PC 12050 read wrong... Legal advice needed

[Eagle Eyes]

Hi all,

First off I would kindly ask that those who are not members with legal experience in gun cases please hold off on comments ....... I would really like to see what the lawyers on Calguns think and not have to read pages of comments to find them.

So if you all could PLEASE wait until some of them reply I would greatly appreciate it. Ok now onto the thread ....

(@ Gene and the few other legal minds here)

First off the part of PC 12050 I call into question:

12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:

Ok if you look at the red highlighted text you can see that the first listed and third listed requirments have the phrase "the person applying" (some of you are now saying but there is 4 but since there is a "and" with no comma after the (D) it is still part of the same thought) in the beginning parts of them. If you look at the highlighted green text the 2nd listed requirement does not have that stated anywhere between the commas.

The importance to this is that this part of PC 12050 as well as paragraph (B) is the law INSTRUCTING the Sheriff/CLEO what they are legally suppose to do before issuing a CCW. The key thing to look at is that the law is instructing the Sheriff/CLEO what "the person applying" needs to provided but the 2nd listed requirement does not.

After reading this and consulting some english professors who specialize in "legal speak" they believe that the conclusion I have is valid.

The 2nd listed requirement

that good cause exists for the issuance

because it is between 2 commas with no (and) (as well as) (but) and the fact that 1st and 3rd listed requirements before and after the commas list " the person applying" that it is not a burden upon the applicant to provide good cause.

The mutal agreement between them and myself is that the 2nd listed requirement is what the Sheriff/CLEO must determine as a point of enviromental criminal cause in a general public way, not a individual case by case basis.

In other words a Sheriff/CLEO should be issuing CCWs based on things like a rapist is running loose in a certain area, high rates of crime and so on in a general way that is fair to the entire public. The fact that a Sheriff/CLEO is asking for individuals to provide a good cause violates PC 12050 as it seems quite clear that the Sheriff/CLEO is the one who must determine the "good cause" and not " the person applying". In fact in reading this in that fashion the Sheriff/CLEO finding " that good cause exists for the issuance " for one applicant would be required to apply that good cause to all aplicants equally as there is no wording in the 2nd listed requirement instructing the Sheriff/CLEO that it is a individual requirement.

So if the Lawyers here read PC 12050 in this manner I would appreciated good advice if they feel that everyone has been reading PC 12050 incorrectly all these years. If Gene and the rest of the legal minds here feel I am correct in this then I will plan to apply for a CCW in San Diego County and when asked to state a "individual good cause" I will state that they are violating PC 12050 by asking and requiring it for applying for a CCW..

PLease let me know your legal advice on this.

Thanks

[Librarian]

The issuing authorities believe the the applicant must have a 'good cause'.

In Sacramento County, 'good cause' means 'self defense'. In other places, it means other things.

That's the point of the Calguns Foundation Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, to make 'good cause' mean something reasonable, not arbitrary.

Not being a lawyer, cannot and do not give legal advice.

[CalBear]

Not a lawyer, but I have read a lot of the PC sections that relate to firearms, many times. I see where you're coming from. It helps me to parse the section vertically:

The sheriff of a county, upon proof

- that the person applying is of good moral character,
- that good cause exists for the issuance,
- that the person applying satisfies (D) and ... (E),

- may issue to that person a license to carry...

I think there are two problems with your argument.

1) I think it is reasonable to expand the second requirement to read:

- that good cause exists for the issuance [of a permit to carry] ... [to the person]

The word issuance refers to the issuance of a permit to that particular person throughout the rest of the section. It doesn't refer to the general practice of permit issuance.

2) The section still says the sheriff may issue, not shall issue. Because of this, I think the sheriff will still get an incredibly high amount of discretion in this state, save for some equal protection issues.

[Librarian]

If Gene and the rest of the legal minds here feel I am correct in this then I will plan to apply for a CCW in San Diego County and when asked to state a "individual good cause" I will state that they are violating PC 12050 by asking and requiring it for applying for a CCW..

Just to add ...

San Diego is already somewhat difficult to get CCW in.

Have you heard about the San Diego lawsuit over CCW, Peruta?

There's already a legal effort ongoing to get CCW issuance 'level' across the state. It would be helpful if you would contact that team at MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 180 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 200, Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 216-4444 before proceeding.

[Eagle Eyes]

Yes Librarian well aware of the that case ......

Calbear .... but your statement of "reading into it" would work if the 1st requirment stated "the person applying" (comma) 2nd requirement (comma) 3rd requirment (and) 4th requirement with no other "the person applying" in the other requirements.

