Charles Frye vs Pat Withrow - San Joaquin Sheriff - CCW lawsuit

[AttnyCFrye]

Lawsuit filed in Eastern District versus San Joaquin Sheriff for violation of 2A for equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief.
Pat Withrow illegally revoked CCW permit and refuses to provide information or justification; however, it is known Withrow opposes plaintiff because Plaintiff advocates for police reform and against the sheriff when the sheriff's deputies engage in illegal conduct (ie 1st Amendment activity).

There were no arrests, no gun violence, no incidents, no criminal charges. Plaintiff complied in every way with the law and CCW carry requirements for years. Plaintiff is law abiding attorney, decorated, and former arms instructor.
Sheriff Withrow got his feelings hurt by Plaintiff and revoked his CCW and refuses to provide a reason, even at his "appeal hearing" where Plaintiff was supposed to "appeal" to WIthrow (he presided over it personally) without being allowed to know what he was even accused of.

This is a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Prior to NY ruling, I felt there was no legal recourse.

Thanks for any interest/thoughts/review

Status: Complaint has been served and plaintiff agreed to withrows request for 60 day extension for withrow to respond.

[pacrat]

DAMN! HELL OF A FIRST POST!

Welcome to CalGuns Sir.

[OleCuss]

I agree! Maybe the best-ever debut on Calguns!

Hoping you quickly prevail.

[AttnyCFrye]

Thanks!
Hopefully there will be some semblance of justice in the Post-Bruen world.

[AttnyCFrye]

Incidentally, I told Withrow personally during his star chamber "appeal" where he arrogantly refused to even tell me why my permit was revoked that I would be filing this case as soon as the New York ruling came out and I did exactly what I said I would do.

Withrow pretends he is a 2A "shall issue" sheriff but he is a good old boy and if you are not in lockstep with his politics, he will suspend your CCW.

His NRA rating should be changed to "F"

[SkyHawk]

fyi you called yourself "defendant" P9 L16

also you skipped from the fourth claim for relief to the seventh. Not sure where 5&6 went.

those were just the things I caught with a speed read.

Remember the old saying: "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".

I do hope you get somewhere with this, good luck.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by AttnyCFrye

Lawsuit filed in Eastern District versus San Joaquin Sheriff for violation of 2A for equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief.
Pat Withrow illegally revoked CCW permit and refuses to provide information or justification; however, it is known Withrow opposes plaintiff because Plaintiff advocates for police reform and against the sheriff when the sheriff's deputies engage in illegal conduct (ie 1st Amendment activity).

There were no arrests, no gun violence, no incidents, no criminal charges. Plaintiff complied in every way with the law and CCW carry requirements for years. Plaintiff is law abiding attorney, decorated, and former arms instructor.
Sheriff Withrow got his feelings hurt by Plaintiff and revoked his CCW and refuses to provide a reason, even at his "appeal hearing" where Plaintiff was supposed to "appeal" to WIthrow (he presided over it personally) without being allowed to know what he was even accused of.

This is a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Prior to NY ruling, I felt there was no legal recourse.

Thanks for any interest/thoughts/review

Status: Complaint has been served and plaintiff agreed to withrows request for 60 day extension for withrow to respond.

Nit picking here but this kind of thing bugs the heck out of me because everyone just does it even though they actually can't. Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(d), the parties can only agree to one extension of no more than 15 days. Longer extensions of time require a court order.

Rule 3.110

At this point you're stuck but if the court questions you on why you did this without leave, you're going to have to fall on your sword.


nb: you have no idea of how many times I've been called nasty names by opposing council over this because they, in all their years of practice, never heard of such a thing. Yet, there it is and all it takes is a joint motion to the court stating that the motion is unopposed and that no hearing is required or requested. The court can just sign the proposed and included order in chambers and have the clerk send notice and everything is kosher and the bills get paid.

Failure to do that usually results in a hearing on why the parties haven't timely filed a proof of service in the case and an OSC why the court shouldn't impose sanctions. The court usually doesn't impose sanctions because both parties swear that they didn't know about the 15 day limit and that they did agree to the extension, but...

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by rplaw

Nit picking here but this kind of thing bugs the heck out of me because everyone just does it even though they actually can't. Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(d), the parties can only agree to one extension of no more than 15 days. Longer extensions of time require a court order.

Rule 3.110

At this point you're stuck but if the court questions you on why you did this without leave, you're going to have to fall on your sword.


nb: you have no idea of how many times I've been called nasty names by opposing council over this because they, in all their years of practice, never heard of such a thing. Yet, there it is and all it takes is a joint motion to the court stating that the motion is unopposed and that no hearing is required or requested. The court can just sign the proposed and included order in chambers and have the clerk send notice and everything is kosher and the bills get paid.

Failure to do that usually results in a hearing on why the parties haven't timely filed a proof of service in the case and an OSC why the court shouldn't impose sanctions. The court usually doesn't impose sanctions because both parties swear that they didn't know about the 15 day limit and that they did agree to the extension, but...

This is in federal court. The CA Rules of Court do not apply.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

This is in federal court. The CA Rules of Court do not apply.

Thank you. I was not aware it was Fed and not State because I didn't bother to read the complaint attached. My bad.

[guntrust]

Originally Posted by AttnyCFrye

Lawsuit filed in Eastern District versus San Joaquin Sheriff for violation of 2A for equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief.
Pat Withrow illegally revoked CCW permit and refuses to provide information or justification; however, it is known Withrow opposes plaintiff because Plaintiff advocates for police reform and against the sheriff when the sheriff's deputies engage in illegal conduct (ie 1st Amendment activity).

There were no arrests, no gun violence, no incidents, no criminal charges. Plaintiff complied in every way with the law and CCW carry requirements for years. Plaintiff is law abiding attorney, decorated, and former arms instructor.
Sheriff Withrow got his feelings hurt by Plaintiff and revoked his CCW and refuses to provide a reason, even at his "appeal hearing" where Plaintiff was supposed to "appeal" to WIthrow (he presided over it personally) without being allowed to know what he was even accused of.

This is a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Prior to NY ruling, I felt there was no legal recourse.

Thanks for any interest/thoughts/review

Status: Complaint has been served and plaintiff agreed to withrows request for 60 day extension for withrow to respond.

I'm not a litigator but it looks fine to me.

I'll use it as a starting point if my IA insists on reference letters.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by guntrust

I'm not a litigator but it looks fine to me.

I'll use it as a starting point if my IA insists on reference letters.

I doubt that reference letters would fly but Oregon asks for two references, which arguably could be justified as a necessary part of doing an adequate background check to see if there is a disqualifying event in the person's past. Anyway, I know that they did not check mine when I renewed my OR CHL because I was handed my CHL in less than 15 minutes after turning in the renewal application.

[guntrust]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

I doubt that reference letters would fly but Oregon asks for two references, which arguably could be justified as a necessary part of doing an adequate background check to see if there is a disqualifying event in the person's past. Anyway, I know that they did not check mine when I renewed my OR CHL because I was handed my CHL in less than 15 minutes after turning in the renewal application.

We'll see. I generally don't provide reference letters before exercising my constitutional rights.

And Bruen spoke approvingly of objective, non-discriminatory carry regimes. There is nothing objective about reference letters.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by guntrust

We'll see. I generally don't provide reference letters before exercising my constitutional rights.

And Bruen spoke approvingly of objective, non-discriminatory carry regimes. There is nothing objective about reference letters.

I understand that. I said that "I doubt that reference letters would fly."

[AttnyCFrye]

Originally Posted by guntrust

We'll see. I generally don't provide reference letters before exercising my constitutional rights.

And Bruen spoke approvingly of objective, non-discriminatory carry regimes. There is nothing objective about reference letters.

Exactly. And this would not likely pass the historical analysis either. This is part of a subjective analysis and the exact concern expressed in the Thomas Opinion. I am watching closely the other cases to watch the new argument and briefings to address bruen. I'm sure CA will try to narrow it as much as possible.

I think Bruen left clear that the state that doesn't allow open carry may have a licensing procedure but it needs to be an objective standard based on the individuals right to carry a firearm and meet a historical analysis. Other than legit failing a background check, I think any other CCW denial is ripe for challenge at this point.

Prior to New York, there was no argument because of the 9th's rulings that there was no right. Now there is a right. Since there is a right, to take it requires due process.

This was denied pre-bruen completely - imagine Withrow held an "appeal hearing" with me and refused to tell me what I was accused of or why I was appealing - it was a mockery. And I had no recourse whatsoever until Bruen.

I think the court should be deluged with people who have otherwise had their rights violated until now.

[guntrust]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

I understand that. I said that "I doubt that reference letters would fly."

Sorry BAJ475, thought you meant a complaint over the requirement wouldn't fly. Glad we agree.

[guntrust]

Originally Posted by AttnyCFrye

Exactly. And this would not likely pass the historical analysis either. This is part of a subjective analysis and the exact concern expressed in the Thomas Opinion. I am watching closely the other cases to watch the new argument and briefings to address bruen. I'm sure CA will try to narrow it as much as possible.

I think Bruen left clear that the state that doesn't allow open carry may have a licensing procedure but it needs to be an objective standard based on the individuals right to carry a firearm and meet a historical analysis. Other than legit failing a background check, I think any other CCW denial is ripe for challenge at this point.

Prior to New York, there was no argument because of the 9th's rulings that there was no right. Now there is a right. Since there is a right, to take it requires due process.

This was denied pre-bruen completely - imagine Withrow held an "appeal hearing" with me and refused to tell me what I was accused of or why I was appealing - it was a mockery. And I had no recourse whatsoever until Bruen.

I think the court should be deluged with people who have otherwise had their rights violated until now.

You are going to win, Charles!

Agree with your comment mostly, however the way I read Bruen is that states may NOT ban open carry or even regulate its manner much (not holding, but extremely persuasive dicta), and that regardless of what state law is on open carry, any regulation of concealed carry must be based on objective criteria consistent with THT. (Alito's concurrence adds "non-discriminatory".)

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by guntrust

Sorry BAJ475, thought you meant a complaint over the requirement wouldn't fly. Glad we agree.

Yes we agree and nothing to be sorry about.

[AttnyCFrye]

Originally Posted by guntrust

You are going to win, Charles!

Agree with your comment mostly, however the way I read Bruen is that states may NOT ban open carry or even regulate its manner much (not holding, but extremely persuasive dicta), and that regardless of what state law is on open carry, any regulation of concealed carry must be based on objective criteria consistent with THT. (Alito's concurrence adds "non-discriminatory".)

Yes! I wonder how long til we will see a good CA suit challenging open carry prohibition post bruen.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by AttnyCFrye

Yes! I wonder how long til we will see a good CA suit challenging open carry prohibition post Bruen.

I'm sure one will come but I don't see a big push because I suspect that most would prefer to carry concealed. Many of us view open carry as putting a shoot me first sign on yourself. The biggest advantage of open carry is that one does not have the same concerns about accidentally printing. So, unless some attorney wants to fight the battle for him or herself, I don't see a source of funding for such a suit.

Edit. But there is Nichols who just filed a supplemental brief.

[guntrust]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

I'm sure one will come but I don't see a big push because I suspect that most would prefer to carry concealed. Many of us view open carry as putting a shoot me first sign on yourself. The biggest advantage of open carry is that one does not have the same concerns about accidentally printing. So, unless some attorney wants to fight the battle for him or herself, I don't see a source of funding for such a suit.

I just might be that aposematic lawyer. (Though i hope Charles Nichols' suit will be successful on OC.)

I discussed some of my reasons for favoring OC here:
https://lawnews.tv/nysrpa-v-bruen-ex...rs-open-carry/

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by guntrust

aposematic

I spy a minor in biology.

[AttnyCFrye]

Originally Posted by guntrust

I just might be that aposematic lawyer. (Though i hope Charles Nichols' suit will be successful on OC.)

I discussed some of my reasons for favoring OC here:
https://lawnews.tv/nysrpa-v-bruen-ex...rs-open-carry/

Awesome article. I think you make great points about open carry (ie, i'll call it the "Ohio effect".)

The briefs in Nichols might ultimately give us some early clues of whats going to go to the 9th to try to narrow down the courts WIDE slap of these laws.

There is obviously no wiggle room in Thomas' opinion for the new CA scheme, "GMC", yet that is what they immediately starting beefing up.

Thomas discussed regulations that put a "substantial burden" on carry, certainly a shot across the bow of these schemes. And he even went so far as provided an example of a "shall issue" scheme that is likely unconstitutional, if even that results in unnecessary delay to the applicant.

I loved how the ruling took head on the mental gymnastics being used to deny Californian's the right to keep and bear arms. It would be hard to ask the court for a wider ruling that can be used to batter a host of unconstitutional laws, especially given the history of not taking this issue on directly.

[guntrust]

Originally Posted by AttnyCFrye

Awesome article. I think you make great points about open carry (ie, i'll call it the "Ohio effect".)

The briefs in Nichols might ultimately give us some early clues of whats going to go to the 9th to try to narrow down the courts WIDE slap of these laws.

There is obviously no wiggle room in Thomas' opinion for the new CA scheme, "GMC", yet that is what they immediately starting beefing up.

Thomas discussed regulations that put a "substantial burden" on carry, certainly a shot across the bow of these schemes. And he even went so far as provided an example of a "shall issue" scheme that is likely unconstitutional, if even that results in unnecessary delay to the applicant.

I loved how the ruling took head on the mental gymnastics being used to deny Californian's the right to keep and bear arms. It would be hard to ask the court for a wider ruling that can be used to batter a host of unconstitutional laws, especially given the history of not taking this issue on directly.

Agreed, the Bruen opinion is pure genius. Lots to unpack and apply. There has never been a tradition of substantial burden upon open carry, and burdening concealed carry was allowed only when open carry was unburdened.

Here are some thoughts on Bonta's GMC lunacy:
https://lawnews.tv/california-ag-dit...bonta-smoking/

Hope there is something helpful in there.

[AttnyCFrye]

Originally Posted by guntrust

Agreed, the Bruen opinion is pure genius. Lots to unpack and apply. There has never been a tradition of substantial burden upon open carry, and burdening concealed carry was allowed only when open carry was unburdened.

Here are some thoughts on Bonta's GMC lunacy:
https://lawnews.tv/california-ag-dit...bonta-smoking/

Hope there is something helpful in there.

Yes, he still tries to separate "keep" and "bear" and that is specifically addressed in the ruling and can be easily read in the words.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by AttnyCFrye

Yes, he still tries to separate "keep" and "bear" and that is specifically addressed in the ruling and can be easily read in the words.

I think that Bruen is best read--although neither California nor New York agree--is that if you qualify to keep, you qualify to bear, subject only, in the discretion of the State (according to Kavanaugh), to some minimal level of training in the use of arms and the laws pertaining to use of force.

[guntrust]

Originally Posted by TruOil

I think that Bruen is best read--although neither California nor New York agree--is that if you qualify to keep, you qualify to bear, subject only, in the discretion of the State (according to Kavanaugh), to some minimal level of training in the use of arms and the laws pertaining to use of force.

Neither "train" nor "training" appears anywhere in the majority opinion.

"Training" appears once in Kavanaugh's lone concurring opinion, joined only by the rascally Roberts.

Indiana mall hero had no formal training. There is a long tradition of grandfathers teaching kids to shoot, zero tradition of formal required training.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
I'm sure one will come but I don't see a big push because I suspect that most would prefer to carry concealed. Many of us view open carry as putting a shoot me first sign on yourself

^^^I'm firmly in that camp.^^^ I still remember the Armed Guard in Lucky Market in Bellflower in 1988. Very close to my home...... BG steps out behind him. One shot to back of head, Walks out back door to waiting getaway driver, with bag of money. Never seen again. Let alone solved.

I had no such apprehensions in the 1980s in Az. OCers were everywhere in Kingman and Chloride. And the BG never knew who was among them CCW-ing. For all intent and purposes Az was ConCarry even then. The Mojave Cnty sheriff himself, told me in order to carry a firearm in public. The only stipulation was that it must be in a "container". Then iterated that a pocket is a container. As is a holster, or ladies purse. And no guns in BANKS n BARS.

Originally Posted by guntrust

Neither "train" nor "training" appears anywhere in the majority opinion.

"Training" appears once in Kavanaugh's lone concurring opinion, joined only by the rascally Roberts.

Indiana mall hero had no formal training. There is a long tradition of grandfathers teaching kids to shoot, zero tradition of formal required training.

^^^^whole hearted concurrence^^^

What [required formal training] did the Patriots at the Old North Bridge on April 19th, 1775 complete?

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

I spy a minor in biology.

Or a big David Attenborough fan.

[SharedShots]

Originally Posted by AttnyCFrye

Exactly. And this would not likely pass the historical analysis either. This is part of a subjective analysis and the exact concern expressed in the Thomas Opinion. I am watching closely the other cases to watch the new argument and briefings to address bruen. I'm sure CA will try to narrow it as much as possible.

I think Bruen left clear that the state that doesn't allow open carry may have a licensing procedure but it needs to be an objective standard based on the individuals right to carry a firearm and meet a historical analysis. Other than legit failing a background check, I think any other CCW denial is ripe for challenge at this point.

Prior to New York, there was no argument because of the 9th's rulings that there was no right. Now there is a right. Since there is a right, to take it requires due process.

This was denied pre-bruen completely - imagine Withrow held an "appeal hearing" with me and refused to tell me what I was accused of or why I was appealing - it was a mockery. And I had no recourse whatsoever until Bruen.

I think the court should be deluged with people who have otherwise had their rights violated until now.

Yes. However, as many should note, people will scream, demand, protest and engage in civil disobedience when a privilege is hampered in any way but remain a silent majority when it comes to rights being infringed unless those rights are part of the screaming, demanding, protesting and engaging in civil disobedience.

Thankfully, your efforts show someone will be the somebody everyone always says should do something.





.

[guntrust]

Originally Posted by pacrat

^^^I'm firmly in that camp.^^^ I still remember the Armed Guard in Lucky Market in Bellflower in 1988. Very close to my home...... BG steps out behind him. One shot to back of head, Walks out back door to waiting getaway driver, with bag of money. Never seen again. Let alone solved.

I had no such apprehensions in the 1980s in Az. OCers were everywhere in Kingman and Chloride. And the BG never knew who was among them CCW-ing. For all intent and purposes Az was ConCarry even then. The Mojave Cnty sheriff himself, told me in order to carry a firearm in public. The only stipulation was that it must be in a "container". Then iterated that a pocket is a container. As is a holster, or ladies purse. And no guns in BANKS n BARS.




^^^^whole hearted concurrence^^^

What [required formal training] did the Patriots at the Old North Bridge on April 19th, 1775 complete?

He got away with that because no one carried.

Carry openly, and everyone else will, too.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by guntrust

He got away with that because no one carried.

Carry openly, and everyone else will, too.

^^^YES^^^

Hence my comparison of Bellflower Ca, in the same 80s time period, to Kingman Az.

[Sqrfrk]

Originally Posted by guntrust

He got away with that because no one carried.

Carry openly, and everyone else will, too.

I hate to be that guy but if you guys are referring to Marchand Elliott, he was convicted of that murder and is on death row. I’d agree that it’s a moot point in light of the argument but the guy was caught.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Sqrfrk

I hate to be that guy but if you guys are referring to Marchand Elliott, he was convicted of that murder and is on death row. I’d agree that it’s a moot point in light of the argument but the guy was caught.

Please, feel free to be that guy anytime I err. I have no problem being set straight. And thank you.

You are obviously correct on the facts. They did get the BG. Which is a good thing. Sadly he hurt a lot of people before his crime spree was ended.

Which I agree, does not change the circumstances of the heinous crime I described. Or my opinion that OC can make you a target to a determined criminal.

[SharedShots]

On point, I hope the OP gets this done. It's a perfect illustration of how one person can sit in judgement of another to the point of taking away their rights without so much as a reason other than personal authority. It matters not what the politics are, that should never be a consideration. Yet these days, it seems more and more your views on anything, political or not dictate your rights. Left unchecked, that will reach everyone.

---------------------------------------------------

A determined criminal doesn't care much about anything except doing what they set out to do. There is no defense to someone walking up behind you and drilling you, head on a swivel be damned. It's not going to matter.

While OC presents it's own challenges, the same events always crop up as examples but how often did it happen? As fewer people carried openly the small number of times they were shot became a larger percentage. If everyone carried openly what's the criminal going to do, shoot everyone because he wanted to steal the money out of the 7-11 cash register?

The criminal isn't going to walk and entire location looking for the person carrying a gun. Most of the crimes where shootings happen aren't some detailed and planned event where days are spent figuring out how to do it. They are crimes of opportunity; the criminal might know certain things but can't know how many people will be there for the most part and they are trying to get in and then out as fast as possible.

How is the person open carrying in the back part of a grocery store the target? They aren't because they are unseen. As for being a target, people are getting shot anyway and they aren't carrying, they are victims of opportunity.

If there are a number of people carrying openly is the criminal going to think twice as they enter and decide trying to shoot 10 or 15 people with guns is unlikely to result in success? That is more likely than the criminal thinking yeah, they can take out 10 people with guns and then steal money from the checkouts.

We sometimes create our own demons and fear monger using very few events to dictate all of our actions. Some of that is done purposefully by so called experts who need clicks and views to remain relevant, like 60,70 year old actresses stunning everyone as they wear a bikini. The same stories are related over and over and that becomes the narrative on why something should or shouldn't be done. Think about it, it's 2022 and there are people talking about how to use the toilet while carrying a gun. They aren't joking either, they really can't figure it out without asking others how. People have been carrying guns since there were guns and when everyone had them where criminals shooting everyone who open carried just to perpetrate their deeds? I bring up the toilet thing because it shows just how easily a bunch of people will become all concerned about something everyone else including children have figured out yet these are adults carrying guns.

The bottom line is that if someone wants to shoot you and they are determined and willing to risk their life to do it, chances are they will do it and there isn't much you can do about it. All the jumping, ducking and beekaboo isn't going to make any difference because you'll never see it coming. It's won't matter if you are CC, OC or unarmed, the myth is that any of it makes a difference. You can't be situationally aware of the situation you can't see because someone has really decided you're it.




.

[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ]

Did anyone notice that the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...12758.13.0.pdf

[WithinReason]

Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Did anyone notice that the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...12758.13.0.pdf

Strange...

[dsmoot]

Maybe settlement that he got his CCW back?

[CurlyDave]

Originally Posted by dsmoot

Maybe settlement that he got his CCW back?

Either that or some very detrimental information about him that he does not want published was discovered.

I strongly suspect it was return of his CCW and a confidentiality requirement.

[9Cal_OC]

So screw the rest of the county residents, huh

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

So screw the rest of the county residents, huh

If he got his CCW back, then the County Mooted his case. What would be his 'standing' to continue his case?