Our own Jim March creating a BIG stink re: CA CCW!!! MUST READ!
- Thread starter Drjones
- Start date
- Status
Pendragon
Member
That is a possibility - but VERY unlikely.
Right now, there are a LOT of connected/wealthy/important/famous people with permits. Not to mention all the retired LEOs - these guys are not going to want to give up CCW and they will apply pressure to the needed soft spots.
At worst, they would just come up with a heavily restricted CCW system - with lots of exclusions and pitfalls for the unwary.
Right now, there are a LOT of connected/wealthy/important/famous people with permits. Not to mention all the retired LEOs - these guys are not going to want to give up CCW and they will apply pressure to the needed soft spots.
At worst, they would just come up with a heavily restricted CCW system - with lots of exclusions and pitfalls for the unwary.
Jim March
Member
First, Pendragon missed one thing: in order to have a law (or piece of a law) thrown off the books as producing a racial disparity, if the disparity is "accidental" in modern times (or you can't prove it's deliberate!) you have to go back and find a deliberate racist purpose in the law's creation.
Fortunately, in the case of the original 1923 Callifornia CCW law, we can meet that burden.
More good news:
The 1923 law had a "severability clause" thrown in. That means that if one piece of it is thrown out, the rest stays. They did that because even back in '23, they had qualms about it's constitutionality - see also the last page of this file for a 1923 SF Examiner article showing racial bias and discussing this issue:
http://www.equalccw.com/AB462.PDF
This has already happened once! In the 1972 California Appelate Court case of People vs. Rappard (http://www.equalccw.com/rappard.txt) the court threw out the portion of the 1923 law that discriminated against legal alien residents in both gun ownership and criminal penalties for packing without a permit (which they couldn't get anyways before the Rappard case). Those pieces were thrown out as "discrimination on the basis of national origin".
So ultimately, our goal is to throw out the remaining "bad bit" - the discretionary element, leaving in the objective requirements and hence ending up with shall-issue.
Now, is there a risk the legislature would then try and end all permits?
Somewhat, BUT keep in mind that Arnold has put the Dems seriously on the ropes (well, more like Davis' incompetence did it but nevermind) and the 40,000ish current permitholders are a VERY wealthy bunch...a lot of millionaires in there, several billionaires. Piss THAT bunch off, and the California GOP is going to see a big flood of money in retaliation.
Will the Dems risk that?
No, the two lawsuits in progress now won't get us there statewide, although Gary has a chance at reforming Sacramento County by court order. David Kopel's opinion is that we'll need several successful local discrimination suits before taking on the whole law statewide.
Both current suits are critical steps along the way. Of the two, I'd say the fight against AB1044 is critical because without the data, we'll never go all the way.
Final thought: whoever wrote AB1044 screwed up. They left out a severability clause. We only need to find ONE thing wrong to junk it all
.
Fortunately, in the case of the original 1923 Callifornia CCW law, we can meet that burden.
More good news:
The 1923 law had a "severability clause" thrown in. That means that if one piece of it is thrown out, the rest stays. They did that because even back in '23, they had qualms about it's constitutionality - see also the last page of this file for a 1923 SF Examiner article showing racial bias and discussing this issue:
http://www.equalccw.com/AB462.PDF
This has already happened once! In the 1972 California Appelate Court case of People vs. Rappard (http://www.equalccw.com/rappard.txt) the court threw out the portion of the 1923 law that discriminated against legal alien residents in both gun ownership and criminal penalties for packing without a permit (which they couldn't get anyways before the Rappard case). Those pieces were thrown out as "discrimination on the basis of national origin".
So ultimately, our goal is to throw out the remaining "bad bit" - the discretionary element, leaving in the objective requirements and hence ending up with shall-issue.
Now, is there a risk the legislature would then try and end all permits?
Somewhat, BUT keep in mind that Arnold has put the Dems seriously on the ropes (well, more like Davis' incompetence did it but nevermind) and the 40,000ish current permitholders are a VERY wealthy bunch...a lot of millionaires in there, several billionaires. Piss THAT bunch off, and the California GOP is going to see a big flood of money in retaliation.
Will the Dems risk that?
No, the two lawsuits in progress now won't get us there statewide, although Gary has a chance at reforming Sacramento County by court order. David Kopel's opinion is that we'll need several successful local discrimination suits before taking on the whole law statewide.
Both current suits are critical steps along the way. Of the two, I'd say the fight against AB1044 is critical because without the data, we'll never go all the way.
Final thought: whoever wrote AB1044 screwed up. They left out a severability clause. We only need to find ONE thing wrong to junk it all
.Carnitas
Member
Jim March wrote:
What about the isse of of LEO permits. I'd imagine that a significant portion of the existing permits are retired LEO's. I dont for a second begrudge them the right to carry, but if the legislature moved to a "no issue" stance, would the permiting of ex-LEO's also be a violation of equal protection?
Another thing that occurs to me, kind of an aside really, is the racial profiling data that departments currently collect on vehicle stops. I did a ride along with a buddy. After every stop he has to enter a little bit of demographic data about the people he stopped and where he stopped them. This is deemed to be necessary and approriate, I gather, because the stops are "discretionary". The data provides a check and balance against the improper (racist, sexist, ageist) use of that discretion. With that as a premise it would seem entirely reasonable for LEO's to be required to collect similar data for their permit applicants which they will also handle on a discretionary basis. That would sure make your job easier eh?
What about the isse of of LEO permits. I'd imagine that a significant portion of the existing permits are retired LEO's. I dont for a second begrudge them the right to carry, but if the legislature moved to a "no issue" stance, would the permiting of ex-LEO's also be a violation of equal protection?
Another thing that occurs to me, kind of an aside really, is the racial profiling data that departments currently collect on vehicle stops. I did a ride along with a buddy. After every stop he has to enter a little bit of demographic data about the people he stopped and where he stopped them. This is deemed to be necessary and approriate, I gather, because the stops are "discretionary". The data provides a check and balance against the improper (racist, sexist, ageist) use of that discretion. With that as a premise it would seem entirely reasonable for LEO's to be required to collect similar data for their permit applicants which they will also handle on a discretionary basis. That would sure make your job easier eh?
Jim March
Member
OK, right now what I'm focused on is discrimination in the "normal CCW issuance process" - Penal Codes 12050 - 12054.
There's a separate shall-issue system under 12027 for various types of retired cops (difference sections for retired Feds, locals, etc.).
I've not been one to harp on that. And the lawsuit that myself, CCRKBA and SAF are involved in is NOT going after those records at the state or local level. We're dealing purely with 12050 - 54 issues.
BUT...well, the one point that Gary Gorski won in Silveira was that setting up easy access to "assault weapons" for retired cops versus ordinary folks IS an equal protection violation. That gives him an obvious opening to discuss the same disparity in CCW and I've heard he may be "going there" in his discrimination lawsuit against Blanas. I have mixed feelings about that, but...oh well, nothing I can do about it.
The good news is, he's not going to need to get or publish data on those 12027 folks. NONE are issued on a "crony basis" the way 12050 - 54 permits are handled, and the law on what's going on speaks for itself. So there's no possibility of privacy rights violations on those people.
There's a separate shall-issue system under 12027 for various types of retired cops (difference sections for retired Feds, locals, etc.).
I've not been one to harp on that. And the lawsuit that myself, CCRKBA and SAF are involved in is NOT going after those records at the state or local level. We're dealing purely with 12050 - 54 issues.
BUT...well, the one point that Gary Gorski won in Silveira was that setting up easy access to "assault weapons" for retired cops versus ordinary folks IS an equal protection violation. That gives him an obvious opening to discuss the same disparity in CCW and I've heard he may be "going there" in his discrimination lawsuit against Blanas. I have mixed feelings about that, but...oh well, nothing I can do about it.
The good news is, he's not going to need to get or publish data on those 12027 folks. NONE are issued on a "crony basis" the way 12050 - 54 permits are handled, and the law on what's going on speaks for itself. So there's no possibility of privacy rights violations on those people.
Langenator
Member
Jim-
Are you planning on doing any sort of geographical analysis of denied vs granted permits (ie, the Contra Costa Cty Sherriff granted all the permits in Blackhawk, but none in Richmond)? I know you mentioned looking for redlining at some point, but I didn't see it in the more recent 'what we're going to do with the data' post.
Are you planning on doing any sort of geographical analysis of denied vs granted permits (ie, the Contra Costa Cty Sherriff granted all the permits in Blackhawk, but none in Richmond)? I know you mentioned looking for redlining at some point, but I didn't see it in the more recent 'what we're going to do with the data' post.
Jim March
Member
Ah, that's a VERY good idea. Missed that . (Hey, never said I was perfect.)
The only problem is that the worse the sheriff is in general at CCW handling, the less denial data I think they'll generate. And Rupf of Contra Costa is right at the bottom along with Blanas of Sacramento, Laurie Smith in Santa Clara, etc.
So it might not be possible in all cases. But in the counties where it isn't, we'll have proof of suggestively illegal records keeping.
Another thing: in Contra Costa County itself, we don't need that. We have the written cross-jurisdictional agreement whereby Rupf agrees not to issue at ALL to the lower-income, higher-minority-population towns. It's called the "Contra Costa Police Chiefs Association Model CCW Protocol" and we have one copy from 1999 under the current rules. See also:
http://www.equalccw.com/cccc2.pdf (esp. starting page 6 - "SPPD" is the San Pablo Police Department, the agency which responded to a Chuck Michel PRAR with this document)
. (Hey, never said I was perfect.)The only problem is that the worse the sheriff is in general at CCW handling, the less denial data I think they'll generate. And Rupf of Contra Costa is right at the bottom along with Blanas of Sacramento, Laurie Smith in Santa Clara, etc.
So it might not be possible in all cases. But in the counties where it isn't, we'll have proof of suggestively illegal records keeping.
