[Jim March]

Folks,

As has been mentioned, the Second Amendment Foundation is jumping into the CCW wars, with me acting as a sort of "Indian scout" :).

One of the first results of that collaboration is out and posted here:

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/crosshairs/prar.htm

This is "nitty gritty details" in the CCW fight, but an important detail. Full access to this data could literally change everything. Nobody has ever really totalled the level of racial and gender discrimination plus corruption statewide.

That PRAR is the key. If denied, it won't just be SAF ready to sue 'em for it -CFAC, the journalist's group, will also be helping pursue this stuff.

We've also alerted the Senators of the Senate Public Safety Committee. On Tuesday the 8th (yes, tomorrow) they're going to be re-hearing AB1044, which is the cover-up bill designed to allow DOJ to destroy part of the data this PRAR (Public Records Act Request) is going after.

PLEASE, tomorrow, call each member of the committee and ask for their "no" vote on AB1044:

Bruce McPherson - (916) 445-5843

John Burton - (916) 445-1412

Gloria Romero - (916) 445-1418

Bob Margett - (916) 445-2848

John Vasconcellos - (916) 445-9740

Byron Sher - (916) 445-6747

If this bill passes, SAF and I will need to spend extra resources on a lawsuit specifically to kill off the bill. That suit actually has a good chance, but it'll be easier and safer to kill the bill.

Call 'em.

[sm]

Jim, thanks for the update, and good luck.
(yep, calls will be made, but you knew that)

[BB93YJ]

BTT


Go Jim!!!

[Mute]

Once more into the breach! Good luck!

[Pendragon]

Called every single one - took less than 3 minutes.

Btw, if you wanted to be from Sacramento, 95835 is a pretty nice zip code to live in (Sacramento/Natomas area) :)

[Jim March]

Well the sumbich passed Senate Safety.

Let's be clear what happened:

1) On 6/10, Vasconcellos said his vote was in the can, and SHUT ME DOWN from exposing Randy Rossi's lies before the committee.

2) McPherson then sets the bill for re-consideration, "voice vote only", no additional public comment allowed.

3) Then one of Vasconcellos' staff (Matt Gray) tried to set up a meeting on the afternoon of the 10th, involving me, Ed Worley of NRA, Randy Rossi and his people and staffers for Vasconcellos (Matt Gray) and John Burton (Anthony Williams). This meeting is torpedoed by ED WORLEY, who refused to be in the same room with me. Literally.

4) Later, Vasconcellos himself meets with Randy Rossi, who repeats the "this data is available locally" lie. I was neither invited to that meeting or even told it was happening. I find out from Burton staffer Anthony Williams after the fact that Vasconcellos had changed his mind.

5) So today, on a fresh vote, it passes with no additional comments allowed. Rossi's lies are never countered on the record. I didn't even bother showing up.

BUT, this ain't over.

There's one final chance to counter Rossi's lies in Senate Approprations. And I can prove 100% that he lied.

If they try and shut me up, or pass it regardless, SAF is committed to suing (probably in Fed court) to put a hold on the bill or kill it, as it can be proven to have been crafted with the intent of covering up racism.

Lemme show y'all something - in 1980, the California Supreme Court took a position on police keeping records of officer misconduct complaints:

-----------
The destruction of unsustanined citizen complaints against peace officers is improper. People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 93.

Unsustained and sustained complaints against peace officers are discoverable. People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 93.

When a defendant requests disclosure of complaints against a peace officer and unsustained complaints have been destroyed, the judge should instruct the jury as follows:1.) The officer used excessive or unnecessary force on each occasion when compalints were filed against the officer but that the complaint records later were destroyed, and 2.) The jury may rely upon that information to infer that the officer is prone to engage in excessive or unnecessary force [Evid. Code § 1103] and that the officer’s testimony regarding incidents of alleged police force may be biased [Evid. Code § 1101(c)]. People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 93-94.

