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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-20-2011, 4:46 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default CGF Sues San Mateo County Over Preempted Parks Carry Ban

Calguns Foundation Sues San Mateo County
Over Preempted Parks Carry Ban

San Carlos, CA (October 20, 2011) – As part of its ongoing Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, the Calguns Foundation (CGF) announced that it has sued San Mateo County over their ban on the carry of firearms by those licensed to carry in San Mateo County Parks in a case entitled Early v. San Mateo County. California prohibits cities and counties from passing additional regulations regarding the licensure of firearms. Plaintiffs Grant Early and Gene Hoffman both hold state-wide licenses to carry firearms from their respective sheriffs in the counties where they reside.

CGF approached San Mateo County to request that the county simply add an exception to their ban on carrying a firearm in county parks for those who are licensed by the State of California to carry a firearm. The County refused to add the exception.

Those who hold carry licenses in California have had to show “good cause,” and complete a background check and training to obtain a permit from their sheriff or chief of police. In most cases “good cause” is a specific life threatening reason for their need to carry. However, in some counties the need for self defense is considered good cause to comport with the Constitution.

“My need to carry a firearm for self defense doesn’t stop at the edge of a county park,” said plaintiff Grant Early. “Mountain lions are common in San Mateo county parks as are predators of the two legged kind. I’m glad that the California Legislature saw fit to protect my right to keep and bear arms by requiring uniformity for carry licenses throughout the state.”

“Recently, San Francisco attempted to regulate the licensing of firearms and that attempt cost San Francisco more than $500,000.00 in legal costs to lose a court case,” stated Gene Hoffman, Chairman of CGF and a plaintiff. “Carry licenses were specifically highlighted in that case as being the type of state license that cities and counties had no authority to regulate. I certainly hope that San Mateo County comes to understand that it’s a bad idea to waste county taxpayer money to violate California law and limit fundamental individual rights.”

A copy of the complaint is available at http://bit.ly/earlyvsm.

About the Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative

CGF is working to compel government agencies to comply with the Constitution, to promote transparency in the process of issuing licenses, and to bring about a lawful and orderly way for California citizens to exercise self-defense. . Through its Richards v. Prieto case, CGF changed Sacramento County’s carry license issuance policy to allow any law-abiding resident of Sacramento County to obtain a license. The case continues against Sheriff Prieto and Yolo County in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to test the sheriff’s assertion that he has the sole discretion to decide to who may – and who may not -- exercise the right to self-defense. Additionally, CGF has sued Merced County in Rossow v. Merced for various unlawful policies and procedures required of its carry license applicants. Recently, CGF won a lawsuit against Ventura County who had refused to make public the “good causes” statements that some Ventura County residents had used to obtain carry permits from the sheriff in that county. CGF is working to make the right to carry the means of self-defense available for all law abiding Californians. The lives of people living in Los Angeles and San Francisco are no less deserving of the constitutional right of self-defense than the good people of Seattle, Portland, and 40 other states throughout the nation.

___

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which serves its members by providing Second Amendment-related education, strategic litigation and the defense of innocent California gun owners from improper or malicious prosecution. The Calguns Foundation seeks to inform government and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own, and lawfully use firearms in California.

Contact:
Gene Hoffman 650-275-1015
hoffmang@calgunsfoundation.org
__________________
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
  #2  
Old 10-20-2011, 4:50 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,976
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Awesome! Does this also include the "open space preserves"?
  #3  
Old 10-20-2011, 4:52 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Ah so this is what you were talking about. Sounds like it should be a simple state preemption case. You are asking for a Preliminary Injunction right?
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
  #4  
Old 10-20-2011, 4:53 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,753
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Excellent. There are other localities that prohibit firearms in city parks with no provision for those who already have a license to carry wherein the ordinance requires a permit issued by the city police chief. If you are already licensed by the state to carry- why then would one need another permit to carry in a park?
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
  #5  
Old 10-20-2011, 4:54 PM
Databyter's Avatar
Databyter Databyter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

This seems on the face of it like a liberal knee-jerk reaction without good cause.

I'm sure CGF will win here (not saying it will be easy).

That reminds me, next time I have a few extra bucks I'm gonna have to donate to help you guys push these rights.

Good going CGF.
  #6  
Old 10-20-2011, 5:00 PM
paul0660's Avatar
paul0660 paul0660 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ukiah
Posts: 15,705
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Good. Hopefully success here will lay foundation for further elimination of these ordinances without lawsuit.
__________________
*REMOVE THIS PART BEFORE POSTING*
  #7  
Old 10-20-2011, 5:00 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Awesome! Does this also include the "open space preserves"?
The same logic will apply and we will then move around the state applying that logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
Ah so this is what you were talking about. Sounds like it should be a simple state preemption case. You are asking for a Preliminary Injunction right?
We will move quickly on this as Fiscal controls.

