• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Overcoming Local Gun Restrictions

hgreen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
470
Location
Centreville, VA
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?
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
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:

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
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.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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:

hgreen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
470
Location
Centreville, VA
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
 

hgreen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
470
Location
Centreville, VA
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.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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:

JJ

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
213
Location
East Contra Costa County, California, ,
Preemption

Helps also to be in Michigan where state preemption of gun laws is clear.:rolleyes:


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:

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA

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.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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.
 

JJ

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
213
Location
East Contra Costa County, California, ,
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....
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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.
 
Top