I'm shocked and disappointed that this hasn't been posted yet, but its ok because I'm happy to be the first to break the news! 
WAY TO GO JIM!!!
Hopefully these suits will help make it easier to obtain CCW in California. Wanna give us any more insight, Jim?
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/8031489p-8967304c.html
Bias alleged in gun permits
Suits over a new state law claim favoritism by Blanas and others in allowing concealed weapons.
By Ramon Coronado and Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Thursday, January 1, 2004
Two national gun-rights groups will ask a Sacramento Superior Court judge Friday to block a new California law that they say will lead to unchecked favoritism in the granting of concealed weapons permits in the state.
The law, scheduled to take effect today, frees the state Department of Justice from collecting data on people who apply for gun permits from local law enforcement agencies.
The suit was filed this week on behalf of the Citizens Committee For he Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation, which together claim more than a million members nationwide.
A companion suit filed this week in Sacramento federal court contends that Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas doles out concealed weapons permits based on an applicant's political influence or law enforcement ties.
"It is the job of the people to make sure that government is fair and free from racial bias and political favors," said Sacramento lawyer Daniel M. Karalash, who filed the motion for an injunction in Superior Court.
The injunction, which seeks to delay implementation of the new law, is scheduled to be heard before Judge Loren E. McMaster.
The law, AB 1044, was sponsored by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who maintains that the Department of Justice was required as the "keeper of records" to accumulate applications, even though other laws, such as the Privacy Act, prevented public access to the information.
"For 18 years we have been wanting to rid ourselves of the applications, which we can do nothing with," Lockyer spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said.
The law still allows watchdog groups to seek application information from sheriffs and chiefs of police throughout the state, Jordan said.
The suit, however, maintains that the state records offer the only assurance that the permit process is fair and free from abuse by the state's 58 elected sheriffs and more than 300 police chiefs.
James March, a gun-rights lobbyist named as a third plaintiff in the Superior Court suit, claims in the suit that he had meetings with state officials in which he told them of an "abnormally low number of female holders" and "very few permit holders with Hispanic last names."
"March also described patterns where some sheriffs specifically 'redlined' towns in their counties with higher minority populations than the county as a whole," the suit said of the practice of discriminating in certain areas.
The federal suit focusing on Blanas alleges the new law is a "deliberate effort to conceal massive wrongdoing in the handling of concealed weapons permit applications across California."
Filed by Sacramento attorney Gary Gorski on behalf of a state worker whose application for a permit was rejected, the federal suit seeks an injunction barring discrimination in Sacramento County's permit process. No hearing has been scheduled in federal court.
"Defendant Blanas has personally taken in over $100,000 in campaign contributions from his small ... permit-holder pool," the suit alleges.
Undersheriff John McGinness strongly disputed any correlation between weapon permits and campaign contributions to Blanas.
"At the appropriate time, if necessary, we will provide information to the court that will dispel that idea," McGinness said. "Our procedures are very defensible, and the data will support them."
There now are 40,643 Californians with permits to carry concealed weapons, according to state officials.
Officials claim they are limited in their use of application and gun permit data to specific areas, including the investigation and arrest of criminals, and the return of stolen or lost weapons. The new law also frees state officials from what Jordan described as "nonstop litigation" with gun-rights' groups seeking access to the records, including those who filed the Superior Court suit.
The federal suit was filed on behalf of David K. Mehl, 38, identified as a chemical engineer with no criminal history who lives with his family in Sacramento County. Mehl "owns a handgun, which he would like to carry in his vehicle and on his person ... for protection of himself, his family, and other citizens, just as other privileged and well-connected citizens and retired peace officers and the sheriff's various cronies and campaign contributors are allowed to carry a concealed handgun," the suit says.
McGinness acknowledged that retired law enforcement officials, who often are targeted by people they have arrested or prosecuted, are entitled to permits.
Gorski insists that retired police officers and prosecutors have no more right to carry a concealed weapon for protection than other citizens. A policy that says otherwise is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, according to the federal suit. It alleges that the Sheriff's Department issues "honorary and low-level reserve law enforcement credentials," which confer "untrained reserve status" to "political campaign contributors just so (they) can carry a concealed weapon."
But McGinness said sheriff's mounted drill team members, to whom the suit refers, "do not, as a matter of course, receive a weapon permit. They have to meet the same criteria as everyone else." For example, he said, a physician who routinely carries controlled substances, or a jeweler transporting valuable gems would be eligible for a permit.
"We maintain tight control of this process," McGinness said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Writer
---------------------------
The Bee's Ramon Coronado can be reached at (916) 321-1191 or [email protected].
