Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Overcoming Local Gun Restrictions

  1. #1
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470

    Question Overcoming Local Gun Restrictions

    I'm currently looking into the best approach to deal with a ban on firearms in city parks. Several local cities in the South Bay of LA county have such ordinances and I would love to see them taken off the books.

    Some thoughts I've had are preemption of state law and McDonald, but also just reasoning to the city councils logic by pointing out that everyone can agree that criminals do not regard the ordinance especially since there are no posted signs, its only found if one manually searches the ordinance database.

    Does anyone else have experience taking on these types of ordinances without an expensive legal council?

    What are your recommendations for approaching this?

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    You could always sue them yourself in state court for having an unconstitutional (under the California constitution) law on the books. I imagine a single letter from the offices of the more famous gun rights lawyers might accomplish the same thing, so maybe hitting one of them up might be a bit easier.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Preemption laws are always the easiest to work with, unless you're talking about the ultimate preemption law known as the second amendment, which of course only rarely gets followed and upheld, even though it's the law of the land.

    Anyway, in terms of a city ordinance or other rule, it is either in line with a state's laws, or it isn't. In the circumstances where it isn't, flood the city council with activists, preferably in kali, half assed armed with empty guns if it's legal in that circumstance under california's tyranny, and have at least 4 or 5 people of the several dozen who are there present their prepared speeches on why the laws are in violation of state and federal law, and need to be repealed.

    Send out press releases to each and every news organization you have any interest in being there, and make sure the people who are going to address the council are well suited to the task.

    If you wish to look at an example of this being done very successfully, refer to Michigan's situation with "Arts Beats and Eats", and the manner in which the largely uncooperative city of Royal Oak was put in its place with repetitious and heavily attended city council meetings full of activists who made speeches, and some who just showed up and watched in support.

    It's not hard. You just have to make the arrangements and do it.
    Last edited by Michigander; 09-10-2010 at 05:47 PM.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  4. #4
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    Anyway, in terms of a city ordinance or other rule, it is either in line with a state's laws, or it isn't. In the circumstances where it isn't, flood the city council with activists, preferably in kali, half assed armed with empty guns if it's legal in that circumstance under california's tyranny, and have at least 4 or 5 people of the several dozen who are there present their prepared speeches on why the laws are in violation of state and federal law, and need to be repealed.
    Bringing a gun to a public government meeting is generally illegal.

    PC 171b. (a) Any person who brings or possesses within any state or
    local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the
    public pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part
    1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of, or Article 9 (commencing with Section
    11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, the
    Government Code, any of the following is guilty of a public offense
    punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one
    year, or in the state prison:
    ...
    (b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to, or affect, any of the
    following:
    ...
    (3) A person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant
    to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2
    of Part 4.

  5. #5
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    You could always sue them yourself in state court for having an unconstitutional (under the California constitution) law on the books. I imagine a single letter from the offices of the more famous gun rights lawyers might accomplish the same thing, so maybe hitting one of them up might be a bit easier.
    The CASC already said in a Nordyke cross petition that local gun bans on gov. property, like the Alameda Co. property gun ban, do not violate the state constitution.
    Last edited by cato; 09-10-2010 at 07:38 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    The CASC already said in a Nordyke cross petition that local gun bans on gov. property, like the Alameda Co. property gun ban, do not violate the state constitution.
    Thank you. That takes preemption off the table. So now I am left with appealing to their good logic... uggg

  7. #7
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by mjones View Post
    Bringing a gun to a public government meeting is generally illegal..
    Personally, I would stage a half assed OC protest outside of the building, and send in designated subjects (speakers) to address the tyrants.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  8. #8
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by hgreen View Post
    Thank you. That takes preemption off the table. So now I am left with appealing to their good logic... uggg
    What is the exact language of the statute & is there an exemption for licensed carry?

  9. #9
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    What is the exact language of the statute & is there an exemption for licensed carry?
    Item #2: http://www.hermosabch.org/department...e/1228030.html

    No exemptions.