Another thing: in Contra Costa County itself, we don't need that. We have the written cross-jurisdictional agreement whereby Rupf agrees not to issue at ALL to the lower-income, higher-minority-population towns. It's called the "Contra Costa Police Chiefs Association Model CCW Protocol" and we have one copy from 1999 under the current rules. See also:
http://www.equalccw.com/cccc2.pdf (esp. starting page 6 - "SPPD" is the San Pablo Police Department, the agency which responded to a Chuck Michel PRAR with this document)
Now this is precious! These two "send us money instead pro-gun groups" are trying to HELP THE GOVERNMENT KEEP LISTS OF GUN-OWNERS after NRA got a law passed to destroy these databases! There is so much wrong with what SAF and CCRKBA are trying to do here, and all because of Jim March's antics.
For the truth about AB1044, see:
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/ab1044.shtml
and
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml
From their "press announcement" (pressing others for cash, more like it).
>
> SAF and CCRKBA filed for a temporary restraining order against Attorney
> General Bill Lockyer and DoJ Director Randy Rossi and their agencies. The
> two organizations want to prevent destruction of records under the
> guidelines of AB 1044, a new law that allows the state to destroy permit
> applications.
No, it REQUIRES the state to destroy it's lists of CCW applicants data.
Every list of gun-owners that the government maintains is a bad thing. I am incrtedulous that ANY gun-owners actually WANTS to be on a government list!?!
>
> "Normally," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, "we would fight to protect the
> privacy of gun owners, but this is not a normal situation.
Ignore the spin - Gottlieb is saying that he no longer cares about the privacy of gun-owners. (There's FUNDRAISING to do!)
> If those records
> are destroyed, it could prevent California gun owners from ever finding
out
> whether they have been the victims of ethnic or gender discrimination in
> their attempts to secure concealed pistol licenses.
Not true. As always, every CCW applicant who is rejected receives written notice with the reasons for rejection. Gottlieb wants that data (which could be very damaging to the CCW applicants) to be made PUBLIC via a governemnt database! (paid for with our taxes!)
CCW applicant data is available via FOIA requests, like always. And the CCW applicant that was rejected should have SOME SAY in what happens to their rejection data without March or Gottlieb (or anti-gunners!) taking that info and doing anything with it (like entering it as evidence in a court case!)
If Gottlieb want to see why a person is rejected, he should have to ask THAT PERSON for the reason. Gottlieb shouldn't be able to take that personal info and do anything with it without permission. Same for VPC, DOJ, Jim March and anyone else.
Any group that would support government lists of gun-owners and casually setting aside your privacy rights over some perceived benefit isn't clear on the concept of individual rights. Their own claims use words like "COULD" and "MAY BE" - and for that they set aside your privacy?
>
> "This is an important issue," he added, "because there have already been
> indications of racial and gender imbalances in the issuance of concealed
> carry licenses."
If true, betraying the privacy concerns of gun-owners is NOT an answer. Mr. Gottlieb is not telling you that more counties issue CCW's freely in CA than not, because some people are trying to make careers and monies off this issue.
>
> CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron said his organization joined in the
> lawsuit after having opposed the legislation for the very reasons Gottlieb
> stated.
There is NO good reason to support the government's attempt to maintain lists of gun-owners. If they think this helps them uncover CCW abuse, I remind these lazy researchers of the efforts of John Lott, who personally researched data from EVERY COUNTY IN THE US over a ten-year period.
John Lott didn't betray the privacy of gun-owners to aquire HIS data.
>
> "California gun rights activists advised us months ago that there appears
to
> be a pattern of discrimination against some permit applicants," Waldron
> said, "There may be an even larger pattern of entire communities, with
high
> minority populations, having been completely 'red-lined' by local sheriffs
> for blanket non-issue of permits to anyone living in those communities.
This isn't true - this is only because of Jim March, who until a few years ago, was a FERRET activist and had zero connection to the RKBA cause. His tactic of pissing off every law enforcement official in the state against gun-rights (by suing them) has caused him to be alienated by credible pro-gun organizations.
This is because when NRA protected gun-owner privacy by getting AB1044 passed, it threw a big monkey works in March's plans. Apparently he doesn't WANT to exert effort like John Lott, instead preferring the governemnt hand him what he wants on a silver platter. The problem is, the government hands the SAME data on the SAME silver platter to anti-gun forces! (Neither March nor Gottlieb care about THAT aspect of what they are trying.) There is nothing to prevent VPC from publishing the lists of perople who apply for CCW in a newpaper ad, for example, or use potentially damaging rejection informatoion against those applicants.
>
> "We're asking for a temporary restraining order to stop implementation of
> the law," Waldron explained, "while the court has an opportunity to review
> our request for a permanent order. Ultimately, we would like to see this
law
> overturned in favor of a law protecting the equal rights of all California
> gun permit applicants, regardless of race or gender."
This is amazing - that the government would protect the rights of gun-owners by ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC DATABASE OF CCW APPLICANTS? What planet are Jim March and Gottlieb living on?
Mike Haas - [email protected]
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
(510) 223-5207 Voice & FAX
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://AmmoGuide.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/
For the truth about AB1044, see:
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/ab1044.shtml
and
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml
From their "press announcement" (pressing others for cash, more like it).
>
> SAF and CCRKBA filed for a temporary restraining order against Attorney
> General Bill Lockyer and DoJ Director Randy Rossi and their agencies. The
> two organizations want to prevent destruction of records under the
> guidelines of AB 1044, a new law that allows the state to destroy permit
> applications.
No, it REQUIRES the state to destroy it's lists of CCW applicants data.
Every list of gun-owners that the government maintains is a bad thing. I am incrtedulous that ANY gun-owners actually WANTS to be on a government list!?!
>
> "Normally," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, "we would fight to protect the
> privacy of gun owners, but this is not a normal situation.
Ignore the spin - Gottlieb is saying that he no longer cares about the privacy of gun-owners. (There's FUNDRAISING to do!)
> If those records
> are destroyed, it could prevent California gun owners from ever finding
out
> whether they have been the victims of ethnic or gender discrimination in
> their attempts to secure concealed pistol licenses.
Not true. As always, every CCW applicant who is rejected receives written notice with the reasons for rejection. Gottlieb wants that data (which could be very damaging to the CCW applicants) to be made PUBLIC via a governemnt database! (paid for with our taxes!)
CCW applicant data is available via FOIA requests, like always. And the CCW applicant that was rejected should have SOME SAY in what happens to their rejection data without March or Gottlieb (or anti-gunners!) taking that info and doing anything with it (like entering it as evidence in a court case!)
If Gottlieb want to see why a person is rejected, he should have to ask THAT PERSON for the reason. Gottlieb shouldn't be able to take that personal info and do anything with it without permission. Same for VPC, DOJ, Jim March and anyone else.
Any group that would support government lists of gun-owners and casually setting aside your privacy rights over some perceived benefit isn't clear on the concept of individual rights. Their own claims use words like "COULD" and "MAY BE" - and for that they set aside your privacy?
>
> "This is an important issue," he added, "because there have already been
> indications of racial and gender imbalances in the issuance of concealed
> carry licenses."
If true, betraying the privacy concerns of gun-owners is NOT an answer. Mr. Gottlieb is not telling you that more counties issue CCW's freely in CA than not, because some people are trying to make careers and monies off this issue.
>
> CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron said his organization joined in the
> lawsuit after having opposed the legislation for the very reasons Gottlieb
> stated.
There is NO good reason to support the government's attempt to maintain lists of gun-owners. If they think this helps them uncover CCW abuse, I remind these lazy researchers of the efforts of John Lott, who personally researched data from EVERY COUNTY IN THE US over a ten-year period.
John Lott didn't betray the privacy of gun-owners to aquire HIS data.
>
> "California gun rights activists advised us months ago that there appears
to
> be a pattern of discrimination against some permit applicants," Waldron
> said, "There may be an even larger pattern of entire communities, with
high
> minority populations, having been completely 'red-lined' by local sheriffs
> for blanket non-issue of permits to anyone living in those communities.
This isn't true - this is only because of Jim March, who until a few years ago, was a FERRET activist and had zero connection to the RKBA cause. His tactic of pissing off every law enforcement official in the state against gun-rights (by suing them) has caused him to be alienated by credible pro-gun organizations.
This is because when NRA protected gun-owner privacy by getting AB1044 passed, it threw a big monkey works in March's plans. Apparently he doesn't WANT to exert effort like John Lott, instead preferring the governemnt hand him what he wants on a silver platter. The problem is, the government hands the SAME data on the SAME silver platter to anti-gun forces! (Neither March nor Gottlieb care about THAT aspect of what they are trying.) There is nothing to prevent VPC from publishing the lists of perople who apply for CCW in a newpaper ad, for example, or use potentially damaging rejection informatoion against those applicants.
>
> "We're asking for a temporary restraining order to stop implementation of
> the law," Waldron explained, "while the court has an opportunity to review
> our request for a permanent order. Ultimately, we would like to see this
law
> overturned in favor of a law protecting the equal rights of all California
> gun permit applicants, regardless of race or gender."
This is amazing - that the government would protect the rights of gun-owners by ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC DATABASE OF CCW APPLICANTS? What planet are Jim March and Gottlieb living on?
Mike Haas - [email protected]
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
(510) 223-5207 Voice & FAX
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://AmmoGuide.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/
Gray Peterson
Member
Mike...
You are treading on thin ice with your flaming of March on this issue. The problem is that destroying the evidence in the central repository of the state agency of the CCW denial records would not allow gun owners to live SAFE in California. Have you forgotten that California is a corrupt, may issue state? Have you forgotten that CBS v. Block required good cause issuance and other data to be public because they smelled a rat and believed it was possible that there was unconstitutional discrimination involved here?
Until California becomes a shall-issue state by either court order or state law, I don't believe at this point that all denial records and all records of who has permits should be privitized, to do exactly what March and Gottlieb are trying to do: Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a majority of permit holders in certain counties are overwhelmingly campaign contributers and promoting illegal discrimination. I'm sorry, but lack of campaign contributions should NEVER be a barrier to get something that can defend your life LEGALLY. Cal NRA and the members councils in California can wrap this up in "protecting the gun owner" all you want in the counties that freely issue permits, but what good is it if no one can get permits where they need it the most? Like LA County? Or San Francisco? Or Sacramento? Or San Diego?
You are treading on thin ice with your flaming of March on this issue. The problem is that destroying the evidence in the central repository of the state agency of the CCW denial records would not allow gun owners to live SAFE in California. Have you forgotten that California is a corrupt, may issue state? Have you forgotten that CBS v. Block required good cause issuance and other data to be public because they smelled a rat and believed it was possible that there was unconstitutional discrimination involved here?
Until California becomes a shall-issue state by either court order or state law, I don't believe at this point that all denial records and all records of who has permits should be privitized, to do exactly what March and Gottlieb are trying to do: Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a majority of permit holders in certain counties are overwhelmingly campaign contributers and promoting illegal discrimination. I'm sorry, but lack of campaign contributions should NEVER be a barrier to get something that can defend your life LEGALLY. Cal NRA and the members councils in California can wrap this up in "protecting the gun owner" all you want in the counties that freely issue permits, but what good is it if no one can get permits where they need it the most? Like LA County? Or San Francisco? Or Sacramento? Or San Diego?
>You are treading on thin ice with your flaming of March on this issue.
Must be a case of the truth hurting too much. I'm flabbergasted that you want to be put on a government list.
>The problem is that destroying the evidence in the central repository of the state agency of the CCW denial records would not allow gun owners to live SAFE in California.
Huh? You think that what happens with AB1044 will determine if you are SAFE or not? Oh, my, you have certainly ingested a lot of hype about this.
>Have you forgotten that California is a corrupt, may issue state?
No.
>Have you forgotten that CBS v. Block required good cause issuance and other data to be public because they smelled a rat and believed it was possible that there was unconstitutional discrimination involved here?
It was "possible"? And you want to betray the privacy of every CCW applicant in the state over what MIGHT BE? So you'll give up some rights for a possible gain? WHich ones are you willing to sacrifice? Me? Not any.
Have you forgotten that governemnt lists of gun-owners are to be avoided at all costs? The violation of privacy that March & Co. want to perpetrate on you, for some PERCEIVED benefit that may not even be there, is foolishness at it's height.
I have had gun-owners afraid to join NRA because they are afarid of being put on any list. That's why NRA's leaders have promised to go to jail if necessary to protect the privacy of it's membership...
"...We have never and will never release our membership information. We will not release ten names nor one single name, period..."
Former NRA President Marion Hammer
http://nrawinningteam.com/0101/florida.html
This is very amatuerish of SAF and CCRKBA. They should know better than to listen to Jim March.
>Until California becomes a shall-issue state by either court order or state law, I don't believe at this point that all denial records and all records of who has permits should be privitized, to do exactly what March and Gottlieb are trying to do:
You want to be put on a government list? You want the world to be able to know why you were rejected without you having any say about it? What about gun-owners who are rejected for VALID REASONS? Just because they asked to carry a weapon concealed, they should now have forgotten negative aspects of their background - MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS - now popping up to cause them grief in their lives decades later?
And you want the government to use YOUR TAXES to provide that info to every Tom, Dick amd Jim with a political agenda?
Have YOU forgotten?
We all know CCW abuse happens. Giving up your privacy is no way to improve matters.
Have March et al. put some shoe leather on the ground like John Lott did. Use the FOIA to get that info. We don't need to betray the privqcy of EVERY CCW APPLICANT IN THE STATE for what Jim March thinks might be there. In all of his lawsuits, he hasn't been right yet.
>Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a majority of permit holders in certain counties are overwhelmingly campaign contributers and promoting illegal discrimination. I'm sorry, but lack of campaign contributions should NEVER be a barrier to get something that can defend your life LEGALLY. Cal NRA and the members councils in California can wrap this up in "protecting the gun owner" all you want in the counties that freely issue permits, but what good is it if no one can get permits where they need it the most? Like LA County? Or San Francisco? Or Sacramento? Or San Diego?
I agree CCW abuse is a problem. But you want to BETRAY THE PRIVACY OF THOSE CCW APPLICANTS for an agenda that is unproven and many think anti-productive.
March has done more harm alienating law enforcement to gun rights issues than anyone in the last 5 years. And he has totally blown his credibility at the capitol with his misrepresentation about AB1044 last year. (Legislators don't like misrepresentations in testimony.)
It's been a long time since March had a win... years, in fact. The only one I know of is his accidental exposure of the MMM financial dealings (and I still see MMM all over California - they are trying to ban .50 caliuber rifles in my own county!). As far as CCW reform - zero progress. And remember, I've know Jim March for years, since he first became involved in CCW issues. I gave him a job for awhile when he needed one! He started out a member of my Members' Council! His first lawsuit was against my county sheriff. Needless to say, I haven't had much luck getting the sheriff to see things our way now.
Turning law enforcement against gun rights is no way to get CCW. You have to understand how complex this issue is. Progress will be slow and it will take years, but these inflammatory lawsuits and attacks just cause law enforcement to band together against us, and we need their support with other gun control issues - ones that there is a much better chance for progress than CCW issuance. CCW reform will happen in due time but that isn't now.
I'm as frustrated as anyone with my inability to get a CCW. I live in Contra Costa County - one of the real hotbeds of anti-gun activity in California. See
http://NRAMembersCouncils/com/contracosta/
AB1044 did other good things = it isolated CADOJ from interfering with local CCW policies and injecting their items on local forms. It's absolutely UNREAL that any pro-gun organization would support a government list of any kind of gun-owner for ANY reason. Talk about the upltimate compromise!!!
Mike Haas - [email protected]
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
(510) 223-5207 Voice & FAX
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://AmmoGuide.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/
Must be a case of the truth hurting too much. I'm flabbergasted that you want to be put on a government list.
>The problem is that destroying the evidence in the central repository of the state agency of the CCW denial records would not allow gun owners to live SAFE in California.
Huh? You think that what happens with AB1044 will determine if you are SAFE or not? Oh, my, you have certainly ingested a lot of hype about this.
>Have you forgotten that California is a corrupt, may issue state?
No.
>Have you forgotten that CBS v. Block required good cause issuance and other data to be public because they smelled a rat and believed it was possible that there was unconstitutional discrimination involved here?
It was "possible"? And you want to betray the privacy of every CCW applicant in the state over what MIGHT BE? So you'll give up some rights for a possible gain? WHich ones are you willing to sacrifice? Me? Not any.
Have you forgotten that governemnt lists of gun-owners are to be avoided at all costs? The violation of privacy that March & Co. want to perpetrate on you, for some PERCEIVED benefit that may not even be there, is foolishness at it's height.
I have had gun-owners afraid to join NRA because they are afarid of being put on any list. That's why NRA's leaders have promised to go to jail if necessary to protect the privacy of it's membership...
"...We have never and will never release our membership information. We will not release ten names nor one single name, period..."
Former NRA President Marion Hammer
http://nrawinningteam.com/0101/florida.html
This is very amatuerish of SAF and CCRKBA. They should know better than to listen to Jim March.
>Until California becomes a shall-issue state by either court order or state law, I don't believe at this point that all denial records and all records of who has permits should be privitized, to do exactly what March and Gottlieb are trying to do:
You want to be put on a government list? You want the world to be able to know why you were rejected without you having any say about it? What about gun-owners who are rejected for VALID REASONS? Just because they asked to carry a weapon concealed, they should now have forgotten negative aspects of their background - MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS - now popping up to cause them grief in their lives decades later?
And you want the government to use YOUR TAXES to provide that info to every Tom, Dick amd Jim with a political agenda?
Have YOU forgotten?
We all know CCW abuse happens. Giving up your privacy is no way to improve matters.
Have March et al. put some shoe leather on the ground like John Lott did. Use the FOIA to get that info. We don't need to betray the privqcy of EVERY CCW APPLICANT IN THE STATE for what Jim March thinks might be there. In all of his lawsuits, he hasn't been right yet.
>Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a majority of permit holders in certain counties are overwhelmingly campaign contributers and promoting illegal discrimination. I'm sorry, but lack of campaign contributions should NEVER be a barrier to get something that can defend your life LEGALLY. Cal NRA and the members councils in California can wrap this up in "protecting the gun owner" all you want in the counties that freely issue permits, but what good is it if no one can get permits where they need it the most? Like LA County? Or San Francisco? Or Sacramento? Or San Diego?
I agree CCW abuse is a problem. But you want to BETRAY THE PRIVACY OF THOSE CCW APPLICANTS for an agenda that is unproven and many think anti-productive.
March has done more harm alienating law enforcement to gun rights issues than anyone in the last 5 years. And he has totally blown his credibility at the capitol with his misrepresentation about AB1044 last year. (Legislators don't like misrepresentations in testimony.)
It's been a long time since March had a win... years, in fact. The only one I know of is his accidental exposure of the MMM financial dealings (and I still see MMM all over California - they are trying to ban .50 caliuber rifles in my own county!). As far as CCW reform - zero progress. And remember, I've know Jim March for years, since he first became involved in CCW issues. I gave him a job for awhile when he needed one! He started out a member of my Members' Council! His first lawsuit was against my county sheriff. Needless to say, I haven't had much luck getting the sheriff to see things our way now.
Turning law enforcement against gun rights is no way to get CCW. You have to understand how complex this issue is. Progress will be slow and it will take years, but these inflammatory lawsuits and attacks just cause law enforcement to band together against us, and we need their support with other gun control issues - ones that there is a much better chance for progress than CCW issuance. CCW reform will happen in due time but that isn't now.
