pick the perp, you may have not even seen for a split second from the side your a victim a second time, cause the DA only files slam dunks, like in the OJ case...

So, sometimes you have to be use in their face tactics these people or you will be run over. We would always say the "Squeeky Wheel Gets the Grease"...

DVSmith
04-15-2008, 2:51 PM
I'm new here, and I don't want to make anyone mad, but I hate when people yap about things they have little or no knowlege of...

You know us well enough to make that judgement? Some of the members here a extremely knowledge on the issue of CCW. Can you identify them?

kermit315
04-15-2008, 3:05 PM
I never criticized his methods. I merely pointed out that thread crapping is in poor taste. Not pointing at anybody in particular, however if the shoe fits, wear it. I agree that critiquing is valuable, however, blind criticism with no suggestions is a waste of bandwidth.

JMO, take it for what it is worth.

wahzoo
04-15-2008, 3:08 PM
Huh

DVSmith
04-15-2008, 3:12 PM
JMO, take it for what it is worth.

That is the raison d'être of this board now isn't it?

wahzoo
04-15-2008, 3:12 PM
You know us well enough to make that judgement? Some of the members here a extremely knowledge on the issue of CCW. Can you identify them?

Was trying to make a point... It was directed at just a few on here... No need to take offense unless of course the shoe fits...

bwiese
04-15-2008, 3:16 PM
To my supporters, you have my heart felt thanks. To my detractors there is a lovely Gaelic phrase that I would like to use but I will not. There are many more things going on that I am unable to post about. I received regular Intel from inside 'the beast' that confirms that CLEOS are reading my posts and they are very concerned.

I know how you feel, BillyJack.

Summer 2006 was a similarly weird time with DOJ AW shenanigans - saying one thing, enforcing the other way, etc.

DVSmith
04-15-2008, 3:17 PM
Was trying to make a point... It was directed at just a few on here... No need to take offense unless of course the shoe fits...

No offense taken, this is the internet, if you are that easily offended you are certainly in for a frustrating time here. In case you missed it, I was pointing out that you may be letting your perceptions of the denizens here mislead you into believing you know more than you do.

hill billy
04-15-2008, 3:20 PM
So having read all the above and having received no response to some pm's I have sent, what can the average JOe do to get more involved and have more of an impact besides writing letters, applying and voting?

hoffmang
04-15-2008, 3:21 PM
I just want to echo Bill's support. There are other things afoot that when added together with the work TBJ is doing may really break through logjams everywhere.

-Gene

wahzoo
04-15-2008, 3:34 PM
No offense taken, this is the internet, if you are that easily offended you are certainly in for a frustrating time here. In case you missed it, I was pointing out that you may be letting your perceptions of the denizens here mislead you into believing you know more than you do.

Whatever :43:

Yeah, I know one thing, BJ was instrumental helped me get my CCW :cool2:

Yahoo!

justakid
04-15-2008, 4:18 PM
2nd Amend. Politics and Laws Discuss gun rights and political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

CAL Business & Professions Code $6125 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=31089412561+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)


[The practice of Law is rendering] legal advice and counsel and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured although such matter may or may not be depending in a court of law.’ (People v. Merchants Protective Corp. (1922) 189 Cal. 531,535,

Glock22Fan
04-15-2008, 4:33 PM
CAL Business & Professions Code $6125


[The practice of Law is rendering] legal advice and counsel and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured although such matter may or may not be depending in a court of law.’ (People v. Merchants Protective Corp. (1922) 189 Cal. 531,535,

Am I missing something?

GuyW
04-15-2008, 4:47 PM
Am I missing something?

No.

He's apparently under the mis-apprehension that in a country where "ignorance of the law is no excuse", a citizen has to be an attorney to talk about laws.

Glock22Fan
04-15-2008, 5:11 PM
No.

He's apparently under the mis-apprehension that in a country where "ignorance of the law is no excuse", a citizen has to be an attorney to talk about laws.

I wondered if that is what it was.

My sister in law is an attorney, so is her husband and my wife's uncle. When it comes to p.c. 12050 and associated laws, I know far more than all three of them put together. I doubt if any of them would even know the subject area that p.c. 12050 was about - but if they did, they'd be solidly against it. I can only imagine what they might say to some of our O.C. friends, if they went along for advice.

When I applied to INS to become a resident, I mistakenly paid one of L.A.'s supposedly top immigration attorneys several thousand dollars. Thanks to web research, I corrected him on several points of laws, where he was apparently out of date.

A certain CCW Instructor/LEO (who has a cult following) posted a definitive statement on another forum that referred to p.c. 12026.1 b by number in the last day or so. He should have said 12026.1 a (1). It's only one sentence long, but how he interpreted it was totally wrong.

I read for myself and am not too impressed by supposed authorities, attorneys or otherwise.

CoinStar
04-15-2008, 5:51 PM
We need a multitude of CCW approaches in CA.

I agree wholeheartedly with this which is why I'm blown away by the knee-jerk reaction that some of the *ahem* louder voices around here have when anyone suggests something other than employing TBJs tactics.

Winning piecemeal lawsuits against corrupt issuing authorities in a county by county approach is great. Don't get me wrong. But what irks me is the constant drone of doom and gloom when anyone suggests something more radical (like pushing for legislation that would strike GC altogether). The claim that pursuing such a course will "ruin" it for those in counties with existing favorable issuance is totally unfounded, yet it doesn't stop those who utter such remarks from doing it.

justakid
04-15-2008, 6:38 PM
only san diego cops are allowed to shoot people after traffic accidents.

start reading. . .

http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/1684453-Woman-shot-by-off-duty-officer-was-drunk/

justakid
04-15-2008, 6:41 PM
Am I missing something?

start reading. . .

CAL Business & Professions Code $6125 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=31089412561+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

OKAY
04-15-2008, 6:48 PM
I am willing to bet a few of the people posting on this thread are bitter LEO:D

Glock22Fan
04-15-2008, 6:51 PM
start reading. . .

CAL Business & Professions Code $6125 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=30256129522%200%200%200&WAISaction=retrieve)

It's a blank page.

justakid
04-15-2008, 6:55 PM
It's a blank page.

try copy/paste. and remove spaces

"http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=31089412561+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve"

CSDGuy
04-15-2008, 9:25 PM
I wondered if that is what it was.

My sister in law is an attorney, so is her husband and my wife's uncle. When it comes to p.c. 12050 and associated laws, I know far more than all three of them put together. I doubt if any of them would even know the subject area that p.c. 12050 was about - but if they did, they'd be solidly against it. I can only imagine what they might say to some of our O.C. friends, if they went along for advice.

When I applied to INS to become a resident, I mistakenly paid one of L.A.'s supposedly top immigration attorneys several thousand dollars. Thanks to web research, I corrected him on several points of laws, where he was apparently out of date.

A certain CCW Instructor/LEO (who has a cult following) posted a definitive statement on another forum that referred to p.c. 12026.1 b by number in the last day or so. He should have said 12026.1 a (1). It's only one sentence long, but how he interpreted it was totally wrong.

I read for myself and am not too impressed by supposed authorities, attorneys or otherwise.
You mean this post on another board?
You are transporting the handgun in violation of the law. It needs to be in a locked container inside the trunk. See P.C. 12026.1 (b)

The line you're referring to is:
PC 12026.1 (a)(1)The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment.
and
PC 12026.1 (a) (2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained within a locked container.

Once you open the trunk in a public area, 12026.1 (a)(1) no longer covers you. By having the handgun in a separate locked container, you'd be covered by 12026.1 (a)(2) if you opened the trunk. At least that's the way I read PC 12026.1...

Glock22Fan
04-15-2008, 10:06 PM
Yes.

You are transporting the handgun in violation of the law. It needs to be in a locked container inside the trunk. See P.C. 12026.1 (b)

is not the same as:


PC 12026.1 (a)(1)The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment.


So, it needs to be in a locked container if you unlock the trunk on public property. That's not what he says.

CSDGuy
04-15-2008, 11:07 PM
Public property can be construed to mean publicly accessible private property as well. IOW, you can not transport your unlocked handgun between your house and your car parked in your driveway if the public can just walk right up to it. Unlocking your trunk at any time while the handgun is outside of it's own case inside that trunk puts you in violation of 12025 because you violated an exception to it: 12026.1 (a)(2).

One way of reading 12026.1 (b) is that because you violate 12026.1 (a)(1) by having the trunk open to remove the pistol from it's locked case that you used to transport the pistol to the trunk in your car, you are not protected by 12026.1 (b)... By keeping the handgun in the locked case, you are not transporting the weapon unlawfully, regardless of the locked status of (or even presence of) your trunk.

Remember the elements of 12025(a):

12025. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when
he or she does any of the following:
(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her
control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he
or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.

Take the gun out of the locked case and close the lid of the trunk on public property and you could be charged with a violation of 12025.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Perhaps the way I've outlined it above is how he reads the law. 12026.1 (b) would not preclude completely open transport and possibly protects it... just don't run afoul of 12031 in all it's glory... ;)

CSDGuy
04-15-2008, 11:10 PM
The above does not mean you'd be convicted of any crime, just charged with one and have to spend a ton of money in the process. I choose to transport my pistols and rifles in their own locked containers to avoid this. It's kind of hard to argue a violation of 12025 when you're transporting a handgun in a locked container that also serves to transport the handgun to and from your car...

socalguns
04-15-2008, 11:43 PM
I had a stalker whom had threatend my life dozens of times, and tried to kill me on several occasions. He was not bound by rules or paperwork.

One time he tried to run me down with his work truck, but luckily my truck was faster than his. :rolleyes:

I sure would have liked to be able to legally defend myself. Being unarmed and helpless, trying to dial 911 on a cell phone is not a good situation.

You don't need a CCW to carry in that case, there is an exception in the law.
You may be arrested by police, but a judge should let you off.

mymonkeyman
04-15-2008, 11:52 PM
You don't need a CCW to carry in that case, there is an exception in the law.
You may be arrested by police, but a judge should let you off.

The exception requires a non-mutual restraining order be in place that and a "reasonable belief that that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of [the] current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety."

Absent a restraining order, you can carry loaded but not concealed when "it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in this subdivision, 'immediate' means the brief interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance" or when "engaged in the act of making or attempting to make a lawful arrest."

Glock22Fan
04-16-2008, 7:56 AM
Take the gun out of the locked case and close the lid of the trunk on public property and you could be charged with a violation of 12025.

Yes, but if a LEO stops you in the street and the gun is locked in the trunk (not in a container), you are not, at that time, breaking the law. If you locked the gun into your trunk in your closed garage, and didn't unlock it until you were, say, at your private club range, within the private parking lot, inside the locked gate, next to the shooting lines, you have been legal the whole time.

Stop trying to defend the defenseless. What you say is correct, but that's not what he said, he just made a blanket statement that carrying a handgun in your trunk without it being in a locked case is illegal. It's not, unless you unlock the trunk on publicly accessable land. THat's when the crime would be committed, not driving along the road as the original poster of the original thread was doing when he stamped on him.

It also appears that the original poster is law abiding and was carrying a loaded gun right up to the point that he saw the Home Depot "No guns" sign. Therefore, presumably, he has a CCW. If not, then maybe he was OC'ing (in an inincorporated area?). I'm surprised BoRUH didn't pick that part up.

And it (locking in a trunk) has been discussed before on this forum.

Troutman
04-16-2008, 9:32 AM
Yes, but if a LEO stops you in the street and the gun is locked in the trunk (not in a container), you are not, at that time, breaking the law. If you locked the gun into your trunk in your closed garage, and didn't unlock it until you were, say, at your private club range, within the private parking lot, inside the locked gate, next to the shooting lines, you have been legal the whole time.

This is THE most convoluted pile of feces i've seen in a long time. I've shot at approximately 15 different ranges in my time shooting. A few of them "private" ranges. I've NEVER shot behind a "locked gate". For heavens sake - that's like saying IF it's on a Tuesday, AND a full moon AND your wearing blue AND you have one green eye.

I have no idea what post you are refering to as you didn't link to it, however, in most contexts, the blanket statement that you have to carry in a locked case is a good, and SAFE, statement. Just because you might find exceptions doesn't make something good. I do NOT want to be a test case. Carrying a gun to and from in a locked case is NOT that hard to do.

With the way you push these "exceptions" I'm wondering if you or BJ (who you obviously work with) are just looking to chase an ambulance.

Liberty1
04-16-2008, 10:16 AM
This is THE most convoluted pile of feces i've seen in a long time. I've shot at approximately 15 different ranges in my time shooting. A few of them "private" ranges. I've NEVER shot behind a "locked gate". For heavens sake - that's like saying IF it's on a Tuesday, AND a full moon AND your wearing blue AND you have one green eye.

I have no idea what post you are refering to as you didn't link to it, however, in most contexts, the blanket statement that you have to carry in a locked case is a good, and SAFE, statement. Just because you might find exceptions doesn't make something good. I do NOT want to be a test case. Carrying a gun to and from in a locked case is NOT that hard to do.

With the way you push these "exceptions" I'm wondering if you or BJ (who you obviously work with) are just looking to chase an ambulance.

What we do here is discuss "letter of the law" scenarios which include the law's exemptions. There is no prohibition on you or anyone else exceeding for the sake of caution what the laws dictates. I don't agree with all the interpretations I read here but that is not a reason to be uncivil.

Oh..and the patient (the public) is already in the ambulance (the grips of the state) and needs help (from what ever quarter can provide it).

mymonkeyman
04-16-2008, 10:39 AM
Public property can be construed to mean publicly accessible private property as well. IOW, you can not transport your unlocked handgun between your house and your car parked in your driveway if the public can just walk right up to it. Unlocking your trunk at any time while the handgun is outside of it's own case inside that trunk puts you in violation of 12025 because you violated an exception to it: 12026.1 (a)(2).

One way of reading 12026.1 (b) is that because you violate 12026.1 (a)(1) by having the trunk open to remove the pistol from it's locked case that you used to transport the pistol to the trunk in your car, you are not protected by 12026.1 (b)... By keeping the handgun in the locked case, you are not transporting the weapon unlawfully, regardless of the locked status of (or even presence of) your trunk.

Remember the elements of 12025(a):


Take the gun out of the locked case and close the lid of the trunk on public property and you could be charged with a violation of 12025.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Perhaps the way I've outlined it above is how he reads the law. 12026.1 (b) would not preclude completely open transport and possibly protects it... just don't run afoul of 12031 in all it's glory... ;)



You are forgetting 12026:

12026. (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen
of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who
resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within
the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
who carries, either openly or concealed, anywhere within the citizen'
s or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on
private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal
resident any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.

You only have to go to 12026.1 or 12026.2 once you are on property other than your "private property owned or lawfully possessed by" you. So if it is the driveway of your home that you own or rent, it does not matter whether it is "publicly accessible," only whether it is "owned or lawfully possessed by you." However, if you are living in an apartment complex with a shared parking lot or structure, it needs to be in a locked box. This is especially the case because 12026 has been amended multiple times in response to a series of California appellate court cases that narrowly interpreting the exception. This most recent amendment removes the ambiguities regarding publicly accessible.

"Violating" one "exception" to 12025 is irrelevant, only whether you "violate" all of them. I.e. none of the exceptions to the law apply to you and you satisfied the elements of the law itself.

CSDGuy
04-16-2008, 11:05 AM
I seem to recall that a nice, decent gentleman got convicted because he carried a firearm outside of his place of business, onto property that is accessible to the public but owned by him to ward off some not so nice people... My front lawn and driveway may be private property, but since it's open to the public (not gated off) PC 12026 would not protect me against being convicted under 12025. I wonder how many people got arrested for and convicted for violation PC 647 (f) because they were drunk at home and stepped outside the front door (still on their own private property) to speak with an officer? Different circumstance, but the effect upon the private/public property is the same. Now if I fence off my entire property so that it is effectively inaccessible to the public, then 12026 covers that situation. The statement on the other board is the safe way to transport a handgun, because no matter whether you have a trunk or have to open the trunk for any reason, you're still going to be covered. Safe.

Glock22Fan
04-16-2008, 11:29 AM
Sigh.

a) "Overturf" was Los Angeles and doesn't necessarily set a precedent for other counties. I have referred to it in other posts. There was a dissent at the time and there is a feeling in legal circles that it would be overturned today. However, it does in no way overturn my side of the discussion.

b) I am a member of a private club range with a parking lot behind a locked gate. The "Desert Marksmen" near Palmdale. http://www.dmrpc.org/ open 24x7 except when closed for maintenance or for a 1,000 yard match. I also have a closable garage. These are facts, not conjecture of what might be, as practised by some posters.

c) Personally, I don't carry a handgun in a trunk without a locked case (I don't have a trunk), nor do I recommend it, for the very reasons people have stated above. There are other posts of mine that support this statement. However, saying categorically that something is illegal when it isn't, and even giving it verisimilitude by an incorrect reference is misleading and wrong; I'm just setting the record straight.

d) The number of people who have danced around the original statement giving all sorts of possible illegalities that might have happened, but for which there is no evidence that they did, supports my theory that the gentleman in question has a cult following, within which he can do no wrong.

Having said all that, I'm done with this thread.

Liberty1
04-16-2008, 12:12 PM
:threadjacked: (Kes, can we get a TBJ emoticon? This always happens to his threads - then when he gets up set people stop posting and his treads die. Kinda a catch 22.)

Overturf was convicted of 12031, loaded in prohibited area, and has no bearing on 12025, concealed prohibition, or the 12027 listed exemptions. Totally different discussions.

Do keep your fishing license and fishing poll in the car too for that back up exemption and a map to your favorite fishing hole! Or your shooting range membership card to a range with 24 hr access (does one exist?):D.

Python2
04-16-2008, 1:10 PM
:

Do keep your fishing license and fishing poll in the car too for that back up exemption and a map to your favorite fishing hole! Or your shooting range membership card to a range with 24 hr access (does one exist?):D.

Bingo!! .....24hr access?...yeah but there are no lights at night....National Forest designated shooting range.:) where I live.

Very interesting discussion, I am learning from both sides.

Liberty1
04-16-2008, 1:17 PM
TBJ's:threadjacked:The exemption requires membership so dues paying at an established range would likely be needed. Does your vehicle have working headlights? Do you train with a flashlight? Great opportunity to practice low level light shooting.

Glock22Fan
04-16-2008, 1:19 PM
Or your shooting range membership card to a range with 24 hr access (does one exist?).

Desert Marksmen. http://www.dmrpc.org/

As Python says, no lights (bring your own).

mymonkeyman
04-16-2008, 1:33 PM
I seem to recall that a nice, decent gentleman got convicted because he carried a firearm outside of his place of business, onto property that is accessible to the public but owned by him to ward off some not so nice people... My front lawn and driveway may be private property, but since it's open to the public (not gated off) PC 12026 would not protect me against being convicted under 12025. I wonder how many people got arrested for and convicted for violation PC 647 (f) because they were drunk at home and stepped outside the front door (still on their own private property) to speak with an officer? Different circumstance, but the effect upon the private/public property is the same. Now if I fence off my entire property so that it is effectively inaccessible to the public, then 12026 covers that situation. The statement on the other board is the safe way to transport a handgun, because no matter whether you have a trunk or have to open the trunk for any reason, you're still going to be covered. Safe.

