[hoffmang]

BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and three California residents today filed a lawsuit seeking to vindicate the right to bear arms against arbitrary state infringement.

Nearly all states allow qualified law-abiding citizens to carry guns for self-defense, but a few states allow local officials to arbitrarily decide who may exercise this core Second Amendment right. In the action filed today, Plaintiffs challenge the policies of two California Sheriffs, in Sacramento and Yolo counties, who reject the basic human right of self defense by refusing to issue ordinary people gun carry permits. Of course, violent criminals in the impacted counties continue to carry guns without police permission.

State scientist Deanna Sykes believes her sexual orientation and small stature makes her an appealing target for criminals, particularly as she often transports firearms as a competitive shooter and firearms instructor. “I am highly qualified to defend myself against the sort of crime that the Sheriff cannot, despite his best efforts, completely eradicate,” Sykes said. “Violent crime is a real risk in our society, but happily, we enjoy the right to defend ourselves from it.”

Andrew Witham has over 15 years experience as a police officer in Britain, and is licensed to carry a firearm while working as a private investigator and campus public safety officer. But despite having been the target of death threats stemming from his work in security, Sheriff John McGinness saw to it that Witham’s license to carry a gun while away from work was revoked upon Witham’s relocation to Sacramento.

“I’m allowed to defend other people,” said Witham, “so why can’t I defend myself, where the Bill of Rights guarantees me that right?”

Adam Richards, a Northern California attorney, would also exercise his right to bear arms in self- defense. But the Yolo County Sheriff’s policy on gun permit applications is: don’t bother. “How can the Sheriff tell whether I am capable of responsibly exercising my Second Amendment rights, when he doesn’t even acknowledge that these rights exist?”

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, said, “It’s a shame that these Sheriffs don’t think that self-defense is a ‘good cause’ to exercise the right to bear arms, but we’re confident the Second Amendment reflects a better policy.”

Added co-counsel Donald Kilmer, “The California carry licensing system is being abused by some officials who are hostile to self-defense rights. The police can regulate the carrying of guns, and that includes preventing dangerous people from being armed. Complete deprivation of the right to bear arms, however, is not an option under our Constitution.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision last year in the Heller case shows that there is both a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “In most states, authorities do not deny a license to carry an operable firearm to any law-abiding applicant that completes training and a background check. This is also the practice throughout much of California. These two Sheriffs must respect the constitutional rights of their citizens to bear arms.”

“California is often a leader in so many ways, but our state lags badly in streamlining its firearms laws,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “We need 21st century gun laws that respect our Constitutional rights, and adopt modern, widely accepted practices that work well throughout the United States. Hopefully this action will serve as a wake-up call to our legislators, and to those officials who stubbornly resist accommodating Second Amendment rights. If they don’t reform, reform will come through litigation.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a non-profit legal defense fund for California gun owners. The Calguns foundation works to educate government and the public and protect the rights of individuals to own and lawfully use firearms in California.

A copy of the complaint is available:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/syk...2009-05-09.pdf

Case progress will be available on the case's wiki.

-Gene

[Gray Peterson]

First post! Good job on getting Sykes on board.

[tmuller]

Whoa!!! This is great....feels like a flood of activity lately. Thanks and keep up the good work! Donation inbound.

[HunterJim]

Gene,

Requesting that 12050 be declared unconstitutional is way cool!

This action is keeping my April 20th 2nd Amendment in California smile going on my face.

My May contribution is on its way to you guys, and keep up the good work.

jim

[RomanDad]

[gotgunz]

Your complaint states this:

...Shasta County issued Plaintiff Witham a license to carry a handgun in January, 2007, which was to last for two years.
On or about July, 2007, Plaintiff Witham relocated from Shasta to the City of
Fairfield, in Solano County. As required by law, Plaintiff Witham notified the Sheriff of Shasta County of this move.
On or about July, 2008, Plaintiff Witham relocated from Solano County to
Sacramento County, and again notified the Sheriff of Shasta County of this move. Within days, Plaintiff Witham’s permit to carry a handgun was revoked. Plaintiff Witham has reason to believe this was done at the request of Defendant McGinness, pursuant to the custom, policy, or practice of Defendant Sacramento County.

