Our own Jim March creating a BIG stink re: CA CCW!!! MUST READ!

Status
Not open for further replies.
THREE CHEERS FOR JIM MARCH

Jim...

As a CCW holder in Kaleefornia, I went to some lenghts in "proving" that I was a certified good guy in order to get my original permit issued. Renewal was not too bad, all things considered.

However, on behalf of ALL Californians - THANK YOU to you and to CCRKBA
and the Second Amendment Foundation for all that you're doing for the rights of all. A previous poster hit it "right on the money" when he said that this is NOT about guns really - it's about discrimination, and on THAT platform you will have a much higher likelihood of success.

I like the idea of earmarking funds to the SAF, and I am going to do exactly that.

Fair Winds & Following Seas. Keep up the Good Work Jim !

Very Respectfully,
 
Oh, and Mike?

I never made any secret of my history in ferret legalization politics.

If anything, that grounding gave me a good introduction into weaselliness - by politicians.

If you're trying to get my goat or "push buttons", you'll have to do better than that.

Or if you really want to do something useful, convince that "friend of the NRA" Carona to obey the law regarding PRAR responses. It looks really sad when you claim that "the data is available from local agencies" when the words of your own best buddy in law enforcement proves that's a lie.
 
Mike,

When I see you filing suit to return to me the right to protect myself with a handgun in California, you will have gained a little credibility with me.

What have you, and by you I mean the NRA, done for me lately?

Oh, and your remark about "amateurs" filing suits is uncalled for and disgusts me. Don't act as if you were born with a filing clenched in your fist. :rolleyes:
 
I will venture to jump in the snake pit and try to sum up the March/Haas debate in one line:

The NRA is reactionary, not proactive, and anyone who actually takes any sort of action is automatically the bad guy.

On one side we have Mike, who throws around his non-professional volunteer NRA position like it was worth hog snot in a high wind and...in the same breath...says "oh, don't blame the NRA for my wacky views." On the other side, we have Jim who is actually poking the mangy bear with a stick. Repeatedly.

IMO, the NRA is WAY too fast to react to a call by The Usual Suspects to ban all guns by saying "well...lets ban half of the guns instead"...and claim a victory! No, that is a failure, and the NFA, GCA, Brady, Volkner...are all abject failures of gun rights pushed on us BY THE NRA. We lost the unrestricted right to own the military hardware (hardware that even Miller said was protected by the Second Amendment) thanks to the NRA's backing of NFA. We got the ban on mail order and unrestricted sales foisted off on us thanks to the NRA's GCA in '68. '86 saw the NRA-backed ban on even restricted sales of new machine guns...thanks a lot, NRA, for M-V. And '94 saw us sold down the river yet again with the Assault Weapons ban...gee, good job NRA.

The NRA is Mr. Compromise, always willing to sell gun owners...oh, those evil machine guns, those evil assault rifles, those evil nasty mag-fed shotguns, pick a group that is distasteful to the NRA today...right down the river in the hope of looking like the good guy. Sorry, NRA, but to The Usual Suspects you are and will always be the bad guy no matter how hard you betray gun owners.

And that MUST stop. Jim March is taking a stand, something the NRA has never done.




Alex

(and FWIW):
NRA Endowment Member
NRA Training Councilor
TX CHL Instructor
IPSC, IDPA, SASS
 
hehehe... another Mike "Jim March is just a ferret enthusiast, and the NRA is the one that protect gun owners rights, so you little people ought to just sit down, shut up and write another endowment check to the NRA" Haas thread.

:D
 
On the subject of "is all this just Mike Haas' opinion?":

Go back and look at the NRA MC page on AB1044:

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/ab1044.shtml

Notice at the top it says "For Additional Information Contact: H. Paul Payne (909) 683-4NRA 4672"?

Do y'all know who Paul Payne reports directly to?

Wayne LaPierre.

Paul is Wayne's personal liason to the California NRA Members Council system.

Mike might not be able to speak for the NRA...but Paul?

