IMMEDIATE CALIFORNIA SHALL-ISSUE!!! Read this, guys!

[Jim March]

I need a sanity check on something that literally came to me in a dream.

Background: prior to the recent Colorado shall-issue law, there were attempts to get "functional shall-issue" by convincing sheriffs/chiefs to issue on a broad basis state wide - under the old discretionary rules, they could issue anywhere in the state. Approximately 1/3rd of the time there would exist the option of driving to some remote corner of the state and scoring from some gutsy top cop.

Cool. So why don't we do that in California? The only wrinkle is...the sheriff (has to be a sheriff here) would have to deputize us!

A California sheriff can issue CCWs to his/her/it's deputies anywhere in the state.

Make no mistake, this is already quietly happening. Sheriff Carona of Orange has a huge number of untrained "level 3" reservists with CCWs, and his level 3s have a greater likelihood of having CCW than his fully trained Level 1 reserves. And he won't cough up the names of reservists - he's hiding the fact that a bunch of LA or God knows where residents are scoring via this loophole. I strongly suspect this in Sacramento and other counties too.

OK, so this is possible. Now how do we market this to a VERY rural sheriff?

1) Money - at $100 a pop, and 80,000 permits (which is VERY conservative!), that's eight MILLION bucks. Which all goes straight into the sheriff's operating budget; any he doesn't need into the county coffers. Some of the counties that could play this game have populations below 40,000. Sacramento's budget process has been hosing county governments something fierce - this would be a massive upraised middle digit to Sacramento in return. (Some counties could switch to all-Hummer H1 patrol vehicles fer Chrissakes!)

2) MORE money. The sheriff sets up the reserve deputy program such that all us gunnies agree to get our butts up there in case of emergency, to direct traffic or whatever. And four or so times a year, a weekend "reserve training camp" is scheduled with classes in CPR, radio comms, traffic control or whatever - we each agree to make at least one such training session per year. What happens to the county's tourism industry? The campgrounds, hotel rooms, restraunts, gas stations, you name it? Right - they go nuts four times a year. NOW what are the odds that dude is gonna get re-elected? Heh. Pretty goddamn good!

This is all 100% legal. Candidate counties...I have a map up showing county locations, county population as of 2000, number of permits as of 1997...this gives us a good starting point:

http://www.equalccw.com/faq.html

Kings County has potential, Kern is interesting because it appears the latest sheriff has gone shall-issue even in the incorporated towns such as Bakersfield so although they're big, I'd say they're in the running. Nice location right on major freeways, too...same for Kings. If they won't bite, Inyo is the only other "somewhat close to LA" county left to try...Imperial is probably out (discriminatory practices at present) but...the financial aspects are damned tempting so who knows. North of Sacramento there are SCADS of possibles.

Bonus: reserve deputy CCW permits run three years instead of two .

What's the grabber side of the legislature gonna do? Freak out, of course, but first, the deadline for new bills was up Feb. 20th . Second, even if they pass something next year, well...then we get to see Arnold's REAL stance on guns, don't we? Plus, in the various committee hearings, we scream and yell about how corrupt/racist the existing practices are among the urban sheriffs and force the legislature to go on record supporting all that crap...including THIS very process happening for "fat cats" for years without complaint, and proposed for banning only when "peons" accessed the same program. Ya, they can try and pass whatever they want, but we can make it DAMNED uncomfortable for 'em!



Comments?

 

[aquapong]

Not flaming, but how is #1 not bribery?

We should all go get deputized so when a national leo CCW law is passed, we all have nationwide ccw.

 

[Braz]

Perfect Jim!

Thanks for articulating what I couldn't. This is the equivalent of the gay marriage movement. Please ley me know what I can do to help in this endeavor. Unless I'm missing something, this might be the most important post Kalifornians ever read on this forum. Please, let's do more than just discuss this idea!!!!!

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Make no mistake, this is already quietly happening.

It's also happening in Washington, DC. Any idea how many members of congress and their staffers happen to also be deputy US marshals? The only folks in DC that don't have guns are the law abiding residents.

 

[stv]

Wow.




I will be a happy man if this comes to fruition in this state. Thanks for your hard work, Jim.

 

[fjolnirsson]

It sounds good so far. I'm in.

 

[Jim March]

#1 is NOT bribery, because under current law, each sheriff can charge up to $100 as a "local agency fee" for CCW. See also www.equalccw.com/thelaw.html for Penal Codes 12050-54 (CCW laws).

80,000 deputies/permitholders at $100 a pop equals eight million perfectly legitimate bucks.