I have a hard time believing that you guys could have possibly overlooked this:

(B) If the license is one to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, then it may not be revoked solely because the licensee changes his or her place of residence to another county if the licensee has not breached any conditions or restrictions set forth in the license or has not fallen into a prohibited class described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. However, any license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall expire 90 days after the licensee moves from the county of issuance if the licensee's place of residence was the basis for issuance of the license.

If the permit was issued from Shasta County while he was a resident there (as opposed to one related to business in Shasta County while residing elsewhere) then his place of residence was the basis for the issuance thereof.

The time between the work related death threats and the issuance of the ccw doesn't make sense. If the threats were credible then he should have gotten the ccw in '05 (early '06 at the latest). Given that Shasta County is nearly shall issue I would say he applied, had good moral character based on his previous LEO experience and he holds a P.I. license, was summarily issued and once he moved to Fairfield it should have been revoked then.

Don't mean to piss on the parade but I see alot of holes in this one plaintiff's case.

I hope I am wrong.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by gotgunz

The time between the work related death threats and the issuance of the ccw doesn't make sense.

Your supposed concern doesn't matter.

Ignore the unconstitutional law for a moment.

Does a man who received death threats because he was working for justice deserve to have his right to self defense revoked because he moved?

-Gene

[yellowfin]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

.Does a man who received death threats because he was working for justice deserve to have his right to self defense revoked because he moved?

-Gene

Better question: Does a man deserve to have his right to self defense revoked because he moved...period? I miss what the relevence of prior threats to one's life is in regard to being able to walk away alive from a carjacking or holdup at a 7-11.

[gotgunz]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Your supposed concern doesn't matter.

Ignore the unconstitutional law for a moment.

Does a man who received death threats because he was working for justice deserve to have his right to self defense revoked because he moved?

-Gene

Gene, you're preaching to the choir. In my eyes (as an instructor for CCW classes) the threat was not that credible or he would have had the ccw much sooner. Given that Shasta County issues CCW's to its residents for almost the asking I would say that the residence was the basis of issuance just like it is for the vast majority of the others they have issued to. According to 12050pc (weather 'unconstitutional' or not) it clearly states that it is void after change of the county of residence and it probably should have been revoked when he moved to Fairfield.

As far as the "working for justice"..... come on! He was working for a private entity whose sole aim is profits. As such he was charged (and compensated) to protect said assets which are to the direct benefit of an Indian Casino operated by a sovereign nation. That is not justice; that is performing the job that you are paid to do.

So my 'supposed concern' does indeed matter. Maybe not to others but it does matter to some regardless.

I think you have misinterpreted my post; I truly hope this is able to force the changes our ccw system desperately needs but even you would concede that any actions taken need to be done correctly. I saw something that caught my eye; I'm not an attorney but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last week.

[SimpleCountryActuary]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Your supposed concern doesn't matter.

Ignore the unconstitutional law for a moment.

Does a man who received death threats because he was working for justice deserve to have his right to self defense revoked because he moved?

-Gene

No. Not in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

Of course as Clint Eastwood's character in "Unforgiven" said, "Deserves got nuthin' to do with it." Which is why I'm mailing a check for $200 on Monday. (I would do it tomorrow but I haven't finished my jury duty to the Republic yet.)

Best!

[nick]

Originally Posted by gotgunz

Your complaint states this:

...Shasta County issued Plaintiff Witham a license to carry a handgun in January, 2007, which was to last for two years.
On or about July, 2007, Plaintiff Witham relocated from Shasta to the City of
Fairfield, in Solano County. As required by law, Plaintiff Witham notified the Sheriff of Shasta County of this move.
On or about July, 2008, Plaintiff Witham relocated from Solano County to
Sacramento County, and again notified the Sheriff of Shasta County of this move. Within days, Plaintiff Witham’s permit to carry a handgun was revoked. Plaintiff Witham has reason to believe this was done at the request of Defendant McGinness, pursuant to the custom, policy, or practice of Defendant Sacramento County.

