So, when can we...

[E Pluribus Unum]

With all the stuff that has gone our way in recent years, I wonder what the time table is on most of our "wish lists".


What do you think is a reasonable time table for the following wish items:


A. Throw away our bullet buttons and have a real AR-15

B. Apply for our "shall issue" CCW or lawfully LOC.

C. Buy standard capacity magazines in a gun store.

D. Buy a handgun that is NOT on the roster.

E. Move to a free state and build a full-auto receiver that was manufactured after 1986 that does not cost $10k.

[colossians323]

two weeks

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by colossians323

two weeks

There's always someone....

If I got all the items on that list.... I would pinch myself.

[colossians323]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

If I got all the items on that list.... I would pinch myself.

I would pinch you too

[yellowfin]

B. Is the closest, A. next closest.

[the_quark]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

A. Throw away our bullet buttons and have a real AR-15

Five years, maybe a little longer. We need to get a scrutiny reading before we begin this case.

B. Apply for our "shall issue" CCW or lawfully LOC.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say we have effectively shall-issue CCW by this time next year. This is my "low probability prediction that if I make it I can beat everyone over the head with it later, but if it fails hopefully no one will remember it." My more realistic appraisal is two years, but I think there's a chance that whole house of cards just collapses.

C. Buy standard capacity magazines in a gun store.

"In a gun store?" Maybe never. I think we'll have a route to do it, somehow, within three years. I'd hope we'd have gun stores in seven (it's so long because it's a relatively low priority).

D. Buy a handgun that is NOT on the roster.

Well, this one depends on Nordyke being completed, so that won't be in your or my lifetime.

Seriously, I guess four years? Maybe sooner if another case ends up raising the issue.

E. Move to a free state and build a full-auto receiver that was manufactured after 1986 that does not cost $10k.

Barring a political solution (Congress overturning NFA), ten years, at least. Will we have enough pro-gun support in Congress to overturn NFA before that? Political predictions aren't my specialty, but I'm skeptical.

[stphnman20]

For the BB, Never..
CCW, Never..
Buy Standard mags, Never..

[Vbp6us]

Originally Posted by stphnman20

For the BB, Never..
CCW, Never..
Buy Standard mags, Never..

Um...there are open cases for CCW so that one is in the works.

[b.faust]

Originally Posted by the_quark

Five years, maybe a little longer.

Ouch.

My biggest gripe about the BB is the fact that when i want to take a class, I generally have to go out of state.
Yes I know I can run featureless, but I don't want to.

At least it's good to know it's on the radar, but wow....5 years...

[Bizcuits]

Originally Posted by stphnman20

CCW, Never..

Definitely wrong on that one... Several counties are slowly becoming Shall issue.

[beauregard]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

A. Throw away our bullet buttons and have a real AR-15

B. Apply for our "shall issue" CCW or lawfully LOC.

C. Buy standard capacity magazines in a gun store.

D. Buy a handgun that is NOT on the roster.

E. Move to a free state and build a full-auto receiver that was manufactured after 1986 that does not cost $10k.

Not while Meg Whitman is Governor.

[POLICESTATE]

Originally Posted by Bizcuits

Definitely wrong on that one... Several counties are slowly becoming Shall issue.

That's only because of who is sheriff there is it not? We need a change to the law or a court ruling in our favor.

[wildhawker]

stphnman20 has brilliantly locked up a roster spot in the CGN "uninformed peanut gallery" all-pro 2011 team.

[wash]

Virtual shall issue is a slam dunk. It will happen, the only question is how long it will take. I'm optimistic.

The roster may stick around but it might become so inclusive and so easy for a manufacturer to get their product on that it doesn't matter. I think this will happen in late 2011 or 2012.

Fighting for standard capacity magazines does not help any other issues at this time so I have no clue when they will get to it. 7 years seem like too long.

Like the roster, I think the "assault weapon" ban might survive with an opened up registration and dropped locked transport and lending parts of the law.

Machine guns, maybe never. But I think within 10 years CA will allow people to own SBR's and SBS's. Silencers might even be legal again.

[stitchnicklas]

all will happen after i move to a free state...

[bigcalidave]

Originally Posted by stphnman20

For the BB, Never..
CCW, Never..
Buy Standard mags, Never..

I'm sad that you believe that!

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by wash

Virtual shall issue is a slam dunk. It will happen, the only question is how long it will take. I'm optimistic.

The roster may stick around but it might become so inclusive and so easy for a manufacturer to get their product on that it doesn't matter. I think this will happen in late 2011 or 2012.

Fighting for standard capacity magazines does not help any other issues at this time so I have no clue when they will get to it. 7 years seem like too long.