I'm as frustrated as anyone with my inability to get a CCW. I live in Contra Costa County - one of the real hotbeds of anti-gun activity in California. See
http://NRAMembersCouncils/com/contracosta/
AB1044 did other good things = it isolated CADOJ from interfering with local CCW policies and injecting their items on local forms. It's absolutely UNREAL that any pro-gun organization would support a government list of any kind of gun-owner for ANY reason. Talk about the upltimate compromise!!!
Mike Haas - [email protected]
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
(510) 223-5207 Voice & FAX
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://AmmoGuide.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/
Mute
Member
Put on a government list? If the NRA has been doing Kalifornians such great favors why don't they try to eliminate the registration of handguns. I don't see myself being removed from that list anytime soon do to the NRA's great efforts.
I don't question the NRA's motives. I do question their conclusions.
I don't question the NRA's motives. I do question their conclusions.
> I'm as frustrated as anyone with my inability to get a CCW. I live in Contra Costa County - one of the real hotbeds of anti-gun activity in California.
Ok - for those on highroad.org that DON'T READ posts before attacking, I'd like to point out one of my last comments above...
"...I'm as frustrated as anyone with MY INABILITY to get a CCW. I live in Contra Costa County - one of the real hotbeds of anti-gun activity in California..."
I don't have a CCW. I wouldn't pay $700 to get one while people more in need can't have one becausxe they don;t make enough money.
You see, I'm as dedicated to CCW reform as Jim March is, and have been longer. But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if you pardon the use of an old, but very appropriate, saw.
I was trying to help NRA pass CCW reform legislation at the capitol when Jim March was trying to own a ferret. It lost because it was too much, too soon. Only within the last year have we been able to pass any pro-gun bills. Five. See
http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml
Yes, contrary to the pablum that Jim March is feeding you, AB1044 is one of those pro-gun bills. IT PROTECTS THE PRIVACY OF CCW APPLICANTS AND ISOLATES LOCAL CCW PROCEDURES FROM CADOJ INTERFERENCE.
Jim March isn't doing any gun-owners any favors, folks. Look at the big picture. After all, many of you also own hunting rifles with scopes (sniper rifles) and large-caliber (read: .50 cal) handguns and BMG target rifles ("favorites of terrorists for attacking oil refineries", didn't you know?)
IMO. March's tactics make it harder to get law enforcement support for pro-gun issues and therefore makes it less likely we will be able to continue to pass pro-gun bills and kill bad ones. This lawsuit will threaten goodwill we've gained with some legislators this year. For just one example, the state-wide .50 cal. ban failed because Senator McPherson changed his vote from a YES to a NO in the Senate Public Safety Committee. Sen. McPherson HAD NEVER VOTED WITH NRA BEFORE. We asked NRA members to thank the senatpor, and they did. POoliticians really like enthusiastic "thank you"s.
In the big picture, theses antics may be blowing a lot political credibility for "gun owners" in the eyes of legislators and law enforcement, all for an issue that is unlikely to move much in the near future anyway for political reasons. In fact, he may be hurting the advancement of CCW issues overall - every state that gained shall-issue did so through the legislature. NONE did it via lawsuit. And remember, the courts can be notoriously political, and I haven't seen any CCW victories by Mr. March's tactics in the past.
SOMEONE ought to point out that YOU IGNORE THESE FACTS AT THE PERIL OF YOUR RIGHTS.
Mike Haas - [email protected]
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
(510) 223-5207 Voice & FAX
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://AmmoGuide.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/
Ok - for those on highroad.org that DON'T READ posts before attacking, I'd like to point out one of my last comments above...
"...I'm as frustrated as anyone with MY INABILITY to get a CCW. I live in Contra Costa County - one of the real hotbeds of anti-gun activity in California..."
I don't have a CCW. I wouldn't pay $700 to get one while people more in need can't have one becausxe they don;t make enough money.
You see, I'm as dedicated to CCW reform as Jim March is, and have been longer. But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if you pardon the use of an old, but very appropriate, saw.
I was trying to help NRA pass CCW reform legislation at the capitol when Jim March was trying to own a ferret. It lost because it was too much, too soon. Only within the last year have we been able to pass any pro-gun bills. Five. See
http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml
Yes, contrary to the pablum that Jim March is feeding you, AB1044 is one of those pro-gun bills. IT PROTECTS THE PRIVACY OF CCW APPLICANTS AND ISOLATES LOCAL CCW PROCEDURES FROM CADOJ INTERFERENCE.
Jim March isn't doing any gun-owners any favors, folks. Look at the big picture. After all, many of you also own hunting rifles with scopes (sniper rifles) and large-caliber (read: .50 cal) handguns and BMG target rifles ("favorites of terrorists for attacking oil refineries", didn't you know?)
IMO. March's tactics make it harder to get law enforcement support for pro-gun issues and therefore makes it less likely we will be able to continue to pass pro-gun bills and kill bad ones. This lawsuit will threaten goodwill we've gained with some legislators this year. For just one example, the state-wide .50 cal. ban failed because Senator McPherson changed his vote from a YES to a NO in the Senate Public Safety Committee. Sen. McPherson HAD NEVER VOTED WITH NRA BEFORE. We asked NRA members to thank the senatpor, and they did. POoliticians really like enthusiastic "thank you"s.
In the big picture, theses antics may be blowing a lot political credibility for "gun owners" in the eyes of legislators and law enforcement, all for an issue that is unlikely to move much in the near future anyway for political reasons. In fact, he may be hurting the advancement of CCW issues overall - every state that gained shall-issue did so through the legislature. NONE did it via lawsuit. And remember, the courts can be notoriously political, and I haven't seen any CCW victories by Mr. March's tactics in the past.
SOMEONE ought to point out that YOU IGNORE THESE FACTS AT THE PERIL OF YOUR RIGHTS.
Mike Haas - [email protected]
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
(510) 223-5207 Voice & FAX
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://AmmoGuide.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/
dav
Member
Mike, I have a real problem deciphering your meaning on this.
I bought a gun in California. I had to register both it and myself. I was fingerprinted. This is standard operating procedure (ie: "the law") in California at this time.
I am already ON the list. No, not the CCW list, it is obvious that I would never qualify in San Diego, so have not bothered applying.
But the government knows who I am, where I live, how much I earn, and how many guns I own.
So what is your point?
The NRA, as far as I can tell, approves of NICS. Isn't this just a big database of "gunowners and other criminals"? How is what you are saying not self-contradictory?
Second smaller point. Why is it good that CCW be at the local level instead of the state level? I would prefer it be uniform state-wide. Why do you believe it is better left up to local law enforcement how CCW is done?
David Row
San Diego
>Mike, I have a real problem deciphering your meaning on this.
>
>I bought a gun in California. I had to register both it and myself. I was fingerprinted. This is standard operating procedure (ie: "the law") in California at this time.
(Thank you for the focused questions, David.)
It has been so since 1913, I believe. DOJ can't even find many of the pre-computer records.
>I am already ON the list. No, not the CCW list, it is obvious that I would never qualify in San Diego, so have not bothered applying.
First, good question. But you actually answered it.
First, "The state list" is not open to the public. You and I can't get to it, Jim March can't get to it, VPC, HCI, etc can't get to it - only DOJ can, and well, they are supposed to be accountable under the law (which, if not, is another matter).
Now, I don't speak for NRA - I'm a volunteer (a very highly-connected volunteer, but still a volunteer) but have heard it stated many times that NRA never supports government lists. They didn't support this one, and worked successfully to destroy it. That's called CONSISTENCY. I take that to mean that if there were a chance in political hell, they would get the CA state list destroyed too. But who doubts that just can't happen right now, and I don't want them spending our dues on dumb battles, do you?
They were able to kill this list, so money well spent. The PUBLIC ones are the worst in many ways.
Remember, federal law prevents the federal gov. from keeping any list of gun-owners, but Janet Reno did it anyway. The length those records are kept has been a constant bone of contention ever since. Why? IMO - because we can win there (and did just recently).
One HAS to "fight smart" as well as "hard". Fighting losing battles, well, buys you nothing. (Unlless you can maybe get some temporary financial support for making it look like you are fighting the good fight and saving the world from the evil NRA, who is always compromising... yadda... yadda....)
>But the government knows who I am, where I live, how much I earn, and how many guns I own.
>So what is your point?
the point is made above. While still objectionable, the state list is not directly usable by forces that might want to harm gun-owners, unless it's a government agency, and that should be trackable. And we can't so anything about that list right now, but that doesn;t mean we should start SUPPORTING PUBLIC DATABASES OF GUN OWNERS. That's insane.
>The NRA, as far as I can tell, approves of NICS. Isn't this just a big database of "gunowners and other criminals"? How is what you are saying not self-contradictory?
Again, it's not a public database and...
Fighting smart. Again, no NRA line here (just my opinion), but remember how NICS came about. After 10 years of defeating the Brady Bill under Reagan and Bush Sr., in'93, the first year Clinton was pres (with a Dem Congress and Senate), NRA knew Brady was going to happen. So they worked WITH the system and managed to get NICS in there as an amendment. The national waiting period was no longer permanent. AFter 5 years, the Brady-imposed national waiting period just dried up, and the government was mandated to have a system in place that served to clear gun transactions INSTANTLY (well, 3 min). Do you think that was palatable to Sarah? It actually makes a statement that being able to buy guns is important enough for the gov to have a system, at great cost, to quickly give it the clearance it wanted.
I know NICS breaks down sometimes. But in CA, I have a 10-day waiting period (was 15 not too long ago) no matter what I buy. I would love for the CA gov to have NICs, instead of shoving a finger in my face everytime I want to buy another rifle, shotgun, doesn't matter - I wait 10 days EVERY TIME, EVERY GUN.
And I understand NICS is infinitely better than the alternative that Sarah designed. You don't think NRA proposed NICS out of the blue, did you?
>Second smaller point. Why is it good that CCW be at the local level instead of the state level? I would prefer it be uniform state-wide. Why do you believe it is better left up to local law enforcement how CCW is done?
Well, local law enforcement is typically much less influenced by politics and problems (read: less anti-gun) and YOU have a better chance of having a good relationship with local officers. As I saifd - more CA counties actually issue CCW freely than not, and not all of them are rural. Of COURSE there is rampant abuse in many of the metro areas. But a state system just imposes the evil of centralized control on those counties that are doing a good job. All of a sudden, those CCW-friendly sheriff who didn't charge exhorbitant rates are finding dictates from above. That's Jim March-style thinking. AB 1044 ISOLATES local agencies from such issues.
The issue is - is it effective to try to FORCE the system to allow state-wide shall issue by lawsuits and the like? I've come full circle and today, say definitely NOT.
Too costly, and not just financially - although every dollar spent on a losing lawsuit may have also helped elect an anti-gun legisltor over a pro-gun candidate by not being there for the pro-gun candidate. In any event, that dollar SURE DIDN'T HELP ANYTHING). The real cost is political. These "in your face", lawsuit-happy approach is not only a loser, but hurts LEO and other alliances.
And, just as we lost our rights, lets expect to gain them incrementally, and do what Jim seems unable to do anymore - work together toward that end...
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/volunteer/
There are no magic pills, and that's what Jim has been trying to sell you.
>David Row
>San Diego
Thanks for the questions, David.
And again, for those that don't read messages before attacking...
THIS IS ALL MY OPINION - don't bother anyone at NRA about it if it ruffles your feathers the wrong way. In fact, I apologize if that happens, it's not my intent.
Mike Haas
...awww, you probably have seen the signature enough times. You all know I do web sites.
>
>I bought a gun in California. I had to register both it and myself. I was fingerprinted. This is standard operating procedure (ie: "the law") in California at this time.
(Thank you for the focused questions, David.)
It has been so since 1913, I believe. DOJ can't even find many of the pre-computer records.
>I am already ON the list. No, not the CCW list, it is obvious that I would never qualify in San Diego, so have not bothered applying.
First, good question. But you actually answered it.
First, "The state list" is not open to the public. You and I can't get to it, Jim March can't get to it, VPC, HCI, etc can't get to it - only DOJ can, and well, they are supposed to be accountable under the law (which, if not, is another matter).
Now, I don't speak for NRA - I'm a volunteer (a very highly-connected volunteer, but still a volunteer) but have heard it stated many times that NRA never supports government lists. They didn't support this one, and worked successfully to destroy it. That's called CONSISTENCY. I take that to mean that if there were a chance in political hell, they would get the CA state list destroyed too. But who doubts that just can't happen right now, and I don't want them spending our dues on dumb battles, do you?
They were able to kill this list, so money well spent. The PUBLIC ones are the worst in many ways.
Remember, federal law prevents the federal gov. from keeping any list of gun-owners, but Janet Reno did it anyway. The length those records are kept has been a constant bone of contention ever since. Why? IMO - because we can win there (and did just recently).
One HAS to "fight smart" as well as "hard". Fighting losing battles, well, buys you nothing. (Unlless you can maybe get some temporary financial support for making it look like you are fighting the good fight and saving the world from the evil NRA, who is always compromising... yadda... yadda....)
>But the government knows who I am, where I live, how much I earn, and how many guns I own.
>So what is your point?
the point is made above. While still objectionable, the state list is not directly usable by forces that might want to harm gun-owners, unless it's a government agency, and that should be trackable. And we can't so anything about that list right now, but that doesn;t mean we should start SUPPORTING PUBLIC DATABASES OF GUN OWNERS. That's insane.
>The NRA, as far as I can tell, approves of NICS. Isn't this just a big database of "gunowners and other criminals"? How is what you are saying not self-contradictory?
Again, it's not a public database and...
Fighting smart. Again, no NRA line here (just my opinion), but remember how NICS came about. After 10 years of defeating the Brady Bill under Reagan and Bush Sr., in'93, the first year Clinton was pres (with a Dem Congress and Senate), NRA knew Brady was going to happen. So they worked WITH the system and managed to get NICS in there as an amendment. The national waiting period was no longer permanent. AFter 5 years, the Brady-imposed national waiting period just dried up, and the government was mandated to have a system in place that served to clear gun transactions INSTANTLY (well, 3 min). Do you think that was palatable to Sarah? It actually makes a statement that being able to buy guns is important enough for the gov to have a system, at great cost, to quickly give it the clearance it wanted.
I know NICS breaks down sometimes. But in CA, I have a 10-day waiting period (was 15 not too long ago) no matter what I buy. I would love for the CA gov to have NICs, instead of shoving a finger in my face everytime I want to buy another rifle, shotgun, doesn't matter - I wait 10 days EVERY TIME, EVERY GUN.
And I understand NICS is infinitely better than the alternative that Sarah designed. You don't think NRA proposed NICS out of the blue, did you?
>Second smaller point. Why is it good that CCW be at the local level instead of the state level? I would prefer it be uniform state-wide. Why do you believe it is better left up to local law enforcement how CCW is done?
Well, local law enforcement is typically much less influenced by politics and problems (read: less anti-gun) and YOU have a better chance of having a good relationship with local officers. As I saifd - more CA counties actually issue CCW freely than not, and not all of them are rural. Of COURSE there is rampant abuse in many of the metro areas. But a state system just imposes the evil of centralized control on those counties that are doing a good job. All of a sudden, those CCW-friendly sheriff who didn't charge exhorbitant rates are finding dictates from above. That's Jim March-style thinking. AB 1044 ISOLATES local agencies from such issues.
The issue is - is it effective to try to FORCE the system to allow state-wide shall issue by lawsuits and the like? I've come full circle and today, say definitely NOT.
Too costly, and not just financially - although every dollar spent on a losing lawsuit may have also helped elect an anti-gun legisltor over a pro-gun candidate by not being there for the pro-gun candidate. In any event, that dollar SURE DIDN'T HELP ANYTHING). The real cost is political. These "in your face", lawsuit-happy approach is not only a loser, but hurts LEO and other alliances.
And, just as we lost our rights, lets expect to gain them incrementally, and do what Jim seems unable to do anymore - work together toward that end...
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/volunteer/
There are no magic pills, and that's what Jim has been trying to sell you.
>David Row
>San Diego
Thanks for the questions, David.
And again, for those that don't read messages before attacking...
THIS IS ALL MY OPINION - don't bother anyone at NRA about it if it ruffles your feathers the wrong way. In fact, I apologize if that happens, it's not my intent.
Mike Haas
...awww, you probably have seen the signature enough times. You all know I do web sites.
>>The NRA, as far as I can tell, approves of NICS. Isn't this just a big database of "gunowners and other criminals"? How is what you are saying not self-contradictory?
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the NICS amendment NRA got added to Brady made it illegal to keep records of those transactions after the clearance was issued, which IN MY OPINION is CONSISTENT with AB 1044 - protecting gun-owner privacy.
Of course, Reno still kept them for 90 days under some "needed for maintenence of the system" reason, and NRA unsuccessfully sued (yeah - let's take CCW to the courts in CA!). But recently, DOJ has dropped that to either 24 or 48 hours, so it appears gains are being made in breaking down whatever administrative infrastructure the Clinton admionistration built that requires them.
If Jim has his pipe-dream, let's follow things through to their logical conclusion - what do you think will happen when CCW gets to the Ninth Circuit? Do you think CCW will become the law of the land, or will they use it like Silveira to ESTABLISH MORE CASE LAW AGAINST GUN-RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA?
Do you think RKBA amatuers taking gun-rights cases to court is a bad idea? I do.
Mike Haas
Oh, and I forgot to mention, the NICS amendment NRA got added to Brady made it illegal to keep records of those transactions after the clearance was issued, which IN MY OPINION is CONSISTENT with AB 1044 - protecting gun-owner privacy.
Of course, Reno still kept them for 90 days under some "needed for maintenence of the system" reason, and NRA unsuccessfully sued (yeah - let's take CCW to the courts in CA!). But recently, DOJ has dropped that to either 24 or 48 hours, so it appears gains are being made in breaking down whatever administrative infrastructure the Clinton admionistration built that requires them.
If Jim has his pipe-dream, let's follow things through to their logical conclusion - what do you think will happen when CCW gets to the Ninth Circuit? Do you think CCW will become the law of the land, or will they use it like Silveira to ESTABLISH MORE CASE LAW AGAINST GUN-RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA?
Do you think RKBA amatuers taking gun-rights cases to court is a bad idea? I do.
Mike Haas
Jim March
Member
Mike, you're a liar several times over in the above and on your website.
Let's start with...
Sounds like the state will no longer know who's got CCW, right?
WRONG.
The state will still have the names of all the permitholders, their occupations, their addresses, phone numbers, issuing agency, date of issuance, what guns they hold on their permit...ALL of the information that is contained on the face of the actual CCW finished license will be retained by Cal-DOJ.
This deliberate twisting of the truth is a hallmark of what Haas/Payne/Worley have been saying about AB1044.
The data on approved permitholders that WILL be destroyed (and is clearly public record) is the "good cause" data. The good cause data is one of the keys to cracking this mess as it often contains ridiculous and embarassing material. Perata's "good cause" was so wild it made the Drudge Report.
Somebody must have told Haas that if you repeat a lie often enough:
Again: the lists of permitholders are NOT going to be destroyed. Read the actual law:
http://www.equalccw.com/ab1044fulltext.html
Yes, lists of denied applicants will be trashed at the state level. But there's more to it than that: many agencies aren't keeping these lists at all. Don't take my word for it: call up the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Alameda or Contra Costa sheriff's offices, ask to speak to the CCW application co-ordinator, and ask them how many files they have on denied applicants. Last I checked, the numbers were zero for all four. And these are BIG counties - Sac is 1.2mil population, SJ is 600k or so, Alameda 1.6mil, CC is a hair under a mil.