I have a hard time believing that you guys could have possibly overlooked this:

(B) If the license is one to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, then it may not be revoked solely because the licensee changes his or her place of residence to another county if the licensee has not breached any conditions or restrictions set forth in the license or has not fallen into a prohibited class described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. However, any license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall expire 90 days after the licensee moves from the county of issuance if the licensee's place of residence was the basis for issuance of the license.

If the permit was issued from Shasta County while he was a resident there (as opposed to one related to business in Shasta County while residing elsewhere) then his place of residence was the basis for the issuance thereof.

The time between the work related death threats and the issuance of the ccw doesn't make sense. If the threats were credible then he should have gotten the ccw in '05 (early '06 at the latest). Given that Shasta County is nearly shall issue I would say he applied, had good moral character based on his previous LEO experience and he holds a P.I. license, was summarily issued and once he moved to Fairfield it should have been revoked then.

Don't mean to piss on the parade but I see alot of holes in this one plaintiff's case.

I hope I am wrong.

Wasn't his good cause and good moral character the basis for issuing his CCW permit?

Moreover, if the defendants argue that his residence in Shasta County was the basis for the issuance of CCW, they're basically admitting that the same law is applied differently in different counties.

[gotgunz]

Originally Posted by nick

Wasn't his good cause and good moral character the basis for issuing his CCW permit?

Moreover, if the defendants argue that his residence in Shasta County was the basis for the issuance of CCW, they're basically admitting that the same law is applied differently in different counties.

Remember, in our current system the presence of 'good cause' is left to the discretion of the cleo of where you apply (which unless the ccw is issued as a 90 day temp related to employment) is the county of your residence. This means you apply in the county where you LIVE.

I am not saying it is right just that is the way it is currently done. Good cause is subjective, residence is not.

If you invite 10 cops to your home and tell them all: "hey guys, this is where I live" and you have the presence of actually residing there (pictures on the walls, you know where the glasses are when you offer them a drink, the remote is stuck with velcro to a chair that has an impression of your *** permanently depressed into it etc... ) then they should be inclined to agree that you do in fact live there. If you tell those same 10 cops that you should have a ccw and the reasons why, that is subjective and all or some could disagree with you.

Discretion carries a very wide stroke; one swipe by many painters will yield very different results even when using the same brush. CCW issuance is no different.

You don't honestly believe that the same law could be applied in different ways from one county to the next do you ?

[AWitham]

Originally Posted by gotgunz

Your complaint states this:

...Shasta County issued Plaintiff Witham a license to carry a handgun in January, 2007, which was to last for two years.
On or about July, 2007, Plaintiff Witham relocated from Shasta to the City of
Fairfield, in Solano County. As required by law, Plaintiff Witham notified the Sheriff of Shasta County of this move.
On or about July, 2008, Plaintiff Witham relocated from Solano County to
Sacramento County, and again notified the Sheriff of Shasta County of this move. Within days, Plaintiff Witham’s permit to carry a handgun was revoked. Plaintiff Witham has reason to believe this was done at the request of Defendant McGinness, pursuant to the custom, policy, or practice of Defendant Sacramento County.

I have a hard time believing that you guys could have possibly overlooked this:

(B) If the license is one to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, then it may not be revoked solely because the licensee changes his or her place of residence to another county if the licensee has not breached any conditions or restrictions set forth in the license or has not fallen into a prohibited class described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. However, any license issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall expire 90 days after the licensee moves from the county of issuance if the licensee's place of residence was the basis for issuance of the license.

If the permit was issued from Shasta County while he was a resident there (as opposed to one related to business in Shasta County while residing elsewhere) then his place of residence was the basis for the issuance thereof.

The time between the work related death threats and the issuance of the ccw doesn't make sense. If the threats were credible then he should have gotten the ccw in '05 (early '06 at the latest). Given that Shasta County is nearly shall issue I would say he applied, had good moral character based on his previous LEO experience and he holds a P.I. license, was summarily issued and once he moved to Fairfield it should have been revoked then.

