Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: SAF, Calguns Challenge California CCW

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    from http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=180923

    CCW: SAF, Calguns Challenge Arbitrary Denial of Right to Bear Arms In California

    BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and three California residents today filed a lawsuit seeking to vindicate the right to bear arms against arbitrary state infringement.

    Nearly all states allow qualified law-abiding citizens to carry guns for self-defense, but a few states allow local officials to arbitrarily decide who may exercise this core Second Amendment right. In the action filed today, Plaintiffs challenge the policies of two California Sheriffs, in Sacramento and Yolo counties, who reject the basic human right of self defense by refusing to issue ordinary people gun carry permits. Of course, violent criminals in the impacted counties continue to carry guns without police permission.

    State scientist Deanna Sykes believes her sexual orientation and small stature makes her an appealing target for criminals, particularly as she often transports firearms as a competitive shooter and firearms instructor. “I am highly qualified to defend myself against the sort of crime that the Sheriff cannot, despite his best efforts, completely eradicate,” Sykes said. “Violent crime is a real risk in our society, but happily, we enjoy the right to defend ourselves from it.”

    Andrew Witham has over 15 years experience as a police officer in Britain, and is licensed to carry a firearm while working as a private investigator and campus public safety officer. But despite having been the target of death threats stemming from his work in security, Sheriff John McGinness saw to it that Witham’s license to carry a gun while away from work was revoked upon Witham’s relocation to Sacramento.

    “I’m allowed to defend other people,” said Witham, “so why can’t I defend myself, where the Bill of Rights guarantees me that right?”

    Adam Richards, a Northern California attorney, would also exercise his right to bear arms in self- defense. But the Yolo County Sheriff’s policy on gun permit applications is: don’t bother. “How can the Sheriff tell whether I am capable of responsibly exercising my Second Amendment rights, when he doesn’t even acknowledge that these rights exist?”

    Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, said, “It’s a shame that these Sheriffs don’t think that self-defense is a ‘good cause’ to exercise the right to bear arms, but we’re confident the Second Amendment reflects a better policy.”

    Added co-counsel Donald Kilmer, “The California carry licensing system is being abused by some officials who are hostile to self-defense rights. The police can regulate the carrying of guns, and that includes preventing dangerous people from being armed. Complete deprivation of the right to bear arms, however, is not an option under our Constitution.”

    “The Supreme Court’s decision last year in the Heller case shows that there is both a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “In most states, authorities do not deny a license to carry an operable firearm to any law-abiding applicant that completes training and a background check. This is also the practice throughout much of California. These two Sheriffs must respect the constitutional rights of their citizens to bear arms.”

    “California is often a leader in so many ways, but our state lags badly in streamlining its firearms laws,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “We need 21st century gun laws that respect our Constitutional rights, and adopt modern, widely accepted practices that work well throughout the United States. Hopefully this action will serve as a wake-up call to our legislators, and to those officials who stubbornly resist accommodating Second Amendment rights. If they don’t reform, reform will come through litigation.”

    The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

    The Calguns Foundation (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a non-profit legal defense fund for California gun owners. The Calguns foundation works to educate government and the public and protect the rights of individuals to own and lawfully use firearms in California.

    A copy of the complaint is available: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/syk...2009-05-09.pdf


  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Good- I hope this bodes well for the exersize of Constitutional rights in California.

    I do think that they are a plantiff short. One that say, attempted to apply for and was denied a license to carry loaded and exposed in a county with a population of 200,000 or less in the last deciennial census. Or one that was issued a license to carry concealed, and had it revoked as a punitive action against completely lawful activity.

    I suppose that is for another time.

    These plantiffs- a firearms instructor, an ex-police officer, and an attorney - don't really strike me as 'regular folks'- they seem to be the sort of plantiffs that would be 'more acceptable' to trust with firearms than an 'average Joe'. I guess that is the foot in the door. I will wish them luck all the same.

    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    Altho results of this will be years out, lets pray! Stranger things have happened!

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    Hey, maybe the judge will rule that their 2A rights have not been violated because they can open carry and defend themselves without having to obtain a permit. :what:
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Wishing the plaintiffs and Alan Gura the best of luck.

    "Obi Wan, you're our only hope!"

    I will be buying a round the day California is forced to shift from the corrupt system in place now (in most CA counties) to shall issue.

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    Hey, maybe the judge will rule that their 2A rights have not been violated because they can open carry and defend themselves without having to obtain a permit. :what:

    The most likely outcome is that the judge will take the path which does the LEAST damage to existing law. And very wisely that is all the plaintiffs are asking for.

    But yes, the courts could also, on 2nd A. grounds, affirm the existing 12050PC licensing system by saying that open carry is the Right.



    artwork by oleg volk:


  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    But yes, the courts could also, on 2nd A. grounds, affirm the existing 12050PC licensing system by saying that open carry is the Right.
    I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the current system does not violate the 2A. 12025 does, but I think the courts - even SCOTUS - would decide against the US Constitution on that one.

    I think an "equal protection" challenge would have been far more appropriate to challenge 12050. However, I understand that they're probably more concerned with establishing some case law that can be used in future litigation.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if this turned out like Nordyke. That is, the case is lost but the language in the ruling helps the cause. As others have mentioned, a judge could declare that only open carry is protected by the 2A. This could be our wet dream citation when we're ready to challenge 626.9 & 12031. (I doubt this is CGF's intent with this case, but it could turn out to be just what open carry needs.)

    Even if the case is lost on 2A grounds, I think a new case with new plaintiffs could easily be brought on "equal protection" grounds.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    If the wackos like Code Pink can picket outside the recruiting offices of our armed services, how come legal Americans don't picket outside the sheriff's office.

