Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-28-2010, 10:50 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,210
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Sykes and Peruta cases, what if.

What if both Sacramento and Yolo counties agree to shall issue and play no games with the issuance of CCW permits, basically cave in, would that limit ccw issuance to only sacramento/Yolo counties only or would the rest of the state be affected.

The same with the Peruta case, what if San Diego just caves in. Of course the number of plantiffs has increased, but I don't know if more counties have been brought in all.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:23 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Merely issuing licenses to the aggrieved parties will not fix the issue, as organizations cannot be issued a CCW (though with Citizens United, who knows). I know something of this because of my federal civil litigation against Denver and Colorado, so I had to be educated on this subject:

In order to have something effective and forever binding on the issuing agencies that are being sued, you need something called a "stipulated consent agreement" to be agreed to by both parties and approved by the federal judge. It is a binding agreement which is supervised by a federal judge (it's similar to the stipulated agreement that the Assenza case settled out with LAPD a quite few years back in state court).

I do not believe that this will happen in either of these cases. The politics of these counties generally disallow a settlement.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-29-2010, 2:00 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,580
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If they did all of a sudden throw up their hands and say that they can't afford to fight in court and go de facto shall-issue, my guess is Gura and Co. will find other stingy-issue counties and work from there. I don't know if it would even have to be in CA since Sykes was launched due to Nordyke's incorporation, which is now nationwide. Some NY counties could be targeted for example.
But I'm not on the inner circle, so I don't know for sure. Just a hunch.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-29-2010, 4:25 AM
PsychGuy274's Avatar
PsychGuy274 PsychGuy274 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,289
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I believe that since both of those cases are being filed against their own counties (versus filing a suit against the state of California) that the decisions will stay within those counties. However, a victory in either of those could set precedent for other counties to fight back and get changed to shall issue as well.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on these cases will chime in soon and correct me if I'm wrong.
__________________
I am a law enforcement officer in the state of Colorado. Nothing I post is legal advice of any kind.

CLICK HERE for a San Diego County WIN!

CLICK HERE to read my research review on the fight-or-flight response and its application to firearm training
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-29-2010, 4:57 AM
Scarecrow Repair's Avatar
Scarecrow Repair Scarecrow Repair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Internet Tough Guy(tm), them thar hills
Posts: 2,426
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Settlement might not be possible, in that I believe it is state law that requires "may issue". If that's the case, the only possible result would be a victory to throw out the state law.

But if settlement were possible, it would have to be legally binding, not just issuance of permits, and would almost certainly include payment of fees. This would finance the next round of lawsuits in different counties. Each settlement would increase the ease of the next lawsuit, and eventually the state would be shall issue. I suspect it would only take 2 or 3 rounds, as each succeeding round could involve more counties.

IANAL.
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-29-2010, 5:03 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsychGuy274 View Post
I believe that since both of those cases are being filed against their own counties (versus filing a suit against the state of California) that the decisions will stay within those counties. However, a victory in either of those could set precedent for other counties to fight back and get changed to shall issue as well.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on these cases will chime in soon and correct me if I'm wrong.
I didn't check on Peruta, but Sykes is in a US District Court.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-29-2010, 7:48 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
If they did all of a sudden throw up their hands and say that they can't afford to fight in court and go de facto shall-issue, my guess is Gura and Co. will find other stingy-issue counties and work from there.
They are already in court, and as Gray pointed out, not all of the plaintiffs are real people so they can't get rid of the case by just issuing to those who have applied. If they do choose to "throw up their hands" it will be by not committing resources to the case, and not appealing if/when we win in District court. One of the requests made of the court is to remove the need for "good cause" in the law so the application process would be the same but the sheriff couldn't refuse to issue simply because you don't have "good cause" for the permit.

So, if Sacto or Yolo "concede" the case and the law is changed, most of us will be able to get a CCW within just a few months. This is because most counties will see what CGF did to Sacramento and decide their money is better spent on things that don't involve lining the pockets of CGF's attorneys. At that point most mildly anti-CCW counties will start handing them out like candy. There will be some recalcitrant counties that will resist and, despite the court decision will refuse to issue to mortals. CalGuns Foundation will have some special surprises for them I am sure. If you live in San Francisco, LA or Alameda county I suspect it might be a little longer but the rest of us should be able to get a CCW fairly soon.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:10 AM
M1A Rifleman's Avatar
M1A Rifleman M1A Rifleman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,649
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

If I read the decision correctly, it only stated you have the right to guns in the home. I read nothing regarding carrying guns outside the home for self defense. This would mean the right to carry guns outside the home remains as uncharted territory. I predict these CA cases regarding CCW will be struck down as not an infringement based upon no SC precedent, same for the safe handguns as I bet it will be argued as only a minor infringement, but still plenty of guns available. I hope I am wrong, but I prefer to be pessimistic.
__________________
The only thing that is worse than an idiot, is someone who argues with one.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:16 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Repair View Post
Settlement might not be possible, in that I believe it is state law that requires "may issue". If that's the case, the only possible result would be a victory to throw out the state law.

