If we win the Ventura case. . . .

[Paladin]

can that be used to motivate Sacto to pass a law that fines LEAs that do not comply w/the PRA? Sure, LEAs will fall in line for awhile, just like they did after CBS v. Block, but let 10 or so years pass and what's to stop them from disobeying again? (Hopefully, CGF's mission will be complete and they will have folded their tents and gone on w/their lives by then.)

Will someone have to be willing and able to sue LEAs once every decade to keep them in line?

[Paul S]

.......... but let 10 or so years pass and what's to stop them from disobeying again?.........

If the LAPD is any sort of an example (the CCW application court case from the 90's) I would submit the answer to your question is...nothing is out there to stop them as they seem to ignore court decisions with impunity.

Going back to court to have an earlier court ruling enforced seems to me to be evidence of the height of nose thumbing at the court. Or figuratively a single finger salute.

[wash]

I doubt it.

There isn't any motivation for such a law.

The outcome of the case if positive, it will probably just compel Ventura to provide the documents and pay legal fees.

If that is all that happens, counties that feel like complying with the law will do so, counties that feel like ignoring it will just have to be sued again.

It doesn't hurt the state and it doesn't hurt counties if they comply with the law.

[bussda]

There is a bigger issue. As CCW becomes normalized, does a sheriff really want to explain why he doesn't do what others are doing and what he did earlier?

With good case law, it will only make the suing party win easily with little skill and get easy fees.

[wildhawker]

After we have express USSC acknowledgement of our right to keep and bear, and we've secured a non-discretionary permit system (or better), the prudent thing would be to make gun-related records exempt from CPRA.

[wash]

Hey Brandon, I was just at the G2AC meeting and they had a paper that said oppose on I think AB610, the bill that makes counties not require any training before they approve your CCW permit.

I thought that was one to support.

If they have it mixed up, someone should sort that out.

Or maybe it is just me that is mixed up?

[oni.dori]

If we win the Ventura case...I'm gettin' a CCW!!!! That's what will happen. lol

[Glock22Fan]

If we win the Ventura case...I'm gettin' a CCW!!!! That's what will happen. lol

You might need more than a view of the existing CCW's. That hasn't influenced many judges lately.

[uyoga]

We should be talking about "when" we win the Ventura case, and not about "if" we win the Ventura case, right?

The PRA is pretty clear in its language and its purpose. Ventura is plainly refusing to obey a clear and constitutional law.

These are the people who are employed and charged with the task of making sure anyone who breaks the law, goes before the judicial process.

Someone ought to give the Sheriff a citation.

[r3dn3ck]

For those of us who are woefully out of the loop, could someone post up relevant links to educate my shamefully ignorant arse on "the ventura case" and "PRA" and all the other alphabet soup going on in this thread. I'd LOVE to get all emotional and involved but I have no idea what y'all are yammering about.

A short sum-up from any of you would do just as well.

[Glock22Fan]

For those of us who are woefully out of the loop, could someone post up relevant links to educate my shamefully ignorant arse on "the ventura case" and "PRA" and all the other alphabet soup going on in this thread. I'd LOVE to get all emotional and involved but I have no idea what y'all are yammering about.

A short sum-up from any of you would do just as well.

Google: "PRA in California"

Google: "site:Calguns.net Ventura pra"

You can't join conversations part way through and expect to know what's going on, but you can use search facilities to enlighten yourself.

[Big Ben]

For those of us who are woefully out of the loop, could someone post up relevant links to educate my shamefully ignorant arse on "the ventura case" and "PRA" and all the other alphabet soup going on in this thread. I'd LOVE to get all emotional and involved but I have no idea what y'all are yammering about.

A short sum-up from any of you would do just as well.

I'm not "up to speed" on the case, but CPRA and PRA refer to California Public Records Act and Public Records Act, respectively. My understanding is that under CPRA, anyone who requests public records from a government agency must be provided them within a certain time period. I'm sure that's an over simplification, but that's the big picture.

There is an old thread that defines a bunch of calguns.net acronyms (but ironically doesn't include CPRA or PRA) at the following link:

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=78606

There is also a wiki for the Ventura Case at:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Calguns_Foundation_v._Ventura_County

As I said, I'm not "up to speed" on the case, so I can't provide you a summary, but the Wiki is a good starting point if you want to dig in. I plan on doing the same when I have a little more time. From a quick scan of the Calguns Foundation response, it would appear that CGF has requested information from the Ventura County SO regarding approved and denied CCW applications (most likely in relation to the CCW Sunshine Project). It appears that the SO is arguing that those applications aren't public records and is refusing to release the information.

As I said, I haven't followed this one, so I could be over-simplifying (or missing the point entirely), but I'm sure someone will come along to correct me if I'm wrong, and provide additional clarity.

Consider this my advance apology for any misstatements above.

[uyoga]

Big Ben has the essence of it. In CGF's efforts to ensure that the CCW laws are uniformly followed by all issuing authorities, it is attempting to find out what sets of facts constitute that elusive term: "good cause" for each issuing authority.

CGF has requested, and received, the requested records from several other issuing authorities around the state. CGF has published the accepted "good cause" statements so every applicant can see what has been accepted by each issuing authority.

The purpose of the request is that: If an issuing authority issues a CCW to someone based on a certain "good cause" statement, then, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, it needs to issue to any otherwise not disqualified applicant who cites the same "good cause" in his/her application.

This would tend to eliminate favoritism, and its nasty cousin, discrimination.

The Ventura issuing authority (VCSD) has refused to provide the records, citing privacy issues. CGF has advised VCSD that it can redact sensitive information from the records before it provides them.

VCSD continues to refuse. CGF was left with no other alternative but to sue for a writ issued by the court, directing VCSD to provide the records.

We have been to court, and argued the case. We are now waiting for the court to issue its writ, which could come at any time.

[Blackhawk556]

I read the title really quick and thought it said, "We win Ventura case" my heart started pounding at 120 bpm lol.

[yellowfin]

They're probably shredding the records while you wait on the court.