The fact I am pointing out is that "the person applying" is in a requirement before and after the 2nd requirement ... in any english form you choose it is read to mean a reference to the Sheriff's job. The Sheriff needs to determine what good cause exists in general and not to the individual (is there crime in the county that requires a firearm to defend against , yes/no as opposed to the individual stating because of crime I need a CCW for self defense) .... that the other requirements are based on a individual basis for issuance or denial.

The basic point is that PC 12050 does not require the individual applying to state good cause for issuance of a CCW.

[Purple K]

Sounds similar to the argument about the placement of commas in the Second Amendment.

[CHS]

Didn't we just have this exact same conversation in another thread?

The whole good cause thing just doesn't matter because at the end of the day, the Sheriff MAY issue.

He can look you in the eye and say "Sir, you have good cause. Excellent good cause, in fact, the best I've ever seen. However, since I MAY issue, I'm not going to. Have a nice day".

[Mstrty]

You are correct, as printed "that good cause exists for the issuance" is the burdon of the Sheriff. Now go *itch slap them into minding your words.

[snobord99]

Not legal advice (no competent lawyer would provide legal advice to random people over the internet), but, IMO, that's an incorrect reading.

The parts you highlighted, namely "upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E)," is a list. There is no "and" before "that good cause exists for the issuance" because in the English language, when you make a list, you do not put in the "and" after the comma until you've come upon the last item in the list. As "that good cause exists for the issuance" is only the second of three items, there is no "and" required. In fact, putting one in there would be grammatically incorrect.

The "list" is actually set off by "upon proof." As in upon proof
1) that the person applying is of good moral character,
2) that good cause exists for the issuance, and
3) that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E)

The problem is that you're reading "upon proof" into the first condition. If you read it that way and remove the first condition "upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character," the sentence would no longer make sense. However, if you remove the first condition without the "upon proof" (remove just "that the person applying is of good moral character"), the other two conditions remain intact and the sentence still makes sense (though grammatically incorrect).

[Librarian]

The fact I am pointing out is that "the person applying" is in a requirement before and after the 2nd requirement ... in any english form you choose it is read to mean a reference to the Sheriff's job. The Sheriff needs to determine what good cause exists in general and not to the individual (is there crime in the county that requires a firearm to defend against , yes/no as opposed to the individual stating because of crime I need a CCW for self defense) .... that the other requirements are based on a individual basis for issuance or denial.

The basic point is that PC 12050 does not require the individual applying to state good cause for issuance of a CCW.

Beyond the 'may issue' character of the law, I believe one will be rather frustrated attempting to apply rules of English language construction to statutory law.

[snobord99]

Beyond the 'may issue' character of the law, I believe one will be rather frustrated attempting to apply rules of English language construction to statutory law.

IMO, this one is actually pretty simple.

And I see the "lawyers only please" worked out real well

[snobord99]

Didn't we just have this exact same conversation in another thread?

The whole good cause thing just doesn't matter because at the end of the day, the Sheriff MAY issue.

He can look you in the eye and say "Sir, you have good cause. Excellent good cause, in fact, the best I've ever seen. However, since I MAY issue, I'm not going to. Have a nice day".

This is the correct answer...but to the wrong question. The (wo)man wants to discuss the construction of the sentence, let's just humor him/her...

[hoffmang]

First of all, I'm not a lawyer - I just manage a bunch of them...

The correct statutory construction is:

"The sheriff of a county, upon proof that ... good cause exists for the issuance ... may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person."

Since it's "and" then if, in the sheriffs analysis (ignoring the 2A) good cause does not exist then he may not issue a license to carry.

-Gene

[BigDogatPlay]

The whole good cause thing just doesn't matter because at the end of the day, the Sheriff MAY issue.

^^^This^^^

An applicant may fulfill all the requirements and still be denied simply because the issuance of the permit is at the sole discretion of the issuing authority. That's the bottom line. Arguing the pre-requisites at this point is, unfortunately, an exercise that won't get us anywhere I am afraid.

Change that "may" to a "shall" and then that resolves all, but we may never get there in California. Not in our lifetimes anyway. This is why the work that Calguns Foundation and a network of really sharp lawyers and dedicated citizens (Gray Peterson and the plaintiffs in Richards come immediately to mind) are doing is so vitally important.

Not a lawyerly opinion, but that of an old policeman who can read the law.

[Librarian]

And I see the "lawyers only please" worked out real well

I've never seen a lawyer post 'legal advice'. Aside from professional/ethical issues, such a lawyer would not get paid!