(removed dead link to out-of-date GC statements)
Anyone who gets denied in Contra Costa Co
(either by a city's PD or by the Sheriff's Office), and wants to fight it should read the following quote from my ("Paladin") post in the Monterey Co thread. (There they accept SD as GC, but push the GMC requirement.) The 14th Amendment Equal Protection applies to ALL aspects of the application process, not just GC and GMC.
Originally Posted by Paladin
So, they say SD = GC, but then push GMC through the roof and, it appears, make your RKBA subject to your neighbors', co-workers' and friends' ratification....
If Bernal does NOT follow this same procedure with ALL CCW applicants (think political donors, "friends of the sheriff"/"posse" members, politicians, celebrities), he's open for a Guillory
-type 14th A Equal Protection federal lawsuit, but for GMC rather than GC.
, let's say there's a world-famous film star (and director) who lives in (and was once the mayor of) Carmel-By-The-Sea, a city which, acc to CGF's 2013 survey, does not issue CCWs. We'll call him "Mr. E." Let's suppose Mr. E has a Monterey SO CCW. When it is/was time to renew, if the sheriff has the same policy for renewals that means his "background investigator" would have to go to Mr. E's neighbors (who, unlike his friends, may be hard-core antis), and "ask them if they would recommend [Mr. E] be issued a CCW permit." Not only would the same procedure have to be followed, but the same standard as to judging whether to issue or not be followed. IOW, let's say 1 of your neighbors says "Nyet!
" when asked if you should get a CCW and because of that you are denied. If 1 of Mr. E's neighbors also said "No!" and yet was issued, that too is a 14th A Equal Protection violation.
(2015 June 27): with SCOTUS declining to grant Jackson
cert and Peruta
having gone to an en banc
panel of CA9, things at the moment look grim for CGNers in CoCoCo. We should no longer assume the "Heller
5" will say our RKBA protected by the 2nd A "shall not be infringed."
We've got to adapt to this "new reality" until we get some reason to think otherwise. Thus, I've condensed and updated a previous thread of mine and made it into a new thread so that at least some who work in CoCoCo can get CCWs.
(2015 July 04): Near the bottom of the column on the left (at: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/279...ty-Information
), I saw this cryptically titled link "SO Response to Ninth Circuit Ruling." Also, under "Useful Links" is a link boringly titled "Office of the Sheriff response to Ninth Circuit ruling." Note well how neither link says ANYTHING to give the uninformed visitor any idea what these links are about. Neither uses "CCW", "concealed", "handgun", "carry", or "permit." They both link to the below, the ONLY information I could find re. CCWs on their website.
SO Response to Ninth Circuit Ruling
**Message from the Office of the Sheriff**
We are aware of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Peruta case. County Counsel is currently reviewing the matter.
Office of the Sheriff policies will be modified to comply with the Court's decision should any changes be necessary.