That was Overturf. He was convicted under the loaded statute. I am not saying you can take a loaded gun out to your car, as Overturf's validity and scope is very ambiguous. Rather, the concealed carry statute, which has little to do with the loaded statute (in fact, 12026(c) now explicitly says that 12026 should not be used to interpret 12031, the loaded statute), in section 12026 explicitly says you can carry on property you own or lawfully posses, as well as your place of residence or place of business. Again, 12025 and 12026 et. seq. does not say mention "in any public place or on any public street" or "private places" (which is part of how Overturf got convicted) so the issue of publicly accessible is irrelevant. 12026 says on property you own or lawfully possess. The whole point of the amendments to the concealed carry statute was to overturn the line of cases that said what you are saying.


Overturf's interpretation of the loaded statute relied heavily on the previous version of the 12025 and 12026 concealed statutes. Because the concealed carry statutes have been amended and because now it says explicitly that 12026 is not to be used to interpret the loaded statute, Overturf is probably no longer valid.
Also, the critical distinction in Overturf was an (over)emphasis on the use of the word "have" v. "carry" in different sections of the 12031 loaded statute. Of course "have" does not appear in the concealed carry statute (because it only applies to concealed carrying and you can have and open carry an unloaded gun). Overturf said there was a violation because 12031(h) and 12031(l) only said you could "have" a loaded weapon in your place of business or place of residence, as opposed to 12031(a) which prohibits "carrying" a loaded weapon in "any public place or on any public street" and 12031(i)-(k) which allow "carrying" in limited circumstances. 12026 says you can "carry" a concealed weapon in your place of business or place of residence, as well as on private property you own or lawfully posses, so Overturf has no applicability to it.

Overturf never decided where a "public place" begins and your "place of business" or "place of residence" ends because of the have v. carry distinction in 12031.

Furthermore, just because you are carrying a gun outside a case to your trunk does not mean it is concealed. You do not have to follow the 12026 et seq. unless you violate 12025, which you only violate if you carry concealed.

mymonkeyman
04-16-2008, 1:44 PM
start reading. . .

CAL Business & Professions Code $6125 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=31089412561+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

:rolleyes:

start reading. . .
The First Amendment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment)

Glock22Fan
04-16-2008, 1:54 PM
Furthermore, just because you are carrying a gun outside a case to your trunk does not mean it is concealed. You do not have to follow the 12026 et seq. unless you violate 12025, which you only violate if you carry concealed.

I know I said I was done with this thread, but this is an interesting point that we perhaps overlooked before.

We know from other posts regarding Open Carry that openly carrying an unloaded handgun, whether in unincorporated or incorporated territory, is not illegal unless you are brandishing it or you are in a prohibited place such as within 1,000 yards of a school. Therefore, unless you are in a prohibited place, openly carrying an unloaded handgun to your trunk, where you then lock it, cannot be illegal. So, I was even more right than I thought when I made my first statement. An unloaded handgun locked in a trunk is NOT illegal, even if it is not in a locked case, nor is putting it there unless you are in a prohibited zone.

This might not be the wisest course of action; you might fall foul of a LEO (or reserve LEO) that thinks like the gentleman in question.

Liberty1
04-16-2008, 2:02 PM
That was Overturf. He was convicted under the loaded statute. I am not saying you can take a loaded gun out to your car, as Overturf's validity and scope is very ambiguous. Rather, the concealed carry statute, which has little to do with the loaded statute (in fact, 12026(c) now explicitly says that 12026 should not be used to interpret 12031, the loaded statute), in section 12026 explicitly says you can carry on property you own or lawfully posses, as well as your place of residence or place of business. Again, 12025 and 12026 et. seq. does not say mention "in any public place or on any public street" or "private places" (which is part of how Overturf got convicted) so the issue of publicly accessible is irrelevant. 12026 says on property you own or lawfully possess. The whole point of the amendments to the concealed carry statute was to overturn the line of cases that said what you are saying.


Overturf's interpretation of the loaded statute relied heavily on the previous version of the 12025 and 12026 concealed statutes. Because the concealed carry statutes have been amended and because now it says explicitly that 12026 is not to be used to interpret the loaded statute, Overturf is probably no longer valid.
Also, the critical distinction in Overturf was an (over)emphasis on the use of the word "have" v. "carry" in different sections of the 12031 loaded statute. Of course "have" does not appear in the concealed carry statute (because it only applies to concealed carrying and you can have and open carry an unloaded gun). Overturf said there was a violation because 12031(h) and 12031(l) only said you could "have" a loaded weapon in your place of business or place of residence, as opposed to 12031(a) which prohibits "carrying" a loaded weapon in "any public place or on any public street" and 12031(i)-(k) which allow "carrying" in limited circumstances. 12026 says you can "carry" a concealed weapon in your place of business or place of residence, as well as on private property you own or lawfully posses, so Overturf has no applicability to it.

Overturf never decided where a "public place" begins and your "place of business" or "place of residence" ends because of the have v. carry distinction in 12031.

Furthermore, just because you are carrying a gun outside a case to your trunk does not mean it is concealed. You do not have to follow the 12026 et seq. unless you violate 12025, which you only violate if you carry concealed.

Very good sumation!

Do you think 12556, dealing with display in public of "imintation weapons", could be used to define "public place" in regards to 12031 since 12031 is missing a clear definition?

12556 (e) For purposes of this section, the term "public place" means an area open to the public and includes streets, sidewalks, bridges, alleys, plazas, parks, driveways, front yards, parking lots, automobiles, whether moving or not, and buildings open to the general public, including those that serve food or drink, or provide entertainment, and the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings.:eek:

Liberty1
04-16-2008, 2:06 PM
I know I said I was done with this thread...

You violated your :ban: ! I call unsportsmanship conduct! :ban: :) added JK

Liberty1
04-16-2008, 2:25 PM
Therefore, unless you are in a prohibited place, openly carrying an unloaded handgun to your trunk, where you then lock it, cannot be illegal.

It might actually be. I know that is silly but with the various laws which overlap it is possible to violate 12025 if no exemption fits what your doing or have done.

Take the case of an open carrier who wants to cross through a known school zone. The exemption to 626.9 is a locked case. But in placing the firearm in a locked case, now being exempt from 626.9, a 12025 violation has occurred, if one doesn't also fall under a 12027 exemption, as one now can't seem to claim 12026.1a. or 2a.

So one must carry the firearm either totally concealed or total open the entire time when not in a place where one can claim 12026.

And this is another reason not to speak to LEO during a stop. Don't provide evidence that can be construed to create probable cause for an arrest even if you did not in fact commit the crime. Some reservist may just get that felony stat for the month!

Glock22Fan
04-16-2008, 3:57 PM
Hmm, if I understand correctly, TBJ has been filing actual legal claims against actual law enforcement offices in actual courts of law, and actually winning them. What have you done to improve the CCW situation lately, LowRight?

Personally, 383green will happily put up with somebody who likes to refer to himself in third person if he's getting actual results.


The "winning them" is slightly premature, with the possible historic exception of Guillory v. Gates, but we are sure that there will soon be some up-to-date winning cases.

So, just because our leader likes his third person and his persona, we are all a bunch of idiots, LowRider? Stereotyping? I could stereotype Low Riders, but I won't, as this forum prohibits mud slinging.

mymonkeyman
04-16-2008, 4:05 PM
Very good sumation!

Do you think 12556, dealing with display in public of "imintation weapons", could be used to define "public place" in regards to 12031 since 12031 is missing a clear definition?

:eek:

That's probably a pretty good definition. It's obviously not binding on other sections, but I'm sure a court would take a hard look at it if either the prosecution or defense pointed at it to interpret 12031. It also seems consistent with how Overturf implicitly defined public place.

It might actually be. I know that is silly but with the various laws which overlap it is possible to violate 12025 if no exemption fits what your doing or have done.

Take the case of an open carrier who wants to cross through a known school zone. The exemption to 626.9 is a locked case. But in placing the firearm in a locked case, now being exempt from 626.9, a 12025 violation has occurred, if one doesn't also fall under a 12027 exemption, as one now can't seem to claim 12026.1a. or 2a.

So one must carry the firearm either totally concealed or total open the entire time when not in a place where one can claim 12026.

And this is another reason not to speak to LEO during a stop. Don't provide evidence that can be construed to create probable cause for an arrest even if you did not in fact commit the crime. Some reservist may just get that felony stat for the month!

You are correct that the school zone problem means you don't have the open unloaded option, if you are not "Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful."

I don't see why 12026.1(a) or 12026.2(a) wouldn't apply. Both 626.9 (the school zone ban) and 12026.1(a)/12026.2(a) require the handgun to be in a locked container or locked trunk. If you fall under 12026.1(a) or 12026.2(a), you fall within 626.9(c)(2). Unless you just mean there is no way to use the "trunk" exception if your house is within the school zone, but that falls squarely in the "place of residence" or "private property" language of 629.9(c)(1), unless you are carrying the gun out to the trunk of your car parked on the street (which is a no-no).

The more troublesome point is whether, for purposes of the federal Gun-Free School Zone law a locked trunk is a "locked container" (because the federal law does not specifically say "trunk.").

Hopi
04-16-2008, 4:27 PM
Let's see... who do you think they fear most?
Criminals, Drunk Drivers, Child Molesters,,, or some idiot in a too small jacket and a too large black hat?



FYI
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066832/

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/52/9213.jpg/200px-9213.jpg

Mute
04-16-2008, 5:18 PM
What's with all the low post count critics?

kermit315
04-16-2008, 5:21 PM
probably the same person trying to troll and stir up #$%@

hoffmang
04-16-2008, 6:39 PM
Could be chiefs worried about their home equity...

-Gene

PTL
04-16-2008, 6:49 PM
Sigh.

a) "Overturf" was Los Angeles and doesn't necessarily set a precedent for other counties. I have referred to it in other posts. There was a dissent at the time and there is a feeling in legal circles that it would be overturned today. However, it does in no way overturn my side of the discussion.

b) I am a member of a private club range with a parking lot behind a locked gate. The "Desert Marksmen" near Palmdale. http://www.dmrpc.org/ open 24x7 except when closed for maintenance or for a 1,000 yard match. I also have a closable garage. These are facts, not conjecture of what might be, as practised by some posters.

c) Personally, I don't carry a handgun in a trunk without a locked case (I don't have a trunk), nor do I recommend it, for the very reasons people have stated above. There are other posts of mine that support this statement. However, saying categorically that something is illegal when it isn't, and even giving it verisimilitude by an incorrect reference is misleading and wrong; I'm just setting the record straight.

d) The number of people who have danced around the original statement giving all sorts of possible illegalities that might have happened, but for which there is no evidence that they did, supports my theory that the gentleman in question has a cult following, within which he can do no wrong.

Having said all that, I'm done with this thread.

You guys have me so confused?? I don't know what to think. I am sorry I had to take this right to the source the OP's own website. I am excited to report I found what I needed in the FAQs:)



Q: Gentlemen,

I am a Florida resident with a valid CCW permit. I plan to travel to the San Francisco area within the month. I am having problems finding the state laws for bringing protective arms into the state. Our reason for travel is recreational, however, I generally like to have access to my sidearm just in case...


A: Basically, your only safe course of action (if you must bring your firearm(s)) is to get yourself a secure lockable case. This case should contain your unloaded gun(s) and be locked. There should be no ammo in, or near, the case, whether it is in a magazine or not.

The case should be in your car trunk. If you do not have one, then it should NOT be within reach of the driver or passengers. It is NOT acceptable to keep the gun (unloaded or not, locked container or not) in the center console or glove box.

http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html

Lucky to have such a resource around. When there is so much confusion on here.;)

Now please help me. Wouldn't a letter to the chief and sheriffs be appropriate in this case? Why does the OP sound so bitter??

dsinope
04-16-2008, 6:50 PM
The "winning them" is slightly premature, with the possible historic exception of Guillory v. Gates, but we are sure that there will soon be some up-to-date winning cases.

So, just because our leader likes his third person and his persona, we are all a bunch of idiots, LowRider? Stereotyping? I could stereotype Low Riders, but I won't, as this forum prohibits mud slinging.

There isn't anyone who's posted to this thread called LowRider. There's someone calling himself LowRight, which might refer to where his group is on the target, or maybe his political leanings.

If you mean to twist his name and THEN turn it into an insult, please carry on.

Personally, I'd think any cause championed by someone who dresses, talks or acts like a bad 70's movie caricature would have less credibility in government, not more. If you want to influence people, you don't want them laughin' at you behind your back.

There's a reason people with real power wear good suits.

PTL
04-16-2008, 6:57 PM
FYI
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066832/

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/52/9213.jpg/200px-9213.jpg

Is that the real original poster? He is kinda cute. Of course that style of dress is a little too 70's for my taste. BUt that is just me.;)

PTL
04-16-2008, 7:03 PM
IS it just me or is this a little disturbing to you all??

Easter Sunday, Billy Jack alone in Tee Pee. Watch King of Kings, with Jeffrey Hunter portraying Christ. Then he watch rock musical Godspell about the same events. Billy Jack was once again awe struck by what one person, Jesus Christ, was able to accomplish with right on his side. Now he did have the help of God which always goes a long way. Well ladies and gentlemen, this simple story re imbued me with the spirit that we can make these departments change. I hope you can all see the similarities to the story of Christ. He was provided misinformation by government officials, he was sent to different officials for redress and in the end....well you know the rest of the story.

http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/#main

I guess that sheds a little light on Mr. Jack's original post. Still not sure why he is so angry.

Glock22Fan
04-16-2008, 7:21 PM
You guys have me so confused?? I don't know what to think. I am sorry I had to take this right to the source the OP's own website. I am excited to report I found what I needed in the FAQs:)

Yes, that's what I wrote in the FAQ, and that's what I believe. However, that recommends "Your only safe course of action." That isn't a statement of what is and isn't legal (see my earlier comments). If it was, it would say "Your only legal course of action."

http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html

Lucky to have such a resource around. When there is so much confusion on here.;)

Now please help me. Wouldn't a letter to the chief and sheriffs be appropriate in this case? Why does the OP sound so bitter??

If you knew what has been going on this last twenty years, you would understand. Next you will be suggesting sitting down with the chief for a nice cup of tea. And yes, this has been suggested by other posters in other threads.

And what a large number of low post users have joined in, even since someone else made that comment. Where are they all coming from? I can make a guess.

Glock22Fan
04-16-2008, 7:24 PM
If you mean to twist his name and THEN turn it into an insult, please carry on.


I think that "TBJ are a bunch of nuts" is an insult. I think my response was quite restrained, even if I did get his name wrong.

Sgt Raven
04-16-2008, 7:44 PM
There are sure a bunch of low post count poster's in this thread. :censored::troll:'S :willy_nilly:

dsinope
04-16-2008, 8:20 PM
I think that "TBJ are a bunch of nuts" is an insult. I think my response was quite restrained, even if I did get his name wrong.

I'm not looking for agreement, just for clarity. I guessed you meant to reply to LowRight - but it was only a guess. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't think TBJ are (is?) nuts. I think they are counterproductive. The arguments made by TBJ - strong, weak or in-between - are taken much less seriously when surrounded by really bad theatrics.

(And Godspell is not a rock musical, any more than "A Chorus Line" is. Not one song in it has an accent on 2 and 4. Stephen Schwartz rarely writes in a rock backbeat, his songs are literally upbeat, with accents on 1 and 3. "Solid Silver Platform Shoes" from "The Magic Show" is one of the few exceptions.)

s2000news
04-16-2008, 8:27 PM
Sorry everyone... just seems the thread has moved a bit away from what I thought the intent was.

The OP wanted to express he desire to seek out the CLEOs that are abusing their power and not acting as elected/hired to do. - Thats what I got out of it.

This has turned into a debate about the little things, not the bigger picture. Respect you guys to express the opinions... but maybe this thread isn't the place? :p

PTL
04-16-2008, 9:02 PM
I know many CLEOS and LEOS visit this site and may be reading our post. Let me allay your concerns about your department's CCW Policy and your perception of what my volunteers and I are involved in. Many of you are violating the Constitutional Rights of CCW applicants on a regular basis by your actions. Just as no one has a ‘right’ to a CCW you do not have the right to only issue to your personal friends, political contributors, public officials and others you feel beholden to. You need only look to Sacramento and Orange Counties or the city of Santa Maria to see what happens when you abuse your discretion rather than exercise it.

If you treat each applicant fairly, with respect and dignity you shall have nothing to fear from Billy Jack. If on the other hand you continue to perpetuate the 'Good Old Boys Club' that CCW issuance has been for years you will have problems with me and my volunteers. I shall use your own records or lack of them to destroy you. Is destroy too harsh a word? I think not. I am not Politically Correct but I am very effective. Would you like to avoid meeting Billy Jack? If yes, here is what you should do.

1) Draft a fair CCW Policy that reflects statute and Case Law.
2) Follow it
3) Set forth reasonable guidelines and requirements
4) Follow them
5) Require all applicants to comply with all provisions of your CCW Policy
6) Draft a realistic appeal policy for denials
7) Submit quarterly reports to the Board of Supervisors or City Council as appropriate listing:
a. Number of applications
b. Number denied
c. Number issued

Stop wasting taxpayer funds hiring attorneys to defend your illegal policies and practices and instead hire competent legal counsel to draft a CCW Policy that addresses the need to protect the general public and the rights of the applicants. None of us were born with a firearm in our hands or a badge in our pockets. Some civilians can actually be trusted to carry a firearm concealed. In a manner similar to the way we hire LEOS, you can interview, vet and train qualified civilians to carry concealed safely. If you do not want to take my suggestions you are going to have to deal with me or someone like me in your future. You can not make the Constitution go away by ignoring it. Each of you took an oath to uphold the law and I intend to make you honor that oath.

Billy Jack

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


californiaconcealedcarry.com

As I see it Mr. Jack is using the site to grandstand from. Calling out Chiefs and Sheriffs across the state of California on a public board and in a very rude fashion I might add. Fair enough.....I guess? Why other members would think that is a productive or good for the site is beyond me. Good for CCW? Well results please?

If Mr. Jack wants to grandstand utilizing the site. Than I am curious what his motives are? I have spent the last hour or so reading his website. Mr. Jack and his team of volunteers. So Mr. Jack what is in it for you? My out of the blue guess is 20 plus percent off the top. Probably costs on top of that?

Well this whole thread I feel was started not to send a message to LEO. IMHO it was a commercial for TBJ to round up more clients. Maybe send people in to get slaughtered so he can pick from the cream that is left over.

Hey legit question Sers.;)

Kestryll
04-16-2008, 9:13 PM
So 'justakid' has a second account it seems.

Yes, I can see when more than one account comes from the same user or location.

bwiese
04-16-2008, 9:18 PM
Yeah, Kestryll & TBJ, I suspect this shows TBJ's gotten some traction & ruffled feathers.

More than just gunnies read Calguns, and I think they're running scared. Maybe someone from Lexipol is running worried...

justakid
04-16-2008, 10:00 PM
So 'justakid' has a second account it seems.

Yes, I can see when more than one account comes from the same user or location.


I just get home and I get a PM and now i see this. What is going on? Someone please PM me and tell me. More than 1 account my loaction. I am the one one home. So confusing. I am justakid. that is me.

dsinope
04-16-2008, 10:12 PM
The OP wanted to express he desire to seek out the CLEOs that are abusing their power and not acting as elected/hired to do. - Thats what I got out of it.


I read it very differently than you did. I thought the OP wanted to threaten CLEO's that are issuing few CCWs with ruinous legal action.

I think there's a very simple problem with this approach. BJ is threatening lawsuits based on equal protection - the claim that some people are unfairly unfairly getting CCWs and others aren't. If a CLEO takes him seriously, all he has to do is stop issuing altogether.

