California CCW: "The Chosen One" may have arrived.

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim March

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
8,732
Location
SF Bay Area
Folks,

As most of you know, my CCW site has been mostly moribund of late. I've switched most of my efforts to election reform and have actually moved to the Seattle area.

I thought long and hard about publicizing what was needed in California. I know full well what's needed: the right lawsuit in the right county with the right (minority) plaintiff. If I advertized for that, some would no doubt come out of the woodwork but...they'd be dragged out. No guarantee they'd stick with it. I lost count of how many I talked to, how often they'd chicken out at the idea of going head to head against the sheriff and state attorney general combined.

That's not what we need. We need somebody with fire in their belly. Somebody that seeks out help, wants a permit, wants to fix this thing. So I didn't advertize. I patiently waited, for friggin' years it turns out, look for "the chosen one".

I think we finally got him. Steps are being taken to connect him with a lawyer. More details when I can post them, in no small part because I take confidentiality seriously. But I really think this is it, guys. Honorably discharged combat vet, in one of the worst counties, minority, strongly familiar with equal protection law (legal related training), enough money so that this is NOT a plea for donations.

I'll still answer all the two to five requests on an average week for CCW help. Like the guy last week I had to tell not to apply with his brother's gun's serial number because he can't legally do a no-paper transfer between brothers so he'd be confessing to a minor crime (sigh - go buy a gun, dude!). Or the guy in SF who I had the sad duty to say "sorry man, just move". I'll still answer.

But I'm going to be on the phone with one guy and his lawyers quite a bit, if this works out. And I think it will.

Damn, it took a while.

Because all the data is already there: California CCW had a racist motive at it's initial drafting in 1923, it's having a racial effect today, the moment an affected minority gets to court...Arlington Height gameplan baybee.

Damn. Just...damn.

We got him. We finally freakin' got him. After all these years.

Thank God.
 
March to Victory on a Road of Bones!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Legalistically speaking, of course.....

hillbilly
 
GO JIM!!!

You are the best. I don't know which county we're talking about (wouldn't be surprised if it's LA!) but I hope it goes bankrupt. I hope they lose so much money in this that they can't afford gas for their sheriff's dept cars. Every other sheriff in the state will say then have to say to his voters, "well I don't want to issue but if we don't, look what happened to ___ county..."

Go for final ultimate victory. We've been living under a Jim Crow law for 80 years now. It must be buried with concrete poured over the tomb.

Really, there are only two ways CA should go: either a fair almost-shall-issue process, or they need to revoke the entire CCW law. And I think that revoking it would be politically impossible, even here in CA, mainly due to nation-wide trends.
 
Good job, Jim March!

I am no lawyer but understand that the system largely works through precedents. Get a good politically-impactful case, form a precedent, start the avalanche, and watch the fireworks!

By the way, do people realize that "Bacca" means "cow" in a Philipino dialect, and "idiot" in Japanese. Ah, the cosmic meaning of coincidences... Sorry, could not resist to throw a barb at our beloved fearless chief, who believes unwashed peasants need no guns. :neener:
 
Anticipation

Jim,

I've followed many of your posts with great interest, and this is no variant. We all look forward to hearing more as you may inform. Anything that we can do to help, as you need, let us know. You already have our respect, now give'm hell. Strength, and honor! You exemplify both.

Nick
 
shoot, maybe I can move back

I post your equal rights for ccw website on other forums when I point out how racist gun laws are.
 
Jim, I wish you and "the chosen one" the best of luck ---

But don't you think that the California courts are so corrupt as to make what you are trying to do a practical impossibility?
 
Why a minority?
Click to expand...
Because all the data is already there: California CCW had a racist motive at it's initial drafting in 1923, it's having a racial effect today, the moment an affected minority gets to court...
Click to expand...
There it is.
Prayers and positive thoughts going your (our?) way Mr. March. Fight the good fight.
 
What can I do? Seriously.
I followed someone's signature to your site. Read a lot of things there. But it seemed "dead" so I stopped visiting.

What can I do to help?

Also, have you given up on Calguns.net? I haven't seen any recent posts from you.
 
I echo the thoughts here. Thanks Jim. The work you do for CCW and the Diebold controversy are priceless.

Scott
 
Something to consider...

