Edward429451
member
Way to go Jim!
Kudos.
Kudos.
Our own Jim March creating a BIG stink re: CA CCW!!! MUST READ!
- Thread starter Drjones
- Start date
- Status
Balog
Member
Do you have some sort of escrow account that THR'ers could chip in to?
Jim March
Member
OK, first thing, I'm now doing this professionally, paid by CCRKBA (Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms). Yes, I was dirt broke for a long time. I don't make a mint in this gig, but it's way fun and it's plenty to live on.
We are also "sister orgs" with the Second Amendment Foundation in the same way the NRA and NRA/ILA are sister orgs, and for the same reason: each has different tax statuses capable of legally doing different tasks. SAF can fund lawsuits based on tax-deductable funds; CCRKBA can pay for a political lobbyist/activist such as myself (and others!) with NON-tax-deductable funds.
I will be setting up a method by which you can sign up for memberships with the above and kick in extra money that is earmarked for California efforts and lawsuits. Which is not to say "in Jim's pocket". You will be both helping the cause, AND sending a signal to my bosses that California reform efforts do NOT go unnoticed. (Not that Alan Gottlieb and pals need a lot of prodding, but proof is always good...)
---------------------
Next: during today's temporary restraining order hearing, we got what we wanted in a weird way: the data we need is now preserved intact until the full injunction hearing coming in less than a month, via an agreement directly with Cal-DOJ's attorneys versus via court order.
Here's what happened: we didn't have "hard proof" that DOJ was going to fire up a shredder and trash their CCW denial and good cause data. We could prove they now COULD, but the motions judge (fill-in for a guy who was sick) was having a hard time with doing a court order based on what the government COULD do. The DOJ lawyer then spoke up in open court and said they would preserve the records until a full hearing, and made repeated and clear promises to that effect in open court, with a reporter from the SacBee present as well as the judge, clerk, etc. (Same reporter as wrote the first story in this thread.)
So even though we "lost" the restraining order motion, the only reason the judge turned us down was because the DOJ attorney promised not to trash the stuff. Had he NOT made such a promise, our side's attorneys would have had the adequate proof needed to GET the temporary restraining order.
So the DOJ cannot now trash the stuff (prior to the next hearing) without being exposed as con artists, in which case we'd win and force DOJ to re-create what they'd trashed by querying local records!
So we "lost", but really won.
OK, fine. The next hearing will be a proper slugfest with evidence introduced, questions asked of DOJ staff, a real opportunity to take 'em apart. And with a different (and reputedly very good) judge.
Onwards.
We are also "sister orgs" with the Second Amendment Foundation in the same way the NRA and NRA/ILA are sister orgs, and for the same reason: each has different tax statuses capable of legally doing different tasks. SAF can fund lawsuits based on tax-deductable funds; CCRKBA can pay for a political lobbyist/activist such as myself (and others!) with NON-tax-deductable funds.
I will be setting up a method by which you can sign up for memberships with the above and kick in extra money that is earmarked for California efforts and lawsuits. Which is not to say "in Jim's pocket". You will be both helping the cause, AND sending a signal to my bosses that California reform efforts do NOT go unnoticed. (Not that Alan Gottlieb and pals need a lot of prodding, but proof is always good...)
---------------------
Next: during today's temporary restraining order hearing, we got what we wanted in a weird way: the data we need is now preserved intact until the full injunction hearing coming in less than a month, via an agreement directly with Cal-DOJ's attorneys versus via court order.
Here's what happened: we didn't have "hard proof" that DOJ was going to fire up a shredder and trash their CCW denial and good cause data. We could prove they now COULD, but the motions judge (fill-in for a guy who was sick) was having a hard time with doing a court order based on what the government COULD do. The DOJ lawyer then spoke up in open court and said they would preserve the records until a full hearing, and made repeated and clear promises to that effect in open court, with a reporter from the SacBee present as well as the judge, clerk, etc. (Same reporter as wrote the first story in this thread.)
So even though we "lost" the restraining order motion, the only reason the judge turned us down was because the DOJ attorney promised not to trash the stuff. Had he NOT made such a promise, our side's attorneys would have had the adequate proof needed to GET the temporary restraining order.