But if settlement were possible, it would have to be legally binding, not just issuance of permits, and would almost certainly include payment of fees. This would finance the next round of lawsuits in different counties. Each settlement would increase the ease of the next lawsuit, and eventually the state would be shall issue. I suspect it would only take 2 or 3 rounds, as each succeeding round could involve more counties.

IANAL.

There are different ways of interpreting "May Issue" and a settlement is certainly possible.

On your last suggestion, I have been saying for years that we are invoking the domino effect, knock one down, and it makes it easier to another down, then another and so forth.

Team Billy Jack has been nibbling away at this for years, long before most of you heard of people like Gura (to whom all due praise), at last SCOTUS gives us a mighty weapon.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:23 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman View Post
If I read the decision correctly, it only stated you have the right to guns in the home. I read nothing regarding carrying guns outside the home for self defense. This would mean the right to carry guns outside the home remains as uncharted territory. I predict these CA cases regarding CCW will be struck down as not an infringement based upon no SC precedent, same for the safe handguns as I bet it will be argued as only a minor infringement, but still plenty of guns available. I hope I am wrong, but I prefer to be pessimistic.
It reaffirmed that the 2nd meant keep and bear guns.

They also said that in the home was a primary example of this, leaving it obvious that there must be other examples outside the home.

It was a fairly narrow ruling, because that is what they were asked for (deliberately) but the links are there to be built on.

Never fear.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:26 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,580
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman View Post
If I read the decision correctly, it only stated you have the right to guns in the home. I read nothing regarding carrying guns outside the home for self defense. This would mean the right to carry guns outside the home remains as uncharted territory. I predict these CA cases regarding CCW will be struck down as not an infringement based upon no SC precedent, same for the safe handguns as I bet it will be argued as only a minor infringement, but still plenty of guns available. I hope I am wrong, but I prefer to be pessimistic.

I keep seeing people say this but I think they're failing to take notice of this statement from the decision"

From page 39 section IV
Quote:
"Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defensewithin the home."

Notice is says "keep and bear are for lawful purposes"....not ONLY in the home, but "most notably in the home." Which to me would mean by exetention "also for self-defense less notably outside the home."...but less notably is still notable.

So to me that indicates the bearing arms for lawful purposes OUTSIDE of the home is ALSO protected.

Yes, the phrase about keeping in the home is repatedly used, but I dont ever recall reading where it ever said ONLY in the home. I would hafta go back and find the actual quote but the decision did make reference to excluding firearms from sensitive places like schools and gov't buildings. Well there are alot of places then that were NOT excluded by that statement which to me also indicates they DID extend that protection to outside of the home with exception of certain sensitive places. Yes....I'm sure that will be one of the tools the anti's try to use....trying to declare EVERYWHERE a sensitive place, but I think that will not last long, since a good portion of the country is already shall issue and they're not gonna want to be restricted by overly broad, far-reaching definitions of sensitive places.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

Last edited by Untamed1972; 06-29-2010 at 8:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:53 AM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Land of Oppression
Posts: 4,888
iTrader: 98 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
They are already in court, and as Gray pointed out, not all of the plaintiffs are real people so they can't get rid of the case by just issuing to those who have applied. If they do choose to "throw up their hands" it will be by not committing resources to the case, and not appealing if/when we win in District court. One of the requests made of the court is to remove the need for "good cause" in the law so the application process would be the same but the sheriff couldn't refuse to issue simply because you don't have "good cause" for the permit.

So, if Sacto or Yolo "concede" the case and the law is changed, most of us will be able to get a CCW within just a few months. This is because most counties will see what CGF did to Sacramento and decide their money is better spent on things that don't involve lining the pockets of CGF's attorneys. At that point most mildly anti-CCW counties will start handing them out like candy. There will be some recalcitrant counties that will resist and, despite the court decision will refuse to issue to mortals. CalGuns Foundation will have some special surprises for them I am sure. If you live in San Francisco, LA or Alameda county I suspect it might be a little longer but the rest of us should be able to get a CCW fairly soon.
Hoping for, but not holding my breath, from Yolo county.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-29-2010, 9:16 AM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,383
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
So to me that indicates the bearing arms for lawful purposes OUTSIDE of the home is ALSO protected.