The court fairly hears this case, and decides that the current CCW law is, in fact, biased against minorities and therefore unConstitutional. At that moment, there would be a moratorium on anyone issuing more CCWs, and possibly even DOJ deciding that all extant CCWs are now invalid, since the law under which they were issued has been stricken.

Errrr... OK, now what? Sacramento would probably be thrilled at the thought of those damn rogue, conservative rural counties no longer being able to send people armed with hidden guns into the enlightened metropolises! And even if they're forced to pass a new law (remember, LEOs carry under a different section of the Penal Code, so they won't be screaming for a new law), would that new law allow for anything like the current near-shall-issue in some counties? Or might it give issuing discretion to DOJ (most other states have CCWs controlled at the state level, not county, IIRC).

I'm not saying this will necessarily be a bad thing, just that there's a big chance for a bad outcome. This will allow for an open public debate on the issue, at least, and we'll get to point out how shall-issue CCW has caused no problems anywhere else. But since when do facts or reality come into play in Sacramento? We already know how the Legislature will vote on this, and it won't be to pass a shall-issue CCW law. There aren't enough CCWs in California to represent a voting bloc that'll angrily turn out next November if deprived of their permits.

For the record, I think I'm in favor of going ahead and tipping the apple cart over. If this does come down the way I envisioned above, that could be more of a wakeup call to CA gun owners. And if not, and I haven't become an LEO at that point, I can just move.
 
Great to hear of this Jim. CCW in California serves only the elite and connected, leftist politicians included. I think since 2001 and Katrina, a lot of the populace who never thought to personal protection have actually seen how valuable it truly is.

I think any fight will have a long duration to it while it is mired in court procedures - I hope you have some politicians in Sacramento who you can court some favor with too. I sincerely believe any court action in favor of CCW will be met quickly with legislation in Sacramento by leftist groups and the anti-gun lobby to squelch these rulings and reinstate fear and loathing to the populace via the media.
 
The court fairly hears this case, and decides that the current CCW law is, in fact, biased against minorities and therefore unConstitutional. At that moment, there would be a moratorium on anyone issuing more CCWs, and possibly even DOJ deciding that all extant CCWs are now invalid, since the law under which they were issued has been stricken.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt it. They would do no such thing as it wouldn't make sense. Has this happened in 30+ other states?

Thank you Jim it's about time this has happened. This is good news.
 
Senor Juan said:
The court fairly hears this case, and decides that the current CCW law is, in fact, biased against minorities and therefore unConstitutional. At that moment, there would be a moratorium on anyone issuing more CCWs, and possibly even DOJ deciding that all extant CCWs are now invalid, since the law under which they were issued has been stricken.
Click to expand...

Senor, I don't believe it could happen that way. In a court case like this, the court is NOT reviewing the CCW law as a whole. It is reviewing issuance practices. It is not deciding whether the law itself is constitutional, just the application. The law is certainly constitutional. It is the application of the law (controled by sheriffs) that might nto be constitutional. The only real remedy they have is to order sheriffs to start issuing like they're supposed to.

I also think that the forces in Sacto may not care that much either way. They have other concerns. The people who really care about this are our corrupt sheriffs who will lose a revenue stream. The other people who will be upset are police officers who make extra money by providing expensive armed bodyguard or security service in CA. They will lose their monopoly on that as PIs start getting permits easily, and even citizens will get permits and decide they don't need hired guns. Right now a small group of people (LEOs) are making a lot of money from the situation.

Why hasn't this been done in other states? a) California has a natural resource not present in any other state, and his name is Senor March. b) other states have gone shall-issue through a normal legislative process.

Could something like this apply in NY or NJ or HI? I doubt it. The history of the CCW laws in those places is different. Our law has an explicitly racist history. NJ and HI actually don't have racial discrimination in issuance. HI simply never ever issues, and NJ issuance is controled by judges in a public process. NY? I don't know what's going on.

Basically, this case will NOT make CA shall-issue. It will make CA sheriffs scared to not issue though, which is almost as good. I just want a court order to make the process fair and non-discriminatory. Maybe I'll still have to prove some "need" like "I'm an NRA-certified pistol instructor", "I'm a collector with a C&R license", "I'm a business owner", "I have a letter from my employer", etc. Shall issue means you don't need to state a reason. But those reasons I listed are reasons and they're the kind of thing anyone could probably come up with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top