So the DOJ cannot now trash the stuff (prior to the next hearing) without being exposed as con artists, in which case we'd win and force DOJ to re-create what they'd trashed by querying local records!
So we "lost", but really won
.OK, fine. The next hearing will be a proper slugfest with evidence introduced, questions asked of DOJ staff, a real opportunity to take 'em apart. And with a different (and reputedly very good) judge.
Onwards.
publius
Member
Thanks for the update, but I'm not so sure you're now safe. The political calculation for their side now must be: which is more damaging, keeping these records around so that Jim and his pals can trash us with them, or destroying them and thus breaking the courtroom vow?
The answer depends on just what kinds of patterns would emerge from those records.
The answer depends on just what kinds of patterns would emerge from those records.
QuickDraw
Member
Heres something I been thinking about.
Could the Govenator have told the AG to backoff?And more importantly, could the Govenator help in making California a shall issue state?
Any chance We have a friend in Sacto.?
QuickDraw
Could the Govenator have told the AG to backoff?And more importantly, could the Govenator help in making California a shall issue state?
Any chance We have a friend in Sacto.?
QuickDraw
Hkmp5sd
Member
Jim,
Now that you're a professional, after you beat California, how about getting elected to the NRA board and go straighten then out?
Now that you're a professional, after you beat California, how about getting elected to the NRA board and go straighten then out?
DJ E.
Member
Thank you Jim for all your hard efforts! Everyone in CA owes you a big one!
DJ
DJ
Gray Peterson
Member
No. The AG's office is an elected position. There isn't much the governor can actually do since he's not the chief law enforcement officer of the state.
Pendragon
Member
CA DOJ is full of scoundrels.
My money is on a midnight shredding party in the next 28 days.
Excuses will be made, appologies offered, the left hand did not know what they right hand was doing, etc.
Not to detract from Jims victory - I hope I am wrong, but based on the whole circus that is CA CCW SOP, you simply have to expect them to be dastardly.
I don't think Arnold is going to want to get into this fight - and he does not have to, but remember, he is more conservative than most of the voters in CA - he is unlikely to start jumping on our causes - he needs to preserve his opinion capital for all the cuts he is making in the budget.
If we make to the next hearing with the records in tact, then we got a shot.
Darnit - I thought I did not have to worry about it after moving to Texas, but it looks like we will be heading back as soon as we can...
My money is on a midnight shredding party in the next 28 days.
Excuses will be made, appologies offered, the left hand did not know what they right hand was doing, etc.
Not to detract from Jims victory - I hope I am wrong, but based on the whole circus that is CA CCW SOP, you simply have to expect them to be dastardly.
I don't think Arnold is going to want to get into this fight - and he does not have to, but remember, he is more conservative than most of the voters in CA - he is unlikely to start jumping on our causes - he needs to preserve his opinion capital for all the cuts he is making in the budget.
If we make to the next hearing with the records in tact, then we got a shot.
Darnit - I thought I did not have to worry about it after moving to Texas, but it looks like we will be heading back as soon as we can...
Jim March
Member
Fixing the Calif CCW system will be EASIER than fixing the...oh never mind.
No, I don't think Arnold is involved at all. Probably doesn't even know, unless one of his guys caught that SacBee thing. We'll have to win the full prelim injunction on or around the 26th of Jan before we even have a prayer of getting him involved...and even then, there's really not much he can do. I don't mean "he can't get involved due to political considerations", I mean he's basically not in the chain of command on this mess. The buck stops at Locker's desk (state attorney general) on this one.
No, the issue I expect Arnold to weigh in on is the threatened statewide gunshow ban. Jackie Spier has been making noises about introducing it, and of course various wildly anti-gun counties and cities like LA, SF and the like are wailing for it.
Here's where that gets complex:
1) The California DOJ (Randy Rossi, Tim Rieger and company) are on record as AGAINST banning gun shows. Yup, they're our allies on that one. I'll explain why in a sec.
2) California has already totally banned private party no-FFL in-state sales, 'cept between close family members. So the grabbers can moan about "gun show loopholes" in other states all they want and if you squint right and cock your head sideways, they sorta/kinda have a point. (Not a very good one, don't worry.) But in California, there is NOTHING going on at gun shows that can't go on at storefront gun dealers. 'Cept storefront dealers don't tend to sell high-end beef jerky.