Because DOJ hasn't been asking for the data at the local level, the locals haven't been compiling it. With good reason: the discrimination would be far more easily tracked if that stuff existed.
Again: a large part of what the current lawsuit does is determine what Cal-DOJ does NOT have, but should!
You mean from the local agencies? Sure, except the DOJ acted to seal the "good cause data" at the local agency level, by illegally rigging the CCW application form of 1999...at the request of some of the WORST sheriffs and police chiefs such as Larry Todd of Los Gatos and Rupf in Contra Costa.
Don't believe me? Check out DOJ's own memo to law enforcement on how to use the new forms, and the Santa Clara sheriff's office reply to a PRAR:
http://www.equalccw.com/dojevidence.html - note that in the "Concerns have been raised..." key paragraph, "Section 7" is where the "good cause data" goes - you can download the actual form here:
http://www.equalccw.com/appform.html
Or hey, let's look at another example:
See that reference to "exempt from public disclosure as law enforcement investigatory records"?
That's the game, folks. The part of the 1999 forms where the "good cause" data goes was subtitled "police investigator's notes", even though it's simply dictated by the applicant. They abused that "police notes" clause in the public records act to override the California Supreme Court. And they did it withough the required oversight under Government Code 11340 (see below).
Who's "they"? Well AG Lockyer was tasked with coming up with the forms, but it was the law enforcement advisory panel that came up with this scam. In addition to the aforementioned Rupf and Todd, the NRA's "best friend", Sheriff Carona of Orange County was also a panel member and also clearly using this abuse to his advantage.
Thanks, "NRA friend" Carona.
I didn't misrepresent anything. That'll be proven soon enough.
As to "alienating law enforcement", the sheriffs that are acting like Barbary Coast Pirates (maybe 30 - 40%) have indeed been buying limits to the NRA's criticism of their CCW handling by coming out (with the California State Sheriff's Association) against new gun control. They were verbally against the "Assault Weapon" bill, the "junk gun" bill and others. (The counterpart police chief's group has remained firmly in support of every muddle-headed bit of tripe Perata and the rest can work up a drunken stupor for.)
Fat lot of good it's done! I can't think of a single bill stopped because of the sheriff's group's opposition. Hell, Randy Rossi tried to stop the San Mateo gun show ban by speaking to the Board of Supes down there...good for him, but they didn't listen.
Don Kates, Chuck Michel and others have decided that the courts are rigged too badly against us even for an equal protection win. I think they're wrong and so do a lot of others including David Kopel, Clayton Cramer and a variety of attorneys.
And you think this is actually happening? Consistently?
Got bad news for ya: after my first lawsuit, I applied with Richmond PD. By statute, they're supposed to make a decision in three months. In reality, it took 11 months, three letters and about 20+ phone calls to pry a decision out of 'em.
I've heard from numerous people who were just ignored.
Then, if the letter DOES get generated, you're assuming the agencies will keep the letters.
News flash: to date, not ONE area of illegality in CCW processing has been so much as spoken against by the AG's office. There are illegal fees, illegal procedures, illegal geographic redlining, illegal crap going on six ways from Sunday and DOJ says it ain't their job to do anything about it. It's madness. With absolutely no oversight of these agencies and DOJ actively helping cover up the problems, damned straight we need to take a look at what's going on. Nobody else is going to.
WHAT!?
Oh for God's sake.
Folks, DOJ illegally boogered the 1999 form. They sealed the "good cause data", overriding the state Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block using their "regulatory authority"...'cept in order to do craft regulations, they have to do public notice, public comments, etc. They didn't follow those rules (Gov't Code 11340 and forward). Having been caught at gross illegality, they stuck a piece in AB1044 saying they could do whatever they want with the forms without having to bother with the GC11340 stuff, effectively legalizing what they'd already hosed back in 1999. Again, read the law:
http://www.equalccw.com/ab1044fulltext.html
The text REMOVED by 1044:
-------------------
12051 (D) The Attorney General may adopt and enforce
regulations that are necessary, appropriate, or useful to
interpret and implement this paragraph pursuant to
Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of
Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Pending
the adoption of those regulations, the Attorney General
may adopt emergency regulations that shall become
effective immediately. The adoption of the emergency
regulations shall be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing
with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of
the Government Code, and the emergency regulations shall
only be effective until June 30, 1999, or on the
effective date of the regulations adopted by the Attorney
General to implement this paragraph, whichever occurs
first, at which time the emergency regulations shall be
deemed to be repealed.
-------------------
...which was replaced with:
-------------------
The standard application form
described in subparagraph (A) is deemed to be a local
form expressly exempt from the requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 3.5 (commencing
with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of
the government Code.
-------------------
Folks, a major PROTECTION from abuse by the California DOJ was removed (the GC11340 public oversight provisions). The net result? DOJ can now booger the forms any which way they want, with no public oversight.
Thanks, NRA!
Don't take my word for it. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html - hit the checkbox for "Government Code", enter "11340" as a search term. Start reading. When I found this, I realized what sort of public oversight provisions DOJ ignored back in '99, and called 'em on it on 6/18/02. AB1044 is the DIRECT result. With NRA's blessing.
Finally, Mike repeatedly raises a boogey-man:
Horsecrap.
The LAST thing the grabbers want is any public attention on the California CCW issue.
At the meeting DOJ held on 6/18/02, HCI western regional manager Luis Tolley pretty much freaked out at my discussing CCW misconduct, and did his best to interrupt and shut me up.
CCW handling in this and other discretionary states does more than any other gov't action to show what's WRONG with gun control in general. When the NRA acted to help seal the records of what is going on, it warmed the cockles of Sarah Brady's smoke-blackened heart.
Could a newspaper print a statewide list of permitholders based on the DOJ data? Sure, but *why*? You know how much newsprint 40,000ish names take up!? They might print a LOCAL list, and there's nothing we can do about that before or after AB1044 as reporters can usually get most CCW data (except "good cause" stuff sealed by the DOJ's forms) without a hitch.
Let's start with...
Sounds like the state will no longer know who's got CCW, right?
WRONG.
The state will still have the names of all the permitholders, their occupations, their addresses, phone numbers, issuing agency, date of issuance, what guns they hold on their permit...ALL of the information that is contained on the face of the actual CCW finished license will be retained by Cal-DOJ.
This deliberate twisting of the truth is a hallmark of what Haas/Payne/Worley have been saying about AB1044.
The data on approved permitholders that WILL be destroyed (and is clearly public record) is the "good cause" data. The good cause data is one of the keys to cracking this mess as it often contains ridiculous and embarassing material. Perata's "good cause" was so wild it made the Drudge Report.
Somebody must have told Haas that if you repeat a lie often enough:
Again: the lists of permitholders are NOT going to be destroyed. Read the actual law:
http://www.equalccw.com/ab1044fulltext.html
Yes, lists of denied applicants will be trashed at the state level. But there's more to it than that: many agencies aren't keeping these lists at all. Don't take my word for it: call up the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Alameda or Contra Costa sheriff's offices, ask to speak to the CCW application co-ordinator, and ask them how many files they have on denied applicants. Last I checked, the numbers were zero for all four. And these are BIG counties - Sac is 1.2mil population, SJ is 600k or so, Alameda 1.6mil, CC is a hair under a mil.
Because DOJ hasn't been asking for the data at the local level, the locals haven't been compiling it. With good reason: the discrimination would be far more easily tracked if that stuff existed.
Again: a large part of what the current lawsuit does is determine what Cal-DOJ does NOT have, but should!
You mean from the local agencies? Sure, except the DOJ acted to seal the "good cause data" at the local agency level, by illegally rigging the CCW application form of 1999...at the request of some of the WORST sheriffs and police chiefs such as Larry Todd of Los Gatos and Rupf in Contra Costa.
Don't believe me? Check out DOJ's own memo to law enforcement on how to use the new forms, and the Santa Clara sheriff's office reply to a PRAR:
http://www.equalccw.com/dojevidence.html - note that in the "Concerns have been raised..." key paragraph, "Section 7" is where the "good cause data" goes - you can download the actual form here:
http://www.equalccw.com/appform.html
Or hey, let's look at another example:
See that reference to "exempt from public disclosure as law enforcement investigatory records"?
That's the game, folks. The part of the 1999 forms where the "good cause" data goes was subtitled "police investigator's notes", even though it's simply dictated by the applicant. They abused that "police notes" clause in the public records act to override the California Supreme Court. And they did it withough the required oversight under Government Code 11340 (see below).
Who's "they"? Well AG Lockyer was tasked with coming up with the forms, but it was the law enforcement advisory panel that came up with this scam. In addition to the aforementioned Rupf and Todd, the NRA's "best friend", Sheriff Carona of Orange County was also a panel member and also clearly using this abuse to his advantage.
Thanks, "NRA friend" Carona.
I didn't misrepresent anything. That'll be proven soon enough.
As to "alienating law enforcement", the sheriffs that are acting like Barbary Coast Pirates (maybe 30 - 40%) have indeed been buying limits to the NRA's criticism of their CCW handling by coming out (with the California State Sheriff's Association) against new gun control. They were verbally against the "Assault Weapon" bill, the "junk gun" bill and others. (The counterpart police chief's group has remained firmly in support of every muddle-headed bit of tripe Perata and the rest can work up a drunken stupor for.)
Fat lot of good it's done! I can't think of a single bill stopped because of the sheriff's group's opposition. Hell, Randy Rossi tried to stop the San Mateo gun show ban by speaking to the Board of Supes down there...good for him, but they didn't listen.
Don Kates, Chuck Michel and others have decided that the courts are rigged too badly against us even for an equal protection win. I think they're wrong and so do a lot of others including David Kopel, Clayton Cramer and a variety of attorneys.
And you think this is actually happening? Consistently?