Don't mean to piss on the parade but I see alot of holes in this one plaintiff's case.

I hope I am wrong.

You are - the issue and subsequent revocation by Shasta is not at issue and nothing to do with this case other than the reason why I attempted to obtain a CCW in Sacramento County in August 2008. It is mentioned because it shows that another California Sheriff decided that I had good cause and issued.

At issue is Sacramento's 12 month residency requirement, and "2nd amendment right to bear arms" and "self defense" are stated as not "good cause".

Don't get distracted by the small stuff - 2nd amendment says I can, Sac Sheriff says I can't! Simple as that.

[Steyr_223]

I am posting this on all the forums I visit..

Great job all!

Success!

[pullnshoot25]

I am so happy I could almost cry

FARK YEAH!

[gotgunz]

Originally Posted by pullnshoot25

I am so happy I could almost cry

FARK YEAH!

Why? wouldn't shall issue ccw basically ruin your open carry escapades?

[The Wingnut]

Originally Posted by gotgunz

Why? wouldn't shall issue ccw basically ruin your open carry escapades?

Part of the point behind open carry is trailblazing for getting shall-issue CCW.

[Bizcuits]

Hooah! Glad to finally see someone doing it the right way and not going with Mr. Jacks BS..

Congrats!!

I'm very excited to see CGF stepping in front of the parade. Some of the folks threatening to challenge this in the criminal justice system scared the bejeezus out of me.

[hoffmang]

You all may remember Ms. Sykes from this story in The Sacramento Bee.



-Gene

[Glock22Fan]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

You all may remember Ms. Sykes from this story in The Sacramento Bee.



-Gene

State scientist Deanna Sykes believes her sexual orientation and small stature makes her an appealing target for criminals, particularly as she often transports firearms as a competitive shooter and firearms instructor

Might do even better if she learned to keep both eyes open.

Congratulations to everyone involved!

[7x57]

Originally Posted by Glock22Fan

Might do even better if she learned to keep both eyes open.

Not if she's ambiguously dominant, center-dominant, or in any other way something besides totally dominant on one side or the other. And apparently that's much more common among women than men.

I'm ambiguously dominant myself, and it takes me too long to identify which of the images I should be using if I keep both eyes open. You have to be totally dominant for one of the images to be edited out by the brain.

7x57

[Glock22Fan]

Originally Posted by 7x57

Not if she's ambiguously dominant, center-dominant, or in any other way something besides totally dominant on one side or the other. And apparently that's much more common among women than men.

I'm ambiguously dominant myself, and it takes me too long to identify which of the images I should be using if I keep both eyes open. You have to be totally dominant for one of the images to be edited out by the brain.

7x57

I did say "might." I didn't realize that it was that common or that women were particularly prone to this. None of my students have ever had any problem determining which eye is dominant, though I do get a few who are cross-dominant (right handed, left eyed, or reverse) as is my wife.

[7x57]

Originally Posted by Glock22Fan

I did say "might."

So you did. I just assumed that since she's an experienced shooter she already knows how she shoots best.

I didn't realize that it was that common or that women were particularly prone to this. None of my students have ever had any problem determining which eye is dominant, though I do get a few who are cross-dominant (right handed, left eyed, or reverse) as is my wife.

This is a subject I would like to discuss with more instructors, and as I start to do instruction myself I'm going to pay close attention to. There is some extremely interesting discussion in my stock fitting book that insists that the simple left/right rule we were all told is far too simple, and that is the source of my statement that women and children are rarely completely dominant as (he says) men so often are. He mentions a *lot* of subtleties that I have never heard elsewhere--that for some people (including the author himself) dominance can change for certain shots and angles and conditions. So he cautions the reader particularly on trying to force youth and women to keep both eyes open without

I have a guess that this has to do with hemisphere separation--women have less hemisphere separation than men do, and my guess is that this goes along with that. I should find out when the greater hemisphere separation develops in men, that might help explain why he says youth tend to be like women and not like adult men in terms of dominance.