WAY TO GO JIM!!!
Hopefully these suits will help make it easier to obtain CCW in California. Wanna give us any more insight, Jim?
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/8031489p-8967304c.html
Bias alleged in gun permits
Suits over a new state law claim favoritism by Blanas and others in allowing concealed weapons.
By Ramon Coronado and Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Thursday, January 1, 2004
Two national gun-rights groups will ask a Sacramento Superior Court judge Friday to block a new California law that they say will lead to unchecked favoritism in the granting of concealed weapons permits in the state.
The law, scheduled to take effect today, frees the state Department of Justice from collecting data on people who apply for gun permits from local law enforcement agencies.
The suit was filed this week on behalf of the Citizens Committee For he Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation, which together claim more than a million members nationwide.
A companion suit filed this week in Sacramento federal court contends that Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas doles out concealed weapons permits based on an applicant's political influence or law enforcement ties.
"It is the job of the people to make sure that government is fair and free from racial bias and political favors," said Sacramento lawyer Daniel M. Karalash, who filed the motion for an injunction in Superior Court.
The injunction, which seeks to delay implementation of the new law, is scheduled to be heard before Judge Loren E. McMaster.
The law, AB 1044, was sponsored by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who maintains that the Department of Justice was required as the "keeper of records" to accumulate applications, even though other laws, such as the Privacy Act, prevented public access to the information.
"For 18 years we have been wanting to rid ourselves of the applications, which we can do nothing with," Lockyer spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said.
The law still allows watchdog groups to seek application information from sheriffs and chiefs of police throughout the state, Jordan said.
The suit, however, maintains that the state records offer the only assurance that the permit process is fair and free from abuse by the state's 58 elected sheriffs and more than 300 police chiefs.
James March, a gun-rights lobbyist named as a third plaintiff in the Superior Court suit, claims in the suit that he had meetings with state officials in which he told them of an "abnormally low number of female holders" and "very few permit holders with Hispanic last names."
"March also described patterns where some sheriffs specifically 'redlined' towns in their counties with higher minority populations than the county as a whole," the suit said of the practice of discriminating in certain areas.
The federal suit focusing on Blanas alleges the new law is a "deliberate effort to conceal massive wrongdoing in the handling of concealed weapons permit applications across California."
Filed by Sacramento attorney Gary Gorski on behalf of a state worker whose application for a permit was rejected, the federal suit seeks an injunction barring discrimination in Sacramento County's permit process. No hearing has been scheduled in federal court.
"Defendant Blanas has personally taken in over $100,000 in campaign contributions from his small ... permit-holder pool," the suit alleges.
Undersheriff John McGinness strongly disputed any correlation between weapon permits and campaign contributions to Blanas.
"At the appropriate time, if necessary, we will provide information to the court that will dispel that idea," McGinness said. "Our procedures are very defensible, and the data will support them."
There now are 40,643 Californians with permits to carry concealed weapons, according to state officials.
Officials claim they are limited in their use of application and gun permit data to specific areas, including the investigation and arrest of criminals, and the return of stolen or lost weapons. The new law also frees state officials from what Jordan described as "nonstop litigation" with gun-rights' groups seeking access to the records, including those who filed the Superior Court suit.
The federal suit was filed on behalf of David K. Mehl, 38, identified as a chemical engineer with no criminal history who lives with his family in Sacramento County. Mehl "owns a handgun, which he would like to carry in his vehicle and on his person ... for protection of himself, his family, and other citizens, just as other privileged and well-connected citizens and retired peace officers and the sheriff's various cronies and campaign contributors are allowed to carry a concealed handgun," the suit says.
McGinness acknowledged that retired law enforcement officials, who often are targeted by people they have arrested or prosecuted, are entitled to permits.
Gorski insists that retired police officers and prosecutors have no more right to carry a concealed weapon for protection than other citizens. A policy that says otherwise is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, according to the federal suit. It alleges that the Sheriff's Department issues "honorary and low-level reserve law enforcement credentials," which confer "untrained reserve status" to "political campaign contributors just so (they) can carry a concealed weapon."
But McGinness said sheriff's mounted drill team members, to whom the suit refers, "do not, as a matter of course, receive a weapon permit. They have to meet the same criteria as everyone else." For example, he said, a physician who routinely carries controlled substances, or a jeweler transporting valuable gems would be eligible for a permit.
"We maintain tight control of this process," McGinness said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Writer
---------------------------
The Bee's Ramon Coronado can be reached at (916) 321-1191 or [email protected].