The CLEO's all answer to someone - voters, a board of supervisors, a city council. If THOSE PEOPLE don't want a lot of permits issued, ultimately they won't be issued. If they want permits issued, eventually they will be.

artherd
04-16-2008, 10:27 PM
To my supporters, you have my heart felt thanks. To my detractors there is a lovely Gaelic phrase that I would like to use but I will not. There are many more things going on that I am unable to post about. I received regular Intel from inside 'the beast' that confirms that CLEOS are reading my posts and they are very concerned.

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds” – Albert Einstein.


(I do agree Billy Jack that you would be more effective in your persona as Guillory. Everyone knows who Ben Cannon is, [ask Iggy] and I wear the name proudly in my signature on every post.)

hoffmang
04-16-2008, 10:44 PM
Ok,

For the people who doubt that BillyJack is getting results, well... He's most likely going to have a Police Chief held personally liable for violating his 14th Amendment rights in a Federal Court. I may not personally choose the 3rd person, but I have to say that I find it kind of amusing.

However, 3rd or 1st person, TBJ has every right to stick his chin out. It's not bragging if you can back it up (hint to the low post counters - he can.)

-Gene

trashman
04-16-2008, 10:46 PM
I may not personally choose the 3rd person, but I have to say that I find it kind of amusing.


Neill totally gets why Team Billy Jack does that.

--Neill

Riodog
04-16-2008, 10:47 PM
Gee Kestryll, you think it just might be a coincidence that-> just a kid, troutman, lowright, and dsinope are very incestuously intertwined.

Why don't you just ban them now before I have to get rude again?
Rio

justakid
04-16-2008, 10:51 PM
what happens IF/WHEN TBJ wins the case? How many get issued? What does TBJ get out of it?

thats what I want to know!

Liberty1
04-16-2008, 11:07 PM
Back to the :offtopic: discussion...



I don't see why 12026.1(a) or 12026.2(a) wouldn't apply. Both 626.9 (the school zone ban) and 12026.1(a)/12026.2(a) require the handgun to be in a locked container or locked trunk. If you fall under 12026.1(a) or 12026.2(a), you fall within 626.9(c)(2). Unless you just mean there is no way to use the "trunk" exception if your house is within the school zone, but that falls squarely in the "place of residence" or "private property" language of 629.9(c)(1), unless you are carrying the gun out to the trunk of your car parked on the street (which is a no-no).

You can't claim 12026.1a or 2a if you don't meet the requirements. In the former, you have to and from a vehicle in a locked case for all lawful purposes. In the latter, it is in a locked case only directly between specific places. So the OCer entering the school zone must comply with 626.9 but in doing so now has a concealed weapon in violation of 12025 as the conditions of the exemptions in 1a and 2a, even though it is unloaded in a locked case, can't be met unless an exemption in 12027 can be found. Does that clear it up:p?

The more troublesome point is whether, for purposes of the federal Gun-Free School Zone law a locked trunk is a "locked container" (because the federal law does not specifically say "trunk.").

But a locking vehicle mount does qualify for the fed law. And since 626.9 doesn't apply to longarms being transported uncased, just instal a cop style locking rifle/shotgun mount between the front seats and get the deterrent benefit of openly carrying an OLL AR-15 or 12 gauge remingtion 870 while driving!:D

When is the last time anyone was charged with the fed law? And I haven't seen the FBI doing school zone traffic stops for B/O tail lights and then asking if there are any unsecured longarms in the vehicle just to make a federal misdemeanor arrest:cool2:




and back on topic

I don't care if TBJ is in it for the millions. I only care about the CLEOs and jurisdictions, which violate the very basic tenants of our Basic Human Right of Self-Defense for their arrogant political desires, getting screwed 12 ways to Sunday!! Results are all I'm looking for. TBJ could call himself Crusty the Clown or Puty Putin for all I care. But apparently he has ruffled someones high priced suit......and of that I APPROVE! Still awaiting the results though, but if it costs certain jurisdictions money and embarrassment over an issue, which should be a no brainer for the human race (the self defense tool possession one), then give it to them in spades and open carry marches, OLL builds, Spawn of Heller law suits, etc...until the job is done and our Rights as a Free People reclaimed.

:cowboy::79:

Glock22Fan
04-16-2008, 11:09 PM
If a CLEO takes him seriously, all he has to do is stop issuing altogether.

This just proves how little you know. Not only would we dearly love such an idiotic CLEO, we're about to take one on! Perfect! Direct violation of Salute v. Pitchess.

This case should air shortly.

Troutman
04-16-2008, 11:15 PM
Gee Kestryll, you think it just might be a coincidence that-> just a kid, troutman, lowright, and dsinope are very incestuously intertwined.

Why don't you just ban them now before I have to get rude again?
Rio

I'm not sure what your problem is, and to be honest, i couldn't care less if you get rude "again."

RE: the list of user ID's - I'm on the backside of what most now call middle age, i don't hang around much with kids (I have not pm'd this person, but have a guess at who it might be), and the others, i have no idea who the id's belong to.

Let me give a bit of background. CCW in California is a big deal to me. I've tried to inform family and friends and over a dozen of those contacts have ended up with CCW's and an enjoyment of the shooting sports. I watched some questionable actions on a CCW board about two years ago get BillyJack and Glock22Fan get banned. I have watched Preston's (and team's) statements - for almost two years now. I've still not seen anything serious come of it.

I feel the same with him as I do with politicians - stop the bloviating and let your results speak for themselves!

dustoff31
04-16-2008, 11:19 PM
The CLEO's all answer to someone - voters, a board of supervisors, a city council. If THOSE PEOPLE don't want a lot of permits issued, ultimately they won't be issued. If they want permits issued, eventually they will be.

You left out federal court judges and juries.

Liberty1
04-16-2008, 11:22 PM
I just get home

It's past your bed time. Better log on with the other persona, Kids can't post here past 2200 hrs. :rolleyes:

justakid
04-16-2008, 11:35 PM
It's past your bed time. Better log on with the other persona, Kids can't post here past 2200 hrs. :rolleyes:

past my bed time eh. Thanks Dad. Cholesterol seems to have a bit of an issue. Perhaps he is on TBJ payroll.

NO ONE HAS ANSWERED MY PREVIOUS QUESTION!

what happens IF/WHEN TBJ wins the case? How many get issued? What does TBJ get out of it?

thats what I want to know!

Kestryll
04-16-2008, 11:42 PM
NO ONE HAS ANSWERED MY PREVIOUS QUESTION!


And you haven't answered mine.

When you can give an explanation, as I have asked for several times tonight via PM, use the 'Contact Us' button on the bottom of the forum.
Until then, I wasn't kidding about not asking forever.

dustoff31
04-16-2008, 11:49 PM
past my bed time eh. Thanks Dad. Cholesterol seems to have a bit of an issue. Perhaps he is on TBJ payroll.

NO ONE HAS ANSWERED MY PREVIOUS QUESTION!

Well, here is my answer in the order you asked:

1. Then he wins the case.

2. Probably more than are issued now.

3. I don't care.

mymonkeyman
04-17-2008, 12:05 AM
Back to the :offtopic: discussion...



You can't claim 12026.1a or 2a if you don't meet the requirements. In the former, you have to and from a vehicle in a locked case for all lawful purposes. In the latter, it is in a locked case only directly between specific places. So the OCer entering the school zone must comply with 626.9 but in doing so now has a concealed weapon in violation of 12025 as the conditions of the exemptions in 1a and 2a, even though it is unloaded in a locked case, can't be met unless an exemption in 12027 can be found. Does that clear it up:p?

Okay so you are talking about someone who is not in a car or carrying to or from a car or another excepted event, but is just walking around (i.e. Open carrying unloaded for protection)? Then I agree, 626.9 + 12025 prevents you from just walking around knowingly in a school zone with a gun (even in a locked case) unless you happen to be walking to or from your car or another excepted event/location. It does put a big crimp in unloaded open carry, but other than that, most people use their vehicle to get places when they have a firearm with them so they fall in 12026.1 and don't have to worry.

hoffmang
04-17-2008, 12:24 AM
If (but I expect when) TBJ prevails in the current case, he will have made clear a precedent that anyone with a legitimate good cause statement can not be denied a permit absent something very specific about your background or record.

It's not perfect, but it's much better than we have in a select set of counties and municipalities. CLEO's are not allowed by current 9th Circuit precedent to just not issue at all.

-Gene

Liberty1
04-17-2008, 12:25 AM
Okay so you are talking about someone who is not in a car or carrying to or from a car or another excepted event, but is just walking around (i.e. Open carrying unloaded for protection)? Then I agree, 626.9 + 12025 prevents you from just walking around knowingly in a school zone with a gun (even in a locked case) unless you happen to be walking to or from your car or another excepted event/location. It does put a big crimp in unloaded open carry, but other than that, most people use their vehicle to get places when they have a firearm with them so they fall in 12026.1 and don't have to worry.

It seems that once one starts OCing one must stay that way and not enter a 626.9 zone at all. And can only transition to the case at one of the locations listed in 12026.

So what happens if one is OCing in a 626.9 zone unknowingly and is then notified by LE that it is a zone. They have a case and LE suggests they lock it up. The only legal option IMO would be for the officer, since he can't honestly charge 626.9, is to take possession and return it to the OCer outside of the zone.

With a Heller individual rights decision, these impossible location situations strengthens the unconstitutionallity of codes like 626.9 which ban all open carry while preventing transition to concealed in a case w/o violating 12025.

Except if one was a member of an established range enroute to the range or with fishing/hunting license enroute to the pond/woods. That exemption doesn't require a locked case (I now have to go read it again). The OCer can then place the firearm in a locked case for 626.9 as they have the 12027 exemption to 12025 to rely upon until placing it back in the exposed holster.

My advice is to join a 24/7 range and keep some targets and ball ammo in the vehicle!

Or Hoffmang's advice of traveling with a shot gun. One can OC that just about everywhere.

dsinope
04-17-2008, 12:42 AM
This just proves how little you know. Not only would we dearly love such an idiotic CLEO, we're about to take one on! Perfect! Direct violation of Salute v. Pitchess.

This case should air shortly.

Great! Let us know how that works out for you.

The opinion by Kingsley ordered Pitchess to consider the applications, because his previous blanket policy denying everyone but elected officials was an abuse of discretion. It did not order him to issue permits. See paragraphs 21-24.

A CLEO can define good cause any way he wants. Like "An immediate, credible threat against the life of the applicant from a specific and identified source, under circumstances where law enforcement response will be significantly delayed." In a county like Ventura, would a standard like that result in MORE CCWs being issued, or fewer?

But, heck, I'm just a newbie/sock puppet/antigunner/unbeliever/HERETIC! What do I know! I'm gonna go practice drawing my Swenson from my old Snick. Then I'm going to stick my PM40 in my VM2 and go buy some white box at WalMart.

Liberty1
04-17-2008, 12:55 AM
:chillpill::chillpill::chillpill: Whats wrong with a multi front effort? Everyone does what they do best and we all meet on the other side once the wall is breached! Forlorn Hope may be in the waiting for some of us but the rest can have one big CC/OC/AR-AK :party: !

Hark, I can hear Hoffmang now at the walls of the Legislative Keep in Sac:

How yet resolves the governor of the state?
This is the latest parle we will admit;
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves,
Or like to men proud of destruction
Defy us to our worst;

Troutman
04-17-2008, 7:41 AM
:chillpill::chillpill::chillpill: Whats wrong with a multi front effort? Everyone does what they do best and we all meet on the other side once the wall is breached! Forlorn Hope may be in the waiting for some of us but the rest can have one big CC/OC/AR-AK :party: !

Hark, I can hear Hoffmang now at the walls of the Legislative Keep in Sac:

Liberty,

You seem like a reasonable guy. I'd love to sit and talk this over a cup of coffee. I've got a cousin, he's rabid for Ron Paul - and I'm starting to understand the mind set of what he feels, and i would bet your ideas are the same as his.

My concern with BJ and the CCW cause is the same concern I have with tele-evangelists and their impact on the church. Tele-evangelists are in it for one thing - themselves, and they drain the coffers of the local church while giving nothing to very little back to the community. This is my opinion, but so far, there has been a LOT of talk, with no results. I would just like to see the real results before I climb up on that band wagon.

Billy Jack
04-17-2008, 7:44 AM
I had no idea my post would bring out such interesting questions. To my detractors their is nothing I can say to satisfy you. My job, if you will is to serve my client's interests not posters on websites.

Now to answer some of the questions posed. Why the Billy Jack persona? It makes a statement that only LEOS and CLEOS can understand. For the younger folk out there try to remember Frank Serpico of the NYPD and how despised he was when he brought out the corruption in the department. Most of you never shared the the unique brotherhood of LE and never will. I have had private conversations with LEOS and a couple of friendly CLEOS and they do understand the symbolism and they understand what I am doing and my methodology.

As to results. TBJ has successfully assisted numerous applicants with their applications. The people we assist do not run around with their hair on fire telling the world 'look at me, I have a CCW'. Several of those we have assisted were women with Restraining Orders.

Federal lawsuits take about 12-18 months to complete unless there is a settlement first. Some settlements are also secret and we can not discuss the outcome. One has been filed recently, another is pending and up to 5 others are under investigation.

The next one to be filed will be in Los Angeles County. The day of service I will even post the name of the city. Those with a problem with my persona can stop by city hall that evening and watch democracy and Billy Jack in action.

It is not not my job to get every poster a CCW. It is not my job to change the entire state. TBJ is making changes all over the state. Someone asked where are these changes taking place. Well, several Chiefs have discarded their old policies since Santa Maria was filed. I know who they are but I will not burn them because they are now doing the right thing. Another matter to consider is the 2 year statute to file a Federal 1983 Action. If these departments were ratted out, denied applicants who fall within that time frame could file actions against them. I will not allow that to happen.

I am here to gain CLEO compliance. You may not like my persona or my methods but I am getting results. I can accept that. But, guys if the best you can do is attack my very expensive reproduction of The Hat and costume and my speaking in the third person I respond as follows:
'Feck off and get a freakin life!' It is Gaelic and permissable use on American television for all who censor out there.

In closing ask yourselves what you have done today to further compliance by CLEOS.

Billy Jack


californiaconcealedcarry.com

Glock22Fan
04-17-2008, 9:26 AM
Originally Posted by justakid
what happens IF/WHEN TBJ wins the case? How many get issued? What does TBJ get out of it?

thats what I want to know!

These have all been asked and answered before.

1) If (when) TBJ wins each case, the only direct beneficiary will be the plaintiff. However, we expect (and there is already evidence that this is already happening, see Billy Jack's recent post) that there will be an indirect benefit caused by other CLEO's sitting up, taking notice and making changes in their own process. Furthermore, each case won will make it easier to win the next one.

2) For the number of CCW's issued as an indirect result of TBJ's efforts, see 1) above. The exact number will never be known, but if we can influence big cities/counties it could be thousands or even tens of thousands.

3) TBJ invests a lot in these investigations/lawsuits. TBJ is well in the hole with current cases as a result of this. When a financial settlement is made, TBJ will expect to recover this expense and be recompensed for its efforts. Some members of TBJ, such as myself, are volunteers with no financial interest or expectation. Others are full time professionals and deserve to make a living. This seems fair to me.

4) TBJ also assists, for free, any applicant who has a good attitude and a good Good Cause to ensure that their application is as strong as possible and prepares the groundwork for possible legal action. We do not charge for reviewing Good Cause statements, general application advice etc etc. Only after the denial of all possible appeals does the possibility of a commercial engagement get discussed. TBJ is totally up front with such clients about what their financial involvement will then be.

and they drain the coffers of the local church while giving nothing to very little back to the community

If anyone's coffers are drained, it is TBJ's (see above). This is why, at present, we only take winnable cases.

Addition to point 1)

And, of course, a CLEO who is hit by losing a case against TBJ (or the CLEO's successor, if -- as is not unlikely -- the CLEO that's just cost his/her city/county hundreds of thousands or more seeks to broaden his/her career elsewhere) is not going to make that mistake twice.

Python2
04-17-2008, 11:03 AM
Well said. Sounds fair to me. Liking BJ or not aside, I can at least vouch item 4 above. I may have dissappointed him because I did not pursue legal action. All I want was a CCW and I had other option outside legal recourse.
Keep it up guys, I feel strongly of a ripple effect that will come out of what you are doing.

Hillbilly Rebel
04-17-2008, 11:42 AM
Billy Jack once said, "If there is absolutely no way you can get out of taking a terrible beating, the only sensible thing to do is, get in the first lick!"

Glock22Fan
04-17-2008, 12:26 PM
Billy Jack once said, "If there is absolutely no way you can get out of taking a terrible beating, the only sensible thing to do is, get in the first lick!"

A friend of mine was in one of Britain's elite special forces units. He taught unarmed combat. His rule? "There is only one rule in self defense, get the first blow in and kill him with it." May not be appropriate on the streets for civilians in this litigatious age, but I well understand it.

It goes along with another well known quote, I forget from whom: "If you find yourself fighting a fair fight, you haven't done enough preparation."

And, from Jack Reacher in the Lee Child novels, "In any group of people, there is one leader and one #2. Take these out fast and violently and the rest will melt away."

GuyW
04-17-2008, 12:59 PM
...Personally, I'd think any cause championed by someone who dresses, talks or acts like a bad 70's movie caricature would have less credibility in government, not more. If you want to influence people, you don't want them laughin' at you behind your back.

There's a reason people with real power wear good suits.

In my world, "credibility" comes with the demonstrated ability to "do" something. Suits don't mean $#^t in my world.

GuyW
04-17-2008, 1:09 PM
....some are unfairly unfairly getting CCWs and others aren't. If a CLEO takes him seriously, all he has to do is stop issuing altogether.

The CLEO's all answer to someone - voters, a board of supervisors, a city council. If THOSE PEOPLE don't want a lot of permits issued, ultimately they won't be issued.

So what? what's the downside to stopping issuance?

The folks with enuff "whatever" to get CCWs, will raise hell when they can't have one anymore....and then the CLEO will have to start issuing them *fairly* - based on ONE STANDARD of good cause for all. That inevitably will create a loosening of the acceptable "good cause" standard, because the good old boys won't qualify otherwise...

...so the vast majority of Californians and (I hypothesize) CalGun members have an interest and stake in STOPPING CCW issuance in unfair (corrupt) jurisdictions...

Tangentially - right now, in San Diego County, sidewiping a car is apparently official grounds for justifiable (attempted) homicide....so I figure reasonable fear of being sideswiped is my "good cause"...

GuyW
04-17-2008, 1:17 PM
Back to the :offtopic: discussion...

...And since 626.9 doesn't apply to longarms being transported uncased, just instal a cop style locking rifle/shotgun mount between the front seats and get the deterrent benefit of openly carrying an OLL AR-15 or 12 gauge remingtion 870 while driving!:D

Anyone got a link to a quality locking mount?

Sgt Raven
04-17-2008, 1:26 PM
In my world, "credibility" comes with the demonstrated ability to "do" something. Suits don't mean $#^t in my world.

28 years ago I was at a big boat show and there was a gentleman looking at a 45’ sailboat. He was wearing clean but worn jeans, a polo shirt, well used top siders, and the salesman just ignored his questions. What the salesman missed was the 18k Gold Rolex Submariner he was wearing. At the time I had a 30’ Owens and spent a lot of time around the local marinas and could tell by looking that this gentleman spent a lot of time on the water. But the salesman wouldn’t answer his serious questions; instead he was kissing up to the “Looky Lou’s” who were better dressed.