  10. #10
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    Personally, I would stage a half assed OC protest outside of the building, and send in designated subjects (speakers) to address the tyrants.
    All government buildings in the city are in a school zone. So that's a no go. Plus we don't do anything half assed.

  11. #11
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    Personally, I would stage a half assed OC protest outside of the building, and send in designated subjects (speakers) to address the tyrants.
    'How to win friends and influence people' by Michigander. Must be nice to have a state court protected RKBA. We're not there yet in Ca. Maybe some day but in your face will not work here yet when legislatve bodies can just legislate you away. I don't get the impression you understand the legal/constitutional situation in Ca/9th Circuit.

    We need a few basic cases, already filed, to lay the foundation before the other more complicated issues are tackled.
    Last edited by cato; 09-10-2010 at 11:23 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, California, USA
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    Preemption laws are always the easiest to work with,
    Not gonna fly, all a city attorney would have to do is point to California's ban in State Parks.

  13. #13
    Regular Member JJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Contra Costa County, California, ,
    Posts
    213

    Found this on You Tube

    It's amazing what one individual can do when city officials have an open mind and common sense.

    Great Story!



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zqpXCbdp8I

  14. #14
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ View Post
    It's amazing what one individual can do when city officials have an open mind and common sense.

    Great Story!



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zqpXCbdp8I
    Helps also to be in Michigan where state preemption of gun laws is clear.
    Last edited by cato; 09-10-2010 at 11:32 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member JJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Contra Costa County, California, ,
    Posts
    213

    Preemption

    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Helps also to be in Michigan where state preemption of gun laws is clear.

    I thought it was clear in California as well?? But just not something that has been strongly challenged?

    I re-call an OC gathering in Palo Alto (Maybe it was EPA?) months ago where they have a city ordinance in place but did not enforce it because they knew it was preempted.
    Last edited by JJ; 09-10-2010 at 11:41 PM.

  16. #16
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by hgreen View Post
    The law is vulnerable to challenge but not from a UOC perspective. Would be a good challenge post Sykes w/LTC in hand if it were not in LA's Fed. Court District.

    You all should capitalize on the relationship you have w/ the C.O.P. and discuss licenses. You could also drum up support and push for repeal of the parks ban by continually addressing the city council on the issue. After all you guys proved you were not a danger at the fiesta. Besides the guns are unloaded and certainly the constitutionality is in doubt in the least.

  17. #17
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ View Post
    I thought it was clear in California as well?? But just not something that has been strongly challenged?

    I re-call an OC gathering in Palo Alto (Maybe it was EPA?) months ago where they have a city ordinance in place but did not enforce it because they knew it was preempted.
    Palo Alto's ordinance is a city wide ban and therefore conflicts with the states general laws. Hermosa Beach's law is similar to Alameda Co's ( which was found by CASC to be lawful ) and is limited to city owned parks.

    All these city bans will fall once the Heller 'sensitive places' doctrine is fleshed out in our favor.

  18. #18
    Regular Member JJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Contra Costa County, California, ,
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Palo Alto's ordinance is a city wide ban and therefore conflicts with the states general laws. Hermosa Beach's law is similar to Alameda Co's ( which was found by CASC to be lawful ) and is limited to city owned parks.

    All these city bans will fall once the Heller 'sensitive places' doctrine is fleshed out in our favor.


    Thanks for the clarification. I'll be glad when we won't have to worry about how, when, and where we carry....

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    The CASC already said in a Nordyke cross petition that local gun bans on gov. property, like the Alameda Co. property gun ban, do not violate the state constitution.
    This was before MacDonald's, right?

  20. #20
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by CA_fr_KS View Post
    This was before MacDonald's, right?
    McD doesn't change CASC's opinions of Ca law. At some point the federal 2nd A will supersede state law which conflicts with the defined Right. We're not there yet and individuals who incur criminal liability now are in for some hurt and can give Ca's anti judges the opportunity to hit our cause with bad case law while the Right is in it's vulnerable infancy.

Posting Permissions

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