Yes, the phrase about keeping in the home is repatedly used, but I dont ever recall reading where it ever said ONLY in the home.
Good reading and excellent analysis, I think. This has to be taken within the larger context that the state may impose reasonable restrictions, and licensure of concealed carry is almost certainly going to be seen as reasonable for those states that have that.

If AB 1934 takes OC off the table, as I expect it will, then the only path to carry in California will be CC licensure. The current law and practice has been demonstrated on many occasions (hat tip to TBJ and others) as being capricious and unfair in practice and administration. Even with wins in Sykes and Peruta, there will be some counties that won't see the handwriting on the wall and the CLEOs will stomp their feet and advocate for AB 1934.

And they will be sealing their own fate as post McDonald, and using Untamed1972's theory above, the practices of the "refuse-nik" CLEOs and those who bestow permits as gifts in kind will be open to attack for exactly what they are..... violations of civil rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Some CLEOs like Lee Baca, Charlie Beck and Mike Hennessy will fight to the bitter end. But in the end they will lose. We can thank the courage of Otis McDonald and the skill of Alan Gura and his team for that.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-29-2010, 10:59 AM
hvengel hvengel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 440
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDogatPlay View Post
...If AB 1934 takes OC off the table, as I expect it will, then the only path to carry in California will be CC licensure.....
And this will only make the case against the current CCW laws stronger.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-29-2010, 11:23 AM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,811
iTrader: 163 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
What if both Sacramento and Yolo counties agree to shall issue and play no games with the issuance of CCW permits, basically cave in, would that limit ccw issuance to only sacramento/Yolo counties only or would the rest of the state be affected.

The same with the Peruta case, what if San Diego just caves in. Of course the number of plantiffs has increased, but I don't know if more counties have been brought in all.

Nicki
Even if that was likely, who'd trust them. The Assenza settlement with LAPD is being largely ignored by LAPD with impunity.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23683474
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-29-2010, 11:52 AM
cmth cmth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 520
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Ed Peruta has stated that he will not accept any settlement on his case. He is taking it all the way. He is also paying for it with his own money. He just added half a dozen plaintiffs to his case as well as the CRPA. He posts updates in a thread on the forum at OCDO.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-29-2010, 12:03 PM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,383
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hvengel View Post
And this will only make the case against the current CCW laws stronger.
Kinda like I said in the sentences following.....

It must be good to be The Right People and be able to sit back and watch the opposition establish burden of proof for you with nearly every move they make.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-29-2010, 12:08 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
Even if that was likely, who'd trust them. The Assenza settlement with LAPD is being largely ignored by LAPD with impunity.
Well, you have 7 shall-issue categories in the Assenza settlement. Anyone contact Jason Davis if they are in those 7 categories and then go all the way? Anyone? LAPD only ignores with impunity when people refuse to apply and go through the process.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-29-2010, 12:26 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,811
iTrader: 163 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Well, you have 7 shall-issue categories in the Assenza settlement. Anyone contact Jason Davis if they are in those 7 categories and then go all the way? Anyone? LAPD only ignores with impunity when people refuse to apply and go through the process.
In which case one pays a few to more than a few thousand dollars for a CCW.

I did try to get the requirements for a CCW from LAPD (not that I qualify, as I don't even live in L.A., but I was curious what it would take in case I moved to L.A.). I ended up getting the requirements from californiaccw.org (which eventually led me to this site, BTW) because the "help" provided by the 4 LAPD officers I talked to at their station in Van Nuys ranged from unhelpful ("don't know anything about it, don't know anyone who knows, can't check, I don't think we have anyone who handles this") to hostile ("why would you need this; do you know that you'll automatically go to jail if you use it, and will likely stay there; we don't issue this; how many guns do you own (and it wasn't a positive thing, judging by the tone)"). So, not being able to get a CCW without a lawsuit doesn't sound like an effective settlement to me, especially when there's no stipulation for punishing the individuals responsible for obstructing the execution of the said settlement.