Got bad news for ya: after my first lawsuit, I applied with Richmond PD. By statute, they're supposed to make a decision in three months. In reality, it took 11 months, three letters and about 20+ phone calls to pry a decision out of 'em.
I've heard from numerous people who were just ignored.
Then, if the letter DOES get generated, you're assuming the agencies will keep the letters.
News flash: to date, not ONE area of illegality in CCW processing has been so much as spoken against by the AG's office. There are illegal fees, illegal procedures, illegal geographic redlining, illegal crap going on six ways from Sunday and DOJ says it ain't their job to do anything about it. It's madness. With absolutely no oversight of these agencies and DOJ actively helping cover up the problems, damned straight we need to take a look at what's going on. Nobody else is going to.
WHAT!?
Oh for God's sake.
Folks, DOJ illegally boogered the 1999 form. They sealed the "good cause data", overriding the state Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block using their "regulatory authority"...'cept in order to do craft regulations, they have to do public notice, public comments, etc. They didn't follow those rules (Gov't Code 11340 and forward). Having been caught at gross illegality, they stuck a piece in AB1044 saying they could do whatever they want with the forms without having to bother with the GC11340 stuff, effectively legalizing what they'd already hosed back in 1999. Again, read the law:
http://www.equalccw.com/ab1044fulltext.html
The text REMOVED by 1044:
-------------------
12051 (D) The Attorney General may adopt and enforce
regulations that are necessary, appropriate, or useful to
interpret and implement this paragraph pursuant to
Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of
Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Pending
the adoption of those regulations, the Attorney General
may adopt emergency regulations that shall become
effective immediately. The adoption of the emergency
regulations shall be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing
with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of
the Government Code, and the emergency regulations shall
only be effective until June 30, 1999, or on the
effective date of the regulations adopted by the Attorney
General to implement this paragraph, whichever occurs
first, at which time the emergency regulations shall be
deemed to be repealed.
-------------------
...which was replaced with:
-------------------
The standard application form
described in subparagraph (A) is deemed to be a local
form expressly exempt from the requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 3.5 (commencing
with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of
the government Code.
-------------------
Folks, a major PROTECTION from abuse by the California DOJ was removed (the GC11340 public oversight provisions). The net result? DOJ can now booger the forms any which way they want, with no public oversight.
Thanks, NRA!
Don't take my word for it. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html - hit the checkbox for "Government Code", enter "11340" as a search term. Start reading. When I found this, I realized what sort of public oversight provisions DOJ ignored back in '99, and called 'em on it on 6/18/02. AB1044 is the DIRECT result. With NRA's blessing.
Finally, Mike repeatedly raises a boogey-man:
Horsecrap.
The LAST thing the grabbers want is any public attention on the California CCW issue.
At the meeting DOJ held on 6/18/02, HCI western regional manager Luis Tolley pretty much freaked out at my discussing CCW misconduct, and did his best to interrupt and shut me up.
CCW handling in this and other discretionary states does more than any other gov't action to show what's WRONG with gun control in general. When the NRA acted to help seal the records of what is going on, it warmed the cockles of Sarah Brady's smoke-blackened heart.
Could a newspaper print a statewide list of permitholders based on the DOJ data? Sure, but *why*? You know how much newsprint 40,000ish names take up!? They might print a LOCAL list, and there's nothing we can do about that before or after AB1044 as reporters can usually get most CCW data (except "good cause" stuff sealed by the DOJ's forms) without a hitch.
MicroBalrog
member
And that is good why?
From my experiences, the bigshots usually refuse to get involved until there's a substantial amount of evidence. Gathering that evidence requires grass-roots activism, and we cant all be lawyers with 10-0 records before the Supreme Court on RKBA cases.
Kharn
Here's a hypothetical I'd like the thread readers to think about for a moment...
Let's invent Joe, a nice guy who, years ago in one of those rash youthful moments, was convicted for some midemeanor, say possession of a small amount of marijuana.
Fast forward 35 years, and Joe has become the model of responsibility and an accomplished gun-owner. His non-violent misdemeanor conviction has never gotten in the way of enjoying firearms or affected his life in any way. He probably forgot all about it, and if not, hopes his kids never find out.
Now, even though Joe has heard he has little chance, he decides to apply at his local LE office for a CCW. No one is surprised that Joe is refused, but DOJ cites this misdemeanor conviction as the reason for denial.
WITH AB1044 - Joe receives written notification of his refusal, with the reason stated. Jim can find out via FOIA that Joe was refused. Jim contacts Joe and asks if he can know the reason for the refusal possibly for his lawsuit efforts. Were you Joe, would you let Jim use your info? Do you think people in Joe's position should have say in whther his info is used or not?
WITHOUT AB1044 - The fact that Joe was convicted of misdemeanor drug possession becomes public knowledge via Jim's database. Joe has no say in that fact - it happens only because he applied for a CCW. Talk about "Unintended Consequences!" And the fact that it IS a misdemeanor drug conviction probably means Jim wouldn't want Joe's denial info anyway - too hard to characterize as CCW abuse. Joe's private history is revealed without his permission, not only to his kids, but the world, and for what?
Now...
Do you think more or less people will apply for CCW (even in CCW-friendly areas) with AB1044?
Mike Haas
Let's invent Joe, a nice guy who, years ago in one of those rash youthful moments, was convicted for some midemeanor, say possession of a small amount of marijuana.
Fast forward 35 years, and Joe has become the model of responsibility and an accomplished gun-owner. His non-violent misdemeanor conviction has never gotten in the way of enjoying firearms or affected his life in any way. He probably forgot all about it, and if not, hopes his kids never find out.
Now, even though Joe has heard he has little chance, he decides to apply at his local LE office for a CCW. No one is surprised that Joe is refused, but DOJ cites this misdemeanor conviction as the reason for denial.
WITH AB1044 - Joe receives written notification of his refusal, with the reason stated. Jim can find out via FOIA that Joe was refused. Jim contacts Joe and asks if he can know the reason for the refusal possibly for his lawsuit efforts. Were you Joe, would you let Jim use your info? Do you think people in Joe's position should have say in whther his info is used or not?
WITHOUT AB1044 - The fact that Joe was convicted of misdemeanor drug possession becomes public knowledge via Jim's database. Joe has no say in that fact - it happens only because he applied for a CCW. Talk about "Unintended Consequences!" And the fact that it IS a misdemeanor drug conviction probably means Jim wouldn't want Joe's denial info anyway - too hard to characterize as CCW abuse. Joe's private history is revealed without his permission, not only to his kids, but the world, and for what?
Now...
Do you think more or less people will apply for CCW (even in CCW-friendly areas) with AB1044?
Mike Haas
(Quote)
Turning law enforcement against gun rights is no way to get CCW. You have to understand how complex this issue is. Progress will be slow and it will take years, but these inflammatory lawsuits and attacks just cause law enforcement to band together against us, and we need their support with other gun control issues - ones that there is a much better chance for progress than CCW issuance. CCW reform will happen in due time but that isn't now (Quote)
Keep fiddling while California is burning Mr Nero Hass. Just what is your definition of due time. What is with the years of slow progress? Is that another way to state " throw money at us and we will piss it away". What other gun control issues? Don't you have enough gun control there now? Is somebody else playing in what you consider your sandbox? What happens to your funding if they win and win big.
Turning law enforcement against gun rights is no way to get CCW. You have to understand how complex this issue is. Progress will be slow and it will take years, but these inflammatory lawsuits and attacks just cause law enforcement to band together against us, and we need their support with other gun control issues - ones that there is a much better chance for progress than CCW issuance. CCW reform will happen in due time but that isn't now (Quote)
Keep fiddling while California is burning Mr Nero Hass. Just what is your definition of due time. What is with the years of slow progress? Is that another way to state " throw money at us and we will piss it away". What other gun control issues? Don't you have enough gun control there now? Is somebody else playing in what you consider your sandbox? What happens to your funding if they win and win big.
Jim March
Member
Microbalrog: the text you're quoting is a reference to the Sacramento Sheriff's Posse and CCW issuance.
They sure as hell DO maintain "tight control" - over the secrecy of the whole process.
First, Sheriff Blanas will not release the names (let alone "good causes") of any of his "law enforcement" permit holders - apparantly 190 or so split between "Level 1" (fully trained, able to do armed unsupervised uniformed policework) and "Level 3" (untrained, can do supervised crowd control under non-riot conditions and that's about it) reservists.
That's bad enough, but then he keeps the list of names of the Level 3s (basically cronies) in a separate location outside the sheriff's office at the offices of a private attorney.
That's downright creepy.
Getting THAT data is going to be like pulling teeth, even in a lawsuit discovery process (let alone Public Records Act Requests). Of course, Cal-DOJ is sitting on the same data but gee, they claim the same data that's public at the local level is private at theirs. Utter BS.
So why all the illegal secrecy on even the NAMES of the crony reservists on the parts of sheriffs?
One theory: a little-known clause in AB2022 (effective 1/1/99) allows a sheriff to issue CCW to anybody in the STATE, so long as he also makes 'em a reservist. Therefore, we may have situations where a sheriff is issuing to people from VERY anti-gun counties such as San Francisco via "Level 3" reserve deputy status. If it became public that this was going on, the continuing political alliance between the simply anti-gun police chiefs and sheriffs and the CORRUPT (mostly sheriffs) might break down.
As it is, they have both been publicly "anti-gun" and have worked in close cooperation.
In the PRAR response package Carona sent that applicant, the basic statistics Carnoa gave were enough to determine that a greater percentage of Carona's "Level 3s" had CCW than his Level 1s. Quite odd, considering it's the Level 1s with 700+ hours of mandated training. Carona won't release names on the reservists and trust me, there is no legal backing for him to do that. Makes me wonder how many permits he's issuing to bigwigs in LA County as "deputies", and what kind of mega-stink the LA Times would make of THAT if it got out.