GuyW
04-17-2008, 1:31 PM
...several Chiefs have discarded their old policies since Santa Maria was filed. I know who they are but I will not burn them because they are now doing the right thing. Another matter to consider is the 2 year statute to file a Federal 1983 Action. If these departments were ratted out, denied applicants who fall within that time frame could file actions against them. I will not allow that to happen.

So theses CLEOs have cut their losses, big deal.

They should still be held accountable for their past unlawful actions....

IF they are not sniveling hypocites, their new department Policy now has to be cutting loose arrestees who say, "That was then - this is now - I've turned over a new leaf".

And how do "qualified" applicants who have been previously illegally denied, know that they are now supposed to try again??

The brave is showing loyalty where none is due...

sinner
04-17-2008, 1:38 PM
Just wanted to say much love and maximum respect for Team Billyjack :D

Glock22Fan
04-17-2008, 1:47 PM
The opinion by Kingsley ordered Pitchess to consider the applications, because his previous blanket policy denying everyone but elected officials was an abuse of discretion. It did not order him to issue permits. See paragraphs 21-24.

http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/salute.html My emphasis in red. And I think that these are the relevant paragraphs.

[19] The petitioners allege, and the sheriff admits, that the sheriff has a fixed policy of not granting applications under section 12050 except in a limited number of cases. The policy was stated by Undersheriff Block as follows:


[20] "The Sheriff's policy is not to issue any concealed weapons permit to any person, except for judges who express concern for their personal safety. In special circumstances, the request of a public office holder who expresses concern for his personal safety would be considered. . . ." and "the outstanding permits issued by the Sheriff are only 24 in number."


[21] While a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion. We regard the case at bench as involving a refusal of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given him by the statute. Section 12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.


A legal opinion from Stepp & Beachamp (http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/opinion1.pdf)


D. MAY AN ISSUING AUTHORITY IMPOSE A POLICY OF DENYING
ALL CCW PERMIT APPLICATIONS?
Short Answer: NO.
This is precisely the situation addressed and rejected by the Court of Appeal in
Salute vs. Pitchess, 61 Cal.App.3d 557, 132 Cal.Rptr. 345 (1976), and constitutes an
abuse rather than an exercise of discretion.
The most likely avenue for a successful resolution of the abuses generated by
California’s "may issue" statue, which remains the minority position among the fifty
states, may very well be to commence a series of lawsuits against the worst
offenders, particularly the sheriffs of Sacramento County, Fresno County, Contra
Costa and the chiefs of police of Richmond and Los Angeles. In order to be
successful, it will be necessary to obtain under the freedom of information act the
"good cause" statements of all successful applicants and compare them to the "good
cause" statements of unsuccessful applicants.

It is generally recognized that in any location of any size, a zero issuance would be regarded as a de facto lack of consideration as in a location of any size, there must, statistically, be some general citizen who has an unarguable Good Cause. Them "going through the motions of consideration" and then rejecting everyone would not wash.

In the next case we are bringing, we actually have a letter from the CLEO stating that he has a Zero Issuance policy. He's going to find it hard to wriggle out of that. And no, before anyone thinks of it, he has not "declared (G)."

Hillbilly Rebel
04-17-2008, 2:23 PM
In my world, "credibility" comes with the demonstrated ability to "do" something. Suits don't mean $#^t in my world.

Hmmm, business suit versus canadian tuxedo with a halloween costume hat. If I were a judge or someone in law enforcement or in the legal field, which one do you think I would treat as a normal person and which one would I laugh at?

Appearance and credibility are two different things and are completely unrelated. However, ceteris paribus, credibility/experience will win over looks, unless you are a celebrity.

Glock22Fan
04-17-2008, 2:34 PM
Hey, if any of you guys want to start up your own version of TBJ, fronted by a sharp dresser in an Armani suit, be our guests. Multiple lawsuits from multiple independent teams should really get them, and the media, thinking.



Of course, you might find it difficult to find someone with both an Armani suit and Billy Jack's understanding of what will, and will not, work. Was Gary Gorski a sharp dresser? Was he, in a suit, more effective than Billy Jack? I don't think so.

GuyW
04-17-2008, 3:15 PM
....It is generally recognized that in any location of any size, a zero issuance would be regarded as a de facto lack of consideration as in a location of any size, there must, statistically, be some general citizen who has an unarguable Good Cause. Them "going through the motions of consideration" and then rejecting everyone would not wash.

All a cunning CLEO would have to do is come up with such a high standard, that no one qualifies.


...we actually have a letter from the CLEO stating that he has a Zero Issuance policy.....

...that's not cunning at all...

Scarecrow Repair
04-17-2008, 4:33 PM
Hmmm, business suit versus canadian tuxedo with a halloween costume hat. If I were a judge or someone in law enforcement or in the legal field, which one do you think I would treat as a normal person and which one would I laugh at?

We have here what is known as an interesting situation. If we go by your quote, then we have to consider your avatar, admit that it is goofy as all get out, laugh at your opinion because you said that was right and proper, realize that this means your original opinion was wrong, reconsider your opinion in light of this new line of thought, realize your opinion has to stand on its own merits, then reconsider, again, start laughing at your avatar again, and repeat ad infinitum.

No thanks. I will reject your opinion once and for all. I suggest you go back to logic school.

Hillbilly Rebel
04-17-2008, 4:44 PM
We have here what is known as an interesting situation. If we go by your quote, then we have to consider your avatar, admit that it is goofy as all get out, laugh at your opinion because you said that was right and proper, realize that this means your original opinion was wrong, reconsider your opinion in light of this new line of thought, realize your opinion has to stand on its own merits, then reconsider, again, start laughing at your avatar again, and repeat ad infinitum.

No thanks. I will reject your opinion once and for all. I suggest you go back to logic school.

Unfortunately, your pattern of thought is off. Unlike my avatar, I do not wear a helmet, not do I ride the short bus despite what people think. And my avatar is not a representation of me.

On the other hand, here is an actual real life picture of TBJ, wearing his trademarked Billy Jack hat and canadian tuxedo:
http://www.santamariatimes.com/content/articles/2007/09/19/news/centralcoast/news03.jpg

http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2007/09/19/news/centralcoast/news03.txt

Riodog
04-17-2008, 5:03 PM
To each his own. I happen to like that look and while I seldom wear jeans my western cut suits are more comfortable and presentable than most of the penguin suites around town.

Rio
ps.....what the hell does a mans clothes have to do with the truth, the facts, and the presentation????

Sgt Raven
04-17-2008, 5:12 PM
Unfortunately, your pattern of thought is off. Unlike my avatar, I do not wear a helmet, not do I ride the short bus despite what people think. And my avatar is not a representation of me.

On the other hand, here is an actual real life picture of TBJ, wearing his trademarked Billy Jack hat and canadian tuxedo:
http://www.santamariatimes.com/content/articles/2007/09/19/news/centralcoast/news03.jpg

http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2007/09/19/news/centralcoast/news03.txt

I bet he doesn't wear that outfit to court either and you got the lyrics wrong in your sig.

I got a shotgun rifle and a 4-wheel drive
And a country boy can survive

pnkssbtz
04-17-2008, 5:55 PM
All a cunning CLEO would have to do is come up with such a high standard, that no one qualifies.
Except this falls apart when the CLEO starts issuing permits to fellow judges, movie stars and political contributors.

All one has to do is apply with a legitimate good cause, get denied, and then you can write to the department asking for the public records of the applicants and their good cause statements.

They (CLEO's) can't have insanely high requirements without applying htem equally every other person they've granted a permit too.


Further even if they have insanely high requirements and no one is able to meet the criteria, isn't that the de-facto same thing as not issuing any at all? (With the legal caveats of such a position).

dsinope
04-17-2008, 6:21 PM
So what? what's the downside to stopping issuance?

The folks with enuff "whatever" to get CCWs, will raise hell when they can't have one anymore....and then the CLEO will have to start issuing them *fairly* - based on ONE STANDARD of good cause for all. That inevitably will create a loosening of the acceptable "good cause" standard, because the good old boys won't qualify otherwise...

...so the vast majority of Californians and (I hypothesize) CalGun members have an interest and stake in STOPPING CCW issuance in unfair (corrupt) jurisdictions...


I'll refer you to San Francisco, with 10 total issued CCWs. All were issued to retired Federal LEO, and were only issued because Sheriff Hennessey had no choice under Federal law. The folks with "enuff 'whatever'" aren't getting CCWs in San Francisco, and neither is anyone else.

You believe that these tactics will turn a county like Riverside or San Diego into Mariposa or Inyo. I think they'll turn Riverside into San Francisco.

Which one of us is right will be decided by the voters in each county. Hennessey has served as Sheriff in SF for 27 years, and won 7 elections. Last year he won with 73% of the vote. SF also approved Prop H - banning handguns - with 58% of the vote. The voters there don't like guns. They'll keep voting in anti-gun sheriffs. He'll keep turning down CCWs. If you get him to eliminate his blanket policy, he'll just put a standard in place that's impossibly high to meet.

Unless you get shall-issue through the legislature (Ice storm in Hell) or get a shall issue initiative passed (Blizzard in Hell) the only way to change the counties is to change the sheriffs. You got your "magic bullet" in Salute 30 years ago, and LA hasn't change much since.

And -what someone wears MATTERS TO THE VOTERS. Getting photo ops in costume is just going to make voters say "That guy is nuts. And he wants to carry a gun. That's a bad idea." And the voters have final say.

CCWFacts
04-17-2008, 6:25 PM
Except this falls apart when the CLEO starts issuing permits to fellow judges, movie stars and political contributors.

That's right. It's a political necessity for them to issuing some permits to some people. And if they end up raising the bar so high that no one can get permits, then again, they're also not using discretion.

Further even if they have insanely high requirements and no one is able to meet the criteria, isn't that the de-facto same thing as not issuing any at all? (With the legal caveats of such a position).

Seems to be the case. Given that a lot of the VIPs in CA who have permits don't really have any good cause beyond "I'm a VIP and I want to carry a gun", that creates a pickle for CLEOs who want to issue to such people. Geez a celebrity who gets driven in a private car, probably with armed security, to and from his private jet, has really no need of a CCW at all and is at less risk than any ordinary person. A guy like Chief Bratton, who spends his days in a building full of cops, has 24-hour cop bodyguards, why does he need a CCW? Feinstein, why did she need one? She didn't need one to carry in her home, she had a police driver between her home and her work, and she couldn't carry at all at work, so how is a CCW relevant to her at all?

So these VIPs really have no GC, and if chiefs want to continue issuing to them they will need to issue to ordinary people too.

hoffmang
04-17-2008, 6:56 PM
Which one of us is right will be decided by the voters in each county.

On this you are incorrect. This issue will be decided by Federal Judges and will only get worse for the CLEOs that don't issue, not better. Ever thought what the good cause statement for an application to march would look like?

-Gene

Billy Jack
04-17-2008, 7:16 PM
There are some fantastic people on this site who understand the case law and Federal 1983 filings. There is also a lot of venting and misinformation. Anyone interested can contact Glock22Fan or myself and we will direct you to a copy of the Santa Maria Federal Complaint. If the non believers and fashion consultants will take a moment they can educate themselves as to the Federal Cause of Action alleged in the suit. Or, they can continue attacking my colorful outfit and ignoring what is going on in Federal court. You have 58 counties and over 350 PD's. Short of Shall Issue legislation, Federal court is the fastest and most lasting corrective action.

I have read posts asking if Salute v Pitchess and Guillory v Gates are such great cases why has nothing happened since then. Probably because most people would rather post than take action or support those who do. We are giving these two cases a test drive in Federal court and so far they are performing beautifully. Ask LEXIPOL founder and Santa Maria Defense Attorney Praet. Guillory v Gates was cited numerous times in the Court's opinion denying his Motion to Dismiss.

Most CLEOS can read a Federal Complaint or have it read to them. The most recent Federal suit was just filed last September and Motions have just begun. I am sorry things are not moving fast enough to suit some. Wait, I have a solution. Apply, be denied, hire your own Attorney, Retainer $5-10K and then you can move your own case along as fast as your personal attorney can make things happen. What's the problem, no money? No Good Cause? No initiative, spine weak? We have found three really good strong people to put themselves on the line by filing suit and preparing to sue and some just want to attack the messenger.

Let me share something with all: Serving a Federal Complaint with several hundred pages of exhibits to shocked public officials, Priceless.

Keep the attacks coming, Billy Jack knows that you care. About what, I have no idea.

Billy Jack

"When Sheep do nothing, they are devoured by Wolves!"

Riodog
04-17-2008, 8:21 PM
TBJ, Glock22Ran, anyone remember WHO issued the CCW to Robert Blake?

Just wondering if it was LASD, or ?
Rio

bulgron
04-17-2008, 8:22 PM
Keep the attacks coming, Billy Jack knows that you care. About what, I have no idea.


lol. There are times when I really like this guy's style....

383green
04-17-2008, 8:42 PM
And -what someone wears MATTERS TO THE VOTERS. Getting photo ops in costume is just going to make voters say "That guy is nuts. And he wants to carry a gun. That's a bad idea." And the voters have final say.

Uh, since when is TBJ running for a public office? Maybe it would be detrimental for him to wear a silly hat if he was trying to get elected, but I don't think the public official (?) in that picture cared one way or another about the hat he was wearing. She looks more concerned about the handful of papers he was handing her.

You know, I recently showed up for jury duty wearing silly digital camo pants (I often wear them to work simply because I like them, and they happened to be on top of the "clean" pile that day). I still got selected for that jury despite my silly pants, and I think I did a fine job on that trial (as did all of the non-silly-pants-wearing jurors). No voters were harmed.

:cowboy:

Billy Jack
04-17-2008, 10:24 PM
Riodog, Robert blake had a 90 day non resident CCW issued by Culver City PD. No one seemed to mention that fact during the trial. Forgetting your CCW in a restaurant is a constant problem for holders. I usually have the hostess pat me down to make sure I still have mine on prior to departing. Really irritates my Squaw.

Reference the Complaint being handed to the Council member. It weighed in at over 4 pounds. It was the Chief's own files. Priceless!

Billy Jack

dsinope
04-17-2008, 11:03 PM
That's right. It's a political necessity for them to issuing some permits to some people. And if they end up raising the bar so high that no one can get permits, then again, they're also not using discretion.


At least we're clear on what we disagree on.

No, it's not a political necessity. They can stop anytime they feel the political cost outweighs the political benefit.

Tonight I went to an open house with my Assemblyman, because I wanted to tell him how unhappy I was with his vote on AB 2062 (ammo restriction, which he voted for last week) and AB 2235 (smart guns, which he voted for 2 days ago). He didn't even remember the bills. That's how low we are on the radar.

If these tactics succeed - if you get these orders from judges - they will simply change the game. We could go from a may issue state to a non-issue state in a day, the same way we lost open carry.

Putting on a big black hat and serving 4 lbs of paper to someone who has no idea what's going on feels Goooooood.

In the short term.

It's the long term that's important.

Scarecrow Repair
04-17-2008, 11:27 PM
I don't understand negativity most of the time anyway; why stomp all over somebody trying to be constructive when you could expend that same energy in your own constructive cause? If your target is actually hurting your cause, that's one thing, but when your only complaints are his fashion sense and third person grammar, and your only real comments are to belittle someone's efforts as futile (not counter-productive, just futile) without making any yourself, it simply makes no sense.

Especially coming from a bunch of noobs all at once, it just smells fishier than Hamlet. Fashion complaints from someone whose own chosen avatar shows worse, and complaints about productivity from someone who has no idea of what Billy Jack has actually done (and apparently has insufficient curiosity to either find out or to verify what is reported) makes you look like simple trouble makers. That implies you are scared to death that people will take Billy Jack seriously.

I can think of no other explanation. Insults are a sign of desperation. When you have the law on your side, pound the law; when you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; when you have neither, pound the table.

Keep on pounding the ignorance and fashion tables, it is bound to impress us all in ways you cannot imagine, but it won't help whoever you are shilling for.

dsinope
04-17-2008, 11:44 PM
If your target is actually hurting your cause, that's one thing, but when your only complaints are his fashion sense and third person grammar, and your only real comments are to belittle someone's efforts as futile (not counter-productive, just futile) without making any yourself, it simply makes no sense.


"Counterproductive" and "futile" are not mutually exclusive, especially in the long run.

CCWFacts
04-17-2008, 11:59 PM
At least we're clear on what we disagree on.

No, it's not a political necessity. They can stop anytime they feel the political cost outweighs the political benefit.

My reasons for thinking it's a necessity are:


The people who have them are the mighty and powerful. They are people who get what they want and get very angry when they don't get it. Notice how many movie stars get into fights with airport security or low-level people like that? These types of people have a hard time tolerating being treated like normal people.
A few sheriffs, like my favorite Scientologist / Sheriff Baca, use them as a major pillar of their power base. Baca, in particular, uses them for campaign contributions and invitations to celebrity parties that he would never get to go to otherwise.

But I don't know, maybe they could yank the whole system. As you say, this issue is very big to us, but is so small that it's invisible to our reps on Sacto.

In SMPD's case, I don't know enough about SM's local power politics, but, you know, small town doctors and dentists and bible thumpers are respected and influential people. I can imagine that SMPD's outrageous issuance practices are pretty similar to absurd issuance practices in most of the small towns in this state, except in the "shall issue" rural counties, where CCWs aren't a special status.

There's a Chinese saying about cutting off the head of a chicken to scare the monkeys. I hope that's what will happen here.

bwiese
04-18-2008, 12:22 AM
Good points, Scarecrow.

"You're gonna screw us" is only applicable in certain situations - usu when laws are written and lotsa public scrutiny is about.

I was repeatedly accused, in Dec 2005 thru mid 2006, of attempting to "ruing things" for Garand and Mini14 owners and that I should "just leave things alone or they'll get worse".

Instead, we now have 100,000 OLLs in CA, every CA range has OLL rifles on a fair # of range shooting positions every weekend, and we have AB2728 which *stopped* further additions to banned AW lists. Before AB2728, it would not have been that difficult to have had a non-AW listed (as the Springfield/Beretta BM59 is a listed AW!) "just because" some scared muni judge added it. All that crap stopped.

Billy Jack
04-18-2008, 8:09 AM
The following was written by someone far wiser than myself. Please read it and then you will know who on this site are the Sheep and who are the Wolves. I suspect there are a few Wolves dressed as sheep as well. I know by your posts that the following people are Sheep Dogs:

Scarecrow Repair, bwiese, CCWFacts, Sgt Raven, Kermit315, hoffmang and of course Glock22Fan. If I left you out I apologize. If you live in proximity to the South Bay in Los Angeles County, I welcome you to stop by the City Council Chambers in a couple of weeks and say hello. Specific location will be provided as soon as Federal filing has taken place.


William J. Bennett, in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy
November 24, 1997 said: Most of the people in our society are sheep.
They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one
another by accident. We may well be in the most violent times in
history, but violence is still remarkably rare. They are sheep.

Then there are the wolves and the wolves feed on the sheep without
mercy. Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the
flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this
world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that
or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in
denial.

Then there are sheepdogs. I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock
and confront the wolf. If you have no capacity for violence then you
are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for
violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have
defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a
capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What
do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the
uncharted path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into
the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep.
They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can
accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire
extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout
their kids schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of
putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children
are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured
by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the
possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill
or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of
denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the
wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference,
though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm
the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little
lamb will be punished and removed. The world can not work any other
way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as
ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant
reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he
didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand
at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an
M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his
fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, Baa. Until the wolf shows
up; then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely
sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough
high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not
have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad
kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was
under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and
hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing
kids off of them.