3) And that's why DOJ is in favor of gun shows. With the strict laws, it gives them another law enforcement opportunity to bust the unwary - morons that hear the hoopla about "gun show loopholes" and believe the media!
Yes, I'm serious. They've heard gun shows are "easy meat" so they wander around looking for off-paper deals, and walk right into DOJ traps.
Without gun shows, attempted off-paper dealmakers would be chased further into the woodpile and away from the pigpile that constitutes your average gun show.
4) Now here's the real kicker: the political program and organization that proved it was possible to do grassroots referendums/initiatives on the cheap was the Geoff Metcalf-derived "VetoTheGovernor" movement of...1999 or 2000, I forget. First, note the name of the group...I assure you the DEMS paid attention. Second, this bunch came within a whisker of getting on the ballot, despite early paperwork bloops from before attorney Don Kilmer joined up. While they didn't make the sigs, they proved we COULD. And they did it in large part by gathering signatures at gun shows.
Understand something about the recent Davis recall: it was started on a shoestring and cloned straight off of the earlier Metcalf organization. They were on track to make it a vote on Davis in the Spring of '04 with nothing but volunteers. Issa pumped a couple mil in and using professional signature gatherers, moved the vote backwards to October. But the money wasn't critical to actually making the ballot!!! Issa thought that October would be easier to actually dump Davis than in the same race as the Dem primary but we now know it probably didn't make a difference. Getting the sigs to put the issue on the ballot in early '04 could have been done on the cheapo.
And THAT fact has the state Dems running terrified.
So, they want to ban gun shows - TO LIMIT THE POLITICAL POWER OF A GROUP THAT DOESN'T TEND TO VOTE Democrat.
If we (the orgs I work with, NRA, GOA, etc, we're all going to be on board for this) can get that message out to the public and hence to Arnold, we can expect a veto on it.
No, I don't think Arnold is involved at all. Probably doesn't even know, unless one of his guys caught that SacBee thing. We'll have to win the full prelim injunction on or around the 26th of Jan before we even have a prayer of getting him involved...and even then, there's really not much he can do. I don't mean "he can't get involved due to political considerations", I mean he's basically not in the chain of command on this mess. The buck stops at Locker's desk (state attorney general) on this one.
No, the issue I expect Arnold to weigh in on is the threatened statewide gunshow ban. Jackie Spier has been making noises about introducing it, and of course various wildly anti-gun counties and cities like LA, SF and the like are wailing for it.
Here's where that gets complex:
1) The California DOJ (Randy Rossi, Tim Rieger and company) are on record as AGAINST banning gun shows. Yup, they're our allies on that one. I'll explain why in a sec.
2) California has already totally banned private party no-FFL in-state sales, 'cept between close family members. So the grabbers can moan about "gun show loopholes" in other states all they want and if you squint right and cock your head sideways, they sorta/kinda have a point. (Not a very good one, don't worry.) But in California, there is NOTHING going on at gun shows that can't go on at storefront gun dealers. 'Cept storefront dealers don't tend to sell high-end beef jerky.
3) And that's why DOJ is in favor of gun shows. With the strict laws, it gives them another law enforcement opportunity to bust the unwary - morons that hear the hoopla about "gun show loopholes" and believe the media!
Yes, I'm serious. They've heard gun shows are "easy meat" so they wander around looking for off-paper deals, and walk right into DOJ traps.
Without gun shows, attempted off-paper dealmakers would be chased further into the woodpile and away from the pigpile that constitutes your average gun show.
4) Now here's the real kicker: the political program and organization that proved it was possible to do grassroots referendums/initiatives on the cheap was the Geoff Metcalf-derived "VetoTheGovernor" movement of...1999 or 2000, I forget. First, note the name of the group...I assure you the DEMS paid attention. Second, this bunch came within a whisker of getting on the ballot, despite early paperwork bloops from before attorney Don Kilmer joined up. While they didn't make the sigs, they proved we COULD. And they did it in large part by gathering signatures at gun shows.
Understand something about the recent Davis recall: it was started on a shoestring and cloned straight off of the earlier Metcalf organization. They were on track to make it a vote on Davis in the Spring of '04 with nothing but volunteers. Issa pumped a couple mil in and using professional signature gatherers, moved the vote backwards to October. But the money wasn't critical to actually making the ballot!!! Issa thought that October would be easier to actually dump Davis than in the same race as the Dem primary but we now know it probably didn't make a difference. Getting the sigs to put the issue on the ballot in early '04 could have been done on the cheapo.
And THAT fact has the state Dems running terrified.
So, they want to ban gun shows - TO LIMIT THE POLITICAL POWER OF A GROUP THAT DOESN'T TEND TO VOTE Democrat.
If we (the orgs I work with, NRA, GOA, etc, we're all going to be on board for this) can get that message out to the public and hence to Arnold, we can expect a veto on it.
Jim March
Member
Pendragon: at this point, the disadvantages of a midnight shred session are outweighed by the utter destruction of DOJ's credibility in court should they try.
If they shred before the next hearing, they'll lose the main case. If that happens, we can have the court order them to re-create the records by querying the local agencies. THAT would turn into more fun than a barrel full of monkeys on crack.
Now, if we hadn't done this hearing today, and DOJ's lawyers hadn't made promises not to shred, we'd have been screwed. Their case would be stronger - still dire, but with a chance of winning despite shredding. If they shred AND win the main case, well THEN we'd be screwed.
As is, we're in very good shape.
If they shred before the next hearing, they'll lose the main case. If that happens, we can have the court order them to re-create the records by querying the local agencies. THAT would turn into more fun than a barrel full of monkeys on crack
.Now, if we hadn't done this hearing today, and DOJ's lawyers hadn't made promises not to shred, we'd have been screwed. Their case would be stronger - still dire, but with a chance of winning despite shredding. If they shred AND win the main case, well THEN we'd be screwed.
As is, we're in very good shape.
Langenator
Member
I don't live in CA anymore, nor even claim it as my state of residence, but my folks still do, so I do pay attention to what goes on there. Any chance of doing a similar referendum to add an RKBA clause to the state constitution?
I recomend lifting Maine's: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms, and this right shall never be questioned." Art I, SS 16. Enacted in 1987.
Not in Arnold. He's as much our friend as Barbara Boxer. Well, maybe not quite THAT bad. He's not going to spend much energy in going after our rights, but believe this:
He's not going to spend ONE PENNY of political capital to help us.
If perchance he does come down on our side from time to time, follow the money. He'll only do so if he thinks there's something in it for him.
Remember who his advisors are/were: Prominent liberals like Willie Brown, Warren Buffet, Pete Wilson, and Richard Riordan. These folks are all antis.
(Yes, I know those last two call themselves Rebublicans. Your point?)
That should clear up any illusions that you had.
Jim March
Member
Langenator: funny you should mention that:
http://www.caproprkba.org/
The language Don Kilmer wrote for the last effort is what they'll be trying again, and it's GOOD stuff.
Quartus: you're being too harsh. WAY too harsh.
Arnold cannot constitutionally control the actions of an independent elected statewide official like Lockyer. Saying that it's "won't" instead of "can't" is slander.
http://www.caproprkba.org/
The language Don Kilmer wrote for the last effort is what they'll be trying again, and it's GOOD stuff.
Quartus: you're being too harsh. WAY too harsh.
Arnold cannot constitutionally control the actions of an independent elected statewide official like Lockyer. Saying that it's "won't" instead of "can't" is slander.
Jim March
Member
Meanwhile, we have another SacBee story:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/8039071p-8974800c.html
Judge: Weapons permit data safe
He says no evidence will be destroyed as lawsuit proceeds.
By Ramon Coronado and Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 3, 2004
A temporary restraining order to prevent the state attorney general's office from destroying records of concealed weapons permits was rejected Friday by a Sacramento Superior Court judge.
Judge Raymond M. Cadei said the restraining order wasn't necessary because any possible evidence will be preserved for the hearing on the permanent injunction, which was set for Jan. 26.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation are seeking an injunction to block the new law, which frees the state Department of Justice from keeping applications for concealed weapons permits issued by California's sheriffs and police chiefs.
Daniel M. Karalash, who filed the suit, told the judge that during a previous legislative hearing on the new law, officials from the attorney general's office stated that they would destroy the records.
Deputy Attorney General Geoffrey Graybill said the law doesn't require the department to automatically destroy the records and that there are no immediate plans to dispose of them.
Other officials from the attorney general's office maintain that keeping the records is a burden and that the same records are available at local law enforcement agencies.
The gun-rights advocates say they need the centrally located records to prove what they describe as statewide abuse in the issuance of permits to carry concealed weapons. They claim ethnic minorities and women are discriminated against and preferential treatment is given to campaign contributors.
In a companion suit filed this week in federal court, Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas is accused of collecting more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from concealed weapon permit holders in the county. Blanas is also accused of favoring those with law enforcement ties.
On Friday, Sacramento County Undersheriff John McGinness said while judges and retired police officers and prosecutors generally qualify for permits, there is no correlation between contributions to Blanas and permits being issued.
He said that all 440 current permits from the department are renewals initially issued during the tenures of previous sheriffs.
Eight percent of the permit holders have contributed to Blanas' campaign organization at one time or another, he added.
"Obviously, someone who exercises his constitutional right to financially support a candidate for public office can't be precluded because of that from holding a concealed weapon permit if he otherwise qualifies," McGinness said.
The federal suit was filed on behalf of David K. Mehl, identified as a chemical engineer with no criminal record who works for the state. It seeks an injunction against the Sheriff's Department barring discrimination in the handling of applications for concealed weapon permits.
Mehl, 38, claims his application for a permit was rejected for no good reason.
McGinness said department records show Mehl submitted an incomplete application, which was rejected based on the lack of required information. More recently, he added, Mehl submitted what appears to be a copy of the same application, with the same information missing.
The undersheriff said a panel of two captains and a chief deputy consider and rule on applications. Appeals from the panel go to a second chief deputy. Blanas has no role in the process, he stressed.
"The system, which goes back to (former Sheriff) Glen Craig, acts as a fire wall to protect the sheriff from baseless allegations such as the ones in this lawsuit," McGinness said.
About the Writer
---------------------------
The Bee's Ramon Coronado can be reached at (916) 321-1191 or [email protected].
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/8039071p-8974800c.html
Judge: Weapons permit data safe
He says no evidence will be destroyed as lawsuit proceeds.
By Ramon Coronado and Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 3, 2004
A temporary restraining order to prevent the state attorney general's office from destroying records of concealed weapons permits was rejected Friday by a Sacramento Superior Court judge.
Judge Raymond M. Cadei said the restraining order wasn't necessary because any possible evidence will be preserved for the hearing on the permanent injunction, which was set for Jan. 26.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation are seeking an injunction to block the new law, which frees the state Department of Justice from keeping applications for concealed weapons permits issued by California's sheriffs and police chiefs.
Daniel M. Karalash, who filed the suit, told the judge that during a previous legislative hearing on the new law, officials from the attorney general's office stated that they would destroy the records.
Deputy Attorney General Geoffrey Graybill said the law doesn't require the department to automatically destroy the records and that there are no immediate plans to dispose of them.
Other officials from the attorney general's office maintain that keeping the records is a burden and that the same records are available at local law enforcement agencies.
The gun-rights advocates say they need the centrally located records to prove what they describe as statewide abuse in the issuance of permits to carry concealed weapons. They claim ethnic minorities and women are discriminated against and preferential treatment is given to campaign contributors.
In a companion suit filed this week in federal court, Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas is accused of collecting more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from concealed weapon permit holders in the county. Blanas is also accused of favoring those with law enforcement ties.
On Friday, Sacramento County Undersheriff John McGinness said while judges and retired police officers and prosecutors generally qualify for permits, there is no correlation between contributions to Blanas and permits being issued.
He said that all 440 current permits from the department are renewals initially issued during the tenures of previous sheriffs.
Eight percent of the permit holders have contributed to Blanas' campaign organization at one time or another, he added.
"Obviously, someone who exercises his constitutional right to financially support a candidate for public office can't be precluded because of that from holding a concealed weapon permit if he otherwise qualifies," McGinness said.
The federal suit was filed on behalf of David K. Mehl, identified as a chemical engineer with no criminal record who works for the state. It seeks an injunction against the Sheriff's Department barring discrimination in the handling of applications for concealed weapon permits.
Mehl, 38, claims his application for a permit was rejected for no good reason.
McGinness said department records show Mehl submitted an incomplete application, which was rejected based on the lack of required information. More recently, he added, Mehl submitted what appears to be a copy of the same application, with the same information missing.
The undersheriff said a panel of two captains and a chief deputy consider and rule on applications. Appeals from the panel go to a second chief deputy. Blanas has no role in the process, he stressed.
"The system, which goes back to (former Sheriff) Glen Craig, acts as a fire wall to protect the sheriff from baseless allegations such as the ones in this lawsuit," McGinness said.
About the Writer
---------------------------
The Bee's Ramon Coronado can be reached at (916) 321-1191 or [email protected].
Zundfolge
Member
So Jim, what are you going to do if they decide to "sweep this under the rug" by passing Shall Issue CCW? 
Ya know, enough legal pressure on the right people could make that happen.
Ya know, enough legal pressure on the right people could make that happen.
Jim March
Member
We're not going to get shall-issue out of the legislature UNLESS the current legicritters stonewall Arnold's economic initiatives, and the voters realize it's happening.
In that case, the state legislative elections of '04 and '06 will be bloodbaths, with the Dems losing control over one or even both houses (Senate and Assembly).
This isn't all that unlikely. At present, Arnold has more "credibility points" than the legislature, yet the legislature is playing the same old games. If they don't wise up in a hurry, they're going to get creamed.
In that case, the state legislative elections of '04 and '06 will be bloodbaths, with the Dems losing control over one or even both houses (Senate and Assembly).
This isn't all that unlikely. At present, Arnold has more "credibility points" than the legislature, yet the legislature is playing the same old games. If they don't wise up in a hurry, they're going to get creamed.
DJ E.
Member
Jim-I'm sorry, my mind is simple. The way I understand the article is that they have centrally located records but are not required by law to keep them. What is stopping them from just destroying the records anyway, and when they go to court they just claim that the few records they have left are the only ones they've ever had on record? Mind clearing that up for me. Sorry
Jim March
Member
No problem.
First, they've made a promise to a judge not to trash the records. ON THAT BASIS, he withheld the temporary restraining order. If they trash the stuff, they're toast in court later.
Second, sure, they physically could trash PART of the records. But there ain't no way in HELL they'll do that.
Ya know why?
Because the most damning thing about the records is that they're INCOMPLETE. Look, DOJ was supposed to be compiling this crap starting 1/1/99. You know when they ACTUALLY started?
Summer of '02.
Swear to God, Randy Rossi told me that personally in a phone call. See, when I started asking for this stuff, they went back and looked at both their records, and the actual law...and went "whoops!".
Then there's the equally illegally poor record-keeping by local law enforcement, most of which are total goofs with this crap.
It'll be a major egg-on-face situation for EVERYBODY involved in CCW.
Don't get me wrong, there's still some juicy stuff IN there and we want it. Esp. the current names of permitholders. But the sickest part of the records is what's NOT there.
That's what the cover-up is about, folks. DOJ doesn't want to admit a monumental failure in legally required record-keeping.
So the last thing they'll do is make it worse by trashing records.
If they cover up this woeful lack of proper records by SAYING they trashed part or all between 1/1/04 and the hearing date (1/26/04, probably) then they get around the illegal poor records problem by convincing the court they're a howling pack 'o liars. And then when the court orders them to query local law enforcement to re-create the DOJ's archives, they're basically back to square one and pathetic records caused by local law enforcement.
Oh, what a sweet pickle.
First, they've made a promise to a judge not to trash the records. ON THAT BASIS, he withheld the temporary restraining order. If they trash the stuff, they're toast in court later.
Second, sure, they physically could trash PART of the records. But there ain't no way in HELL they'll do that.
Ya know why?
Because the most damning thing about the records is that they're INCOMPLETE. Look, DOJ was supposed to be compiling this crap starting 1/1/99. You know when they ACTUALLY started?