Things that make ya go "hummmmmm"...
Ohhhhh ya, one more thing: according to BATF, there's 20,000 Class3 licensees in the state. Which is WAY more than there are movie props companies. Turns out "law enforcement" can own Class3s in this state.
How many of these crony reservists are scoring Class3?
Dunno, but I intend to find out.
They sure as hell DO maintain "tight control" - over the secrecy of the whole process.
First, Sheriff Blanas will not release the names (let alone "good causes") of any of his "law enforcement" permit holders - apparantly 190 or so split between "Level 1" (fully trained, able to do armed unsupervised uniformed policework) and "Level 3" (untrained, can do supervised crowd control under non-riot conditions and that's about it) reservists.
That's bad enough, but then he keeps the list of names of the Level 3s (basically cronies) in a separate location outside the sheriff's office at the offices of a private attorney.
That's downright creepy.
Getting THAT data is going to be like pulling teeth, even in a lawsuit discovery process (let alone Public Records Act Requests). Of course, Cal-DOJ is sitting on the same data but gee, they claim the same data that's public at the local level is private at theirs. Utter BS.
So why all the illegal secrecy on even the NAMES of the crony reservists on the parts of sheriffs?
One theory: a little-known clause in AB2022 (effective 1/1/99) allows a sheriff to issue CCW to anybody in the STATE, so long as he also makes 'em a reservist. Therefore, we may have situations where a sheriff is issuing to people from VERY anti-gun counties such as San Francisco via "Level 3" reserve deputy status. If it became public that this was going on, the continuing political alliance between the simply anti-gun police chiefs and sheriffs and the CORRUPT (mostly sheriffs) might break down.
As it is, they have both been publicly "anti-gun" and have worked in close cooperation.
In the PRAR response package Carona sent that applicant, the basic statistics Carnoa gave were enough to determine that a greater percentage of Carona's "Level 3s" had CCW than his Level 1s. Quite odd, considering it's the Level 1s with 700+ hours of mandated training. Carona won't release names on the reservists and trust me, there is no legal backing for him to do that. Makes me wonder how many permits he's issuing to bigwigs in LA County as "deputies", and what kind of mega-stink the LA Times would make of THAT if it got out.
Things that make ya go "hummmmmm"...
Ohhhhh ya, one more thing: according to BATF, there's 20,000 Class3 licensees in the state. Which is WAY more than there are movie props companies. Turns out "law enforcement" can own Class3s in this state.
How many of these crony reservists are scoring Class3?
Dunno, but I intend to find out.
Jim March
Member
Regarding Mike Haas' "Joe":
The only thing I care about is Joe's last name for statistical purposes on Latino issuance, that he's a he (versus "Susan" or whatever) and that records ARE being kept.
I don't much care why people are being denied. Hell, I know personally that the denial data can be inaccurate as law enforcement tries to make up excuses not to issue. But that's not that common; the vast majority of denials are "you didn't meet the good cause requirement" or similar.
I have no reason to name "Joe" and neither does anybody else. The grabbers want no part of publicizing CCW issues so Joe is safe from them.
The only time I might approach "Joe" at all is if I know from other sources that he was denied (usually as in he EMailed me and told me) and his records are missing. In that case, he may have a slam-dunk due process violation proof that he might want to do something with...possibly including suing for all the fees he racked up in small claims court! That's up to him - I still wouldn't name him without permission. I would simply add him to the demographics statistics plus add a tally to the "improper records" column with his name stripped.
The worst that could possibly happen to him is that if the stats are wild enough, we'll arrange an academic study based on the raw data (including his name) with a professor who will promise to keep the raw data confidential.
The only thing I care about is Joe's last name for statistical purposes on Latino issuance, that he's a he (versus "Susan" or whatever) and that records ARE being kept.
I don't much care why people are being denied. Hell, I know personally that the denial data can be inaccurate as law enforcement tries to make up excuses not to issue. But that's not that common; the vast majority of denials are "you didn't meet the good cause requirement" or similar.
I have no reason to name "Joe" and neither does anybody else. The grabbers want no part of publicizing CCW issues so Joe is safe from them.
The only time I might approach "Joe" at all is if I know from other sources that he was denied (usually as in he EMailed me and told me) and his records are missing. In that case, he may have a slam-dunk due process violation proof that he might want to do something with...possibly including suing for all the fees he racked up in small claims court! That's up to him - I still wouldn't name him without permission. I would simply add him to the demographics statistics plus add a tally to the "improper records" column with his name stripped.
The worst that could possibly happen to him is that if the stats are wild enough, we'll arrange an academic study based on the raw data (including his name) with a professor who will promise to keep the raw data confidential.
Langenator
Member
I don't quite buy Mr Haas' hypothetical "Joe"
-If Joe's conviction was when he was a juvenile, the record would have been sealed; no reason for denial.
-If it happened after Joe turned 18, it is a matter of public record and anyone who wants to know can find out anyway.
The strawman just doesn't make sense.
-If Joe's conviction was when he was a juvenile, the record would have been sealed; no reason for denial.
-If it happened after Joe turned 18, it is a matter of public record and anyone who wants to know can find out anyway.
The strawman just doesn't make sense.
Jim March
Member
A new opinion piece at:
http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21479~1868775,00.html
------------
Long Beach Press Telegram
Gun favoritism
New law on permitting only dodges the issue.
Saturday, January 03, 2004 - Among the slew of new laws dumped on Californians, the latest about concealed weapons has gun-rights groups up in arms, so to speak. And they have good reason.
The law, effective last week, stops the Justice Department from gathering information about people who apply for gun permits from local police agencies. This is just fine with the Justice Department, but not with supporters of gun rights.
This seems backward, but it isn't. The Justice Department is caught between one law that requires collecting the data, and another that requires keeping it confidential. By getting rid of the data, the department could avoid a steady stream of lawsuits.
That's convenient, but not necessarily good policy. Gun-rights supporters want the information public for the same reason as gun-rights opponents. Both sides ought to be interested in who gets, and who doesn't get, a permit from the local sheriff or police chief to carry a concealed weapon.
The latest official to be accused of such favoritism is Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas. A lawsuit in federal court accuses him of giving concealed-weapon permits based on political influence or law enforcement connections. The suit says Blanas has collected $100,000 in campaign contributions from a small group of permit holders.
A separate suit in Superior Court, filed for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation, seeks to block the new state law.
The law, AB 1044, was sponsored by Attorney General Bill Lockyer to get himself and the Justice Department out of just such lawsuits as these. Lockyer maintains that anybody who wants information about gun permits should get it from the sheriffs and police chiefs who gave them out.
This is not a new issue. More than a dozen years ago, the then-sheriff of Orange County, Brad Gates, had to defend his policies in a lawsuit alleging that he gave permits to every campaign supporter who asked for one, but refused permits to private investigators whose jobs required them.
More often than not, the lawsuits go nowhere. The issue is nonexistent in such places as L.A. County or the cities of L.A. and Long Beach, where police agencies give out concealed-weapon permits sparingly. But policies differ. In all, more than 40,000 Californians have permits to carry concealed weapons.
Gun-rights opponents argue that more guns, concealed or not, inevitably means more gun violence. Gun-rights supporters argue that states like Florida, with more than 300,000 concealed-weapons permits, had decreases in gun violence when permitting was made easier.
Whichever argument you buy, it's hard to make the case that the Justice Department should avoid annoying lawsuits by ducking the issue. There is a solution to this problem, and it isn't AB 1044. It is to resolve the privacy conflict in favor of more openness and less favoritism.
http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21479~1868775,00.html
------------
Long Beach Press Telegram
Gun favoritism
New law on permitting only dodges the issue.
Saturday, January 03, 2004 - Among the slew of new laws dumped on Californians, the latest about concealed weapons has gun-rights groups up in arms, so to speak. And they have good reason.
The law, effective last week, stops the Justice Department from gathering information about people who apply for gun permits from local police agencies. This is just fine with the Justice Department, but not with supporters of gun rights.
This seems backward, but it isn't. The Justice Department is caught between one law that requires collecting the data, and another that requires keeping it confidential. By getting rid of the data, the department could avoid a steady stream of lawsuits.
That's convenient, but not necessarily good policy. Gun-rights supporters want the information public for the same reason as gun-rights opponents. Both sides ought to be interested in who gets, and who doesn't get, a permit from the local sheriff or police chief to carry a concealed weapon.
The latest official to be accused of such favoritism is Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas. A lawsuit in federal court accuses him of giving concealed-weapon permits based on political influence or law enforcement connections. The suit says Blanas has collected $100,000 in campaign contributions from a small group of permit holders.
A separate suit in Superior Court, filed for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation, seeks to block the new state law.
The law, AB 1044, was sponsored by Attorney General Bill Lockyer to get himself and the Justice Department out of just such lawsuits as these. Lockyer maintains that anybody who wants information about gun permits should get it from the sheriffs and police chiefs who gave them out.
This is not a new issue. More than a dozen years ago, the then-sheriff of Orange County, Brad Gates, had to defend his policies in a lawsuit alleging that he gave permits to every campaign supporter who asked for one, but refused permits to private investigators whose jobs required them.
More often than not, the lawsuits go nowhere. The issue is nonexistent in such places as L.A. County or the cities of L.A. and Long Beach, where police agencies give out concealed-weapon permits sparingly. But policies differ. In all, more than 40,000 Californians have permits to carry concealed weapons.
Gun-rights opponents argue that more guns, concealed or not, inevitably means more gun violence. Gun-rights supporters argue that states like Florida, with more than 300,000 concealed-weapons permits, had decreases in gun violence when permitting was made easier.
Whichever argument you buy, it's hard to make the case that the Justice Department should avoid annoying lawsuits by ducking the issue. There is a solution to this problem, and it isn't AB 1044. It is to resolve the privacy conflict in favor of more openness and less favoritism.
- Status