:scrutiny:
 
Preface:
I am not a legal expert and this may be off topic, but here we go.

Is there any way that more gun laws could be attacked in the same way?
For example, could the fact that in Texas cops are allowed to carry open, but civilians are not be construed as discrimination? How about full automoatic weapons? My understanding is that they are not illegal, but requiring of a permit. How much does this permit cost? Is the law reqiring a permit discriminating against the poor? The CHL in Texas cost me close to $200, and I would not have been able to afford it if I had not had a friend who was very interested in increasing the number of CHL's. Perhaps this is completely ridiculous, but I just wonder if we can use other means than the RKBA to achieve what that is all about. Not that we should have to, but, as they say, desparate times......... I leave the ensuing legal discussions to the professionals.

-drew
 
As someone who has actually served key figures in California on behalf of Jim and someone who has kept up with his activities for some time now, I think I ought to speak my mind.


1. The CCW system in CA is unfair and illegal.

2. Local CCW records are public record and subject to acquisition via the Public Records Act (not the FOI). CA handgun owners have no reasonable expectation of privacy - never have. This is a smoke screen.

3. I don't care about some reformed pot smoker who wants to conceal his past. Besides being an impossibly lame example, his privacy is worth exactly squat in the face of massive equal protection violations.

4. Am I the only one who is boggled that the ultimate nanny state DOES NOT WANT TO KEEP CERTAIN RECORDS ON WHO HAS A CONCEALED WEAPON?. There is no detail about CA gun owners too mundane that the state would not like to track it. The simple fact that the state WANTS to discard these records is prima facie evidence that they are damaging to the interest of the state and helpful to our cause - to believe otherwise is naieve, to ask that I believe otherwise is insulting.

5. In the hierarcy of problems that CA gun owners face, privacy is way down low on the list. How about the NRA tackle some of these first:

*The drop test law which makes older handguns almost unacquireable in CA
*The burdensome laws on buying a handgun - forced lock purchases, safe affidavits, "demonstrations", etc.
*The impending safety laws that will ban over 90% of existing semi-automatic handguns from being purchased in CA
*Unfair CCW laws
*Handgun registration

And so on and so on.

CA has figured out how to get rid of guns - not by beheading, but by strangulation. Every year it gets more expensive and more invasive and more perilous to own a gun in California.

Oh but please Mr. Haas! TAKE ME OFF OF THAT HORRID LIST THAT INVADES MY PRIVACY!

The genius of Jims approach is that success is not predicated on using RKBA/2ndA - which are null and void in California.

The liberals are deathly afraid of the equal protection attack because they have already established it as a powerful weapon for change.

The crooked CA Sheriffs are afraid because their political opponents will make much hay out of their issuance if the lights are ever switched on. Additionally, CCW permits are an effective currency to secure favors and money from the wealthy. If we democratize the system, what will they ever do?

Lastly, I think the NRA is mostly just pissed because they see what one man is doing on a shoestring budget and brains - something they have not been able to do with millions and millions of dollars.

Imagine the day when Jim wins in having the discretionary section of CA CCW law declared null and void in Federal Court. What delicious stories we will read about the little David who took on Goliath - while the mighty NRA stood by wagging their finger that this simply will not do!

I have to go, Wayne LaPierre just called me with an urgent message!
 
Imagine the day when Jim wins in having the discretionary section of CA CCW law declared null and void in Federal Court. What delicious stories we will read about the little David who took on Goliath - while the mighty NRA stood by wagging their finger that this simply will not do!
Click to expand...

Nah. Never underestimate how the NRA can weasel into any lawsuit and file amicus curae briefs for your side. Or how the NRA tried to link their Washington DC lawsuit with that of the CATO institute 2nd Amendment lawsuit.

Somehow, the NRA behaves as if IT should be the one and only 2nd Amendment advocacy group in the country. It would try to squash other efforts with its size, or at least attempt to help and commandeer the situation because its got the deep pockets.

It would be great if it plays nicely with others, or if it just ignores everyone else, but it doesn't. It gets in the way at times.

Who was it that said the 50BMG ban was a done deal, but when the SASsies and FCSA group showed up in force at Sac-o-tomatoes, the 50BMG ban went down in defeat?
 
"Attack ideas, not people."

The next post which TO ME seems to contain a personal insult will result in the closing of this thread.

And a warning, of course.

And don't aggravate my Grammaw with bad words and language. :)

Art
 
No taking of sides here .. no flames ... not even any burning embers ... just a ....... simple .......

Thanks Jim for all your incredible effort.:) I doubt many know just how much of your time has gone to all this.
 
Art: if you feel a message is a personal attack, shoot down that POST. Not this whole thread. Please.

MacViolinist: I've given some thought to this :).

The most obvious examples of other vulnerable gun laws are the other discretionary carry laws of NY/NJ/etc, and the "local law enforcement signoff provision" of the BATF's Class3 rules.

The problem is that the "Arlington Heights burden" is steep: prove that the original law was racist in origin, prove that it's having a racially disparate effect, then find an affected minority (or group containing minorities) to complain.

It's the first one that's a pain. Even back in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, it's not THAT often you find records of debate that say things like "let's disarm the n*****s" :barf: or similar.

We can make these elements for the California CCW system. I've done some digging into NYC's Sullivan law of 1911 and we can prove the bill's author "Big Tim Sullivan" was a totally corrupt vice lord who was committed to a mental institution a year after writing it :eek: but we can't prove a racist origin. (Apparantly, the real goal was to have a way to frame political opponents - Tammany Hall still owned the NYPD in 1911.)

Similarly, the primary purpose of the National Firearms Act of 1934 seems to have been to give former Federal revenue agents (the people who had been chasing rum-runners during prohibition) some new gainful employment :rolleyes:.

See the problem?
 
I am already on *many* lists as a gun owner in CA.

I am not happy with this situation at all, but I am also under no dillusions that 'nobody knows about it' as of this instant.


Also, any criminal record is a matter of searchable public record already. This will not change.


What *exactly* are we talking about freeing up? I don't like the idea of a website where Joe Criminal can find out my name, address, that I have a $7,500 gun, and a quick mapquest to my house, linked with a floorplan?

Sounds scary, but just about all of the above is publically available right now. Except possibly my gun-owner status.

Which would be implicit in my CCW application.

So, I ask again, what *precicely* are we freeing into the public domain, and how.



So far I am very much on Jim's side, but I want to know more.
 
OK. It's a very fair question.

Right now, the California DOJ is supposed to have your COMPLETE CCW application form on file, whether you are approved or denied.

That includes your "good cause statement", street address, phone numbers, social security number, driver's licence number, date of birth, criminal record (as stated by you, at least), serial/make/model info on carried guns and more. For some applicants, there is a psychological evaluation on file, often on a doctor's stationary.

Each local agency has the exact same file. (Well they're supposed to, anyways, along with their letter of rejection if you're denied.)

NOT ALL OF THAT IS PUBLIC RECORDS!!!

It's well established that the name of the applicant, city of residence, occupation, dates of issuance/renewal, issuing agency and especially "good cause statement" is public - UNLESS the "good cause" includes the "time and/or place of vulnerability to criminal attack" (Government Code 6254(u) quoted below) in which case those details can be blacked out (redacted). But it's not that common to have such in a good cause statement...it does happen though.

Here's the problem: starting with the 1999 CCW forms, DOJ deliberately made it UNclear what the hell is actually public and what isn't. Got that? DOJ set up one area of the form where the "confidential stuff" like social security numbers were supposed to go, and that's a pretty good idea. BUT the morons went and stuck a clearly public-record piece in the "confidential section 7": the complete "good cause statement" declared public by the California Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block - http://www.equalccw.com/cbsvblock.html

OK, why does that matter?