Summer of '02.
Swear to God, Randy Rossi told me that personally in a phone call. See, when I started asking for this stuff, they went back and looked at both their records, and the actual law...and went "whoops!".
Then there's the equally illegally poor record-keeping by local law enforcement, most of which are total goofs with this crap.
It'll be a major egg-on-face situation for EVERYBODY involved in CCW.
Don't get me wrong, there's still some juicy stuff IN there and we want it. Esp. the current names of permitholders. But the sickest part of the records is what's NOT there.
That's what the cover-up is about, folks. DOJ doesn't want to admit a monumental failure in legally required record-keeping.
So the last thing they'll do is make it worse by trashing records
.If they cover up this woeful lack of proper records by SAYING they trashed part or all between 1/1/04 and the hearing date (1/26/04, probably) then they get around the illegal poor records problem by convincing the court they're a howling pack 'o liars. And then when the court orders them to query local law enforcement to re-create the DOJ's archives, they're basically back to square one and pathetic records caused by local law enforcement.
Oh, what a sweet pickle
.DJ E.
Member
Ahh, I understand now. Sounds like this is about to get juicy! Good job Jim!
DJ
DJ
Carnitas
Member
Jim,
If you're successful in getting ahold of the DOJ records what uses will the data be put to?
If you're successful in getting ahold of the DOJ records what uses will the data be put to?
Jim March
Member
There's basically four areas we'll look at:
1) Records which ain't there, but should be. This will be based in part on people who tell me they've been denied, but they're missing in the records. Each of these people will then have a CHOICE to go public, join in a lawsuit or whatever. I'd ask permission even before using their case in a presentation to the legislature.
2) We'll get the full lists of names of approved people, in many cases the FIRST complete access to that we've ever had for a given jurisdiction, and run the names past major contributor logs. I'll do that myself where possible, or rely on other gun rights activists who have been active for a LONG time and promise not to release names without consulting myself and the Sacramento legal team. Only the most blatant and obvious of cronies would be named after that process. The vast majority of California's permitholders aren't cronies of any sort, and we'd never publish their names.
3) "Good cause data" will be scrutinized for "obvious cronyism and bias" on the sheriff's/chief's part. Really disgusting examples (references to campaign contributions as a reason for issuance have been spotted!) will be displayed...but no full archive would ever be released. Don Perata's "good cause statement" is an example of a really obnoxious specimen and I had no qualms at all about releasing it (and cheered when Matt Drudge picked it up). But for such release, it's either gotta be close to that bad, or it's got to be REALLY obvious that virtually all of a given sheriff's permits are crony-related (Rupf in Contra Costa, fr'instance...I'm not prepared to say for sure that ALL of Blanas' permits in Sacramento are that bad, as I don't have the full data yet).
4) Denial data - we'll do statistical analysis of the rate of female and Latino denied folks via name analysis...this would not threaten anybody's privacy. If the stats are VERY shocking, we'll get an unbiased academic somewhere to oversee their own analysis, with their promise not to release names. Individual denied minority/female applicants might be invited to join discrimination lawsuits at no cost - again, this would be completely voluntary.
That's about it.
Does anybody have a problem with the above?
1) Records which ain't there, but should be. This will be based in part on people who tell me they've been denied, but they're missing in the records. Each of these people will then have a CHOICE to go public, join in a lawsuit or whatever. I'd ask permission even before using their case in a presentation to the legislature.
2) We'll get the full lists of names of approved people, in many cases the FIRST complete access to that we've ever had for a given jurisdiction, and run the names past major contributor logs. I'll do that myself where possible, or rely on other gun rights activists who have been active for a LONG time and promise not to release names without consulting myself and the Sacramento legal team. Only the most blatant and obvious of cronies would be named after that process. The vast majority of California's permitholders aren't cronies of any sort, and we'd never publish their names.
3) "Good cause data" will be scrutinized for "obvious cronyism and bias" on the sheriff's/chief's part. Really disgusting examples (references to campaign contributions as a reason for issuance have been spotted!) will be displayed...but no full archive would ever be released. Don Perata's "good cause statement" is an example of a really obnoxious specimen and I had no qualms at all about releasing it (and cheered when Matt Drudge picked it up). But for such release, it's either gotta be close to that bad, or it's got to be REALLY obvious that virtually all of a given sheriff's permits are crony-related (Rupf in Contra Costa, fr'instance...I'm not prepared to say for sure that ALL of Blanas' permits in Sacramento are that bad, as I don't have the full data yet).
4) Denial data - we'll do statistical analysis of the rate of female and Latino denied folks via name analysis...this would not threaten anybody's privacy. If the stats are VERY shocking, we'll get an unbiased academic somewhere to oversee their own analysis, with their promise not to release names. Individual denied minority/female applicants might be invited to join discrimination lawsuits at no cost - again, this would be completely voluntary.
That's about it.
Does anybody have a problem with the above?
Gray Peterson
Member
My question is: What's the final endgame here? It's good that you want to expose the data that the CCW laws as it's being enforced is racist and sexist, but to what end is this lawsuit being filed? Is it to basically force a "shall-issue by court order" deal?
Pendragon
Member
Allow me
The end game is this:
Equal Protection
The Federal Case law dealing with equal protection issues is well established. If a law is disproportionally affecting one race or gender - even if there is no intent to do so, then the law is illegal.
The CA CCW law has been modified to not look as racist as it did when it was first enacted, but probably 70% or better of the permits are going to wealthy white men.
Equal protection law was a big stick for the liberals over the past few decades, now we are going to pick up that big stick and very possible make the practice of discretionary issue illegal in America.
Imagine discretionary issue in any of the following areas:
Business License
Marriage License
Drivers License
Hunting License
Access to credit and housing
Welfare
Thats a tiny list. Most people would not tolerate going in to get their drivers license and having to have an interview with someone who gives them the license based on whether they think they need it or not. Everyone has bias and no man is fit to determine such things in a free and equal society - even if the issuing person was able to remain 100% objective, even the APPEARANCE of bias would create problems - as it is doing right now. Blanas may be trying to issue "fairly" if strictly, but it is impossible for him to appear that way - thus it is impossible for us to be certain.
If we can wield the power of Equal Protection, we have a chance. The liberals will not listen to us when we recite the 2ndA or toss out prim little cold dead hands saying - they just do not care.
But when we demand that whatever the gun permit system is - it must be fair and treat everyone equally, then we got 'em.
I suspect a lot of 'em are not too happy about a bunch of hispanic and asian and black young men getting gun permits - but they also cannot stand to hear about discrimination.
That is why the only real tactic they have is to ignore, divert, redirect, bury and ignore again. If you can put their nose in it, they have to give in.
The end game is this:
Equal Protection
The Federal Case law dealing with equal protection issues is well established. If a law is disproportionally affecting one race or gender - even if there is no intent to do so, then the law is illegal.
The CA CCW law has been modified to not look as racist as it did when it was first enacted, but probably 70% or better of the permits are going to wealthy white men.
Equal protection law was a big stick for the liberals over the past few decades, now we are going to pick up that big stick and very possible make the practice of discretionary issue illegal in America.
Imagine discretionary issue in any of the following areas:
Business License
Marriage License
Drivers License
Hunting License
Access to credit and housing
Welfare
Thats a tiny list. Most people would not tolerate going in to get their drivers license and having to have an interview with someone who gives them the license based on whether they think they need it or not. Everyone has bias and no man is fit to determine such things in a free and equal society - even if the issuing person was able to remain 100% objective, even the APPEARANCE of bias would create problems - as it is doing right now. Blanas may be trying to issue "fairly" if strictly, but it is impossible for him to appear that way - thus it is impossible for us to be certain.
If we can wield the power of Equal Protection, we have a chance. The liberals will not listen to us when we recite the 2ndA or toss out prim little cold dead hands saying - they just do not care.
But when we demand that whatever the gun permit system is - it must be fair and treat everyone equally, then we got 'em.
I suspect a lot of 'em are not too happy about a bunch of hispanic and asian and black young men getting gun permits - but they also cannot stand to hear about discrimination.
That is why the only real tactic they have is to ignore, divert, redirect, bury and ignore again. If you can put their nose in it, they have to give in.
- Status