It's similar to the vendor contracts I have to deal with - if there's no clause specifying the punishment for breaking the contract, the contract is open to abuse and is often worthless. It works if you're dealing with a good vendor, and you can always find another vendor, but that doesn't work as well when you deal with the hostile government officials.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23683474
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-29-2010, 1:42 PM
GuyW GuyW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,303
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

There is a Court document that sets out who automatically qualifies for a LA CCW...I think the TBJ website has it, one or more threads here at CalGuns have it....LAPD (Im dang sure) does not hand it out to the public...
.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-29-2010, 1:54 PM
bodger's Avatar
bodger bodger is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,019
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Posted by Glock22 12 March 2009 :


If you are a resident of the City of Los Angeles and have by definition Good Cause and want to apply to LAPD or have applied and been denied within the past two years we would like to speak with you. Their is a Judicial Order in place that mandates 'Shall Issue' for persons in certain categories. LAPD and Chief Bratton ignore the policy of course. They routinely deny all applicants except for prosecutors and persons doing business with the city such as armorers who manufacture SWAT weapons.

It is way past time to make Chief Bratton follow the law. We are seeking qualified applicants to become Plaintiffs against the city. Remember, their is a Judicial Order in place that Chief Bratton is violating. A Motion to Compel and Motion re Contempt will get his attention. In addition he can be held personally liable for willfully disobeying the Order. Can you imagine Chief Bratton being held in Contempt of court? Actually many residents of Los Angeles already hold him in contempt but that is a different matter.

Want to a part of history? The following individuals are defined in the court mandated LAPD Policy.

1) Persons that can establish an immediate or continuing threat to themselves or their family

2) Persons employed in the field of security

3) Persons with Protective Order (Restraining Order)

4) Persons who transport in public, significant amounts of valuable property which is impractical to entrust to the protection of armored car services

5) Persons who can establish they are subject to a particular or unusual danger of physical attack and no reasonable means are available to abate that threat

The LAPD Policy states that: 'Good Cause shall be deemed to exist, and a license will be issue in the absence of strong countervailing factors...'

That's right folks, LAPD has a Shall Issue policy for certain individuals. If you are in one of those categories and comply with all requirements under 12050 PC you will get a CCW. If not from the kind, law abiding Chief, then by a Judge.

If I have your attention, use the e-mail form to contact us or cut to the chase and go to clueseau@dslextreme.com
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-29-2010, 1:55 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,580
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDogatPlay View Post
If AB 1934 takes OC off the table, as I expect it will, then the only path to carry in California will be CC licensure. The current law and practice has been demonstrated on many occasions (hat tip to TBJ and others) as being capricious and unfair in practice and administration. Even with wins in Sykes and Peruta, there will be some counties that won't see the handwriting on the wall and the CLEOs will stomp their feet and advocate for AB 1934.

It also makes me wonder if the our stupid state legislators are smart enough to sit back in the light of the McD decision and take a second look at these laws they're proposing and decide that it's prolly not worth the fight right now. I doubt it.....but one can hope....especially if strong compelling evidence can be shown to them by the right people to show them that in all likelihood the law will get struck down or face immediate injuction and costly litigation to the state for a law that never got to see the light of day. I would think that with a couple of successful injuctions that they'd tire rather quickly of getting smacked down at every turn.

Is there any part of the committe process with examines constitutionality of proposed laws and/or likely litigation costs. I also wonder if the McD decision will be enough to cause lack of support for those bills should they make it to the floor for a vote.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

Last edited by Untamed1972; 06-29-2010 at 1:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-29-2010, 2:24 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,811
iTrader: 163 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyW View Post
There is a Court document that sets out who automatically qualifies for a LA CCW...I think the TBJ website has it, one or more threads here at CalGuns have it....LAPD (Im dang sure) does not hand it out to the public...
.
I have it, if you need it.

The issue is that I'm not yet willing to spend a few thousand dollars (or more) to make them follow the law, and I'm not yet sure it's worth moving to L.A. I do work in L.A. though.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23683474

Last edited by nick; 06-29-2010 at 2:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-29-2010, 2:55 PM
grammaton76's Avatar
grammaton76 grammaton76 is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,537
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
If they did all of a sudden throw up their hands and say that they can't afford to fight in court and go de facto shall-issue, my guess is Gura and Co. will find other stingy-issue counties and work from there.
I would expect Gura would be signed onto it, but leaving someone else to do the heavy lifting.

Sister court precedent should show a "domino effect" once a few counties have been forced to be effectively shall-issue... once they see a lawsuit, they're going to KNOW how it's going to end up. I expect the trials to move quickly and decisively after the first couple have fallen.