-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
  #8  
Old 10-20-2011, 5:04 PM
mosinnagantm9130's Avatar
mosinnagantm9130 mosinnagantm9130 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Places
Posts: 8,723
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Nice, go get em CGF!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodEyeSniper View Post
My neighbors think I'm a construction worker named Bruce.

Little do they know that's just my stripper outfit and name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopperX View Post
I am currently cleaning it and I noticed when I squeeze the snake this white paste like substance comes out. What the heck is this crap?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff L View Post
Don't D&T a virgin milsurp rifle. You'll burn in collector hell.
  #9  
Old 10-20-2011, 5:28 PM
erik's Avatar
erik erik is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SFBA (SJC)
Posts: 130
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default



Then on to other Bay Area counties, hopefully Santa Clara count next.

http://library.municode.com/HTML/137..._SB14-31.1FIWE

Quote:
Sec. B14-31.1. - Firearms and weapons.

(a)

No person shall have in his possession, set, leave or deposit, fire or discharge, or cause to be fired or discharged, across, in, on or into County park lands any weapon, spear, missile, sling shot, trap or hunting device, air or gas weapon, throwing knife or axe, or any other weapon or device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal, damaging any property or natural resource, except in areas established for such use or while in direct transit to or from such areas and available parking .
(b-f doesn't give any exemptions save for specific areas designated for firearms use. The code is under Parks - General Conduct. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place for any exemption for officials?)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
Damned criminals! When will they learn that they can't carry guns in prohibited places? I call for a ban on criminals! With a ban on criminals in place we will be assured that this kind of thing can't happen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal Bob View Post
To wish for Utopia is understandable, but it cannot be legislated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHS
I wanna have SAF's babies.
  #10  
Old 10-20-2011, 5:34 PM
Andy Taylor Andy Taylor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado Rockies
Posts: 1,369
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

__________________
"Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement." Winston Churchill

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can” Samual Adams
  #11  
Old 10-20-2011, 6:06 PM
Darklyte27's Avatar
Darklyte27 Darklyte27 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Bay Area USI Range
Posts: 9,377
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

in another words
"I kick ***" stated Gene Hoffman, Chairman of CGF and a plaintiff.
__________________
2 HANDGUNS STOLEN! 1 RECOVERED READ HERE

Chickens

Want to get into Ham Radio? Click here
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=202581

PM me Wouxun 2M radio 4 Sale
  #12  
Old 10-20-2011, 6:11 PM
Fjold's Avatar
Fjold Fjold is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Bakersfield
Posts: 20,991
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

The city of Bakersfield has a similar restriction:

12.56.050 Prohibited acts in parks.
Within the limits of any park, it is unlawful for any person, other than a duly authorized city employee in the performance of his or her duty, to do any of the following:

.................................................. ..................

I. Take into, exhibit, use or discharge any firearm, weapon, air gun or slingshot;
__________________
Frank

One rifle, one planet, Holland's 375

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/Fjold/member8325.png

Life Member NRA, CRPA and SAF
  #13  
Old 10-20-2011, 7:14 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 530
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nothing much is gonna happen in SCC until Scocca v Smith goes somewhere. Unless somehow we can have more than lawsuit against them at the same time w/o getting them joined or delayed.
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
  #14  
Old 10-20-2011, 7:22 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,898
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

A preemption case... Genius. A win here will set a great example to all the other municipalities with similar laws.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
  #15  
Old 10-20-2011, 7:23 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabrisnet View Post
Nothing much is gonna happen in SCC until Scocca v Smith goes somewhere. Unless somehow we can have more than lawsuit against them at the same time w/o getting them joined or delayed.
This issue is discreet and separate from the equal protections case against Santa Clara. They'll be asked to change their parks regs too and will get to choose between complying and paying our legal fees also.

-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
  #16  
Old 10-20-2011, 7:31 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,886
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor P Price View Post
A preemption case... Genius. A win here will set a great example to all the other municipalities with similar laws.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

__________________
  #17  
Old 10-20-2011, 7:46 PM
EchoFourTango's Avatar
EchoFourTango EchoFourTango is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 654
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nice
__________________
When it hits the fan, call a RADIO MAN!

NRA Member for life

Semper Sometimes – appropriation of Semper Fi used to deride the part-time nature of service in the Marine Corps Reserve. ARAH!!!

