New from Billy Jack

[Glock22Fan]

Billy Jack has posted two new blogs. They can be found here

Having just received the go ahead from the department's legal counsel, we are awaiting a date to examine CCW files at Bay area department. They are copying, redacting and recopying approximately 2,000 pages of files.
.
.
.
I can tell you from prior experience this department is in a city with some of the finest sourdough bread in the country.

Have already obtained the alpha list of CCW holders and found numerous anomalies that require further examination of the actual CCW file. Suffice to say Billy Jack see much smoke and read the signals as possible 14th Amendment violations.

and

We have posted before that we are here to assist qualified applicants obtain their CCW's. A new wrinkle has been added to the mix. Many cities and some counties are near bankrupt in this economy. I would like to call your attention to Vallejo. They are indeed bankrupt and are in the process of ceding responsibilities back to the county.

There will never be a better time to challenge departments with illegal policies. It costs a city or county $25,000 to $50,000 to retain outside counsel that specialize in civil rights cases. Yes, a CCW case is a civil rights issue under the 14th Amendment. Do not believe the Tin Foil hat people who post that it will cost you your first born child to litigate for a CCW. Billy Jack will not lie to you, it is not free but nowhere near what the nay sayers are saying. We have done everything possible to make it possible for virtually anyone to afford to litigate for a CCW if they have a good case

.
.

[curtisfong]

My idea of "good cause" doesn't match TBJ's idea of "good cause".

For normal "civilians" like me, TBJ will never be able to help until CA goes Shall Issue. Period.

[bulgron]

Yes, but at least TBJ is rather upfront about that.

Anyway, clearly, the only way forward is shall-issue. It's long past time to end the corruption and cronyism in the CCW process in California.

[curtisfong]

Yes, but at least TBJ is rather upfront about that.

No, I understand he is severely constrained by the law. There is literally nothing he can do about it. I am just frustrated that he can't help "normal" people like me.

[pacifico]

I like the part about the sourdough bread.

[Sobriquet]

Yes, but at least TBJ is rather upfront about that.

Not sure I've heard TBJ and upfront in the same sentence before. This coming from the camp that refuses to assist others with successful examples of good cause statements (or even fabricated ones that would be a fair characterization of actual ones).

[bulgron]

Not sure I've heard TBJ and upfront in the same sentence before. This coming from the camp that refuses to assist others with successful examples of good cause statements (or even fabricated ones that would be a fair characterization of actual ones).

Sorry, but the way you worded your response, it almost looks like you're accusing me of being in the TBJ camp. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but if it is, be aware that I have nothing to do with TBJ.

From my perspective, TBJ is a side-show. I had thought at one time that what he's doing will help to highlight the corruption in CA's CCW system, but from comments made (by other people -- not anyone from TBJ) in the Gorski threads, I'm now of the impression that corruption in the CA CCW system isn't going to particularly trouble the federal courts. In other words, 14A equal protection claims on CCW permits look more and more like a bad argument to me, if what you're trying do is convince the courts that CA's CCW system should be forced to be shall-issue.

Not that TBJ has any interest at all in seeing CA's CCW system become shall-issue.

The best and only shot available to us are legal actions of the type that SAF and CalGuns has undertaken in the Sykes case. If that fails, CCWs will be forever a privileged for the nobility in this state. Hopefully the federal courts will not opt to create a new nobility in America, but given that they seem to be squirming rather a lot over the entire gun issue, I won't be surprised if that's exactly where they go.

Anyway, like I said, TBJ: sideshow. Hardly worth the viewing time anymore, unless you're really bored and you want to watch a circus. Me, I think I'd rather just go to a real circus, but each to his own.

[Glock22Fan]

Not sure I've heard TBJ and upfront in the same sentence before. This coming from the camp that refuses to assist others with successful examples of good cause statements (or even fabricated ones that would be a fair characterization of actual ones).