This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf
is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when
the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than
ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers
and military personnel? Understand that there is nothing morally
superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be.
Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always
sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at
things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous
battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle.
The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the
sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep
pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is,
most citizens in America said, Thank God I wasn't on one of those
planes. The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, Dear God, I wish I could
have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a
difference. You want to be able to make a difference. There is
nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does
have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to
survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the
population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals
convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious,
predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law
enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically
targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and
lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in
Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to
protect itself. Some people may be destined to be sheep and others
might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe
that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud
to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was
honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall,
was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell
phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking.
When they learned of the other three passenger planes that had been
used as weapons, Todd and the other passengers confronted the
terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the
passengers, athletes, business people and parents from sheep to
sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an
unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible
evil of evil men. Edmund Burke.

Only the dead have seen the end of war. Plato

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of
police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the
sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way,
and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice.

But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you
want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a
sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must
understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved
ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect
you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are
going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or
love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path,
then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to
dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic,
corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no
dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a
matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject,
head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior.
Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live
somewhere in between.

Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum,
away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and
appreciating their warriors and the warriors started taking their job
more seriously. It's ok to be a sheep, but do not kick the sheep dog.

Indeed, the sheep dog may just run a little harder, strive to protect
a little better and be fully prepared to pay an ultimate price in
battle and spirit with the sheep moving from baa to thanks.

We do not call for gifts or freedoms beyond our lot. We just need a
small pat on the head, a smile and a thank you to fill the emotional
tank which is drained protecting the sheep. And when our number is
called by The Almighty, and day retreats into night, a small prayer
before the heavens just may be in order to say thanks for letting you
continue to be a sheep. And be grateful for the thousands, millions of
American sheepdogs who permit you the freedom to express even bad
ideas.


For the youngsters that forgot the line that preceeded Billy Jack's famous tagline: "We got the law here Billy Jack" Billy Jack responded: "When policeman break the law then there isn't any law.....just a fight for survival!"

The fight is not for any individual to have a CCW, the fight is to protect and enforce the United States Constitution. Let not petty differences detract from that worthy goal.

californiaconcealedcarry.com



Billy Jack

dsinope
04-18-2008, 9:53 AM
My reasons for thinking it's a necessity are:


The people who have them are the mighty and powerful. They are people who get what they want and get very angry when they don't get it. Notice how many movie stars get into fights with airport security or low-level people like that? These types of people have a hard time tolerating being treated like normal people.
A few sheriffs, like my favorite Scientologist / Sheriff Baca, use them as a major pillar of their power base. Baca, in particular, uses them for campaign contributions and invitations to celebrity parties that he would never get to go to otherwise.

But I don't know, maybe they could yank the whole system. As you say, this issue is very big to us, but is so small that it's invisible to our reps on Sacto.

In SMPD's case, I don't know enough about SM's local power politics, but, you know, small town doctors and dentists and bible thumpers are respected and influential people. I can imagine that SMPD's outrageous issuance practices are pretty similar to absurd issuance practices in most of the small towns in this state, except in the "shall issue" rural counties, where CCWs aren't a special status.

There's a Chinese saying about cutting off the head of a chicken to scare the monkeys. I hope that's what will happen here.

Baca uses clebs, just like everyone in LA uses celebs. He doesn't need them for his power base, sheriffs are always re-elected. The only chance we get for a change is when one dies or retires (like Pitchess).

Imagine this. TBJ gets major wins in all his cases. Baca knows that if he goes to shall issue, or anything close to it, the Chiefs will de-declare and pull their authority back, and he'll be at war with the LA BOS. So he goes the other way, pulls the permits from everyone in the county.

Do you really think Sylvester Stallone will make TV ads for Baca's opponent in the next election? If he does, would it make a difference? I think the answers are NO and Heck No.

San Francisco gets along fine without celebrity CCWs. So can LA.

A man much more eloquent than me once wrote "Before you destroy something, you should be absolutely comfortable with the idea that you won't miss it once it's gone."

CCWFacts
04-18-2008, 10:06 AM
Sheriff Baca needs celebrities not for winning elections, but in the way an alcoholic needs alcohol. Sheriff Baca is one of the millions of people in this world who loves celebrities, and he's one of the few people in this world who has a way to get himself invited to their parties. Some people get "high" from being at such parties, and I think Baca is one of those people.

Sgt Raven
04-18-2008, 10:29 AM
Baca uses clebs, just like everyone in LA uses celebs. He doesn't need them for his power base, sheriffs are always re-elected. The only chance we get for a change is when one dies or retires (like Pitchess).

Imagine this. TBJ gets major wins in all his cases. Baca knows that if he goes to shall issue, or anything close to it, the Chiefs will de-declare and pull their authority back, and he'll be at war with the LA BOS. So he goes the other way, pulls the permits from everyone in the county.

Do you really think Sylvester Stallone will make TV ads for Baca's opponent in the next election? If he does, would it make a difference? I think the answers are NO and Heck No.

San Francisco gets along fine without celebrity CCWs. So can LA.

A man much more eloquent than me once wrote "Before you destroy something, you should be absolutely comfortable with the idea that you won't miss it once it's gone."


If the Chiefs de-declare and pull their authority back it won’t change the ability of Baca to issue permits to anyone that lives in his county. Just because someone lives in a city that doesn’t want CCW’s issued doesn’t limit the Sherriff of that county from issuing to residents of that city. No city in California can, by law, limit the issuing of permits by the Sherriff. For you to infer otherwise is pure F.U.D.

Glock22Fan
04-18-2008, 10:50 AM
+1 with CCWFacts and Sgt Raven. Furthermore, by law and precedent, a sheriff may not distinguish between candidates on the grounds of where he/she lives. Residents of a city (or even a ghetto) must be treated exactly the same as residents of a rural (or any other) area. I could quote cases on this, it's probably Salute, but might be Guillory. Google "Stepp Beachamp Guillory) or see back a few posts for the link.

For you to infer otherwise is pure F.U.D.

So are most of the other comments by this small, vocal, uninformed (or wilfully ignorant) and newly joined bank of B.J. critics and koolaid drinkers.*

I think it is maybe time to lock this thread.

* If this cap doesn't fit you, then don't wear it.

CCWFacts
04-18-2008, 11:37 AM
+1 with CCWFacts and Sgt Raven.

Thank you, although I must say, I only hope that this "kill chicken, scare monkeys" effect will happen. I do think that CoP Macagni is in doo doo. One of the things that might help Macagni is "The Hat". I'm quite certain that "The Hat" is detrimental to the plaintiff's case. How detrimental? Will it effect the outcome? I don't know, but it is more harmful than helpful. I'm hoping for the best of success in this because, as I said, it will scare the monkeys. Conversely, if the plaintiff loses, it will make the monkeys that much bolder, as the failed March v. Rupf did. So I do want the best outcome of this, which is why I'm concerned that things like "The Hat" and "TBJ" may be distractions from the legal situation. And my final and most important reason for hoping for the best outcome is, I'm happy when one guy like this plaintiff gets his CCW. I think it's far more likely he'll use it to defend himself or someone else against a common criminal than against Al Qeda, but regardless, the world is a safer place when people like him are armed 24/7 and we all benefit from it.

It's also clear to me that if Heller goes the right way, it will quickly have an effect on CCW cases, so long as we get a competent attorney to do the case before some idiot like Gorski, who is effectively doing free work for the Brady Campaign, screws it up.

Billy Jack
04-18-2008, 12:18 PM
I regret we do not have more attorneys or PI's on this site. Once the Complaint is served, Billy Jack becomes irrelevant to the legal proceedings. If any of the naysayers take the time to read the Motions you will see that Bruce Praet, Santa Maria contract Attorney and LEXIPOL founder attempted to make an issue of the City Council being served personally rather than via substitute service on the City Attorney or City Clerk. Personal service is permitted in all legal matters. The Judge would not even address this issue when brought up in the Motion to Dismiss.

I can dress in drag when serving a Complaint and it would be legal and not an issue for the court to address. TBJ investigations take place outside the courtroom and are for the most part are complete when the case is filed. Some folks insist on dwelling on the messenger and how he is clothed. It is important that you all take a breath and appreciate and understand that each person was addressed as 'Sir' or Ma'am and treated with respect and dignity when they were served. My manner of dress was of no interest to a Federal Judge so I am having a difficult time understanding why some posters are unable to find something more meaningful to dwell on.

As previously posted you are all invited to the South Bay in a few weeks to watch service of a Federal Complaint. I want to put some faces to your sorry personas. Is it possible that I am doing something that you do not have the stones to do? If you can not fill my Mocassins do not complain that I wear them.

I will ask a question similar to what Paladin has asked: "What have you done today to further fair issuance of CCWS?" (Sound of Crickets)

I have a very challenging job travelling all over California obtaining CCW files and meeting CLEOS and their command staff. They know who I am and what to expect. I am accessible and do not hide behind a computer attacking others methods of engaging the CCW problem.

Now that I have said my piece I am sure some of the more challenged members can devote several pages further attacking my methods and manner of dress.

Wonder how many of you I will see in the South Bay? (More sounds of Crickets)

Billy Jack

bulgron
04-18-2008, 12:36 PM
Wonder how many of you I will see in the South Bay? (More sounds of Crickets)

Billy Jack

Well if you get around to serving papers at any time in the Silly Con Valley, give us a shout. I for one would enjoy attending a show like that....

Mute
04-18-2008, 12:37 PM
A man much more eloquent than me once wrote "Before you destroy something, you should be absolutely comfortable with the idea that you won't miss it once it's gone."

And how does one miss something one never had? The point is, right now in L.A. County. Only the connected gets CCWs PERIOD. So how exactly is that much different from no CCWs for anyone at all?

You seem to be stuck on this idea that because TBJ is suing to get CCWs issued in a fair and objective manner, that somehow, all these CLEOs and Sheriffs will just stop issuing all together (whic is in direct violation of Salutes vs. Pritchess).

zok
04-18-2008, 12:40 PM
Billy Jack is One of a Kind. Listen to him and LEARN. Crying and complaining has never done a thing for anyone. Action speaks...............

Glock22Fan
04-18-2008, 12:42 PM
Well if you get around to serving papers at any time in the Silly Con Valley, give us a shout. I for one would enjoy attending a show like that....


There's one in preparation. At this time, I cannot tell you when (these things take unpredictable amounts of time.)

bulgron
04-18-2008, 12:50 PM
There's one in preparation. At this time, I cannot tell you when (these things take unpredictable amounts of time.)

Nice! PM me when things come to fruition so I can get it on my calendar. :D

dsinope
04-18-2008, 1:38 PM
And how does one miss something one never had? The point is, right now in L.A. County. Only the connected gets CCWs PERIOD. So how exactly is that much different from no CCWs for anyone at all?

You seem to be stuck on this idea that because TBJ is suing to get CCWs issued in a fair and objective manner, that somehow, all these CLEOs and Sheriffs will just stop issuing all together (whic is in direct violation of Salutes vs. Pritchess).

No it's not. Salutes vs Pitchess requires that applications be considered, not that they be issued. GvG requires that all applicants be considered equally, under equal protection.

If the Sheriff imposes a clear standard that's so high that no one - or almost no one - gets there, it will survive appeal.

If someone is GENUINELY connected, lives in LA and wants a CCW, he can get one, and not just from Baca. He can easily have his official residence in another county altogether. (You can get a nice 3 bedroom house on 7 acres in Mariposa for under $200k)

Personally, I'm in Orange County. I have my CCW (also my NRA instructor's card, coming up 25 years, my NRA life membership, my SWPL trophies and the target I shot in '84 at Prado's opening day.) I would miss my CCW.

Yes, I believe that if these tactics are effective and the CLEO's don't want to issue, they will stop issuing completely. If that doesn't work, they will pressure the Legislature to change the law so they don't have to. The people who make the laws are the ones who make the laws. If they figure out their laws are being used against them, they'll change the laws.

We are in the minority. If you poll California voters about the issues that matter to them, freely available CCW's wouldn't rank in the top 100. There's an overwhelming majority of voters in CA that - if they ever thought about it - would be opposed to freely issued CCWs.

We are like the gay marriage movement. In both cases we think reason and righteousness is on our side, but the majority opposes us, so instead of working through the legislature we're trying to work through the courts. They got a majority of Supreme Courts in Massachusetts, Hawaii and New Hampshire to agree with them. What did they get?

Hawaii amended their constitution to prohibit it, with a 2 to 1 vote. 26 states now have prohibitions against gay marriage - including California, which voted for Prop 22 by almost 2 to 1.

If we fight for freely issued CCWs in places that don't want them - especially while wearing silly costumes and using the third person - the only thing we'll get in the end is a reputation as whacko gun nuts.

GuyW
04-18-2008, 2:12 PM
Imagine this. TBJ gets major wins in all his cases. Baca knows that if he goes to shall issue, or anything close to it, the Chiefs will de-declare and pull their authority back, and he'll be at war with the LA BOS....

Now I know that you are an outside agent for disinformation and FUD.

If the Chiefs take back their authority to issue, that affects the Sheriff how? Any knowledgeable person knows that such can't limit a Sheriff's statutory authority to issue CCWs...

And, the LA BOS has no authority, legal or otherwise, to challenge his *mandatory* use of discretion.


"Before you destroy something, you should be absolutely comfortable with the idea that you won't miss it once it's gone."

So you will miss a subjective and sometimes corrupt system?

CCWFacts
04-18-2008, 2:13 PM
(I'm changing the order of your quotes here)

If any of the naysayers take the time to read the Motions

If you insist.

you will see that Bruce Praet, Santa Maria contract Attorney and LEXIPOL founder attempted to make an issue of the City Council being served personally rather than via substitute service on the City Attorney or City Clerk.

That's not what I'm referring to.

Once the Complaint is served, Billy Jack becomes irrelevant to the legal proceedings.

The defense attorneys didn't see it that way.

In support of this allegation, it was interesting to note that a third party, Preston Guillory, also filed a declaration in support of the Complaint.

Mr. Guillory is a private investigator who maintains a website www.clueseau.com which advertises itself as advocating federal lawsuits against California law enforcement agencies denying permits. (Although not essential to this motion, attached as exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of an article on Mr. Guillory's website promoting Plaintiff's lawsuit being brought by "Team Billy Jack".)

While it might have satisfied Plaintiff's (or Preston Guillory's) need to grandstand this lawsuit by personally serving the Mayor and individual Council members at a public meeting, all 1983 claims against these legislators must be dismissed in the absence of any evidence that their conduct (none alleged) caused some constitutional deprivation.

They are not, as you say, talking about the manner of being served. They are talking about the absence of evidence of conduct that caused a constitutional deprivation.

Whether the Plaintiff is being used as a pawn for Mr. Guillory and "Team Billy Jack" in their quest to file a number of federal lawsuits against law enforcement agencies over the denial of CCW permits, it is fortunate that they have provided the Court with sufficient factual averments necessary to dispose of this lawsuit at this early phase...

Ok, this is all stuff that the defendant is arguing, and they try to stretch and construe everything in the worst possible light (it's their job as defense attorneys). But the point remains, the persona of the investigator is being dragged into the motion. Will it matter? I hope not.

Personal service is permitted in all legal matters. The Judge would not even address this issue when brought up in the Motion to Dismiss.

The matter of personal service is obviously not the only matter, or the important matter, that the defense brought up in that motion.

Again, I hope none of this matters and the case proceeds based on the facts and the law. But the point remains: "the persona" gave them some ammo to use in a motion to dismiss. Is that ammo worth anything? I don't know, and I hope not, and the fact is, the motion was dismissed, but it's better not to give up any ammo, at any stage.

Mute
04-18-2008, 2:40 PM
No it's not. Salutes vs Pitchess requires that applications be considered, not that they be issued. GvG requires that all applicants be considered equally, under equal protection.

I didn't say everyone will be issued a CCW. That's your hangup. They are required to give due consideration to all applicants in an equal manner. Don't misquote me.


If the Sheriff imposes a clear standard that's so high that no one - or almost no one - gets there, it will survive appeal.

If someone is GENUINELY connected, lives in LA and wants a CCW, he can get one, and not just from Baca. He can easily have his official residence in another county altogether. (You can get a nice 3 bedroom house on 7 acres in Mariposa for under $200k)

Again, if the standards are so high that no one can get it, then these people shouldn't get it either unless the issuing authority is not applying the standard equally (the very thing which TBJ is fighting against).

Personally, I'm in Orange County. I have my CCW (also my NRA instructor's card, coming up 25 years, my NRA life membership, my SWPL trophies and the target I shot in '84 at Prado's opening day.) I would miss my CCW.

And now we get to the truth finally, that you have yours and don't want that to be threatened even if it means having our elected officials stop abusing their position for personal gain. Thanks but no thanks. I'd say people with your attitude are a bigger threat to our rights than the supposed theatrics of the TBJ members.


I'll ask the same question that's been asked by the others. What have you done for CCW equality in California other than just getting your own CCW and trying to protect the status quo?

Mute
04-18-2008, 2:45 PM
It's a crock to say that some areas don't want freely issued CCWs. The only people who don't want that are the politicians and those who feel they have a special privilege with their CCWs. For most people, this issue is so low priority (in most cases probably non-priority) that it's not something they've even considered. To suggest that somehow, these issuing authorities are carrying out some version of the public's will on this matter is pure nonsense.

supersonic
04-18-2008, 2:48 PM
Billy Jack is One of a Kind. Listen to him and LEARN. Crying and complaining has never done a thing for anyone. Action speaks...............

...So does open carry.;)

Glock22Fan
04-18-2008, 3:29 PM
Ok, this is all stuff that the defendant is arguing, and they try to stretch and construe everything in the worst possible light (it's their job as defense attorneys). But the point remains, the persona of the investigator is being dragged into the motion. Will it matter? I hope not.

Read the judge's latest ruling. Give me your email address and I'll send you a copy. The judge threw out virtually all the defense's propositions and didn't mention hats or TBJ once. Totally irrelevant.

dsinope
04-18-2008, 3:33 PM
I'll ask the same question that's been asked by the others. What have you done for CCW equality in California other than just getting your own CCW and trying to protect the status quo?

I've taken several dozen from never having touched a gun in their lives to owning guns, and being safe, fast and accurate with them. I've taken a half dozen people from never having touched a gun in their lives to having CCWs, and 3 to being instructors themselves.

Tell me this. If there are no areas in CA that are against freely issued CCWs, why did San Francisco vote 58% to ban handguns entirely?

As for being an outside agent of disinformation - do you understand how paranoid that sounds? You think that I - someone who learned so shoot in Big Bear with Col. Cooper when I was 10 years old - am a threat to your second amendment rights?

Son, there's a guy in a funny hat that's serving you grape Kool-aid.


And, the LA BOS has no authority, legal or otherwise, to challenge his *mandatory* use of discretion.

The court says it cannot mandate the outcome of the Sheriff's discretion, only that it can force him to use his discretion. Somehow you think that means that more CCWs will be issued, even if the Sheriff doesn't want them issued.

It doesn't. The Sheriff free to use his discretion - fairly and equally applied - to whatever standard he sets.

If somehow a judge stitches together some extraordinary web of arguments and orders the Sheriff of LA to freely issue CCWs, the BOS will sit down with Fabian Núñez and a week later the CCW laws will be re-written.

The best, the very best that these lawsuits can do is stop issuance to a very few people - the well connected who are not wealthy enough to maintain a residence in a freely issuing county, or who don't care enough to do so.