I used to make jokes... But then I lost my sense of humor in a boating accident.
  #18  
Old 10-20-2011, 8:19 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,119
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

All of us should be searching or own city and county municipal codes for similar violations
  #19  
Old 10-20-2011, 8:26 PM
johndoe2150 johndoe2150 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 169
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple K View Post
All of us should be searching or own city and county municipal codes for similar violations
I would imagine that this could be problematic.

City of Lomita

9.16.050 - Carrying concealed weapons.

It is unlawful for any person except a duly elected or appointed peace officer to carry concealed upon or about his person any revolver, pistol, dagger, dirk, locking-blade knife, slug or sling shot, billy or other deadly weapon or instrument without first having obtained a written permit from the sheriff of the county of Los Angeles.
  #20  
Old 10-20-2011, 8:34 PM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Very good. I love it! So much win here!
__________________

  #21  
Old 10-20-2011, 8:45 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

Great case, very good case.

Let's hold off on looking through the legal codes until we are further along in Early or as specifically directed.
  #22  
Old 10-20-2011, 8:49 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,119
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe2150 View Post
I would imagine that this could be problematic.

City of Lomita

9.16.050 - Carrying concealed weapons.

It is unlawful for any person except a duly elected or appointed peace officer to carry concealed upon or about his person any revolver, pistol, dagger, dirk, locking-blade knife, slug or sling shot, billy or other deadly weapon or instrument without first having obtained a written permit from the sheriff of the county of Los Angeles.
Problematic how? The statute that you cited is clearly unlawful. You found it in a matter of minutes and posted it here. There are now nearly 100,000 Calgunners that could easily do the same in their city. Where's the problem?
__________________

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson.
"a system of licensing the right of
self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause”
Don Kilmer
  #23  
Old 10-20-2011, 8:56 PM
paul0660's Avatar
paul0660 paul0660 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ukiah
Posts: 15,705
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The statute that you cited is clearly unlawful.
Not exactly yet.

Finding local ordinances that violate rights is not difficult. Win this one............foundation and traction.
__________________
*REMOVE THIS PART BEFORE POSTING*
  #24  
Old 10-20-2011, 9:10 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,275
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

We have a forthcoming fire mission for just this purpose...

-Brandon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Great case, very good case.

Let's hold off on looking through the legal codes until we are further along in Early or as specifically directed.
__________________
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.
  #25  
Old 10-20-2011, 9:20 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,898
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
We have a forthcoming fire mission for just this purpose...

-Brandon
A really long mailing lost perhaps?

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
  #26  
Old 10-20-2011, 9:46 PM
johndoe2150 johndoe2150 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 169
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple K View Post
Problematic how? The statute that you cited is clearly unlawful. You found it in a matter of minutes and posted it here. There are now nearly 100,000 Calgunners that could easily do the same in their city. Where's the problem?
Problematic for the city. I should have specified.
  #27  
Old 10-20-2011, 10:21 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,061
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A small, but important step.

May many other steps follow in ....

Quote:
“Mountain lions are common in San Mateo county parks as are predators of the two legged kind. I’m glad that the California Legislature saw fit to protect my right to keep and bear arms by requiring uniformity for carry licenses throughout the state.”
Off Topic: The odds are your first indication that a mountain lion may attack you is the feeling of fangs in the back of your skull and neck and claws tearing into your back and shoulders. Those are sneaky sons of a gun!

If I were in mountain lion country, I'd want to open carry two 4" 7-shot L-frames w/.357 mag AND two large fixed bladed (at least 6" blades) knives. Why two of each? Because you want to be able to get to them w/either hand. 4" barrels are short enough to maneuver while wrestling w/the beast and I'd carry revolvers so that shooting "muzzle to meat" won't be a problem.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 10-20-2011 at 10:23 PM..
  #28  
Old 10-20-2011, 10:29 PM
jb7706's Avatar
jb7706 jb7706 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Elk Grove
Posts: 1,570
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

psst...Sac County, you listening?
__________________
The statements above are mine alone and do not reflect the policies or positions of Folsom Shooting Club or Sacramento Valley Shooting Center unless otherwise noted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
Sacramento would declare martial law sooner than they'd meet with Gandhi, Gautama Budda, and Jesus Christ if the three were packing heat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Even people not from San Francisco can appreciate a good public spanking like this.
WANTED: G19. New or near new condition in Sacramento area.
  #29  
Old 10-20-2011, 11:09 PM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle, OK
Posts: 10,616
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Excellent. There are other localities that prohibit firearms in city parks with no provision for those who already have a license to carry wherein the ordinance requires a permit issued by the city police chief. If you are already licensed by the state to carry- why then would one need another permit to carry in a park?
Yeah, like Los Angeles County. They have an ordinance prohibiting carry of firearms in county parks. If they win this one, the rest of the counties with similar ordinances should fall like dominoes.
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
  #30  
Old 10-21-2011, 12:57 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,117
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I love how Gene is personally a plaintiff here, as if he's walking up and slapping them right across the face this time instead of just releasing the hounds
  #31  
Old 10-21-2011, 5:07 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,540
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I especially like that Gene is a plaintiff for several reasons, one of which is an EXTREMELY good thing, and proves that anyone can be similarly situated (so long as they're clean, and of the right fit of course).