Proves how little you really know about how it all really works, How do you think TBJ can give examples that would be any good in all of several hundred different issuing authorities? He's always said, "write down your Good Case and we'll critique it for you, but we can't write one out of thin air for you." We constructively criticise people's Good Causes almost every day. If you don't know what your Good Cause might be, how can BiIlly Jack?

And, your might not like his style, but how could Billy Jack be any more upfront than he has been? He's always been up front about the fact that most people don't stand a chance. Anyone would think that he's taken money from people with little or no chance of success, under the guise of being able to get them a CCW. He simply doesn't, and never has, done this.

My idea of "good cause" doesn't match TBJ's idea of "good cause".

Billy Jack doesn't define Good Cause, he merely interprets what might, or might not, work within the current law and within your residential area (city or county). Blame the CLEO's and AG Opinion if you want to blame anyone.

[bwiese]

Not sure I've heard TBJ and upfront in the same sentence before. This coming from the camp that refuses to assist others with successful examples of good cause statements (or even fabricated ones that would be a fair characterization of actual ones).

Because idiots that can't write or think on their own will copy existing good cause as boilerplate, word-for-word, screwing it up for other folks - instead of thoughtful wording that captures the proper essence of a prior validated-thru-issuance good cause statement.

[curtisfong]

Billy Jack doesn't define Good Cause, he merely interprets what might, or might not, work within the current law and within your residential area (city or county). Blame the CLEO's and AG Opinion if you want to blame anyone.

I understand the issue, and I mentioned as much in a followup. He is shackled by our own laws, and can only work within those parameters. That said, I wish he would tone down some of his activist rhetoric, since it leaves people with the impression that he is working with a long term strategy that is more meaningful than "if you are lucky, maybe I can help you get a CCW".

[Glock22Fan]

I understand the issue, and I mentioned as much in a followup. He is shackled by our own laws, and can only work within those parameters. That said, I wish he would tone down some of his activist rhetoric, since it leaves people with the impression that he is working with a long term strategy that is more meaningful than "if you are lucky, maybe I can help you get a CCW".

Sorry, just wanted to spell it out for others who might be reading.

Billy Jack is undoubtedly a character. I think the policy is a little more than "If you are lucky." Indeed, if you do qualify, it might be because you are unlucky!!!

The way I see it, every Billy Jack success is another chip in the dam. Perhaps Sykes will blow a big hole through it in one swell foop, but until then, every chip is a chip nearer success.

[CavTrooper]

How much would it cost me to have TBJ evaluate my good cause statement?

[7x57]

My idea of "good cause" doesn't match TBJ's idea of "good cause".

For normal "civilians" like me, TBJ will never be able to help until CA goes Shall Issue. Period.

OK, but since I regularly take potshots at Billy Jack, perhaps I should speak up in his defense. In terms of who he will represent, I can see no problem at all. He does what the current law allows, and no one can do more (except change the law, and we now have a lawsuit to do just that).

The only thing I don't like is that he seems quite contemptuous of the people who need a CCW but can't afford one and people who need one but the state thinks otherwise, let alone people who simply want one. But that doesn't change the fact that every lawsuit he wins brings the idea of obeying the law to the attention of a sheriff, and in California we can't introduce that novel idea too many times. So I'm happy every time he wins, even if I think very little of his personal opinions or style.

It seems he isn't an ally, given his attitude about shall-issue, but he's a co-belligerent. And that's more than enough to work with.

7x57

[Kid Stanislaus]

"Good cause" and "good moral character" are the ugly twin sisters of CA CCW. Our goal should be the elimination of those criteria for CCW issue altogether. We need to get the message out that CA is lagging behind 40 other states when it comes to 2A rights. We're often cited as the "cutting edge" state on many issues but we are definitely the "dull edge" state on CCW.

[Glock22Fan]

How much would it cost me to have TBJ evaluate my good cause statement?

Nothing. Just send it to us. Don't forget to tell us where you live and any factors that might disbar you (not saying that you have any, but if you have there's no point in living a daydream.)