If the county in question is anywhere near LA, say Kings County or points south, then 80,000 is *conservative*. If Calif had the CCW issuance rate of Texas, we'd have about 600,000 permits. We've got 39,000 now - a lower rate per capita than Maryland, Mass, Iowa or even New York (state). Only NJ, NYC and Hawaii are more screwed-up discretionary zones.

OK, here's how we pull this off. I make a detailed proposal on paper - CCRKBA stationary, although I'll have to get Alan Gottlieb's permission. I doubt that'll be be a problem.

Step two, we ID candidates. We start with bigger ones first, work our way smaller. We first identify pro-gun state legislators in the candidate counties (shouldn't be hard to find!) and float this past them first - if we can get one of them on board to help lobby the sheriff, kewl.

Then we make the approach to the sheriff. Carefully. We'll want local contacts for that - we can find out who the approved CCW trainers are for that county, talk to them, see if they think there's any chance the sheriff will go for it...if so, get him involved in the approach.

Check this thread later today, I'll sort out which strongly pro-gun legislators who have candidate counties in their district might back this play.

We also want a relatively young sheriff who's gonna be there a while. Be a shame to set all this up and the dude croaks on us...

 

[Trebor]

I'm not in Cali, but this sounds like a great idea to me. I don't know whether it will work or not, but the financial aspect may be enough to get a Sheriff to bite. It seems like it's worth a try or at least further consideration.

 

[Langenator]

#1 isn't bribery because the fees are not going to the sherriff personally, they're going to the budget of a public agency.

The fact that increasing the size, budget, and thus clout of an agency is so effective at persuading officials in charge of said agency that it might as well be a bribe is kind of beside the point. Congress does it all the time.

 

[Jim March]

Yes, there's similarities to the gay marriage thing, EXCEPT that this is all perfectly legal on the part of all parties .

 

[Apple a Day]

Man, that's beautiful.
Find a sheriff who is hardcore RKBA ,in desperate need of money , or who's got a political axe to grind and suddenly things get lively. Time for people to check local newspaper websites and library archives for stories of sheriffs making pro-gun statements, griping about budget cuts, or making political statements. Best of luck!

 

[HBK]

Pretty impressive, Jim. Good luck to all you guys in CA.

 

[Jim March]

What's scary is that I *dreamed* this.

Great googly, I'm really stressin' on this stuff.

 

[Kingcreek]

Brilliant!
Jim, after you get this up and running, would you mind dreaming up something for us po' bastids in Ill-annoy?

 

[Jim March]

Heh.

One thing: the sheriff will be worried about legal liability if one of the people he arms screws up. We'll need a legal opinion otherwise - the law is pretty clear on this (can't sue a cop for job-related functions).

 

[Braz]

Ides of March,

Twas a cool March night with a full moon,
when Jim's head filled with freedom's light.
A dream so strong, like a head filling tune,
this idea to guarantee each man his right.

I am at your disposal Jim. How may I help?

 

[Jim March]

One problem - the sheriffs will be worried about legal liability in case one of us guys screw up. I may need a legal opinion on the subject to show 'em first.

The case law is all good though - can't sue a cop for job-related functions. Deputizing and CCWizin' both quality.

 

[Carnitas]

To sweeten the money side of it a little the Sheriff could easily require the deputys to purchase a Reserve uniform (polo shirt with dept logo or a snazzy "Sherrif Deputy" yellow windbreaker for example) for several times the cost of the garment.

What would also be interesting is if one Sheriff got the balls to do it you'd probably have a bunch of others jump in on their own when the reports of revenue generation started flowing in.

 

[TheBluesMan]

I *know* that Jim March will do whatever it takes to see this through just from his history and reputation. But it's gonna take a lot more than just talk on an Internet board to make this happen. Everyone saying, "Great idea, we're behind you all the way" needs to actually DO SOMETHING!

This forum is an incredible resource for communication and activism, but it takes a hell of a lot more than just talk to get things done!

Jim - Lay out a plan of action that involves a couple of dozen volunteers making phone calls, sending letters, contacting and speaking with law enforcement personnel, etc. Let THR be your HR department!

The upside to this plan is that thousands of Californians may finally be "allowed" to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. The downside is that Sacramento will probably head it off by changing their law to Shall Issue so they can get their mitts on the $$$.

 

[Balog]

Jim, I live in AZ, but I'd be happy to help. I'll PM you my RL contact info, please let me know if I can do anything.

 

[Jim March]

OK. Let's all take a deep breath.

I think we need to do the planning and prep to a "T" before *anybody* calls a single sheriff. Once it gets out that we're trying this, you can bet the California State Sheriff's Association will do a "doom'n'gloom letter" of some sort trying to pressure any possible pro-gun sheriffs into holding the line. If we're not set up with the legal arguments to counter that and the support of state legislators, we'll piss this away.