That helps us how, exactly?

Which do you want more - a CCW for you, or to take the CCWs away from people who already have them?

dsinope
04-18-2008, 3:34 PM
Read the judge's latest ruling. Give me your email address and I'll send you a copy. The judge threw out virtually all the defense's propositions and didn't mention hats or TBJ once. Totally irrelevant.

Hats are irrelevant in court, and to judges.

They are relevant on television, to voters.

One is short term, the other is long term.

bulgron
04-18-2008, 3:54 PM
Tell me this. If there are no areas in CA that are against freely issued CCWs, why did San Francisco vote 58% to ban handguns entirely?


It happened in one of those off-year elections when most people don't bother to vote.

Plus, the very worse of the anti-gunners in the state seemed to have all flocked to San Francisco county, giving them a larger majority, and bigger voice, than they'll have in almost any other location in the state.

The truth of the matter is, I'm half expecting to see California lose some or all of it's current CCW law before this state is fixed. It won't matter, except to the few people (percentage wise, that is) who have managed to actually get CCWs. I wish it could be done some other way, and I hope we can avoid it, but if it happens I won't be completely shocked.

Thing of it is, even if we lose CCW in this state, I believe we'll get it back fairly quickly.

The trump card is going to be Heller. Heller ought to open a gate for us where, after many excursions into court, we turn California into an open carry state. Once that happens, we pull an Ohio and start doing open carry marches. Shall-issue CCW is just a few legislative sessions away after that.

Open carry walks are actually the long way around. Another avenue of attack is to use 14A equal protection arguments, combined with 2A RKBA arguments, to ask why off-duty LEO can CCW and common law-abiding citizens cannot. That right there should force CA into shall-issue CCW status one way or another.

Heller is going to open so many ways for us to sue the state over our firearm rights, that I firmly believe it's now just a matter of when (not if) this state goes shall-issue.

In the meantime, Billy Jack is doing a bang-up job of proving in Federal court that our current carry laws are subject to abuse, and so should be thrown out on 14A and 2A grounds.

So much doom and gloom around this message board, when the future looks so very bright....

Me, I'm not going doom and gloom unless Heller comes out and SCOTUS completely screws us. I don't expect that to happen, so I remain quite optimistic about the future of our firearm rights in this state.

dsinope
04-18-2008, 3:58 PM
Thing of it is, even if we lose CCW in this state, I believe we'll get it back fairly quickly.

The trump card is going to be Heller. Heller ought to open a gate for us where, after many excursions into court, we turn California into an open carry state. Once that happens, we pull an Ohio and start doing open carry marches. Shall-issue CCW is just a few legislative sessions away after that.


In a Powerpoint presentation on an R&D project schedule, that's the slide that says "Then a miracle occurs..."

Mute
04-18-2008, 4:09 PM
What I want is for our elected officials and public servants to stop abusing the powers we've delegated to them. If I have to lose a CCW (yes, even my own), then I am willing. You can also get off your high horse about training with Jeff Cooper and teaching people how to shoot. I've done those things as well and so have a whole lot of other people. I'm betting many on this forum. That doesn't make me some kind of 2nd Amendment champion. Just someone who does care about this particular issue.

It's telling that you had to pull San Francisco (the great bastion of free thinking) to support your unproven position about the anti-gun nature of this state. The more likely truth is most people don't even think about gun-rights one way or the other and very likely wouldn't care either.

If you want to keep your CCW and our corrupt officials keep drinking your own Kool-aid.

Glock22Fan
04-18-2008, 4:32 PM
In a Powerpoint presentation on an R&D project schedule, that's the slide that says "Then a miracle occurs..."


I've said it before in this thread:

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. If we take you seriously, we might as well all drink the kool-aid.

And I don't give a monkey's who you shot with when you were ten.

bulgron
04-18-2008, 4:45 PM
In a Powerpoint presentation on an R&D project schedule, that's the slide that says "Then a miracle occurs..."

With the way you seem to view the world, and all the road blocks that you seem to focus on, it must be a miracle that you manage to get out of bed in the morning.

dsinope
04-18-2008, 4:46 PM
What I want is for our elected officials and public servants to stop abusing the powers we've delegated to them. If I have to lose a CCW (yes, even my own), then I am willing. You can also get off your high horse about training with Jeff Cooper and teaching people how to shoot. I've done those things as well and so have a whole lot of other people. I'm betting many on this forum. That doesn't make me some kind of 2nd Amendment champion. Just someone who does care about this particular issue.

I was asked what I'd done to support the issue. That's what I do. Was I supposed to keep it a secret? I think it's great other people do the same thing, I think that's the best way to support shooting in CA in all it's forms, from hunting to CCW.


It's telling that you had to pull San Francisco (the great bastion of free thinking) to support your unproven position about the anti-gun nature of this state. The more likely truth is most people don't even think about gun-rights one way or the other and very likely wouldn't care either.

If you want to keep your CCW and our corrupt officials keep drinking your own Kool-aid.

The SF vote is the most recent, best example we have. Yes, it was in SF, but it was also an extreme proposal - to ban handguns entirely, and greatly restrict transfers. Since the court smacked it down we won't have another local example.

But for heaven's sake, this is a blue state. This is the state of Willie Brown and Governor (now Attorney General) Moonbeam, where Boxer and Feinstein are re-elected with overwhelming numbers. We have a nominally Republican governor only because Gray Davis was the worst politician since James Buchanan.

If the majority of CA voters is pro CCW, the answer is simple. Write a shall-issue initiative. Tell you what. I'll put up $100 for polling to see if it has a snowball's chance of passing. If it does, I'll put up $1k toward gathering signatures.

rynando
04-18-2008, 4:46 PM
Personally, I'm in Orange County. I have my CCW (also my NRA instructor's card, coming up 25 years, my NRA life membership, my SWPL trophies and the target I shot in '84 at Prado's opening day.) I would miss my CCW.

I think this attitude is common from those in OC where it is (or perhaps was) easy to obtain a CCW. I'm glad you like your CCW but those of us in less fortunate counties are not going to "tone it down" just so you can keep something that the rest of us have no chance of obtaining.

pnkssbtz
04-18-2008, 4:49 PM
Who is dsinope and why is his first post a criticism of Bill Jack?

And each of his subsequent posts includes fear mongering and F.U.D. about how TBJ will have adverse effects and that "If a CLEO takes him seriously, all he has to do is stop issuing altogether." (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1144286&postcount=111) Thusly by F.U.D. implying that TBJ's actions will revoke everyone's ability to CCW.

Further, the fact that some random individual would make their first post in this thread and immediately within a few posts start referencing obscure court cases (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1144656&postcount=128) is evidence to me that said individual is not your average firearm enthusiast. I'd hazard a guess that unless you were an attorney familiar in firearm rights, a very very well informed citizen, or a LEO, would hardly be informed or even knowledgeable of the existence about the referenced case.

I'm sorry, but the influx of random low post count individuals who's first posts originate in this thread containing content that is F.U.D. lend me to believe that these individuals have some sort of vested interest in the spreading of disinformation or at the very least hinder TBJ in some fashion.

dsinope
04-18-2008, 4:54 PM
With the way you seem to view the world, and all the road blocks that you seem to focus on, it must be a miracle that you manage to get out of bed in the morning.

Actually, my job is getting around roadblocks. I'm good at it. My group does the impossible almost daily.

To get around them, you have to recognize that they exist. Otherwise you keep smashing into them and being surprised.

I think the significant majority of California voters are against freely issued CCWs. I'm the only one in this conversation that thinks so, and that's fine. But there are some pretty strong indications that I'm right, like who our elected representatives are. And IF I'm right, TBJ's way of doing things is going to do our cause much more harm than good in the long term.

dsinope
04-18-2008, 5:04 PM
Who is dsinope and why is his first post a criticism of Bill Jack?

And each of his subsequent posts includes fear mongering and F.U.D. about how TBJ will have adverse effects and that "If a CLEO takes him seriously, all he has to do is stop issuing altogether." (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1144286&postcount=111) Thusly by F.U.D. implying that TBJ's actions will revoke everyone's ability to CCW.

Further, the fact that some random individual would make their first post in this thread and immediately within a few posts start referencing obscure court cases (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1144656&postcount=128) is evidence to me that said individual is not your average firearm enthusiast. I'd hazard a guess that unless you were an attorney familiar in firearm rights, a very very well informed citizen, or a LEO, would hardly be informed or even knowledgeable of the existence about the referenced case.

I'm sorry, but the influx of random low post count individuals who's first posts originate in this thread containing content that is F.U.D. lend me to believe that these individuals have some sort of vested interest in the spreading of disinformation or at the very least hinder TBJ in some fashion.

I have a vested interest. I think TBJ is hurting the cause.

I am not spreading information at all, let alone disinformation. I'm not putting forward any facts that unknown to anyone here. I'm offering my view - through other than rose colored glasses - of how the pieces here interact.

I have no idea what FUD is. Is it related to the Zumbo fight, when non-hunters were calling hunters "Fudds?"

I am a very well informed citizen. I've been involved with this cause for a very long time. I worked against Prop 15 back before the earth cooled. I'm not a lawyer, and I take it as a personal insult that you would suggest I am.

I came to this forum, and to this thread, because a friend of mine emailed me a link to it. He said "you won't believe what this crackpot is doing."

bulgron
04-18-2008, 5:08 PM
Actually, my job is getting around roadblocks. I'm good at it. My group does the impossible almost daily.

To get around them, you have to recognize that they exist. Otherwise you keep smashing into them and being surprised.

I think the significant majority of California voters are against freely issued CCWs. I'm the only one in this conversation that thinks so, and that's fine. But there are some pretty strong indications that I'm right, like who our elected representatives are. And IF I'm right, TBJ's way of doing things is going to do our cause much more harm than good in the long term.

Your analysis only matters if Heller doesn't result in an opinion where the 2A if found to be an individual right, or is otherwise weakened to the point where any regulation is acceptable.

Unless that happens, Heller is going to return some teeth back to the 2A.

If the 2A regains teeth (and I expect it will), then the opinion of the majority of Californians won't mean squat. The United States of America is not a Democracy in which the most popular opinion wins. Rather, we are a Constitutional Republic in which constitutional protections win, regardless of the momentary whims of the majority.

That said, I don't for a moment believe that the majority of Californians have an opinion one way or another about our CCW laws. Most don't even know these laws exist, much less have an opinion about them. What I have found, however, is that most of the time when I explain the CCW situation in this state, most people think it's a crock of horse dung (which it is). It's funny how fast people start talking about what the law "should be" and how their proposed solutions all look a lot like shall-issue CCW.

In fact, I've only ever met one person who I couldn't sway, and he is an avowed socialist who is deeply impressed with the direction that the UK is going in.

The roadblocks that you "see" are preventing you from noticing the bulldozers that are on the way. I can easily think of a half dozen ways that Heller could result in shall-issue CCW in this state, and all I am is a common citizen. Just think of what the Gura-type people in this state are thinking about.

Things are about to change radically in California where our firearm laws are concerned. The thing of it is, I very much doubt that outside of a few (percentage wise) hardened anti-gun types, very few people in this state are going to see it as a bad thing.

pnkssbtz
04-18-2008, 5:30 PM
I have a vested interest. I think TBJ is hurting the cause.

I am not spreading information at all, let alone disinformation. I'm not putting forward any facts that unknown to anyone here. I'm offering my view - through other than rose colored glasses - of how the pieces here interact.

I have no idea what FUD is. Is it related to the Zumbo fight, when non-hunters were calling hunters "Fudds?"
F.U.D. stands for "Fear Uncertainty Doubt".

Which is exactly what you are doing when you make statements such as: "If a CLEO takes him seriously, all he has to do is stop issuing altogether."

Which is directly contradictory to the ruling in Salute vs. Pitchess (http://www.equalccw.com/salute.html).

While a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion. We regard the case at bench as involving a refusal of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given him by the statute. Section 12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.


So, given that your statement ("If a CLEO takes him seriously, all he has to do is stop issuing altogether") is incorrect, as per the ruling in Salute vs. Pitchess you are, in fact, spreading information that is not true (ergo disinformation), or in other instances basing your interpretations of the rulings as fact. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1147620&postcount=176)

Salutes vs Pitchess requires that applications be considered, not that they be issued.

Again, I will cite Salute vs. Pitches: (http://www.equalccw.com/salute.html)
Section 12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.

The petition before us alleges that petitioners are of good moral character and are residents of Los Angeles County. It is admitted that no inquiry into the existence of good cause has ever been made in connection with the application of these petitioners, or of any other applicant outside the limited group of public officials. It is the duty of the sheriff to make such an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application under section 12050.By your statement, you are implying under your interpretation of the ruling, that a LEO only need consider the application and can deny it. However the judge specifically stated that the CLEO must consider only 3 aspects (the applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county).

The discretion then comes that the CLEO must decided if the applicants 3 aspects meet his criteria. That is the part in which the CLEO is to individually consider the application, instead of refusing them without first actually evaluating the 3 limits.

A distinction which is quite different than the implications you are asserting.


I am a very well informed citizen. I've been involved with this cause for a very long time. I worked against Prop 15 back before the earth cooled. I'm not a lawyer, and I take it as a personal insult that you would suggest I am.

I came to this forum, and to this thread, because a friend of mine emailed me a link to it. He said "you won't believe what this crackpot is doing."If you take it as a personal insult that I would suggest you were an attorney, then you are either intentionally misrepresenting, or misunderstood what I said. Let me quote myself for you since you seemed to missed some of it:

I'd hazard a guess that unless you were an attorney familiar in firearm rights, a very very well informed citizen, or a LEO, would hardly be informed or even knowledgeable of the existence about the referenced case.

But as to your fight in prop15, etc. It still doesn't identify you. It is merely an anonymous claim by an anonymous person. Whereas Billy Jack is a definite person who has done definite action. Another distinction.


Lastly, I'm not saying "go away" or any such nonsense, however you must understand how skeptical people will be towards you given the F.U.D., low post count, and containment specifically to a single thread.

383green
04-18-2008, 6:25 PM
Lastly, I'm saying "go away" or any such nonsense

Did you intend to write "Lastly, I'm not saying..."?

pnkssbtz
04-18-2008, 6:30 PM
Did you intend to write "Lastly, I'm not saying..."?

Yes, I'm sorry for missing that. Thanks for pointing it out!

CCWFacts
04-18-2008, 9:15 PM
I think I found a picture of this mysterious "DSinope", here in his recent visit to Turkey:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Waterhouse-Diogenes.jpg/200px-Waterhouse-Diogenes.jpg

He's the one ignoring the Greek maidens who are checking him out.

pnkssbtz
04-18-2008, 9:24 PM
Well, the arguments are certainly cynical...

dsinope
04-18-2008, 9:48 PM
I think I found a picture of this mysterious "DSinope", here in his recent visit to Turkey:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Waterhouse-Diogenes.jpg/200px-Waterhouse-Diogenes.jpg

He's the one ignoring the Greek maidens who are checking him out.

Yes, that's me.

Now get out of my sun.

s2000news
04-18-2008, 10:01 PM
There's one in preparation. At this time, I cannot tell you when (these things take unpredictable amounts of time.)

If you have one for Santa Clara County, I too would love to attend. PM me info.

s2000news
04-18-2008, 10:07 PM
I was asked what I'd done to support the issue. That's what I do. Was I supposed to keep it a secret? I think it's great other people do the same thing, I think that's the best way to support shooting in CA in all it's forms, from hunting to CCW.

The SF vote is the most recent, best example we have. Yes, it was in SF, but it was also an extreme proposal - to ban handguns entirely, and greatly restrict transfers. Since the court smacked it down we won't have another local example.

But for heaven's sake, this is a blue state. This is the state of Willie Brown and Governor (now Attorney General) Moonbeam, where Boxer and Feinstein are re-elected with overwhelming numbers. We have a nominally Republican governor only because Gray Davis was the worst politician since James Buchanan.

If the majority of CA voters is pro CCW, the answer is simple. Write a shall-issue initiative. Tell you what. I'll put up $100 for polling to see if it has a snowball's chance of passing. If it does, I'll put up $1k toward gathering signatures.

I'm in on that.

dsinope
04-18-2008, 11:26 PM
Your analysis only matters if Heller doesn't result in an opinion where the 2A if found to be an individual right, or is otherwise weakened to the point where any regulation is acceptable.

Unless that happens, Heller is going to return some teeth back to the 2A.

If the 2A regains teeth (and I expect it will), then the opinion of the majority of Californians won't mean squat. The United States of America is not a Democracy in which the most popular opinion wins. Rather, we are a Constitutional Republic in which constitutional protections win, regardless of the momentary whims of the majority.

That said, I don't for a moment believe that the majority of Californians have an opinion one way or another about our CCW laws. Most don't even know these laws exist, much less have an opinion about them. What I have found, however, is that most of the time when I explain the CCW situation in this state, most people think it's a crock of horse dung (which it is). It's funny how fast people start talking about what the law "should be" and how their proposed solutions all look a lot like shall-issue CCW.

In fact, I've only ever met one person who I couldn't sway, and he is an avowed socialist who is deeply impressed with the direction that the UK is going in.

The roadblocks that you "see" are preventing you from noticing the bulldozers that are on the way. I can easily think of a half dozen ways that Heller could result in shall-issue CCW in this state, and all I am is a common citizen. Just think of what the Gura-type people in this state are thinking about.

Things are about to change radically in California where our firearm laws are concerned. The thing of it is, I very much doubt that outside of a few (percentage wise) hardened anti-gun types, very few people in this state are going to see it as a bad thing.

I agree that Heller could throw everything into play. I think (but it's only my guess) that it will be a 5/4 decision with Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia in the majority, affirming an individual right but allowing significant restrictions. In other words, in most places I don't think much will change.

But it appears that we've found the root of our disagreement. You think most people in CA, when informed about CCWs, will come to support a free-issue position (Free-issue is a term I just made up, to describe what's common practice in the most freely issuing counties right now).

In the rural parts of CA I think that's right. But the voters are concentrated on the coast and in the south, in liberal counties. The population of CA is about 36 million. LA County alone is 10 million. I don't think a city that elects Mayor Villaragosa has a population that is convinceable. Combined with the other, non issue, liberal counties in the south and around the bay (Imperial, San Diego, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Monterey, Alameda, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, Sacramento, Contra Costa, Marin, San Benito San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, Sonoma, San Joaquin) it's 18.5 million - half the population of the state. Most of those populations aren't convinceable - certainly you won't argue that San Francisco or Santa Cruz are.

One of us is right. If you're right, TBJ's efforts aren't harmful, but they aren't needed. Heller and the power of the voters will bring us Shall Issue anyway. As satisfying as dropping documents on someone's desk is, the key would be educating voters.

If I'M right, TBJ is doing harm. By raising the issue of CCW among hostile populations, we're rallying previously apathetic voters against us. The solution - educating voters at a lower level. Don't just go at them about CCWs, teach them to shoot. Teach them about lower crime rates when you have guns in homes. Once you get them to the point where they're electing legislators who don't automatically vote yes on every hair-brained gun control proposal that comes up, THEN they might support free-issue. It's a MUCH longer, much harder task. It takes a couple of generations.

Some of you have responded that you are willing to give up my ccw, so that people with "connections" lose theirs. To those people - I'm glad to know where you stand.

dsinope
04-18-2008, 11:30 PM
I'm in on that.

An old friend of mine is a pretty well experienced California pollster. She works exclusively for Democrats (we don't agree on much, politically) I'll ask her for a ballpark figure for how much it would cost to do a telephone poll. If we wait few months we might be able to piggyback it on someone else's poll, and split the cost. I'm guessing in the $10k range but I could be way off.