Because SOME local law enforcement agencies have realized that the DOJ's position on what's public and what's private is simply wrong...and illegal. Therefore, with deliberately inadequate guidance from DOJ, some agencies have completely screwed up. I have one file from a town I won't name that has the WHOLE FILE on 30+ permitholders. Home phone numbers, socials, the works. Trust me, I absolutely wish I did NOT and I damned well didn't ask for it!!! I am also going to avoid having that entered as part of the court record in the current case.

Another agency gave Chuck Michel the complete psych reports running multiple pages :eek:.

Had DOJ followed the public oversight requirements back in '99, this discrepancy between DOJ's plot and the California Supremes would have been noticed, and the guidelines for local law enforcement would have been both legal and better protect privacy.

As is, we can be pretty sure that when public access to DOJ's copies of the records is assured, DOJ will release only what they're supposed to (versus socials, gun info, home address/phone, etc). But at present, the data at the local agencies is sometimes horrendously vulnerable and that's DOJ's fault.

When AB1044 allowed DOJ to do the CCW forms without the public oversight provisions, this continued "muddying of the waters" on what's public was assured. The lack of guidance allows the corrupt sheriffs to stall and screw around on records releases but the smaller, honest departments are sometimes screwing up without adequate legal guidance from DOJ.

-----------------------

Here's the piece added to the Public Records Act after the CBS vs. Block decision came down, "clarifying" (well not really) CCW public records [spliced into the Public Records Act, Gov't Code 6250 - 6270]:

~~~
Government Code 6254 (u) (1) Information contained in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department that indicates when or where the applicant is vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant's medical or psychological history or that of members of his or her family.

(2) The home address and telephone number of peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.

(3) The home address and telephone number of peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.
~~~

DOJ had a chance to clarify all this and remove the inconsistency of private citizen data being less protected than cops/judges back in '99 - and very deliberately blew it.
 
Last edited:
If it's not clear yet: we're trying to make sure that the same PUBLIC records that are (supposedly) available at the local level are also available from Cal-DOJ.

But at the same time, we're fighting to force DOJ to clarify what's public and what's private via the forms, forcing them to go back and fix what they broke in '99. They left it unclear so as to give the really screwball minority of the sheriffs and chiefs an "out" to hold back the embarassing stuff, to avoid having the whole CCW program come under a cloud.

In doing so they risked everybody's privacy and even safety - some of the "too much information" data I've seen constitutes a home invasion planner's wet dream, and is even more value for identity theft crooks.

I want to STOP that garbage.
 
Jim,
Thanks for the response. If I am not mistaken (a big "if") almost half of the battle is proving to the courts that you belong to a "suspect" category? I think that is the term I am looking for. Perhaps it is not. Whatever the legal-ese is for "Likely to be discriminated against." Once you belong to that category, I think that once you have "suspect" (or whatever it's called) status, the courts are forced into a different point of view and proving the discrimination case is easier. Anyway, I was just wondering if there was a way to put gun owners in that category so as to get around some of the problems that you have just informed me of.

On a different note, congrats for the work you are doing and best of luck. I just emptied my modest savings account and split it between the group you are working for and "Hunter's" legal fund. Best of luck.

-drew
 
Well, the case against AB1044 is different than the federal case against Sheriff Blanas.

And I think the plaintiff in the case against Sheriff Blanas is black, but that's only a rumor. Jim, can you tell us more about our friendly plaintiff?
 
Jim,

What's your feel about CCW issuance to Asians in the state. If it looks bad, I may just go to L.A.S.D. and apply just so we can have a ground for PRAR and lawsuit here in L.A. County. I know that in Monterey Park, where I had lived for most of the 80's, the Chief for MP Police Dept. stated flat out that he does not issue CCWs. Period. Very high Asian population there.
 
Right, there are TWO suits going on here: the SAF/CCRKBA/me suit on AB1044 in state court, and Gary Gorski's discrimination suit against Sheriff Blanas of Sacramento in Fed court.