At our Macdonald party last night, I advanced my prediction: most counties will be 99% shall-issue. That is to say that 99% of people will be able to get through, but they'll effectively save their 1% of rejections for people they don't like for one reason or another.

When challenged, they'll simply be able to say "Hey, this guy seemed shifty in the interview" or something subjective like that. But the 99% other guys will get their permits.

On a side note, if permits are forced to be shall-issue, I expect to be participating in "ccw application drives" and "ccw training group buys" in the place of open carry events.

Arizona got to be permitless after everybody and their brother acquired permits, which took place over a nice long leisurely amount of time.

I expect to channel a lot of folks' enthusiasm and energy into getting everybody and their brother to get CCW's in their respective counties. Once that's done... we'll see just how quickly we can make CCW's ubiquitous in CA and make the sheriff's depts start wondering why they have to process all that paperwork when everyone's carrying...
__________________
Primary author of gunwiki.net - 'like' it on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Gunwiki/242578512591 to see whenever new content gets added!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-29-2010, 3:01 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
I have it, if you need it.

The issue is that I'm not yet willing to spend a few thousand dollars (or more) to make them follow the law, and I'm not yet sure it's worth moving to L.A. I do work in L.A. though.
It doesn't cost thousands of dollars to see if they will follow the law. You can apply for $20 initial cost and you can do that for the non-resident CCW permit because you work there. It is only good for 90 days but you'll know if they are following the letter of the law. All for $20 or $200 if they issue you the permit.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-29-2010, 4:24 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,811
iTrader: 163 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
It doesn't cost thousands of dollars to see if they will follow the law. You can apply for $20 initial cost and you can do that for the non-resident CCW permit because you work there. It is only good for 90 days but you'll know if they are following the letter of the law. All for $20 or $200 if they issue you the permit.
Interesting. I'll look into this.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23683474
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-29-2010, 6:29 PM
corrupt's Avatar
corrupt corrupt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Richmond
Posts: 1,100
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Wow. I'm hoping and assuming you don't have to renew your non-resident LA permit every 90 days for $200. Surely there is a lesser renewal fee. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if you had to shell out $200 each time....
__________________
Never water another man's whiskey.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-29-2010, 7:13 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,811
iTrader: 163 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrupt View Post
Wow. I'm hoping and assuming you don't have to renew your non-resident LA permit every 90 days for $200. Surely there is a lesser renewal fee. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if you had to shell out $200 each time....
Sounds like a serious burden to me.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=23683474
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-29-2010, 7:17 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrupt View Post
Wow. I'm hoping and assuming you don't have to renew your non-resident LA permit every 90 days for $200. Surely there is a lesser renewal fee. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if you had to shell out $200 each time....
I don't know what the fee is for renewal but it is intended as a temporary permit and since it is a matter of sheriff discretion he could have a higher hurdle for 90 day permits. But I can't imagine qualifying for a 90 day and then being denied for a resident permit with the same good cause.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-29-2010, 7:24 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,909
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmth View Post
Ed Peruta has stated that he will not accept any settlement on his case. He is taking it all the way. He is also paying for it with his own money. He just added half a dozen plaintiffs to his case as well as the CRPA. He posts updates in a thread on the forum at OCDO.
I must say, when I first saw Ed Peruta popping in here, he made a bad impression in many ways. Now my opinion of him has reversed: the way he has handled this is great. He's stepping up and being a team player, for the benefit of everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Merely issuing licenses to the aggrieved parties will not fix the issue, as organizations cannot be issued a CCW (though with Citizens United, who knows). I know something of this because of my federal civil litigation against Denver and Colorado, so I had to be educated on this subject:
Right, some of the attorneys here have explained previously that they need an organization as a plaintiff, so that the defendants can't eliminate standing by merely issuing a handful of CCWs for a couple of years. I've learned a lot here!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
I do not believe that this will happen in either of these cases. The politics of these counties generally disallow a settlement.
Someone else suggested that there was some thought in choosing which counties to go after. Wouldn't be much point in suing a county that settles (including with organizational plaintiffs) at the district level. Or rather, there would be a point, for people in that limited area, and it would embolden others, but it wouldn't be the 9th Circuit victory that really counts.
__________________
"And the kids used to come up and reach in the pool and rub my leg down, so it was straight, then watch the hair come back up again. They’d look at it. So I learned about roaches, I learned about kids jumping on my lap... And I’ve loved kids jumping on my lap.”
"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”
"Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community."
- Joe Biden
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-29-2010, 7:36 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
In which case one pays a few to more than a few thousand dollars for a CCW.
Why don't you ask Jason directly how much it would cost?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:06 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

How would a county settle with organizational plaintiffs? They stipulate to issue to all current and future members of the organization, no infringements? LOL
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:23 PM
socalblue socalblue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 811
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I throw this one out as a challenge to Gene Hoffman:

Talk our current AG into writing a new AG Opinion overturning the 1970's vintage Younger opinion. Given the post-McDonald world there is a perfectly valid reason for revisiting the matter.