A court must impose an appropriate sanction to uphold a defendant’s right to a fair trial and to deter prosectution’s attempts to defy or circumvent judicial authority. People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 96.
-----------

While the situation isn't quite the same, it's comparable in that the CCW issuance records could foreseeably be the LARGEST stockpile of evidence of Sheriff/Police Chief misconduct in the state, possibly in the nation.

Cal-DOJ is trying to destroy that data.

I don't think the courts will let them. But in any case, there's gonna be hell to pay at Senate Appropriations, the last committee this thing has to clear before final vote.

Oh yes, one other thing: the Assembly already voted on the bill, BUT that was before the "local records of denial destruction" clause was stripped. So if it passes the Senate, there has to be a process to sort out which final version gets used, Assembly or Senate. I'm not certain, but it's possible the local records destruction could be spliced back in.

This ain't over. The entire CCW process will NOT withstand a full look at the data. It'll come unglued.

[cosmos7]

Keep up the good work Jim! I just became a contributing member of the SAF, and I encourage anyone who isn't to do the same.

[Giant]

Jim March:

Any ideas why the Calif. Dept. of Justice criminal activity as it relates to California CCW has not been picked up and published by mainstream media? This is a really big political story and it could blow the California Attorney General out of the running if he wants to take a shot at being Governor. It seems really strange mainstream media has not jumped on this criminal scandal and put it on the front page in three inch tall typeface.

IMO this story could put California Attorney General Lockyer in an orange jumpsuit... Someone needs to let this genie out of the bottle! Make a wish!

Giant

[Jim March]

I've given detailed briefings to major political columnists at the SacBee...no interest so far.

It's just...weird.

I'm going to try and see if anybody at the SJMercury will listen. I have a LOT of details regarding Sheriff Laurie Smith's handing of the process and while the Merc is a "commie rag" if ever there was one, the "local angle" with Laurie may prove tempting.

[redhead]

My guess as to why the columnists aren't interested? They're anti-gun, and don't care if there is misconduct and downright illegal activity involved in issuing ccw permits. As long as the illegal activity results in issuance of few to no permits, they aren't interested in exposing it. Now, on the other hand, if the misconduct or illegal shenanigans resulted in MORE permits being issued, I would bet they'd be all over it. Like I said, just a guess. I've been wrong before.

[Gray Peterson]

Sounds like someone made a backroom deal with Vasconcellos. Maybe pictures of him with an underage hooker, perhaps?

Stranger things have happened.

Btw, this passed along with AB50 failing due to McPherson's vote. Could the NRA, along with Cal-DOJ, made some sort of deal with him on the AB1044 vote in exchange for voting against AB50?

[Jim March]

Yup.

A lot of sheriffs who issue more than the average number of permits have told investigators that if we dig into the issuance process, they'll have to REDUCE the number of permits in order to avoid unfavorable scrutiny.

They're basically holding some of the current permitholders "hostage".

If the number of permits was anything reasonable, I could see it. But consider:

NYC's carry permit issuance rate is higher than ANY major California city :eek:.

Maryland has 35,000 permits out. California, about 39k - with what, five times the population?

Massachussets has over 100,000 "LTC-A-ALP" (full CCW) permits, again, with FAR less than California's 35mil population.

Upshot: Jesus H. Christ, it can't get much WORSE. Ask me if I'm really ready to maintain the permits for the current few, by sacraficing access to the data that could blow the whole thing wide open :scrutiny:.

I'm sorry if this pisses off current permitholders but...*I* ain't the one holding y'all hostage.

[Gray Peterson]

I'm sorry if this pisses off current permitholders but...*I* ain't the one holding y'all hostage.

If you could blow it all wide open, CT-style shall-issue CCW could occur by court ruling. No need to worry at that point.

[Jim March]

Exactly.

Especially once the evidence of racism blows up. This wacked out system can't survive that.

[Mute]

It's the whole, "I got mine, so I don't care" attitude that is killing gunowners here in Kali. To those of you who have your CCW's and don't care if no one else gets one. SCREW YOU!

[Jim March]

Now hold it.

It's NOT the current permitholders themselves that are the problem here. It's the sheriffs and chiefs.

Let's lay blame where it belongs!