They are not "companion cases" as the Bee reported at one point. Gary is using enough of my research that it appears that way at first glance.

The AB1044 suit doesn't require a minority plaintiff. It's basically a public records case with hideous complications (caused by Cal-DOJ) and as such, the public and interested parties can look into all manner of improper conduct including racism. Still, if that comes up, both CCRKBA and SAF can truthfully claim to have minority members in-state.

Gary on the other hand is going to need a minority plaintiff. He does NOT yet have one. He's working on it though, and wanted to get started with what he has in order to "backstop" the SAF/CCRKBA suit on records retention issues. (It was horribly complex setting up the case, lawyers and such on my part, and it took pretty much right up to the last days of 2003 to do it...so Gary moved ahead in case I didn't manage to set it up.)

Something else to remember though: Blanas is ideally suited as a defendant in a case like this because he's SO floridly corrupt :barf:. I mean, jeez, it ain't just gun permits. He's taken in big money from card rooms while speaking out about Indian Gaming...he's taken money from both sides in major property disputes, one of his and Craig's cronies got hit with a $350,000 Fair Political Practices fine around 1992, Craig resigned rather than face questions about selling signoffs on Environmental Impact Reports. I could go on. Point is, Craig and his underling/successor Blanas apparantly watched too much "Dukes Of Hazzard" and decided Boss Hog was a neat role model or somedamnthing.

"Vulnerable" doesn't even begin :rolleyes:. If it's possible to win one of these things anywhere WITHOUT playing the minority card (which is still possible for Gary down the road) it'll be in Sac County.

Ohhhh ya, one more detail: guess who is really hating the timing of all this? Dan Lungren. Right, the friggin' Nazi in GOP clothing who lost to Davis in '98 - he's now trying for Congress a seat where a good GOPer is retiring. He's up against Rico Oller, one of our best friends. Lungren and Craig/Blanas go WAY back, and Blanas just threw a big fundraiser for Lungren...who has to be quaking in his loafers right about now at the thought of what Gary can pull out of discovery. Lungren and Craig/Blanas were allies against Chief Gene Byrd in Isleton during THAT little CCW war of the early/mid '90s - as AG, Lungren committed multiple illegal acts against Byrd's operation.[/b] At one point, Lungren stopped doing Byrd's background checks, and the lawyer who put a stop to that was John Brophy - one of my lawyers today :D.

You think Danny Boy is happy with this?

:evil:
 
Answering Mute on Asian issuance: well there's good news and bad there.

The good: the 1923 SF Examiner article that quotes a letter to the governor citing racist reasons for the law specifically mentions discriminating against Chinese as well as Hispanics. And we know that a LOT of California's history of racism prior to about 1930/40 (as blacks moved in to support shipping and ironworks) involved anti-Asian discrimination. So the part of the recipe where you prove historic racism is a done deal.

The bad news: we don't have the sort of documented "patterns" of racism in Asian CCW issuance that we have with Hispanics and blacks (based on name analysis in the permitholder rosters for Latinos and census/geography/issuance rate data for blacks). With no proof of "group discrimination", we'd be relying on the individual discrimination and a sheriff could try and pass that off as "I screw over lots of people" :barf:.

So it'd be a harder case, but not impossible. By all means apply to LASD because we've already got something in the planning stages there :D.

(NOTE: It's also fair to describe Filipinos as both culturally and (often) genetically Latino.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Sherrif Donors got CA CCW! (Jim March was right!)
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
NG VI
N
G
  • Locked
FBI probes CCW cronyism in CA (Jim March was right!)
Replies
23
Views
4K
Hank Zudd
H
J
  • Locked
MO-CCW Suit Challenges Concealed-gun permit
Replies
2
Views
518
Frohickey
F
B
  • Locked
This should cause St. Louis officials appoplexy.
Replies
2
Views
612
Standing Wolf
S
D
  • Locked
Very Interesting Federal Lawsuit In California
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
joe4702
J
Back
Top