Thanks CGF.

Erik.
  #32  
Old 10-21-2011, 5:49 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In the second claim for relief there is a significant typo. It states that the relief sought "includes but be limited to..." rather than" includes but NOT be limited to..."
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
  #33  
Old 10-21-2011, 6:15 AM
Wrangler John Wrangler John is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default LTC in Parks

Great, now the visitors may soon be able to pack, but the Rangers are still unarmed. Can't even carry handcuffs or pepper spray. Many a day I had to transport $12-20k of cash to the Treasurer's Office for deposit while unarmed, on multiple days a week. Even the coin collectors working city parking meters packed in the old days. The County wouldn't let us deposit cash in a local bank, or hire an armored car service. Not to mention safety of dealing with assault and battery, DV, child molestation, drug and mentally deranged cases. They even discovered a pot growing operation in Huddart Park, but medical marijuana has probably killed that business. Been living on luck for a long time. Even the S.F. Watershed tenders working in San Mateo County were deputized and carried. They are really anti-gun and self-defense.

Given that, the County will fight the whole way - go get 'em.
  #34  
Old 10-21-2011, 8:49 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,973
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is there a difference between county parks and county fairgrounds? Are they both county property?
  #35  
Old 10-21-2011, 8:52 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,540
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Is there a difference between county parks and county fairgrounds? Are they both county property?
Very good question. I would imagine that if they are the same (as far as property), could this effect Nordyke?

Erik.
  #36  
Old 10-21-2011, 9:22 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,973
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was thinking the other way around.
  #37  
Old 10-21-2011, 9:25 AM
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 FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Is there a difference between county parks and county fairgrounds? Are they both county property?
You know, it's really scary when by only two sentences, I can figure out what your angle is.

From Nordyke II:

But even if we accept the Nordykes' argument that in at least some cases the Legislature meant to preempt local governments from criminalizing the possession of firearms by certain classes of people, that would establish at most that the Ordinance is partially preempted with respect to those classes. Partial preemption does not invalidate the Ordinance as a whole.

In sum, whether or not the Ordinance is partially preempted, Alameda County has the authority to prohibit the operation of gun shows held on its property, and, at least to that extent, may ban possession of guns on its property.

There is a reason Alameda County allows people with LTC's, including LTC's of other counties which issue freely (such Sacramento, El Dorado, Sutter, etc), to carry there, due to the fear of the preemptive nature of GC53071. Though I'm sure that San Mateo will likely make the same argument you're thinking in your head, the fact that one of their sister counties (in fact, the county which San Mateo copied Alameda's gun possession ban word for word on fairgrounds property) exempts LTC holders is telling.

They also aren't asking for a complete invalidation, just that state law partially preempts law in regards to LTC holders. There is no "state gun show" license as far as I have seen, there is a state LTC, however.

UPDATE: Just checked again here, no state gun show license exists.

I also checked the Gun Show Enforcement Act of 2000. It says:

(a) No person shall produce, promote, sponsor, operate, or otherwise organize a gun show or event, as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 12071, unless that person possesses a valid certificate of eligibility from the Department of Justice. Unless the department's records indicate that the applicant is a person prohibited from possessing firearms, a certificate of eligibility shall be issued by the Department of Justice to an applicant provided the applicant does all of the following:

A certificate is not a license. Words matter.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 10-21-2011 at 9:42 AM..
  #38  
Old 10-21-2011, 9:33 AM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Is there a difference between county parks and county fairgrounds? Are they both county property?
Haha. In Nordyke the issue of carry was not before the court. It was about acquisition of arms on county property. With this case carry is before the court. There is a difference.
__________________

  #39  
Old 10-21-2011, 9:48 AM
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 Crom View Post
Haha. In Nordyke the issue of carry was not before the court. It was about acquisition of arms on county property. With this case carry is before the court. There is a difference.
It's actually simplier than that. The thing the DOJ issues to allow for a person to run a gun show is not a license, it is a certificate. Words matter.
  #40  
Old 10-21-2011, 9:49 AM
barracudamuscle barracudamuscle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 382
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Insert ::Likes This:: button here! Great work as always!
Closed Thread

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 4:05 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.