Like the roster, I think the "assault weapon" ban might survive with an opened up registration and dropped locked transport and lending parts of the law.

Machine guns, maybe never. But I think within 10 years CA will allow people to own SBR's and SBS's. Silencers might even be legal again.

I understand autos are a never in California... I am talkin in other states where auto is already legal, will the federal law against the manufacture of new full auto receivers after 1986 be found unconstitutional.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by the_quark

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say we have effectively shall-issue CCW by this time next year. This is my "low probability prediction that if I make it I can beat everyone over the head with it later, but if it fails hopefully no one will remember it." My more realistic appraisal is two years, but I think there's a chance that whole house of cards just collapses.

I think I have the order of the "pieces" below correct. If not, you get the idea. No offense intended. Just trying to lay out what anti CLEOs are facing.

The Past:

Guillory.

Heller.

Sacto and Yolo SOs sued in a 2nd fed district ct.

San Diego SO sued in one fed district ct.

McDonald.

Gray reaching out across the state from out of state.

Stanislaus Co SO goes virtual Shall Issue.

Sacto SO goes virtual Shall Issue.

Others working behind the scenes re. CCWs.

AB1934, with strong CLEO backing, FAILS! ! !

TBJ reaching out across the state.

The Future:

Mentioned (not by me) in another thread: a TBJ lawsuit hauling a 4th CA SO into a 3rd fed district ct.

A Palmer win.

A Nordyke win.

A Sykes win.

A Peruta win.

A TJB win.

Bottom line: I could easily see CLEOs decide that the game is over re. using CCWs (and our 2nd A RKBA) for their own benefit. CCWs will be "too hot" an issue for the practice of "discriminatory issue." They capitulate and the house of cards falls.

How many more "pieces" must fall into place before an particular CLEO gives up? That will vary with the CLEO.

We're not going anywhere. We will slowly grind them under our feet.

[the_quark]

Originally Posted by b.faust

At least it's good to know it's on the radar, but wow....5 years...

My thinking on this is that we get scrutiny before we even begin this process. Five might be a touch high, but the courts are slow. Obviously, if we file cases sooner, it'll be quicker, and I'll hasten to add that I'm not the be-all-end-all of these sorts of decisions, so my "sense", while better informed than most, isn't gospel. Also, on any of these, we take on targets of opportunity when we can. If some poor bastard gets a bullet-button AW case that actually sticks, we may have to win this one sooner than I plan for.

Originally Posted by wash

Fighting for standard capacity magazines does not help any other issues at this time so I have no clue when they will get to it. 7 years seem like too long.

I just wanted to be clear: I was trying to say that you'll be able to legally acquire them in the next three years, via things we're working on, right now. I was saying seven for "in gun stores", which was how it was phrased. You'll be able to buy them sooner, I just don't expect it to be in gun stores. No, I don't want to explain more than that.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Bottom line: I could easily see CLEOs decide that the game is over re. using CCWs (and our 2nd A RKBA) for their own benefit. CCWs will be "too hot" an issue for the practice of "discriminatory issue." They capitulate and the house of cards falls.

How many more "pieces" must fall into place before an particular CLEO gives up? That will vary with the CLEO.

Quark, acc to our CA state constitution (or fed Con), can local legal counsel take this decision away from the CLEO? If the law becomes so clear that simple "self-defense" is GC and a sheriff (chiefs are appointed, and thus, I assume, can be removed) does not agree, is that a locally impeachable offense? Or will the state (AG?), intervene and impeach/remove the sheriff?

Or will it require judicial intervention?

ETA: I would think at a certain point, the case law becomes so clear that deciding GC is no longer a "ministerial" -- I think that is the right word -- function or decision, but a legal one.

[the_quark]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Quark, acc to our CA state constitution (or fed Con), can local legal counsel take this decision away from the CLEO? If the law becomes so clear that simple "self-defense" is GC and a sheriff (chiefs are appointed, and thus, I assume, can be removed) does not agree, is that a locally impeachable offense? Or will the state (AG?), intervene and impeach/remove the sheriff?

Or will it require judicial intervention?

ETA: I would think at a certain point, the case law becomes so clear that deciding GC is no longer a "ministerial" -- I think that is the right word -- function or decision, but a legal one.

I'm not 100% clear on your question, here. But, I think you're asking, if a controlling court (either the Supreme Court or the 9th Circuit) says "Self-defense is good cause," and a Sheriff still fails to issue CCWs for that good cause, what happens?

Since Sheriff is an elected position, they can be recalled. However, I think in this case, it's much simpler - you bring a Federal civil rights violation lawsuit against the Sheriff, personally. You'd win summary judgment in that case. If he still refused, then I think he gets held in contempt of court and sent to jail.

I think this is pretty hypothetical, though. There won't be a point where it "becomes obvious" until after there are court rulings on the matter. When a court says they have to, I'm sure all 58 Sheriffs will follow the law. Worst case, we'll have to sue a few of them to get them to comply.

[MrPlutonium]

Can I add an "F" question? When is reciprocity coming? I'm tired of just being able to carry in flyover country.

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

With all the stuff that has gone our way in recent years, I wonder what the time table is on most of our "wish lists".


What do you think is a reasonable time table for the following wish items:


A. Throw away our bullet buttons and have a real AR-15

B. Apply for our "shall issue" CCW or lawfully LOC.

C. Buy standard capacity magazines in a gun store.

D. Buy a handgun that is NOT on the roster.

E. Move to a free state and build a full-auto receiver that was manufactured after 1986 that does not cost $10k.

A. Within 10 years.
B. Within 5 years.
C. Within 10 years.
D. Within 5 years.
E. Within 50 years.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by the_quark

I'm not 100% clear on your question, here. But, I think you're asking, if a controlling court (either the Supreme Court or the 9th Circuit) says "Self-defense is good cause," and a Sheriff still fails to issue CCWs for that good cause, what happens?

...

I think this is pretty hypothetical, though. There won't be a point where it "becomes obvious" until after there are court rulings on the matter.

Assume the order in which I laid things out above and assume our side "wins" Palmer and Nordyke (and the 2nd A gets strict scrutiny).

Q1a: Can city/county legal counsel tell/order (choose one), their CoP/sheriff to accept SD as GC because to do otherwise runs too great a legal risk of the city/county being sued?

Q1b: Or must city/county counsel (and we) wait for a court decision directly on point? That's the legal question.

Now for a political question.

Q2: Is there some point (pre-Sykes or pre-Peruta decision), where a city council/mayor will tell their CoP or a county BoS tell their sheriff, you must accept SD as GC because we don't want to risk our budget and our legal liability insurance by getting sued over CCWs? (Peruta sued SD even though Sykes et al had already filed against Sacto and Yolo. TBJ may sue yet another CLEO even though Peruta and Sykes are already in court. There is nothing to stop more plaintiffs from filing more lawsuits against more CLEOs over CCWs.) Sure the city/county may not be able to "order" the CLEO to do that, but if he doesn't, they can apply whatever political pressure they can to make him comply (e.g., remove the CoP; cut the sheriff's budget).

Bottom line: Is some way of getting CLEOs to go virtual Shall Issue without having to wait for a Sykes or Peruta final decision on the merits?

[yellowfin]

^ Yes. Have a BIG pool of plaintiffs each individually applying then suing sheriffs one at a time, once a day or spaced just far enough apart that it ties up their resources so badly they literally can't get anything done because they're too busy responding or at least accepting the paperwork. Basically like flooding a server or tying up an office phone or fax line. Our biggest problem to date is that we have been too easy to ignore, so they don't consider one or two applications and suits a problem, so let's make it a problem.

[the_quark]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Assume the order in which I laid things out above and assume our side "wins" Palmer and Nordyke (and the 2nd A gets strict scrutiny).

So, to be precise, the Supreme Court has handed down a decision in Palmer saying, "You have a right to bear, and DC must issue carry licenses to essentially anyone who isn't prohibited from owning a firearm". But, there's still a little wiggle room out here in California since the Sheriff can claim that you could carry without a permit (UOC), and so he's not going to shall-issue 12050 licenses. Is that the scenario?

Q1a: Can city/county legal counsel tell/order (choose one), their CoP/sheriff to accept SD as GC because to do otherwise runs too great a legal risk of the city/county being sued?

Certainly counsel could tell him that, now. However, counsel generally can't order anyone to do anything. Presumably county counsel would report into the county Board of Supervisors, as would (nominally) the Sheriff. Certainly, if the counsel issued a report to the Supervisors, the Supervisors could direct the Sheriff to issue 12050 licenses on a "shall issue" basis. There's no reason that couldn't happen, today.

That said, while I'm no expert in California county government, I'd be surprised if the Supervisors could summarily dismiss a Sheriff that doesn't do what they want (as it's an elected position). They may be able to impeach him, and certainly they could censure him, but I doubt they have direct control over his actions (the way they would with, say, an appointed manager).

Q1b: Or must city/county counsel (and we) wait for a court decision directly on point? That's the legal question.