Anyway, sometime I want to closely question a completely dominant shooter on what they see, because I believe it is different than what I see. I am slightly right-eye dominant, but so slightly that I can make every test I know of come out either way with equal comfort. With both eyes open I will see either two front sights or two targets, depending on where I'm focused, and both are equally distinct and usable. It took a long time for me to really be certain that I have a slight preference for the right, and frankly it may not even matter for shooting purposes. I have slightly better vision in the right eye, and it's even possible that I am neurologically left-dominant but have learned to depend on the right eye because of the slightly better vision.

The upshot is that in every case I'm aware of I'm always better off closing one eye. I'm not a great shotgun shooter, however, and it's possible that there I can do the two-eyes thing.

Whoops, I forgot to add an icon:



Back to the real topic.

7x57

[tube_ee]

Originally Posted by Glock22Fan

I did say "might." I didn't realize that it was that common or that women were particularly prone to this. None of my students have ever had any problem determining which eye is dominant, though I do get a few who are cross-dominant (right handed, left eyed, or reverse) as is my wife.

It's more than just that. Not only am I strongly cross-dominant (very left-eyed, and so right-handed that I cannot shoot safely left-handed), but my eye dominance is distance dependent. The switchover point is about as far away from my head as a shotgun's bead.

If I shoot with both eyes open and unobstructed, I see two shotguns, pointing about 45 degrees off the line of sight, and crossing at about 2/3s down the barrel.

Back on topic, having an out lesbian woman, certified firearms instructor, and Pink Pistols leader, for a court case in California, is absolutely brilliant.

Plaintiff selection is proving to be one of the keys to victory, and Gene and the gang nailed it here.

Donations inbound as soon as I find a job... assuming that my wife doesn't lose hers first.... she's a teacher in a relatively poor district.

--Shannon

[rips31]

and her finger off the trigger (esp since this is for a promo shot).

great job gene & co!

Originally Posted by Glock22Fan

Might do even better if she learned to keep both eyes open.

Congratulations to everyone involved!

[RRangel]

Originally Posted by Glock22Fan

Might do even better if she learned to keep both eyes open.

Congratulations to everyone involved!

That's useful for close combat, not long range target shooting. What she's shooting at we don't know, but I'm betting both eyes aren't necessary.

[JDay]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

You all may remember Ms. Sykes from this story in The Sacramento Bee.



-Gene

Whats up with her trigger finger? That's just the kind of example we need in the media.

[Roadrunner]

Originally Posted by JDay

Whats up with her trigger finger? That's just the kind of example we need in the media.

Maybe she is getting ready to shoot and this picture was taken at a safe distance with a telephoto lens.

Originally Posted by JDay

Whats up with her trigger finger? That's just the kind of example we need in the media.

Did it occur to you that it might be a remote camera taking pictures while she is actually shooting?

Let's give firearms trainers the benefit of the doubt.

This thread should be about celebrating a big move to restoring our 2A rights, not about dumping on someone when you don't even know the whole story.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

You all may remember Ms. Sykes from this story in The Sacramento Bee.

-Gene

404 Not Found
Our apologies....
We can't find the page you requested in this location.

404

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

404

I think that story is now in the archives and accessing the article now costs $2.95.

I could be wrong about which story is referenced, however. . .

[hollabillz]

ONE MORE DAY WHOOP WHOOP

[SigShooter]

When it rains... IT POURS!

Look out America, California wants back in!

[Hopi]

Originally Posted by SigShooter

When it rains... IT POURS!

Look out America, California wants back in!

LOL.

+1.


Kudos CGF!

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by SigShooter

When it rains... IT POURS!

Look out America, California wants back in!

Man that is great. Can I use that as a sig line?

[yellowfin]

Holy shnikies! I guess it will be easier for CA to write them one big massive check instead of 3 or 4 at once for the Roster challenge and others, eh?

[Standard]

Great news!

[lioneaglegriffin]

so were working the handgun bag for all its worth i see. i'll be turning 21 soon and i appreciate all your efforts.

[Prc329]

Wow, talking about picking the right plaintiffs. This case and the safe handgun case are very well planned and thought out. I would love to be a fly on the wall in Gene's office.