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 05-18-2007, 5:45 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Is Guillory v. Gates important?

Guillory v. County of Orange (Guillory v. Gates) (1984)

This is my, simplified, explanation of Guillory and Gates (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry..../guillory.html), and why it is important to CCW applicants. Sorry it is so long, but I think it needs saying.

Guillory v. Gates, as it is usually known, established important legal principles which are crucial to those seeking a CCW from Sheriffs and Police Chiefs who are believed to be operating an “unfair” issuance policy.

In a nutshell, Guillory (and others) sued Sheriff Gates and other officials for refusing to issue CCW’s. Referring to the original jury trial, paragraph 19 of the appellate court judgment explains: “During the trial, the appellants attempted to cross-examine Gates concerning the way he handled the concealed weapon permit applications of other individuals. The district court limited this cross-examination, holding evidence of Gates' handling of other permits was irrelevant.”

As Guillory was unable to cross-examine and introduce this evidence, he was unable to prove that his “Good Cause” statement was as satisfactory as those of other, successful, applicants, and he lost his claim. The appeal court ruling (para 33) (referring to the original District Court decision) states: “The court granted Gates' and Davis' motions for a directed verdict based upon: (1) the immunity provisions of sections 820.2 and 821.2 of the California Government Code; and (2) a lack of credible evidence establishing the alleged constitutional violations.”

Guillory appealed, claiming that he should have been allowed to cross-examine on this evidence. The appeal court agreed, saying (para 49): “Appellants argue that the court erred by preventing them from examining Gates concerning his handling of the applications of certain other individuals. We agree. The appellants were entitled to place evidence before the jury from which it might find an equal protection violation. By limiting the examination of Gates, the court prevented appellants from doing this. The appellants were unable to attempt to establish how they as a class were treated differently than others. A law that is administered so as to unjustly discriminate between persons similarly situated may deny equal protection. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 30 L. Ed. 220, 6 S. Ct. 1064 (1886); Kuzinich v. County of Santa Clara, 689 F.2d 1345, 1349 (9th Cir. 1983).”

Therefore the original District Court judgment was (paras 44 & 46) “Reversed and remanded.”

In addition, the ruling stated that: “an arbitrary and capricious CCW permit scheme that treats similarly situated individuals differently may give rise to liability on the part of the issuing official on Federal Equal Protection grounds.

Basically, the Appeal Court judgment opened the way for a fresh attempt in the District Court, where the cross-examination of Sheriff Gates’ issuing policy to other people would have been allowed. It established that CCW applicants had the right to cross examine on the subject of a department’s other permit issues, and stated that individuals had the right to equal treatment regarding CCW issuance.

Note: The Appeal Court was not asked to order, nor had it any basis to order, the granting of a CCW to Guillory.

Therefore, there was still a possibly long and uphill battle to be won.

Before that battle was entered, the authorities (expecting an expensive battle which they might well lose) gave in and offered an out of court settlement. The details of this settlement are subject to non-disclosure, but the monetary value was some $1.3 million (in 1984). It can also be assumed that part of the settlement was Guillory’s agreement to seek his CCW elsewhere, thus saving face for the Sheriff.

Additional benefits of the decision are seen in the analysis of the case by Stepp and Beauchamp in a letter to the “Jews of the preservation of Firearm Ownership.“ http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/opinion1.pdf

In that letter, based on Guillory, the following statements are made:

“May a Sheriff require applicants who reside within the city limits of a particular city to apply only, or first, to that city’s Chief of Police?” Short answer, “No.”

“May a Sheriff impose on residents of a city conditions which exceed those applied to residents of unincorporated areas?” Short answer, “No.”

This letter also cites Salute v. Pitchess (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry....al/salute.html), another key case, and I will quote that finding here as it is important and relevant.

“May an issuing authority impose a policy of denying all CCW permit applications?” Short answer, “No.”

So, Guillory has given us:

1) Applicants have exactly the same rights as other applicants in the same situation. In other words, if the Good Cause “Attend meetings in a bad part of town” is enough to get an elected official a permit, it’s good enough for you or me to get one.

2) Denied applicants have the right to question the authorities regarding permits issued to other people. In other words, you are allowed to find out why the elected official got a permit, so you can claim that your Good Cause is as good as his.