Anyone else willing to put their money where their mouth is?

CCWFacts
04-18-2008, 11:56 PM
I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in the liberal counties in this state would vote "no" on a CCW reform referendum and would not want their reps to pass CCW reform. However, if you could somehow do enough education, and explain the situation in other states, how it would help protect women, etc, that would change. But that level of education isn't happening. I take new shooters out all the time; I was just a couple of hours ago talking with someone from an anti-gun foreign culture. She was very anti-gun but recently an incident occurred which turned out to be fine, but during the incident she realized that if it had gone badly, there would have been absolutely nothing she could have done. She started looking up Tasers. I told her, no, you want a gun, not a Taser. Now she understands and went from being anti-gun to wanting a gun. But this type of education isn't happening enough.

That said, laws don't represent the will of the majority. If our laws were passed by referendum, we would have quite different laws from what we currently have. Our laws represent what the legislature votes for, and that's a complex product of votes, lobbying, district lines, money, personality, etc. And in that complex intersection of factors (which I don't claim to understand btw) there are ways that small groups can make things go one way or another.

hoffmang
04-19-2008, 12:46 AM
I agree that Heller could throw everything into play. I think (but it's only my guess) that it will be a 5/4 decision with Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia in the majority, affirming an individual right but allowing significant restrictions. In other words, in most places I don't think much will change.

I think you're underestimating the scope and seriousness of the likely opinion by a small amount.


One of us is right. If you're right, TBJ's efforts aren't harmful, but they aren't needed. Heller and the power of the voters will bring us Shall Issue anyway. As satisfying as dropping documents on someone's desk is, the key would be educating voters.


TBJ's efforts make actually implementing future Heller impact MUCH easier. As it is becoming clear that under 9th Circuit case law a CLEO must issue and must issue on fair terms when there is good cause, his work has been priceless. The next item that we can import - using the previous good precedent - is that either low barrier to entry good cause statements are good enough when there is a fundamental right to arms, or the CCW statute is unconstitutional. Mark my words that the 9th will run to rule that "because I need one for self defense" is good cause in California...

-Gene

Mute
04-19-2008, 8:48 AM
You talk as if educating the general public about firearms and taking corrupt public officials to court are either or propositions. No one here, including TBJ is suggesting that we should do the latter without the former, but you'd like to pigeonhole everyone into that kind of a position.

And no we don't want to "give up" your CCW to make those with connections lose theirs. I personally don't care if those with connections keep or lose their CCWs. What I do care about is that CLEOs stop using CCW issuing power as a source of personal gain. I could just as easily pay into Baca's campaign funds and secure a CCW for myself, but I refuse to support and contribute to that kind of corruption, just on general principal even if it means I won't be getting a CCW anytime soon.

dsinope
04-19-2008, 10:50 AM
I could just as easily pay into Baca's campaign funds and secure a CCW for myself, but I refuse to support and contribute to that kind of corruption, just on general principal even if it means I won't be getting a CCW anytime soon.

If you can, I'd suggest that you do. Not just to get the CCW for yourself, but as evidence against him.

dsinope
04-19-2008, 10:59 AM
Mark my words that the 9th will run to rule that "because I need one for self defense" is good cause in California...

-Gene

Gene? The 9th Circus? The most liberal, most reversed appeals court in America?

You're kidding. Please tell me you're kidding. If you get Alex Kozinski you have a shot, otherwise you're completely screwed.

What's Wrong with the Ninth Circuit? (http://volokh.com/posts/1173961703.shtml)


Advocates of splitting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit often point to the court's high reversal rate by the Supreme Court. An editorial in Monday's WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117366011427833729-search.html?KEYWORDS=ninth+circuit&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month), for instance, noted that the Ninth is 0-8 so far this Supreme Court term. Tallying the Justices' votes in cases reviewing Ninth Circuit decisions, the justices have gone against the Ninth 67-5.

Accepting that the Ninth Circuit appears to be out of step with the Supreme Court, the interesting question for researchers is why? Some think it is a partial consequence of the court being too big. With so many judges, and without full court en bancs, the argument goes, the Ninth is less able to maintain a coherent jurisprudence. Others argue it's just a question of ideology, and that the Ninth Circuit has more than its share of independent-minded judicial ideologues. Which, if either, of these is true? And would splitting the Ninth do anything about it?

Via Sara Benesh on the Empirical Legal Studies blog (http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2007/03/splitting_the_n.html) comes a study by Kevin Scott of the Congressional Research Service (http://www.kevinmscott.com/ScottMPSA2004.pdf) that suggests both size and ideology play a role in the Ninth's reversal rate.

This paper sorts out the cause of the Ninth Circuit’s reversal rate by looking at the Court’s relationship with the Supreme Court over the past twenty years. By looking at merits reversals, including unanimous reversals, and attempting a broader assessment of the Ninth Circuit’s status vis-à-vis the other circuits and the Supreme Court, I ultimately argue that both size (though indirectly) and ideological orientation influence the Ninth Circuit’s high reversal rate. These findings have broad implications for how we model the behavior of court of appeals judges and their relationship with the Supreme Court.

Scott's ultimate conclusion, however, is that a proposed split "would likely not have the effect of reducing the frequency with which the two courts would be reversed by the Supreme Court. "If that is the case, the case for splitting the Ninth will have to be made on other grounds.

I remain somewhat inclined to favor splitting the Ninth on size grounds alone. As an outsider, the size of the Court seems particularly unwieldy, and I have knee-jerk reaction against less-then-full-court en banc panels. One problem with division proposals is that it is difficult (if not impossible) to address the size issue without splitting up California into more than one circuit. In any event, for those interested in this issue, Scott's paper provides some interesting food for thought.

Librarian
04-19-2008, 12:01 PM
But it appears that we've found the root of our disagreement. You think most people in CA, when informed about CCWs, will come to support a free-issue position (Free-issue is a term I just made up, to describe what's common practice in the most freely issuing counties right now).

In the rural parts of CA I think that's right. But the voters are concentrated on the coast and in the south, in liberal counties. The population of CA is about 36 million. LA County alone is 10 million. I don't think a city that elects Mayor Villaragosa has a population that is convinceable. Combined with the other, non issue, liberal counties in the south and around the bay (Imperial, San Diego, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Monterey, Alameda, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, Sacramento, Contra Costa, Marin, San Benito San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, Sonoma, San Joaquin) it's 18.5 million - half the population of the state. Most of those populations aren't convinceable - certainly you won't argue that San Francisco or Santa Cruz are.

One of us is right. If you're right, TBJ's efforts aren't harmful, but they aren't needed. Heller and the power of the voters will bring us Shall Issue anyway. As satisfying as dropping documents on someone's desk is, the key would be educating voters.

If I'M right, TBJ is doing harm. By raising the issue of CCW among hostile populations, we're rallying previously apathetic voters against us. The solution - educating voters at a lower level. Don't just go at them about CCWs, teach them to shoot. Teach them about lower crime rates when you have guns in homes. Once you get them to the point where they're electing legislators who don't automatically vote yes on every hair-brained gun control proposal that comes up, THEN they might support free-issue. It's a MUCH longer, much harder task. It takes a couple of generations.

I tend to agree with your evaluation of 'convinceability', but I disagree that TBJ is doing any harm.

Much of the same disinterest in CCW (which I think is more prominent than opposition for most) will cause most to never hear about the court cases, no matter what the result.

I believe that only a few (thousands?) people actively oppose CCW and guns in general, but that they have managed to create a reaction in many people that "guns = dangerous". It isn't a considered position, it's a conditioned response to just the word or a picture. Changing that conditioning could go much faster if the media were at least neutral, but we know they're not.

PTL
04-19-2008, 3:12 PM
I regret we do not have more attorneys or PI's on this site. Once the Complaint is served, Billy Jack becomes irrelevant to the legal proceedings. If any of the naysayers take the time to read the Motions you will see that Bruce Praet, Santa Maria contract Attorney and LEXIPOL founder attempted to make an issue of the City Council being served personally rather than via substitute service on the City Attorney or City Clerk. Personal service is permitted in all legal matters. The Judge would not even address this issue when brought up in the Motion to Dismiss.

I can dress in drag when serving a Complaint and it would be legal and not an issue for the court to address. TBJ investigations take place outside the courtroom and are for the most part are complete when the case is filed. Some folks insist on dwelling on the messenger and how he is clothed. It is important that you all take a breath and appreciate and understand that each person was addressed as 'Sir' or Ma'am and treated with respect and dignity when they were served. My manner of dress was of no interest to a Federal Judge so I am having a difficult time understanding why some posters are unable to find something more meaningful to dwell on.

As previously posted you are all invited to the South Bay in a few weeks to watch service of a Federal Complaint. I want to put some faces to your sorry personas. Is it possible that I am doing something that you do not have the stones to do? If you can not fill my Mocassins do not complain that I wear them.

I will ask a question similar to what Paladin has asked: "What have you done today to further fair issuance of CCWS?" (Sound of Crickets)

I have a very challenging job travelling all over California obtaining CCW files and meeting CLEOS and their command staff. They know who I am and what to expect. I am accessible and do not hide behind a computer attacking others methods of engaging the CCW problem.

Now that I have said my piece I am sure some of the more challenged members can devote several pages further attacking my methods and manner of dress.

Wonder how many of you I will see in the South Bay? (More sounds of Crickets)

Billy Jack


Mr. Jack for you to say that nobody is making efforts in the name of increasing the issuance of CCWs is just ludicrous.

Nobody is attacking your legitimate methods. But what caused this thread to go to heck was your opening post. Calling out CLEO in a public forum. Basically threatening them. This is not the way to drive more CCWs into the hands of average folks. It is a disservice to all that are striving for it and even a step back IMHO. If you think CLEOs are shaking in their boots because of your Internet post. Then you are more myopic than I gave you credit for.

CCWFacts
04-19-2008, 4:46 PM
I could just as easily pay into Baca's campaign funds and secure a CCW for myself, but I refuse to support and contribute to that kind of corruption, just on general principal even if it means I won't be getting a CCW anytime soon.

I really don't think that something as small as a $1,000 check to Friends of Sheriff Baca would result in a CCW. Otherwise the whole thing wouldn't even matter. $1,000 is not very much money for a lot of people in LA. If someone can contradict me on that, and has firm knowledge that CCWs are that cheap, let me know, but I think the price is much higher. It involves things like access to celebrity parties and ability to throw fund-raisers, or to bring in blocks of voters.

rynando
04-19-2008, 4:49 PM
Nobody is attacking your legitimate methods. But what caused this thread to go to heck was your opening post. Calling out CLEO in a public forum. Basically threatening them. This is not the way to drive more CCWs into the hands of average folks. It is a disservice to all that are striving for it and even a step back IMHO.

How's asking CLEOs nicely to start issuing CCWs to "average folks" working out? In many places it's impossible to get a CCW no matter how nicely the applicant asks. Legal threats and action are the only options CLEOs have left us with.

CCWFacts
04-19-2008, 5:15 PM
How's asking CLEOs nicely to start issuing CCWs to "average folks" working out? In many places it's impossible to get a CCW no matter how nicely the applicant asks. Legal threats and action are the only options CLEOs have left us with.

That's right. Most of the coastal urban sheriffs / CoPs in this state will not listen to anything, do not lose any sleep over the deaths their policies are causing, and will only change their way by being forced to. That means lawsuits, and replacing them in the elections.

Mute
04-19-2008, 5:20 PM
I really don't think that something as small as a $1,000 check to Friends of Sheriff Baca would result in a CCW. Otherwise the whole thing wouldn't even matter. $1,000 is not very much money for a lot of people in LA. If someone can contradict me on that, and has firm knowledge that CCWs are that cheap, let me know, but I think the price is much higher. It involves things like access to celebrity parties and ability to throw fund-raisers, or to bring in blocks of voters.

I'm certainly not thinking something as simple as $1,000. I'd guess that it's more like at least mid five figures and some kind of contribution to his power-base. However, we're missing the point, to discuss monetary amounts or the type of contributions. The point is, his authority can be bought.

CCWFacts
04-19-2008, 5:44 PM
I'm certainly not thinking something as simple as $1,000. I'd guess that it's more like at least mid five figures and some kind of contribution to his power-base. However, we're missing the point, to discuss monetary amounts or the type of contributions. The point is, his authority can be bought.

Direct write-a-check type contributions are capped at $1,000, so it always would take more than just having money to get a CCW from Baca. If someone can get 100 of his friends together for a $1,000-per-person fund raiser, than that's one way to "make a difference". The point is, a simple write-a-check contribution (by itself) to Baca won't do any good, I would assume. It takes more than that small amount of money to have "good cause".

Glock22Fan
04-19-2008, 5:56 PM
If you think CLEOs are shaking in their boots because of your Internet post. Then you are more myopic than I gave you credit for.

If you had seen some of the internal (confidential) memos that we have been sent (by friendly sources), you would know that many CLEO's are indeed shaking in their boots.

dsinope
04-19-2008, 6:12 PM
How's asking CLEOs nicely to start issuing CCWs to "average folks" working out? In many places it's impossible to get a CCW no matter how nicely the applicant asks. Legal threats and action are the only options CLEOs have left us with.

The state law the CLEO's are working under doesn't tell them to issue to "average folks." It tells them to issue to folks with "good cause." We can argue about how good a cause needs to be in order to be good enough, but the clause is there.

No judge is going to rule that "person with good cause" shall be defined as any person who wants a CCW. If the legislature had intended that to be the case, they would have left that section of the law out. Or they would remove it now. Which would make CA a Shall Issue state. And that will happen when Hell reaches absolute zero.

zok
04-19-2008, 6:25 PM
I know of one LEA that has revoked all CCW's in his City and started fresh, just because of what TBJ has done to Santa Maria. And there is only one the City and that is a co-worker of the plaintiff. I think that says a lot.

hoffmang
04-19-2008, 6:26 PM
dsinope,

It's clear to me that you don't understand much about the 14th amendment or the changing makeup of the 9th Circuit.

-Gene

dsinope
04-19-2008, 6:33 PM
I know of one LEA that has revoked all CCW's in his City and started fresh, just because of what TBJ has done to Santa Maria. And there is only one the City and that is a co-worker of the plaintiff. I think that says a lot.

Riverside is looking bad, too. A shooting friend of mine just got his pulled after 14 years with no problems.

dsinope
04-19-2008, 6:47 PM
dsinope,

It's clear to me that you don't understand much about the 14th amendment or the changing makeup of the 9th Circuit.

-Gene

And with that the debate has fallen to "I'm rubber, you're glue."

How about citing me the last time the 9th has ruled against a gun control law? Silveira v. Lockyer (no individual right to own a gun)? U.S. v. Ogles (a gun dealer can't sell outside his home state)? Mack v. U.S. (Upheld Federalization of Sheriffs departments for Brady background checks)?

The decision in Salute ordered the Sheriff to use his discretion. Gates ordered them not to discriminate. They both ordered Sheriffs to follow the STATE law. Yes, I understand they did so under the 14th. But here's a news flash - the 14th ammendment doesn't say a word about guns.

Before you assert that the 9th is chomping at the bit to order shall issue, how about putting forward SOME evidence that 1) they can and 2) they want to?

Glock22Fan
04-19-2008, 6:49 PM
I know of one LEA that has revoked all CCW's in his City and started fresh, just because of what TBJ has done to Santa Maria. And there is only one the City and that is a co-worker of the plaintiff. I think that says a lot.

This could be good or bad. If he understands what is happening, it is good, as people with a Good Cause should be able to (re)apply successfully and the chief's cronies will have to manage by dialling 911. If it is bad, and he ends up with fewer CCW's out, that could, longer term, be good as well. Time will tell.

At least, despite FUD to the contrary, Billy Jack is being taken seriously.

zok
04-19-2008, 6:56 PM
I meant this to be a very good thing. Sorry for making it unclear.

Paladin
04-19-2008, 7:05 PM
I've only skimmed over this thread, but the one thing I want to say is that it reminded of why I'm not getting into debates re Heller before the opinion is published -- it is just a waste of time. I can wait 2 months and use any time I would have spent on speculation and/or debate on more productive pursuits.

JM2C

Outta here 'til next weekend. Be safe and try to do something to promote our cause next week.

:cheers2:

hoffmang
04-20-2008, 12:01 PM
How about citing me the last time the 9th has ruled against a gun control law? Silveira v. Lockyer (no individual right to own a gun)? U.S. v. Ogles (a gun dealer can't sell outside his home state)? Mack v. U.S. (Upheld Federalization of Sheriffs departments for Brady background checks)?

I think you should look at the current breakdown of the court's composition and think about what has happened since 2000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals#Current_composition _of_the_court


The decision in Salute ordered the Sheriff to use his discretion. Gates ordered them not to discriminate. They both ordered Sheriffs to follow the STATE law. Yes, I understand they did so under the 14th. But here's a news flash - the 14th ammendment doesn't say a word about guns.

Before you assert that the 9th is chomping at the bit to order shall issue, how about putting forward SOME evidence that 1) they can and 2) they want to?
You are showing that you don't understand the 14th amendment. To date Salute and Guillory (Hrm... wonder who he is?) were a due process case and then an equal protection case. However, Hickman was the law of the 9th Circuit which stands in apposite to Parker. When Heller becomes binding on the 9th Circuit, we're all going to have a due process right to not be denied a permit to exercise a fundamental right. The cases will parallel parade permit cases.

So my point stands that you don't understand how the 14th Amendment works.

-Gene

Fjold
04-20-2008, 1:57 PM
I've only skimmed over this thread, but the one thing I want to say is that it reminded of why I'm not getting into debates re Heller before the opinion is published -- it is just a waste of time. I can wait 2 months and use any time I would have spent on speculation and/or debate on more productive pursuits.

JM2C

Outta here 'til next weekend. Be safe and try to do something to promote our cause next week.

:cheers2:



Great post!

:hurray::hurray::hurray:

Glock22Fan
04-20-2008, 2:25 PM
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the 14th ammendment doesn't say a word about guns.

I don't see a lot there about sexual eqality, gays, elderly, disabled or even, for that matter, slaves either (and I did read the whole thing, not just the extract above). I guess guns go along with everything else.

artherd
04-20-2008, 7:02 PM
All a cunning CLEO would have to do is come up with such a high standard, that no one qualifies.


That will not pass further review, in large part because of Guilroy et all.


Guys, a bully understands only one thing, swift direct and violent opposition.

How many bullies have you put into the hospital?

Billy Jack
04-20-2008, 8:27 PM
The Case Number for McCloud v Santa Maria, Chief Danny Macagni et al is CV 07-05895 SVW (JCX).

For those that want to fully understand the case and the issues it is very good reading. Of special interest is the Court's written decision in denying the Defense Motion for Summary Judgement. Seems the Court kept referencing Guillory v Gates as to why it would not dismiss the case and countering the Defense fantasy that the Plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of proof.

Now I know some of you are not going to bother to read the case because it is more amusing to criticize my manner of dress than to educate yourself. Let's not let the real meaning of these Federal suits get in the way. As Glock22Fan and others have already pointed out, departments around Santa Maria have taken a good look at their CCW Policies since Santa Maria was sued and many have changed them to conform to statute and case law. Gee, I wonder if it was my outfit or the LAW that caused them to re-evaluate their policies?

Yes, my manner of dress is rather unique, perhaps eccentric. Yes I do speak in the third person. Yes I was a Thespian, that is with a 'T' in my youth. I want to make an impression on the bad CLEOS and public officials and I can not think of a better way than paying homage to Tom Laughlin's 1970's anti hero.