Let's do this: anybody have any *existing* information on pro-gun sheriffs who might jump, sing out here. We also need to track down local CCW trainers for candidate counties - that's going to take time, I'll get a list of candidate counties together and we'll try and get people at least somewhat local to each chasing those down. At some point, we'll get people to call a legislator but we're not ready for that yet.

Kern is being floated as possible by myself and others but I think there's a problem: they big enough that $8mil isn't a big chunk of county budget. I got a feeling we need to think smaller...Inyo maybe...or Kings.

Lotta research to do before we go running around stirring things up.

 

[Carnitas]

Inyo's pretty far out of the way. Kings might be better.

How about Mariposa. I know they are already a fairly permissive county. Centerally Located. Gateway to Yosemite. TINY department. Might be just right.

Edited to add....

From what I've seen of the population in that county the Sheriff would face very little flack from his constituents on this issue. That may be as big an issue as any other. On principal you might be able to get Bonner in Placer to aggree with you but there are enough Bay Area transplants here now that the political fall out would make it not worth the risk.

 

[Tom Bri]

Jim, you dreamed this?

Jim, you need to spend more time in bed!

Good luck.

 

[pittspilot]

Originally Posted by Jim March

"One problem - the sheriffs will be worried about legal liability in case one of us guys screw up. I may need a legal opinion on the subject to show 'em first."

I cannot give legal opinions, perhaps in 6 months. However, I can pass along some research.

Here is the code of interest

CA. Gov. Code 818.4

Issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of permit, license, or similar authorization

A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization where the public entity or an employee of the public entity is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended or revoked.

Also various cases of interest

"State agencies are immune against tort liability for denial, issuance or revocation of permits, licenses, certificates or other authorizations pursuant to state police power. Hirsch v. People, By and Through Dept. of Motor Vehicles (App. 2 Dist. 1974) 115 Cal.Rptr. 452, 42 Cal.App.3d 252. States 112.2(1)"

"In enactment of state tort claims legislation, legislature intended (a) to make public entities liable where their employees were liable, (b) to continue immunity granted to public employees for discretionary acts within scope of their employment, and (c) to create liability on part of governmental entities when injury was caused by failure to perform mandatory duty; it was not intended to change prior law that public employee was liable for his failure to perform mandatory duty. Elson v. Public Utilities Commission (App. 2 Dist. 1975) 124 Cal.Rptr. 305, 51 Cal.App.3d 577. States 112(2)"

"Statute providing that public entity is not liable for injuries caused by issuance or by failure or refusal to suspend or revoke, any license approval or similar authorization where the public entity is authorized by enactment to determine whether such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended, or revoked applies when the decision is a discretionary one; entity is not immune from liability, however, when it is under a statutory obligation to grant or withhold a permit or approval or when the decision is a nondiscretionary, ministerial act. Inland Empire Health Plan v. Superior Court (App. 4 Dist. 2003) 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 735, 108 Cal.App.4th 588. Municipal Corporations 727; Municipal Corporations 728"

"This section grants immunity only with respect to discretionary activities, including decisions in cases where the entity is under a statutory obligation to make such a discretionary decision. Morris v. Marin County (1977) 136 Cal.Rptr. 251, 18 Cal.3d 901, 559 P.2d 606."

"A "mandatory duty" that is not subject to the immunity afforded to licensing decisions of a public entity by this section is an obligatory duty which a governmental entity is required to perform as opposed to a permissive power that a governmental entity may or may not exercise as it chooses. Slagle Const. Co., Inc. v. Contra Costa County (App. 1 Dist. 1977) 136 Cal.Rptr. 748, 67 Cal.App.3d 559. Counties 141"

"Community college district was immune, under this section, from liability for alleged negligent administration of testing procedures used in firearms instruction course voluntarily given with state approval under Bus. & Prof.C. § 7514.1, repealed prohibiting private security guards from carrying or using firearms unless they successfully completed such a training course. Nunn v. State (1984) 200 Cal.Rptr. 440, 35 Cal.3d 616, 677 P.2d 846."

Curiously this means that this statute covers discretionary issue, but not shall-issue. If there was no discretion under the act, then the issuance would be mandatory. And if the cops missed a required mandatory item for disallowance such as a felony, they could have a problem.

We deal with this stuff all the time where I work.

 

[Stickjockey]

Jim-

Here's a possible extra: wouldn't participants, as "law enforcement officers", be exempt from CA's state AWB? (As long as the guns were purchased "for Law Enforcement Duties Only")