Game, set, match for shall-issue. With the may-issue wording remaining (Simply defining self protection as valid Good Cause) the riff raff can still be denied.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:38 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalblue View Post
I throw this one out as a challenge to Gene Hoffman:

Talk our current AG into writing a new AG Opinion overturning the 1970's vintage Younger opinion. Given the post-McDonald world there is a perfectly valid reason for revisiting the matter.

Game, set, match for shall-issue. With the may-issue wording remaining (Simply defining self protection as valid Good Cause) the riff raff can still be denied.
Do you want him to walk on water or turn water into wine?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:38 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,447
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalblue View Post
I throw this one out as a challenge to Gene Hoffman:

Talk our current AG into writing a new AG Opinion overturning the 1970's vintage Younger opinion. Given the post-McDonald world there is a perfectly valid reason for revisiting the matter.

Game, set, match for shall-issue. With the may-issue wording remaining (Simply defining self protection as valid Good Cause) the riff raff can still be denied.
Stare decisis applies to Federal Court rulings. Not so much to AG opinions...

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:40 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,909
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalblue View Post
I throw this one out as a challenge to Gene Hoffman:

Talk our current AG into writing a new AG Opinion overturning the 1970's vintage Younger opinion. Given the post-McDonald world there is a perfectly valid reason for revisiting the matter.
And I throw the challenge right back at you:

The AG isn't Gene Hoffman's lawyer. They don't need to write opinion letters for him. The AG is California's lawyer, and the AG does write opinion letters for the legislature.

Take a look at the 1977 letter:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AG Younger, 1977
Dear Senator Beverly:

You have requested the opinion of this office on the following question:
In light of the Court of Appeal decision in Salute v. Pitchess, 61 Cal. App. 3d 557, what are the obligations of the local sheriffs, police chiefs, and police commissions under Penal Code sections 12050 and 12051 when application for a concealed weapon license is made?
Senator Beverly wrote AG Younger, asking him a question, and the AG responded with an informal letter.

All we need is one state representative to send such a request to the AG, and the AG would have an opportunity to write such a letter if he desires to.

So why not get some pro-CCW state rep (Assemblyman Knight perhaps?) to ask the question?
__________________
"And the kids used to come up and reach in the pool and rub my leg down, so it was straight, then watch the hair come back up again. They’d look at it. So I learned about roaches, I learned about kids jumping on my lap... And I’ve loved kids jumping on my lap.”
"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”
"Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community."
- Joe Biden
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:42 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Stare decisis applies to Federal Court rulings. Not so much to AG opinions...

-Gene
Translation: Steve Cooley or Kamala Harris will overturn that ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-29-2010, 8:50 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Translation: Steve Cooley or Kamala Harris will overturn that ruling.
It probably won't be in his/her hands by next January.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-29-2010, 9:28 PM
Mstrty's Avatar
Mstrty Mstrty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,450
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalblue View Post
I throw this one out as a challenge to Gene Hoffman:

Talk our current AG into writing a new AG Opinion overturning the 1970's vintage Younger opinion. Given the post-McDonald world there is a perfectly valid reason for revisiting the matter.

Game, set, match for shall-issue. With the may-issue wording remaining (Simply defining self protection as valid Good Cause) the riff raff can still be denied.
You assume JB is pro gun.
__________________
~ ~
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-29-2010, 9:33 PM
KylaGWolf's Avatar
KylaGWolf KylaGWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,699
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
What if both Sacramento and Yolo counties agree to shall issue and play no games with the issuance of CCW permits, basically cave in, would that limit ccw issuance to only sacramento/Yolo counties only or would the rest of the state be affected.

The same with the Peruta case, what if San Diego just caves in. Of course the number of plantiffs has increased, but I don't know if more counties have been brought in all.

Nicki
Problem is I don't see San Diego caving any time soon. Although I may have a reason to file even more now but considering someone else had a worse situation and got turned down I am not going to hold my breath.
__________________
"I declare to you that women must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand." Susan B. Anthony
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:31 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical