NRA / CRPA LOP: Santa Clara Gun Ban Defeated

[CDMichel]

On Tuesday, September 21, 2010, the Santa Clara City Council was scheduled to adopt Ordinance No. 1863, which would prohibit the possession of firearms in city parks (with the only exception being for “peace officers,” no exception for unloaded open carry or for CCW holders).

But the item was withdrawn from consideration by unanimous vote of the City Council when Santa Clara City Manager Jennifer Sparacino raised legal concerns brought up by a letter received from National Rifle Association (“NRA”) and California Rifle and Pistol Association (“CRPA”) attorneys. The City Attorney needed more time to review the case law mentioned in the letter. Until then at least, the item is off the agenda. But the city might bring the ordinance back. (The Agenda Report and Opposition Letter are posted at www.calgunlaws.com.)

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA “Local Ordinance Project” (LOP) - a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control. The pre-litigation demand letter sent to the City of Santa Clara is the latest example of LOP’s efforts.

In recent years cities in California, and now in other states as well, have been bombarded with gun ban lobby anti-gun proposals, including proposed complete bans on the possession of “assault weapons” (where that term is defined far more broadly than under the state law) and “sniper rifles,” bans on magazines that hold over ten rounds, one-gun-per-month restrictions, ammo sales registration bureaucracies, “trigger lock” laws that prohibit many guns from being sold because no trigger lock exists that fits the gun, “safe” storage laws that would make criminals of those who keep a gun ready to use for self-defense, ultra restrictive zoning laws that put gun dealers out of business, gun show bans, oppressive gun and ammo taxes, and most recently, pending proposals to ban ammo sales entirely and to ban “ultra-compact” handguns (any gun under 6 3/4 inches long or under 4 ½ inches tall). (Several lawsuits challenging some of these ordinances are pending.). LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense-civil-rights proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating in California courts on behalf of its members and to promote the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment. In the post Heller legal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP). LAP is a joint venture between the NRA and the CRPA Foundation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight in court against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Sometimes the chances of success are greater when LAP's litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released. But to see a partial list of the Legal Action Project's recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA / CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.crpafoundation.org.

And please register at www.calgunlaws.com to receive updates on this and other litigation as it is made available.

Finally, if you live in the City of Santa Clara, please consider calling your council members and thank them for making the right decision in pulling Ordinance No. 1863!

[bwiese]

Wooot!

LCAV slapdown!

[Mute]

Nice one!

[Glock22Fan]

Hoo-rah!

[anthonyca]

Great job?

[wash]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Wooot!

LCAV slapdown!

Was it LCAV that proposed that crap?

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by wash

Was it LCAV that proposed that crap?

Probably...as Chuck noted in an earlier post that the language for the ordinance
was almost word for word from the LCAV pamphlet on anti-gun ordinances.

Paul S

[hoffmang]

Excellent work Chuck!

-Gene

[Havoc70]

Boo yah!

[the_quark]

Way to go! Every time we get a city attorney to go "Hmmm...maybe LCAV didn't give me the whole story..." is a victory.

[wildhawker]

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in Stephen Lodge's office...

Stephen Lodge, Chief of Police: "Somebody get me Juliet Leftwich on the phone!"

(Phone ringing).

Juliet Leftwich, LCAV: "This is Juliet. How's our ban?"

Stephen: "It *didn't ****ing pass*, that's how our goddamn ban is! I thought you told me we were solid?"

Juliet: "We *are* solid! Why couldn't your council pass the ordinance? Jeezus, and this was an easy one. How can we move our agenda forward if we can't even pass a damn lightweight bill?! ****ing Alan Gura is kicking our *** and these *******s keep bringing it!"

Stephen: "Well apparently you're not so damn solid Juliet. I suggest you go back and get your **** together before you try and sell any of us down the river again. Don't call me unless you have the juice to go to bat with the gun nuts. ****! I can't ****ing believe this!"

Juliet: "We'll fix it, Stephen, we'll fix it!"

Stephen: "Fix it, like you 'had this one in the bag'? ****, Juliet, we cannot run this **** and fall on our face. CAN. NOT. We'll call you."

(Phone hanging up). Click.*

---

I love being a gun nut. Thanks, NRA and CRPA Foundation and great job CDM and co.

*Obviously, this was an entirely fictional retelling of a conversation I do not know to have taken place for your entertainment only.

[BigDogatPlay]

Originally Posted by wash

Was it LCAV that proposed that crap?

Who else would or could purport such nonsense with a straight face?

Keeping the pressure on LCAV.... one city council at a time. Well played, as usual, for Michel and Associates.

[Fjold]

Chuck,

Could a similar letter be sent to the City of Bakersfield? They have a city ordinance on the books that bans firearms from city parks for everyone but city employees.

[Stonewalker]

Woooo!!! Small victory but it's important none the less!

Fjold - Bakersfield sounds like it wants to make government employees 'more equal' than the regular non-government drones **cough cough** 14th amendment **cough**

[freonr22]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in Stephen Lodge's office...

Stephen Lodge, Chief of Police: "Somebody get me Juliet Leftwich on the phone!"

(Phone ringing).

Juliet Leftwich, LCAV: "This is Juliet. How's our ban?"

Stephen: "It *didn't ****ing pass*, that's how our goddamn ban is! I thought you told me we were solid?"

Juliet: "We *are* solid! Why couldn't your council pass the ordinance? Jeezus, and this was an easy one. How can we move our agenda forward if we can't even pass a damn lightweight bill?! ****ing Alan Gura is kicking our *** and these *******s keep bringing it!"

Stephen: "Well apparently you're not so damn solid Juliet. I suggest you go back and get your **** together before you try and sell any of us down the river again. Don't call me unless you have the juice to go to bat with the gun nuts. ****! I can't ****ing believe this!"

Juliet: "We'll fix it, Stephen, we'll fix it!"

Stephen: "Fix it, like you 'had this one in the bag'? ****, Juliet, we cannot run this **** and fall on our face. CAN. NOT. We'll call you."

(Phone hanging up). Click.*

---

I love being a gun nut. Thanks, NRA and CRPA Foundation and great job CDM and co.

*Obviously, this was an entirely fictional retelling of a conversation I do not know to have taken place for your entertainment only.

this dialogue needs to be set to the Hitler mad about the bushmaster cost!

Thank you guys for fighting in my county! and my state! and my country!!

[Rossi357]

Originally Posted by Stonewalker

Woooo!!! Small victory but it's important none the less!

Fjold - Bakersfield sounds like it wants to make government employees 'more equal' than the regular non-government drones **cough cough** 14th amendment **cough**

Yer supposed to turn your head when you cough.

[BroncoBob]

Excellent news by all means.

[CaliforniaCarry]

Santa Clarita has a similar ban. We also have an "emergency powers" provision that authorizes the city manager (or whoever's in charge at that point) to ban the possession of weapons (including firearms).

Would a letter to my city council or city attorney do any good, or should I wait for the big guns to roll in someday?

[hgreen]

Originally Posted by Fjold

Chuck,

Could a similar letter be sent to the City of Bakersfield? They have a city ordinance on the books that bans firearms from city parks for everyone but city employees.

Same with Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach...

Pretty please.

[dfletcher]

In the future, are we able to move from defeating new proposals to removing existing city ordinances from the books, such as SF's "ultra concealable handgun" ban, 50 cal handgun ban and various city "no ammo through the mail" bans separate from 962?

[wildhawker]

Remember that you don't need to challenge every single ordinance for the litigation's resulting outcome to apply statewide. Choosing defendants and venue, where such choice is available, is a time-consuming and extraordinarily important process.

I fully expect a barrage of action in the coming months and years to overturn the many preempted and unconstitutional anti-gun codes and ordinances throughout California.

[the_quark]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

I fully expect a barrage of action in the coming months and years to overturn the many preempted and unconstitutional anti-gun codes and ordinances throughout California.

I also expect this will end much the way racial civil rights litigation did in the 60s and 70s - there will be a lot of stuff that never actually gets repealed, just stops being enforced, because it's so clear you'll get your behind sued off if you try.

[puppy8a9]

Great Job! There are so many gun ordinances going on right now, I have no idea how you keep track of them.

San Francisco will be adopting a ammo registration modeled after Sacramento. The one in Sacramento is being used as a model program to press this in CA. Sac needs disassembled and fast.

[RobG]

Good news. Damn, there may be hope for this God-forsaken state yet

[Legasat]

Another one bites the dust!

Great job!!!

[j.primo]

THANK YOU

[PEBKAC]

Excellent news! I wish I could have been there to watch them not pass it.

[N6ATF]

Originally Posted by freonr22

this dialogue needs to be set to the Hitler mad about the bushmaster cost!

Thank you guys for fighting in my county! and my state! and my country!!

YESSS

[jdberger]

Originally Posted by the_quark

Way to go! Every time we get a city attorney to go "Hmmm...maybe LCAV didn't give me the whole story..." is a victory.

Why would they do that? LCAV has that amazing win/loss record to tout....



Juliet and Robyn and the rest of LCAV's Board of Directors don't get it.

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

[Apocalypsenerd]

Out of curiosity: If documents were to be found under FOIA or some other thing that showed LCAV and other lawyers were creating nuisance laws, which they knew did not save lives and only obstructed civil liberties, could they be personally sued for frivolous or fraudulant legal action? Could a complaint be brought against them with the bar to have their licenses pulled?

[obeygiant]

Originally Posted by jdberger

Juliet and Robyn and the rest of LCAV's Board of Directors don't get it.

This ^^ and thank you Chuck!

[KarLorian]

Originally Posted by PEBKAC

Excellent news! I wish I could have been there to watch them not pass it.

You can watch the video:

http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/pubm...doctype=AGENDA

The page is laid out oddly, video is in top right corner. It's right after the previous meetings minutes are confirmed. Around 1:20

Pretty quick and to the point.

[Blackhawk556]

great job guys


..........................
hey i don't mind at all what they did after the pledge, but can't the city be sued from doing a prayer?
I'm just saying cus some people are so picky about this these things that they might feel like doing a prayer is too much.

[Stainned]

That is good news!

[putput]

Thanks guys!

[jdberger]

Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd

Out of curiosity: If documents were to be found under FOIA or some other thing that showed LCAV and other lawyers were creating nuisance laws, which they knew did not save lives and only obstructed civil liberties, could they be personally sued for frivolous or fraudulant legal action? Could a complaint be brought against them with the bar to have their licenses pulled?

Sounds like an interesting PRAR request.

According to the Brady Campaign, these are the Police Chiefs who supported AB1934. I don't see Santa Clara in there.

Chief Tom Simonetti, City of Martinez

Chief Robert Priebe, City of Moraga

Chief Jeffrey Jennings, City of Orinda

Chief Paul Clancy, City of Pinole

Chief Peter Dunbar, City of Pleasant Hill

Chief Chris Magnus, City of Richmond

Sherrif Lee Baca, LA County

Chief Paul Cooper, City of Claremont

Chief Charles Montoya, City of Glendora

Chief Charlie Beck, City of LA

Chief Mike Rotkin, City of Santa Cruz

Chief Tim Shelby, City of Monterey

Chief Camerino Sanchez, City of Santa Barbara

Chief Christopher Shawkey, City of Costa Mesa

Chief Paul Walters, City of Santa Ana

Chief Jeffrey Kirkpatrick, City of Seal Beach

Chief John Crombach, City of Oxnard

Chief Ken Corney, City of Ventura

Chief Michael Meehan, City of Berkeley

Chief Ken James, City of Emeryville

Chief Craig Steckler, City of Fremont

Chief Ron Ace, City of Hayward

Chief Anthony Batts, City of Oakland

Chief Michael Fraser, City of Pleasanton

Chief Adolfo Gonzales, City of National City

[hill billy]

Good work gentlemen.

[maddoggie13]

Rigth on....hahahahaha

[Dovii4ever]

Another job well done!!! Thanks to all who were involved