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 09-14-2010, 3:44 AM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,953
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default So, when can we...

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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-14-2010, 4:00 AM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 17,260
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

two weeks
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-14-2010, 4:04 AM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,953
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by colossians323 View Post
two weeks
There's always someone....

If I got all the items on that list.... I would pinch myself.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-14-2010, 4:47 AM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 17,260
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
If I got all the items on that list.... I would pinch myself.
I would pinch you too
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-14-2010, 5:55 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

B. Is the closest, A. next closest.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-14-2010, 9:21 AM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter -
Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-14-2010, 9:29 AM
stphnman20's Avatar
stphnman20 stphnman20 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SCV
Posts: 6,600
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

For the BB, Never..
CCW, Never..
Buy Standard mags, Never..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-14-2010, 9:37 AM
Vbp6us's Avatar
Vbp6us Vbp6us is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 236
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stphnman20 View Post
For the BB, Never..
CCW, Never..
Buy Standard mags, Never..
Um...there are open cases for CCW so that one is in the works.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-14-2010, 2:10 PM
b.faust's Avatar
b.faust b.faust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,575
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_quark View Post
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...
__________________
______________________________________
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate

DONATE TODAY!!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-14-2010, 2:13 PM
Bizcuits's Avatar
Bizcuits Bizcuits is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buckeye, AZ
Posts: 6,988
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stphnman20 View Post
CCW, Never..
Definitely wrong on that one... Several counties are slowly becoming Shall issue.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-14-2010, 2:16 PM
beauregard's Avatar
beauregard beauregard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Candy Mountain
Posts: 1,861
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
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.
__________________
Fools don't fit in the boots that I tread in.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-14-2010, 2:27 PM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,809
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizcuits View Post
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.
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-14-2010, 2:29 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

stphnman20 has brilliantly locked up a roster spot in the CGN "uninformed peanut gallery" all-pro 2011 team.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-14-2010, 2:31 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

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.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-14-2010, 3:36 PM
stitchnicklas's Avatar
stitchnicklas stitchnicklas is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: riverside,ca
Posts: 6,803
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

all will happen after i move to a free state...
__________________
able to find wholesale pricing on many firearm related items,accessories and clothing send a message to find that special item you are looking for.
pm me for details on anything i know how to find almost any wholesale item cheap,i am a 01 FFL & business owner https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nickl...0933899?ref=hl
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-14-2010, 3:45 PM
bigcalidave's Avatar
bigcalidave bigcalidave is offline
Pre-Banned
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,680
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stphnman20 View Post
For the BB, Never..
CCW, Never..
Buy Standard mags, Never..
I'm sad that you believe that!
__________________
Contact me about Advertising on Calguns.net
Marketing Director, Calguns.net
Dave Shore
NRA Life Member


Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-14-2010, 5:51 PM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,953
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-14-2010, 8:07 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_quark View Post
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.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 09-15-2010 at 8:27 AM.. Reason: hat tip to BJ; added Nordyke
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-14-2010, 9:02 PM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by b.faust View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
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.
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter -
Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-14-2010, 9:19 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
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.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 09-14-2010 at 9:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-14-2010, 11:29 PM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
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.
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter -
Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-15-2010, 6:19 AM
MrPlutonium MrPlutonium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 503
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Can I add an "F" question? When is reciprocity coming? I'm tired of just being able to carry in flyover country.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-15-2010, 6:48 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 17,384
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
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.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-15-2010, 8:45 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_quark View Post
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?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-15-2010, 9:06 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

^ 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.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-15-2010, 9:13 AM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
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?

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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."
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter -
Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-15-2010, 9:38 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_quark View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_quark View Post
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.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-15-2010, 9:47 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_quark View Post
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.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-15-2010, 10:01 AM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
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).

Quote:
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.
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter -
Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-15-2010, 10:16 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,869
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-15-2010, 10:53 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
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.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-15-2010, 11:45 AM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
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.
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter -
Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-15-2010, 11:53 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stphnman20 View Post
For the BB, Never..
CCW, Never..
Buy Standard mags, Never..
Be serious and contribute to the discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-15-2010, 11:56 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-15-2010, 12:08 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,522
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-16-2010, 1:07 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
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.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-16-2010, 6:59 AM
Colt Colt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,067
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-16-2010, 7:32 AM
Barabas's Avatar
Barabas Barabas is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: 916
Posts: 3,372
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-16-2010, 7:42 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt View Post
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?
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-16-2010, 9:54 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,671
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beauregard View Post
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.
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 9:38 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.