Again, county counsel can say "I think not issuing these licenses is a bad idea, from a liability perspective." But, generally, I'd think the Sheriff has complete latitude to ignore that advice, barring action by the Supervisors. Even with action by the Supervisors, he probably can hold out kicking a screaming for a long time. I'll note from a governance perspective, this makes some sense - the Sheriff is, after all, responsible for ensuring the Board of Supervisors obey the law, as well. If they could just tell him what to do, there would be no one to make sure they follow the rules.

Q2: Is there some point (pre-Sykes or pre-Peruta decision), where a city council/mayor will tell their CoP or a county BoS tell their sheriff, you must accept SD as GC because we don't want to risk our budget and our legal liability insurance by getting sued over CCWs? (Peruta sued SD even though Sykes et al had already filed against Sacto and Yolo. TBJ may sue yet another CLEO even though Peruta and Sykes are already in court. There is nothing to stop more plaintiffs from filing more lawsuits against more CLEOs over CCWs.) Sure the city/county may not be able to "order" the CLEO to do that, but if he doesn't, they can apply whatever political pressure they can to make him comply (e.g., remove the CoP; cut the sheriff's budget).

I know there was a Charlie Foxtrot down south (Orange County?) where the old Sheriff, who was essentially "shall issue" got run out of town on a rail, the Supes appointed a new Sheriff, and she decided to cancel everyone's 12050 licenses (which she had no authority to do). The Board of Supervisors wasn't pleased, and applied pressure to her. I'm not sure what the outcome was, but I haven't heard anyone talking about it in a long time, so I presume that she was eventually made to see reason.

Politically, though, I don't think it's likely that county counsels or Boards of Supervisors are going to preemptively do this.

Bottom line: Is some way of getting CLEOs to go virtual Shall Issue without having to wait for a Sykes or Peruta final decision on the merits?

I kind of doubt it. One or both of those is going to move pretty quickly, I suspect. One way or another we'll have a clean decision in the next couple of years, and then we start sending demand letters to every Sheriff that's not issuing 12050s. That is when county counsel says "You'd better start issuing these licenses, or we're in trouble."

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by the_quark

So, to be precise, the Supreme Court has handed down a decision in Palmer saying, "You have a right to bear, and DC must issue carry licenses to essentially anyone who isn't prohibited from owning a firearm".

I was talking about a win at the district level, not after appeals are exhausted. I figure we'll get a decision at the 9th re either Sykes or Peruta before they'd get a decision from SCOTUS on a Palmer appeal.

Originally Posted by the_quark

One way or another we'll have a clean decision in the next couple of years, and then we start sending demand letters to every Sheriff that's not issuing 12050s. That is when county counsel says "You'd better start issuing these licenses, or we're in trouble."

Just trying to brainstorm to figure out if there was a way we could knock off 6 months or a year from when CLEOs will have to accept SD for GC. Guess it won't happen. Tired of waiting for my RKBA. Like a kid waiting for Christmas morning, it just can't come fast enough.

Thanks for your time.

[yellowfin]

Originally Posted by the_quark

I know there was a Charlie Foxtrot down south (Orange County?) where the old Sheriff, who was essentially "shall issue" got run out of town on a rail, the Supes appointed a new Sheriff, and she decided to cancel everyone's 12050 licenses (which she had no authority to do). The Board of Supervisors wasn't pleased, and applied pressure to her. I'm not sure what the outcome was, but I haven't heard anyone talking about it in a long time, so I presume that she was eventually made to see reason.

Last indication was that the pressure failed, she simply outlasted it and the BoS got tired of it and were too weak and tentative to really put it to her to the extent necessary. They had her by the neck and simply chickened out rather than giving her what she deserved and fixing the problem in our favor. At least that's my understanding of it.

[the_quark]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I was talking about a win at the district level, not after appeals are exhausted. I figure we'll get a decision at the 9th re either Sykes or Peruta before they'd get a decision from SCOTUS on a Palmer appeal.

A win at the district level in Sykes or Palmer, if it's not stayed pending appeal, will have this effect. If it is stayed, I'd expect it to have little effect (since, after all, it's been stayed).

Just trying to brainstorm to figure out if there was a way we could knock off 6 months or a year from when CLEOs will have to accept SD for GC. Guess it won't happen. Tired of waiting for my RKBA. Like a kid waiting for Christmas morning, it just can't come fast enough.

You have to have a long view. Our rights began a steady decline in 1934. It was on a downward trend from 1934 - 2008. You don't roll back seventy-four years of injustice in two years. If you had told most people seven years ago the successes we'd have, today, they flat wouldn't believe you.

That said, it's always worth thinking about ways for it to go faster. Just don't be disappointed if we have to wait a few more years on a few things.

[Maestro Pistolero]

IF there is a right to UOC, then there certainly is a right to LOC. Heller's trigger lock invalidation said clearly that one has a right to a functional firearm for immediate use for self-defense. The only remaining legal question is whether that right extends outside he home in non-sensitive areas.

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

IF there is a right to UOC, then there certainly is a right to LOC. Heller's trigger lock invalidation said clearly that one has a right to a functional firearm for immediate use for self-defense. The only remaining legal question is whether that right extends outside he home in non-sensitive areas.

I would disagree. There are a number of legal issues to resolve; the right to carry outside the home is but one part of the total equation assuming that 2A parallels 1A in TPM restrictions.

I think there is a right to UOC as it is clearly a form of expressive conduct and protest, but I do not believe that UOC is a 2A issue- nor do I think it is wise to proffer it as such.

[the_quark]

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

IF there is a right to UOC, then there certainly is a right to LOC. Heller's trigger lock invalidation said clearly that one has a right to a functional firearm for immediate use for self-defense. The only remaining legal question is whether that right extends outside he home in non-sensitive areas.

And, this is our fundamental disagreement. I think that, while the courts *may* say LOC is a right (and I hope they do), they *may* say that you have a right to bear a functional firearm, but it's up to the municipality whether you're allowed to do that, openly, or not, for handguns.

Put another way - any weapon you are able to legally own, you may bear. But, if it's concealable, they have the option of requiring it be concealed (and probably requiring a license for that concealment).

I absolutely agree with you that requiring shall-issue licensing for exercising fundamental constitutional rights is an unhappy state of affairs, and I absolutely am going to do everything I can to prevent it.

But, that doesn't stop me saying "I could see the courts coming to the conclusion that this is an acceptable burden on liberty," and trying to make plans, accordingly.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by stphnman20

For the BB, Never..
CCW, Never..
Buy Standard mags, Never..

Be serious and contribute to the discussion.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I was talking about a win at the district level, not after appeals are exhausted. I figure we'll get a decision at the 9th re either Sykes or Peruta before they'd get a decision from SCOTUS on a Palmer appeal.

Just trying to brainstorm to figure out if there was a way we could knock off 6 months or a year from when CLEOs will have to accept SD for GC. Guess it won't happen. Tired of waiting for my RKBA. Like a kid waiting for Christmas morning, it just can't come fast enough.

Thanks for your time.

There are ways of applying pressure and kicking the sheriff's in the teeth in the meantime.

[Window_Seat]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

Be serious and contribute to the discussion.

^^Agreed^^

And to reinforce this, we have an eye on a checkered flag that says CCW Virtual Shall Issue, thanks to the efforts of CGF, SAF & the CRPA. It's a matter of when we claim this victory. I have a good reason to be optimistic.

Erik.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

There are ways of applying pressure and kicking the sheriff's in the teeth in the meantime.

Be sure to wear steel-toed boots when you do that! LOL!

A public "Thanks!" for all the work you do for people in a state that you don't even live in.

[Colt]

Originally Posted by yellowfin

Last indication was that the pressure failed, she simply outlasted it and the BoS got tired of it and were too weak and tentative to really put it to her to the extent necessary. They had her by the neck and simply chickened out rather than giving her what she deserved and fixing the problem in our favor. At least that's my understanding of it.

Uh, no (at least from what I've heard). She got re-elected (had been appointed), and has not moderated her stance. Apparently, she also now requires some type of POST class - it was discussed elsewhere on this site...

[Barabas]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

With all the stuff that has gone our way in recent years, I wonder what the time table is on most of our "wish lists".

About "two weeks" sooner than the last time the question was asked.

[yellowfin]

Originally Posted by Colt

Uh, no (at least from what I've heard). She got re-elected (had been appointed), and has not moderated her stance. Apparently, she also now requires some type of POST class - it was discussed elsewhere on this site...

That doesn't mean that the BoS didn't back down and give up forcing her to change her stance. All that work with the public hearings and still no win on that? What, was our side speaking in Polish or something? What in the heck went wrong with that election anyway? That should have been a gimme. I've never heard so much negative publicity (yes, I understand we pay 1000x more attention to it than the average public) churned up against a minor politician ever, and we still didn't get it done? WTF?

[Wherryj]

Originally Posted by beauregard

Not while Meg Whitman is Governor.

I don't know about that. Look at all of the progress we're having with Arnold as governor. It couldn't get much worse than it is currently under Arnold "where do I sign" Schwarzenegger.