3) A Sheriff must accept applications from city dwellers even though they haven’t applied to the city Police Chief (note, this is a point that needs to be demonstrated in court, as many sheriff’s policies flout this point).

4) Sheriffs must treat all applicants the same. Can’t issue easily to rural people and not to city dwellers. Can’t refuse a permit to people who live in a bad part of town (at least, not for that reason).

Yes, Guillory took ten years. But, Guillory has thereby cut ten years out of your court process. Guillory means that County Counsel cannot go to court and treat you to all the hassle they tried on Guillory (not unless they want to lose money and end up looking pretty silly).

Did Preston Guillory get arrested during this process? Yes, it seems that the Sheriff’s department unreasonably hassled him to pressure him to give up his claims. Did he give up? No. Was this why they paid out? It may have increased the payment somewhat, but it didn’t change the underlying strength of Guillory’s case.

Did Guillory get a CCW out of it? No. He took the money and got out of town. With an offer of $1.3 million (in 1984), what would you have done?
Does Guillory guarantee you a CCW? Definitely not.

So, a key case, or a waste of time and money? Check the Stepp and Beauchamp letter again (http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/opinion1.pdf). They think it is important, and so do I. If you don’t, it may just be because you are offended by Guillory’s abrasive attitude to people like yourself. Or can you seriously argue that the four points I made above just don't matter?
__________________
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.


Last edited by Glock22Fan; 05-18-2007 at 6:22 PM.. Reason: Correcting URL's
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-18-2007, 6:11 PM
aileron's Avatar
aileron aileron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PRK
Posts: 3,249
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Thank your for posting. Did not know about this.
__________________
Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction... Mark Twain

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-26-2010, 8:19 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

Given recent news and recent situations involving Mr. Peruta, this posting is bumped for viewing.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-26-2010, 8:58 AM
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

This case will remain very important.

-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
  #5  
Old 06-26-2010, 10:15 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
This case will remain very important.

-Gene
I hope you are wrong here, which is to say I hope we get a normalized shall issue infrastructure in CA in the not too distant future. It is quite possible if for no other reason than the legislature will be able to control all the revenue and not have to share it with the local sheriffs.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-26-2010, 11:43 AM
1JimMarch 1JimMarch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There will be a period after incorporation but before any statutory changes during which Guillory will be vital.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-26-2010, 11:44 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 dantodd View Post
I hope you are wrong here, which is to say I hope we get a normalized shall issue infrastructure in CA in the not too distant future. It is quite possible if for no other reason than the legislature will be able to control all the revenue and not have to share it with the local sheriffs.
Guillory is still going to be a necessity for the foreseeable future, as is Salute v. Pitchess.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-09-2010, 2:23 PM
Shenaniguns Shenaniguns is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Back in California?
Posts: 6,084
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Thanks for posting this interesting and very important case!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-09-2010, 2:45 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

I was about to post something about the Guillory doctrine but I just realized that you did it much better.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-09-2010, 3:13 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,478
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

1) Applicants have exactly the same rights as other applicants in the same situation. In other words, if the Good Cause “Attend meetings in a bad part of town” is enough to get an elected official a permit, it’s good enough for you or me to get one.

2) Denied applicants have the right to question the authorities regarding permits issued to other people. In other words, you are allowed to find out why the elected official got a permit, so you can claim that your Good Cause is as good as his.

I'm curious how Guillory will factor in the cases outside CA. If I recall from Gura's briefs in the NY CCW case, he only has a passing mention of Guillory guaranteeing equal protection within the CCW application process. Any chance NY and other states that resist will be forced to reveal all their dirty secrets? I'd like to think once one state gets exposed and embarassed that the others may think twice.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-09-2010, 3:20 PM
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 Gray Peterson View Post
I was about to post something about the Guillory doctrine but I just realized that you did it much better.
Thank you.
__________________
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
  #12  
Old 09-09-2010, 3:38 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

So basically... if you're in San Diego and you put nothing for good cause you should have gotten a CCW.
__________________

"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!
^
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-09-2010, 3:47 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 safewaysecurity View Post
So basically... if you're in San Diego and you put nothing for good cause you should have gotten a CCW.
Under Guillory, yes. However, the safest route is "Personal protection" or "protection", per the Exhibits in Fact 18 in the Peruta case.

Everyone, before you start applying for a carry license from San Diego County with this new fact pattern (pure "personal protection" with no other good cause). It is not yet time to turn on the spigot.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 09-09-2010 at 3:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-09-2010, 11:14 PM
marcusrn's Avatar
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 684
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Is Billy Jack the native american with the funny hat? If it's the same guy I doubt he would have sold out for $ and left town! No way! Must be a different dude.The real Billy Jack would have gotten the CCW and then given the cash to the homeless people. Anyway whoever it is heartfelt thanks for the 10 yrs litagation. We walk in your beaten path. Marcus Maximus Celtonius
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-09-2010, 11:34 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 marcusrn View Post
Is Billy Jack the native american with the funny hat? If it's the same guy I doubt he would have sold out for $ and left town! No way! Must be a different dude.The real Billy Jack would have gotten the CCW and then given the cash to the homeless people. Anyway whoever it is heartfelt thanks for the 10 yrs litagation. We walk in your beaten path. Marcus Maximus Celtonius
I think beating Brad Gates legally bloody is a pretty good haul of loot. 10 years of litigation can make one poor. Can't take care of your tribe if you can't take of yourself. Just sayin.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-10-2010, 12:03 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

One more additional factoid:

Kennedy, Skopil and Pregerson, Circuit Judges.

Skopil and Pregerson are still circuit judges. Kennedy was elevated to the US Supreme Court a few years after this case.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-10-2010, 5:50 AM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It is nice to hear acknowledgement of the legal value of Guillory v Gates. Many who have wanted to apply for a CCW did not seem to understand that they would not have to endure a 12, not 10 year court battle for a CCW. Current California cases in Federal court, will be resolved in less than 2 years after filing unless there is an appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Brave has heard every conceivable reason, Chief/Sheriff will not like me if I have to sue them. I have business with the city/county and it might be affected. My dog ate my homework and so forth.

Brave realize many not like him or Peruta for that matter. I can not speak for Peruta but it was never this Brave's intention to get rich or make friends by suing law enforcement. Just wanted Long Knives to let my people live off the land and in peace. Seriously, just wanted to pursue profession safely.

When Brave go to any department in state or write them PRAR, they know of Guillory v Gates. Make them like Brave? Nope. Make them fear or respect Brave? You bet your sweet fisteris. They know Brave has been at this for many moons and has gotten better and better at PRAR 14th Amendment investigations with every circle of the Sun. Now Brave can sit and thumb through files that would take average attorney hours to pour over and immediately spot violations of policy, statute or case law. Call it a gift if you will. Or the result of auditing thousands of CCW files since Guillory v Gates.

Brave can not tell you what Federal cases he is currently involved in but there are several. All are aimed at one goal. To bring every Chief and Sheriff into compliance with statute, policy and case law.

Some posters see the big picture. Some never will. Some just enjoy posting because it is anonymous and they can project what in reality they are not.

Some have expressed concern that Brave will have nothing to do once California goes 'Shall Issue'. Brave appreciate their concern for his business endeavors but he will survive. He does EP, workplace violence prevention and a myriad of other types of PI work. Brave is also a 'Transporter'. Yes, there are people that actually do what Jason Stratham did in his three movies. So please do not worry about what this Brave will do when all Chiefs and Sheriffs are forced by the courts, to follow the law and once Good Cause is explained/defined to them.

Posters can continue to post about LAPD shootings and misstate the law about virtually every topic, this Brave will not so quietly continue doing what he has done since 1973. If you see a large Brave in distinctive black hat with beaded Navaho headband at Langer's or anyplace else in California, walk up and say hello. Brave would enjoy that.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Last edited by Billy Jack; 09-10-2010 at 7:14 AM.. Reason: spelling and grammar
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-10-2010, 6:37 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,950
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Ok, I never knew. This necrothread has given me new found respect for Billy. I thought he was just a rough tongue'd blowhard; when in actuality he has been on the front line fighting for all of us for decades.

My hat is off to you Billy Jack. You sir, you are a fine patriot, an asset to this site, gun owners in general, and all of us that call CA home. Good show.

.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-10-2010, 7:47 AM
Shenaniguns Shenaniguns is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Back in California?
Posts: 6,084
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Jack View Post
If you see a large Brave in distinctive black hat with beaded Navaho headband at Langer's or anyplace else in California, walk up and say hello. Brave would enjoy that.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com


Tip of the hat to you fine sir...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-10-2010, 11:08 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

How Guillory v. Gates helps is also important even post-Sykes, especially for shenanigans. What kind of shenanigans? Training, for one. You can't tell people that only one trainer is allowed and then have a second trainer just for one's friends that can pay less money and take less time.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-10-2010, 11:24 AM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 6,720
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

How vulnerable is Baca to this ruling? I believe I have a strong "good cause" to submit to LASO but I don't want to waste everyone's time and money pursuing this if it doesn't contribute to shall issue CCW for everyone. I'm not seeking a monetary settlement or a CCW permit just for myself.
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group, LLC
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page


Discounted NRA Membership Sign Up
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-10-2010, 12:20 PM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mute View Post
How vulnerable is Baca to this ruling? I believe I have a strong "good cause" to submit to LASO but I don't want to waste everyone's time and money pursuing this if it doesn't contribute to shall issue CCW for everyone. I'm not seeking a monetary settlement or a CCW permit just for myself.
Those in the know, say stand down on applying to 'no issue' departments until Sykes and Peruta are won. Have saying on Reservation: "Brave can only chew so much Buffalo at a time, regardless of how sweet the meat." Billy Jack

If you want to discuss your GC, contact us at site below.

Billy Jack
'The force is strong with this one'


wwwcaliforniaconcealedcarry.com

Last edited by Billy Jack; 09-10-2010 at 12:21 PM.. Reason: Added website
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-10-2010, 12:22 PM
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 Mute View Post
How vulnerable is Baca to this ruling? I believe I have a strong "good cause" to submit to LASO but I don't want to waste everyone's time and money pursuing this if it doesn't contribute to shall issue CCW for everyone. I'm not seeking a monetary settlement or a CCW permit just for myself.
Sooner or later, unless the world falls in on these people (due to Sykes, Peruta etc) in the meantime and it becomes a moot point, Baca is vulnerable. However, he is not the lowest fruit on the tree and there have been more effective targets. His day will come though.

Contact TBJ via the link below and send us more details, unless we have already discussed your case.
__________________
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
  #24  
Old 09-10-2010, 1:31 PM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 6,720
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Sounds good. I'm sure Baca isn't the easiest to challenge in court.
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group, LLC
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page


Discounted NRA Membership Sign Up
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-10-2010, 1:36 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,580
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Jack View Post
Those in the know, say stand down on applying to 'no issue' departments until Sykes and Peruta are won. Have saying on Reservation: "Brave can only chew so much Buffalo at a time, regardless of how sweet the meat." Billy Jack

If you want to discuss your GC, contact us at site below.

Billy Jack
'The force is strong with this one'


wwwcaliforniaconcealedcarry.com
Are you considering San Diego a "no issue" dept?
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-10-2010, 2:06 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
Sooner or later, unless the world falls in on these people (due to Sykes, Peruta etc) in the meantime and it becomes a moot point, Baca is vulnerable. However, he is not the lowest fruit on the tree and there have been more effective targets. His day will come though.

Contact TBJ via the link below and send us more details, unless we have already discussed your case.
Speaking of low hanging fruit, what's going on up this-a-way? I was expecting some fireworks by now....
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-10-2010, 2:24 PM
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 bulgron View Post
Speaking of low hanging fruit, what's going on up this-a-way? I was expecting some fireworks by now....
About two weeks . . .

Seriously, it is imminent.
__________________
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.


Last edited by Glock22Fan; 09-10-2010 at 2:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-10-2010, 2:31 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
About two weeks . . .

Seriously, it is iminent.
I, for one, am on the edge of my seat.

I'm not kidding....
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-10-2010, 2:32 PM
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 bulgron View Post
I, for one, am on the edge of my seat.

I'm not kidding....
Before someone comments, I misspelled imminent.
__________________
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
  #30  
Old 09-10-2010, 3:09 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Come on, let's CHEW BACA already!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-10-2010, 3:59 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

How many CCW apps have been shoveled at Laurie Smith so far post McDonald?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-10-2010, 4:07 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
How many CCW apps have been shoveled at Laurie Smith so far post McDonald?
My guess is, not very many. Her organization is so corrupt that there's simply no point.

I'm hopeful that within the next year, two on the outside, some combination of lawsuits will pave the way for me to pursue a CA CCW. I'd also very much like to avoid Sheriff Smith and all her issues, but the drama will have to be particularly compelling before I can get the CLEO in my city to take me seriously.

All in all, I'm in a waiting pattern while Sykes and a few other cases progress. But the courts are basically molasses in January, so for the moment I'm spending my time mostly investigating hammock camping, and otherwise trying very hard not to think about how utterly slow the courts and lawyers work. I mean, for crying out loud, this is like watching Koala Bears prance in the forest.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-10-2010, 7:01 PM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
My guess is, not very many. Her organization is so corrupt that there's simply no point.

I'm hopeful that within the next year, two on the outside, some combination of lawsuits will pave the way for me to pursue a CA CCW. I'd also very much like to avoid Sheriff Smith and all her issues, but the drama will have to be particularly compelling before I can get the CLEO in my city to take me seriously.

All in all, I'm in a waiting pattern while Sykes and a few other cases progress. But the courts are basically molasses in January, so for the moment I'm spending my time mostly investigating hammock camping, and otherwise trying very hard not to think about how utterly slow the courts and lawyers work. I mean, for crying out loud, this is like watching Koala Bears prance in the forest.
Please review the list that appears above and provide the name of any Chief in your county that does not post their CCW Policy.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-10-2010, 9:11 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
when in actuality he has been on the front line fighting for all of us for decades.
I've said before that just because Billy Jack's cases aren't Second Amendment cases (nor could they be, as he was doing this before McDonald) doesn't make them irrelevant. Even if they weren't directly useful in the actual 2A cases, as we're being told they very much are, enforcing the 14A and Equal Protection Under The Law is a service to the Republic all by itself.

Or, in Billy Jack's lingo, "Redskin is heap better patriot than certain big-chief palefaces."

This is sort of fun, like talk-like-a-pirate day for Western movie fans.

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-11-2010, 2:29 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It's going to be very interesting to see if Guillory gets cited in the Kachalsky or Woollard cases.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-12-2010, 4:27 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,478
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
It's going to be very interesting to see if Guillory gets cited in the Kachalsky or Woollard cases.
Let's hope. I believe both MD and NY keep CCW records private so it's more difficult to show that CCWs are issued to friends of people in high places. I'll say it again-they may fold early if they have to disclose a pattern of doing this, but will probably fight all the way if just on 2A grounds.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-12-2010, 5:55 AM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Let's hope. I believe both MD and NY keep CCW records private so it's more difficult to show that CCWs are issued to friends of people in high places. I'll say it again-they may fold early if they have to disclose a pattern of doing this, but will probably fight all the way if just on 2A grounds.
Counsel needs to cite CBS v Block and get their records open.

Billy Jack
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-12-2010, 8:18 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:
I'll say it again-they may fold early if they have to disclose a pattern of doing this, but will probably fight all the way if just on 2A grounds.
They'll fight it all the way because insider privileges and unchallenged power are institutional cornerstones to them. Having the pattern exposed only means they have at least a 50/50 shot of losing, not that they won't fight for it. They know they're wrong and currently get away with it and that's the way they like it.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-12-2010, 11:55 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,051
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
How Guillory v. Gates helps is also important even post-Sykes, especially for shenanigans. What kind of shenanigans? Training, for one. You can't tell people that only one trainer is allowed and then have a second trainer just for one's friends that can pay less money and take less time.
Seems like any way that a CLEO can corrupt the CCW system to benefit from it, they will.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-12-2010, 11:58 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,051
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
I've said before that just because Billy Jack's cases aren't Second Amendment cases (nor could they be, as he was doing this before McDonald) doesn't make them irrelevant. Even if they weren't directly useful in the actual 2A cases, as we're being told they very much are, enforcing the 14A and Equal Protection Under The Law is a service to the Republic all by itself.
Yep. We all -- not just CA gunnies -- owe him a debt of gratitude. The more ways we can nail these CLEOs w/violations of our rights as Americans, the better off we (and, believe it or not, they) will be.

Ours is a system of checks and balances. Keeping each other in check keeps our system healthy.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
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 5:03 AM.




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.