I am not aware of any department changing to 'no issue' as a result of any legal action by anyone. Saying that stopping a department from violating the Constitutional in one manner will cause them to violate it in another way makes no sense whatsoever. Does anyone really think that a CLEO, after being handed his head in a basket ala Marie Antoinette (see 'A Tale of Two Cities') will actually devise another way by which they can be sued? I fail to see the logic in that. If that be the case, TBJ stands ready to take them back into Federal court to rectify the situation. Some of you may not be aware that a Federal Judge can be requested to retain jurisdiction over a case to insure compliance. CLEOS can be stupid but even the ones we are suing are not that stupid.

Someone asked if we are headed Silicon Valley way. Indeed I am. Seems there is a 'No Issue' department up that way and I simply can not allow that on my watch.

When I go 10-98 for the last time I will do so knowing I have accomplished something and left a mark on California law enforcement in the issuance of CCWS. I think that is more important than someone uninformed, about 12050PC, and case law posting misinformation about something which they have so very little knowledge.

Simply having a CCW does not suddenly make one an expert on department's policies across the state any more than possessing a Driver License makes one an expert on driver safety. Getting your friends to apply for a CCW hardly gives one credentials to say "Billy Jack bad, sky is falling, CCWS will be impossible to obtain in the future. CLEOS will go 'No Issue' in the future."

I want to encourage the uninformed naysayers to keep posting. We are receiving inquiries from all over the state as a result of the ongoing 'discussion'.

Billy Jack


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

Stormfeather
04-20-2008, 8:45 PM
An old friend of mine is a pretty well experienced California pollster. She works exclusively for Democrats (we don't agree on much, politically) I'll ask her for a ballpark figure for how much it would cost to do a telephone poll. If we wait few months we might be able to piggyback it on someone else's poll, and split the cost. I'm guessing in the $10k range but I could be way off.

Anyone else willing to put their money where their mouth is?

Count me in for this. Im a full believer in putting my money where my mouth is. As for ccw's, I fully agree TBJ has a unique and unorthodox style, but sometimes that is exactly what is needed. Now if we could just lay off of the Native American inferences, I will be a happy camper. Yes I know who Bill Jack was. Yes I saw the movies. Yes, im old enough to remember.

Scarecrow Repair
04-20-2008, 8:56 PM
When I go 10-98 for the last time I will do so knowing I have accomplished something and left a mark on California law enforcement in the issuance of CCWS. I think that is more important than someone uninformed, about 12050PC, and case law posting misinformation about something which they have so very little knowledge.

Some of us admit to not knowing a lot (that would be Scarecrow Repair :-) -- but I am old enough to have learned to tell BullPucky from The Real Thing. I have also lived long enough to not mind when young whippersnappers half my age know more than I do, and when they tell me that Billy Jack is The Real Thing, I listen. When fakesters come along and spend more time deriding someone's fashion sense and ignoring their legal sense, it shouldn't take an old fogey's nose to smell the difference.

Troutman
04-20-2008, 9:11 PM
The Case Number for McCloud v Santa Maria, Chief Danny Macagni et al is CV 07-05895 SVW (JCX).

For those that want to fully understand the case and the issues it is very good reading. Of special interest is the Court's written decision in denying the Defense Motion for Summary Judgement. Seems the Court kept referencing Guillory v Gates as to why it would not dismiss the case and countering the Defense fantasy that the Plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of proof.

I'll spend some time on this tomorrow.


Now I know some of you are not going to bother to read the case because it is more amusing to criticize my manner of dress than to educate yourself. Let's not let the real meaning of these Federal suits get in the way. As Glock22Fan and others have already pointed out, departments around Santa Maria have taken a good look at their CCW Policies since Santa Maria was sued and many have changed them to conform to statute and case law. Gee, I wonder if it was my outfit or the LAW that caused them to re-evaluate their policies?

This is an easy statement to make. Can you point to the changes and the dates to show that it was this case that made the difference?


Yes, my manner of dress is rather unique, perhaps eccentric. Yes I do speak in the third person. Yes I was a Thespian, that is with a 'T' in my youth. I want to make an impression on the bad CLEOS and public officials and I can not think of a better way than paying homage to Tom Laughlin's 1970's anti hero.


I've never been impressed by folks taht paint a barn to draw attention away from the pig stigh.



I am not aware of any department changing to 'no issue' as a result of any legal action by anyone. Saying that stopping a department from violating the Constitutional in one manner will cause them to violate it in another way makes no sense whatsoever. Does anyone really think that a CLEO, after being handed his head in a basket ala Marie Antoinette (see 'A Tale of Two Cities') will actually devise another way by which they can be sued? I fail to see the logic in that. If that be the case, TBJ stands ready to take them back into Federal court to rectify the situation. Some of you may not be aware that a Federal Judge can be requested to retain jurisdiction over a case to insure compliance. CLEOS can be stupid but even the ones we are suing are not that stupid.


Come on. Let's look at this realistically. NONE of these CLEO's are help personally (financially) responsible for these actions. They work within the confines set up by the power brokers in their city/county.

When I go 10-98 for the last time I will do so knowing I have accomplished something and left a mark on California law enforcement in the issuance of CCWS. I think that is more important than someone uninformed, about 12050PC, and case law posting misinformation about something which they have so very little knowledge.


So you are giving the answers about case law and it's effect on us gun owners?



Simply having a CCW does not suddenly make one an expert on department's policies across the state any more than possessing a Driver License makes one an expert on driver safety. Getting your friends to apply for a CCW hardly gives one credentials to say "Billy Jack bad, sky is falling, CCWS will be impossible to obtain in the future. CLEOS will go 'No Issue' in the future."


That sentence makes absolutely no sense.


I want to encourage the uninformed naysayers to keep posting. We are receiving inquiries from all over the state as a result of the ongoing 'discussion'.


If I can keep one ccw applicatant from having you ruin his good cause and his chance at a CCW, as has been reported, then, I will indeed keep posting.

PTL
04-20-2008, 9:48 PM
The Case Number for McCloud v Santa Maria, Chief Danny Macagni et al is CV 07-05895 SVW (JCX).

For those that want to fully understand the case and the issues it is very good reading. Of special interest is the Court's written decision in denying the Defense Motion for Summary Judgement. Seems the Court kept referencing Guillory v Gates as to why it would not dismiss the case and countering the Defense fantasy that the Plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of proof.

Now I know some of you are not going to bother to read the case because it is more amusing to criticize my manner of dress than to educate yourself. Let's not let the real meaning of these Federal suits get in the way. As Glock22Fan and others have already pointed out, departments around Santa Maria have taken a good look at their CCW Policies since Santa Maria was sued and many have changed them to conform to statute and case law. Gee, I wonder if it was my outfit or the LAW that caused them to re-evaluate their policies?

Yes, my manner of dress is rather unique, perhaps eccentric. Yes I do speak in the third person. Yes I was a Thespian, that is with a 'T' in my youth. I want to make an impression on the bad CLEOS and public officials and I can not think of a better way than paying homage to Tom Laughlin's 1970's anti hero.

I am not aware of any department changing to 'no issue' as a result of any legal action by anyone. Saying that stopping a department from violating the Constitutional in one manner will cause them to violate it in another way makes no sense whatsoever. Does anyone really think that a CLEO, after being handed his head in a basket ala Marie Antoinette (see 'A Tale of Two Cities') will actually devise another way by which they can be sued? I fail to see the logic in that. If that be the case, TBJ stands ready to take them back into Federal court to rectify the situation. Some of you may not be aware that a Federal Judge can be requested to retain jurisdiction over a case to insure compliance. CLEOS can be stupid but even the ones we are suing are not that stupid.

Someone asked if we are headed Silicon Valley way. Indeed I am. Seems there is a 'No Issue' department up that way and I simply can not allow that on my watch.

When I go 10-98 for the last time I will do so knowing I have accomplished something and left a mark on California law enforcement in the issuance of CCWS. I think that is more important than someone uninformed, about 12050PC, and case law posting misinformation about something which they have so very little knowledge.

Simply having a CCW does not suddenly make one an expert on department's policies across the state any more than possessing a Driver License makes one an expert on driver safety. Getting your friends to apply for a CCW hardly gives one credentials to say "Billy Jack bad, sky is falling, CCWS will be impossible to obtain in the future. CLEOS will go 'No Issue' in the future."

I want to encourage the uninformed naysayers to keep posting. We are receiving inquiries from all over the state as a result of the ongoing 'discussion'.

Billy Jack


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

Mr. Jack I still wonder what does all this get us???? Closer to California being a shall issue state? NEGATIVE! So you stop certain CLEOs from issuing to movie stars, campaign donors and political insiders. Far from shall issue. Now what?

Oh and thanks for admitting this thread was not a message to chiefs and sheriffs. But about you recruiting more sheep to go in for the slaughter. Majority of them hurting their chances for ever being issued a CCW in the future. While you take one or two that are standing and make a fortune off of them.

hoffmang
04-20-2008, 9:50 PM
Come on. Let's look at this realistically. NONE of these CLEO's are help personally (financially) responsible for these actions. They work within the confines set up by the power brokers in their city/county.


Personal liability failed on a qualified immunity challenge in the Santa Maria case already. That CLEO looks very strongly like he's going to have to pay.

Edited to add the money quote from Santa Maria:

Qualified Immunity

Defendants additionally raise the issue of qualified immunity, arguing that Chief Macagni and the other individual defendants cannot be held liable in their individual capacities...

The Plaintiff has clearly alleged a violation of his constitutional right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by Chief Macagni. Furthermore, it appears this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct so that a reasonable public official would have been aware such conduct was unconstitutional ...

Furthermore Guillory explicitly recognized that the granting of a concealed weapon licenses in an arbitrary fashion under California Penal Code Section 12050 could lead to equal protection violation if proven in he Ninth Circuit. It is unclear what more specific precedent could be required. Certainly, these holdings would have been sufficient to give Chief Macagni "fair warning" that his alleged actions were unconstitutional. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.8. 730, 741 (2002) ("[O]fficials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances. [T]he salient question. is whether the state of the law gave respondents fair warning that their alleged treatment . . . was unconstitutional."). The fact that state law provides chiefs of police very broad discretion in granting licenses, as pointed out by Defendants, is irrelevant. (Def. Mot. at 9-10) Given the available federal law, it should have been clear to a reasonable chief of police that exercising that discretion in a truly arbitrary fashion would give rise to a constitutional violation.

-Gene

rynando
04-20-2008, 10:24 PM
Mr. Jack I still wonder what does all this get us???? Closer to California being a shall issue state? NEGATIVE! So you stop certain CLEOs from issuing to movie stars, campaign donors and political insiders. Far from shall issue. Now what?

Oh and thanks for admitting this thread was not a message to chiefs and sheriffs. But about you recruiting more sheep to go in for the slaughter. Majority of them hurting their chances for ever being issued a CCW in the future. While you take one or two that are standing and make a fortune off of them.



You keep forgetting the fact that many (if not most) of us in the more populous regions of the state have zero chance of getting a CCW anyway regardless of how good our good cause is. The ONLY way that we're going to get that chance (besides moving) is through legal efforts like those TBJ is engaged in.

Also, there's no proof that being denied a permit (especially in a non-issuing county) has any effect on getting a permit later via another agency. Implying that that IS the case is pure FUD.

mymonkeyman
04-20-2008, 10:33 PM
Personal liability failed on a qualified immunity challenge in the Santa Maria case already. That CLEO looks very strongly like he's going to have to pay.

Edited to add the money quote from Santa Maria:


-Gene

I'd be shocked if the department / city did not have an indemnification policy for officers for 1983 actions and other lawsuits. Almost all do. Even if a money judgment goes against an LEO in his personal capacity, that doesn't mean that the money will ultimately come out of his pocket.

On the side note, did the denial of the summary judgment motion on qualified immunity get taken up on an interlocutory appeal?

hoffmang
04-20-2008, 10:51 PM
I'd be shocked if the department / city did not have an indemnification policy for officers for 1983 actions and other lawsuits. Almost all do. Even if a money judgment goes against an LEO in his personal capacity, that doesn't mean that the money will ultimately come out of his pocket. I concur, but I can tell you that that's generally a CLM (Career Limiting Move.)


On the side note, did the denial of the summary judgment motion on qualified immunity get taken up on an interlocutory appeal?
Not yet and I doubt it will. At this point I expect we'll see a settlement if I were to just guess from the rest of the Motion to Dismiss. The only claim dismissed was to drop the Mayor and Council in their official capacity with leave to amend on showing either direct supervision or direct influence on the policy. Not exactly the stuff of a District Court Judge being unfriendly to the Plaintiff.

-Gene

Liberty1
04-20-2008, 11:07 PM
:lurk5:

dsinope
04-20-2008, 11:23 PM
Yes, my manner of dress is rather unique, perhaps eccentric. Yes I do speak in the third person. Yes I was a Thespian, that is with a 'T' in my youth. I want to make an impression on the bad CLEOS and public officials and I can not think of a better way than paying homage to Tom Laughlin's 1970's anti hero.


OK, I'll put this in Theater terms.

You're not Cheyenne Davis.

You're not James Dalton.

You're Gregers Werle.

Liberty1
04-20-2008, 11:31 PM
:cowboy: vs :cuss:OK, I'll put this in Theater terms.

You're not Cheyenne Davis.

You're not James Dalton.

You're Gregers Werle.

You really have an ax to grind. Did BJ dump you sister after the prom or something?

CCWFacts
04-21-2008, 12:15 AM
I concur, but I can tell you that that's generally a CLM (Career Limiting Move.)

'Zounds, but if Chief Macagni's head-in-derrière issuance practices weren't a CLM.

Odds bodkin, the complaint goes through every single CCW there, and for every single one lists half a dozen or more violations of SMPD's own written policies and/or 12050. All of them were more or less outrageous. They include insane things like:


Issuing to someone who isn't a resident of the city
Issuing a CCW before the certificate of eligibility comes back from the DoJ
Issuing a renewal after the CCW has expired
Issuing them with big chunks of the required having a strike-through and written "waived" with no explanation
Fees not being required of all applicants

Why even have a policy and a law? Why not just say, "the chief hands these out to people he likes."

Some of them were hilarious.

http://ccsantamaria.com/images/Berry_pic.jpg
Paul Berry, the Printing Padre

I'm a padre who is a supporter of Israel, so I need to carry a gun. Oh and once some nut did some minor vandalism in my church while I wasn't there, and he wasn't a Muslim or anything and it had nothing to do with me, he was just a nut. No one has ever made a threat against me because of this. But I'm sure I'm in great danger. I realize, there's basically no Muslim community in Santa Barbara, but you can't be too careful. You hear about pro-Israel preachers getting bumped off for this kind of thing all the time. The last time it's happened was... wait, it's never happened, but I don't want to be the first! So yeah I need a gun to protect myself against anti-Israel Muslims.

(Um, a) does that mean that every visibly Jewish person in SM has GC? b) you can already carry in your home and in your church, and the church was where the one vandalism incident occurred, so?)

And then, there's one single application that comes through from someone who has actually met all the requirements (psych eval, medical eval, etc) and he's the one who is denied.

Chief Macagni should retire because he was treating the CCW system (and therefore the penal code itself) as a joke, and issuing CCWs based purely on whim.

The complaint is going for a "rational basis" argument, saying that the system was operated in a way that was maliciously discriminatory, which it obviously was, so it can't even pass the lowest possible level of judicial review.

Btw, I'm not violating Pastor Berry's privacy in this post. a) his CCW app is a public record and b) he's obviously packing in his picture from his own church website. Someone buy that man of God a better holster!

Scarecrow Repair
04-21-2008, 7:10 AM
OK, I'll put this in Theater terms.

You're not Cheyenne Davis.

You're not James Dalton.

You're Gregers Werle.

I think it's about time you laid off the personal attacks and started listening to people who know more than you and have time in the trenches.

hill billy
04-21-2008, 7:17 AM
Who cares if Billy Jack decides to show up in court in a pink tutu and dance to swan lake while he offers his opening statement? To say that he is not having some effect on ccw issuance is ridiculous. IF nothing else, his name is known and it seem to also be recognized that if you as an issuing authority have an illegal policy, you could end up facing front at a table across from BJ. I'm glad to see someone has the means and balls to take on non-sensical laws and issuing authorities in this state, theatrics and all.

Fjold
04-21-2008, 7:26 AM
Col. Cooper always wrote in the third person.

zok
04-21-2008, 7:28 AM
Who cares if Billy Jack decides to show up in court in a pink tutu and dance to swan lake while he offers his opening statement? To say that he is not having some effect on ccw issuance is ridiculous. IF nothing else, his name is known and it seem to also be recognized that if you as an issuing authority have an illegal policy, you could end up facing front at a table across from BJ. I'm glad to see someone has the means and balls to take on non-sensical laws and issuing authorities in this state, theatrics and all.:) I agree

Billy Jack
04-21-2008, 7:36 AM
Well said CCWFACTS! My position as Private Investigator on these cases limits what I can share that is public record. You do not have those limitations. With a little Google search you may also find the now public record document posted by a government Risk Management association that spells out in detail how concerned these cities and counties are about liability from their actions and the potential these suits have to cause them serious legal and financial issues. I can not post this document but if someone were to find it, well....... It would shut down virtually all 'The Sky is Falling' advocates. In that old childhood fable about Chicken Little, all someone had to say to him was: "It could just be your perception"

A wise Chief once tell me: "One's perception is not necessarily reality"

Let not fear decide your actions. Knowledge is strength, while ignorance is a drain on the collective intellect of mankind.


Billy Jack

californiaconcealedcarry.com


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

Glock22Fan
04-21-2008, 8:34 AM
Who cares if Billy Jack decides to show up in court in a pink tutu and dance to swan lake while he offers his opening statement?

Hill Billy, thanks for the support.

Just for the record though, Billy Jack is a Private Investigator, not an attorney. It will be one of our attorneys who make the opening statement. As far as I know, they all dress conventionally at such times. Unless Billy Jack is called as a witness to support his findings (unlikely), the most in evidence that he will be will be in the public gallery.

dsinope
04-21-2008, 11:25 AM
A wise Chief once tell me: "One's perception is not necessarily reality"


A very wise politician once told me "The voter's perception is the only reality that worth anything."

You're fighting in 2 arenas. In court, you will likely be successful in forcing a CLEO or 2 to treat all applicants the same. I agree, that's a good thing. The fight to do so will be long and expensive. In the end, you may get a CCW for the plaintiff. You will not force a CLEO to freely issue. If that were the case you would have gotten a few more CCWs issued in LA in the 30 years since Salute, and the 25 years since Gates.

Sure, OC is easier now than it was in '84. That's due to the change in Sheriffs, not GvG. Before Carona, Gates hadn't increased the issuance rate one spec. If the BOS appoints the wrong applicant as Sheriff in the next few weeks, all the CCWs here will be pulled.

You're right - talking in the third person or wearing a clown suit shouldn't matter there - unless it's a jury trial.

You're also fighting in the arena of public opinion. Some voters support free issue. Some oppose it. Many don't know about the issue. Those that can be influenced one way or the other are not going to look at a guy in a Halloween costume and think "Yes! There's a guy we can believe in! I'm sure his cause is good, he's so believable in his big hat!"

If you want to genuinely change CCW policy - change the guy issuing them. The 14th amendment won't do it. Your "firewall of privileged CCW holders" doesn't exist.

As for listening to the people who've been there - I've been there and done it for 35 years.