    Better yet, Acorn members didn't have any problem protesting outside the homes of AGI executives protesting against their bonuses. Maybe it is time to protest outside the sheriff's home. As long as it is legal, it is time to take a stand against them.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    chesphoto wrote:
    If the wackos like Code Pink can picket outside the recruiting offices of our armed services, how come legal Americans don't picket outside the sheriff's office.

    Better yet, Acorn members didn't have any problem protesting outside the homes of AGI executives protesting against their bonuses. Maybe it is time to protest outside the sheriff's home. As long as it is legal, it is time to take a stand against them.
    Hmmph..... *cogs turning*

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Hmm... CLEO isn't putting a stop to OC harrassment? Open Carry sign-waving in front of his home?

    I still think doing it out front of the station or city hall would be more effective... but would make for an interesting day either way.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  11. #11
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    Too lazy to research it, but my infallible memory () tells me that I read somewhere that in some states or jurisdictions, it is proscribed to carry a gun at a protest.
    However, having said that, I definitely recall accounts of people open-carrying at some of the Tea party rallys.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    I believe that was a union protest/strike, not sure about a general protest of the citizenry?

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Yes, that only applies to labor "picket lines."
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  14. #14
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post



    UOC howeveris not proscribed...

    12590. (a) Any person who does any of the following acts while
    engaged in picketing, or other informational activities in a public
    place relating to a concerted refusal to work, is guilty of a
    misdemeanor:
    (1) Carries concealed upon his person or within any vehicle which
    is under his or her control or direction any pistol, revolver, or
    other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
    (2) Carries a loaded firearm upon his or her person or within any
    vehicle which is under his or her control or direction.
    (3) Carries a deadly weapon.
    (4) Wears the uniform of a peace officer, whether or not the
    person is a peace officer.
    (b) This section shall not be construed to authorize or ratify any
    picketing or other informational activities not otherwise authorized
    by law.
    (c) Section 12027 shall not be construed to authorize any conduct
    described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), nor shall subdivision
    (b) of Section 12031 be construed to authorize any conduct described
    in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).


  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:

    UOC howeveris not proscribed...

    12590. (a) Any person who does any of the following acts while
    engaged in picketing, or other informational activities in a public
    place relating to a concerted refusal to work, is guilty of a
    misdemeanor:
    (1) Carries concealed upon his person or within any vehicle which
    is under his or her control or direction any pistol, revolver, or
    other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
    (2) Carries a loaded firearm upon his or her person or within any
    vehicle which is under his or her control or direction.
    (3) Carries a deadly weapon.
    (4) Wears the uniform of a peace officer, whether or not the
    person is a peace officer.
    (b) This section shall not be construed to authorize or ratify any
    picketing or other informational activities not otherwise authorized
    by law.
    (c) Section 12027 shall not be construed to authorize any conduct
    described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), nor shall subdivision
    (b) of Section 12031 be construed to authorize any conduct described
    in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).

    You are correct.

    And for inquiring minds, #3 refers to "deadly weapons." Since this statute does not clarify, we must take a definition from elsewhere in the PC. If multiple definitions exist, the courts must apply the definition most favorable to the defendant, since the statute fails to clarify.

    12028.5(a)(3) is, to my knowledge, is the only section that gives a definition:

    Code:
    "Deadly weapon" means any weapon, the possession or concealed carrying of which is prohibited by Section 12020.
    12020 is the lengthy section that prohibits many items, such as throwing stars, concealed dirks/daggers, short-barreled rifles, pen knives, metal replica hand grenades, etc.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  16. #16
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    cato wrote:

    UOC howeveris not proscribed...

    12590. (a) Any person who does any of the following acts while
    engaged in picketing, or other informational activities in a public
    place relating to a concerted refusal to work, is guilty of a
    misdemeanor:
    (1) Carries concealed upon his person or within any vehicle which
    is under his or her control or direction any pistol, revolver, or
    other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
    (2) Carries a loaded firearm upon his or her person or within any
    vehicle which is under his or her control or direction.
    (3) Carries a deadly weapon.
    (4) Wears the uniform of a peace officer, whether or not the
    person is a peace officer.
    (b) This section shall not be construed to authorize or ratify any
    picketing or other informational activities not otherwise authorized
    by law.
    (c) Section 12027 shall not be construed to authorize any conduct
    described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), nor shall subdivision
    (b) of Section 12031 be construed to authorize any conduct described
    in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).

    You are correct.

    And for inquiring minds, #3 refers to "deadly weapons." Since this statute does not clarify, we must take a definition from elsewhere in the PC. If multiple definitions exist, the courts must apply the definition most favorable to the defendant, since the statute fails to clarify.

    12028.5(a)(3) is, to my knowledge, is the only section that gives a definition:

    Code:
    "Deadly weapon" means any weapon, the possession or concealed carrying of which is prohibited by Section 12020.
    12020 is the lengthy section that prohibits many items, such as throwing stars, concealed dirks/daggers, short-barreled rifles, pen knives, metal replica hand grenades, etc.
    Spot on. Since firearms are already mentioned by name in another section of the statute, the 'deadly weapons' mentioned are bound by another definition as seen in 12028.5 and 12020. So... no throwing stars at a strike protest...
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    193

    Post imported post

    This lawsuit is excellent - the best lawyers have to bring to the process - I commend the entire effort and will follow the progress - :celebrate

    Many thanks to all involved - after they win this, open it up for nonresident shall issue and Kalifornia will start to look like one of the United States -

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •