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


PDA






Drjones
January 1, 2004, 08:37 PM
I'm shocked and disappointed that this hasn't been posted yet, but its ok because I'm happy to be the first to break the news! :)

WAY TO GO JIM!!!

Hopefully these suits will help make it easier to obtain CCW in ************. Wanna give us any more insight, Jim? :)


http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/8031489p-8967304c.html


Bias alleged in gun permits

Suits over a new state law claim favoritism by Blanas and others in allowing concealed weapons.

By Ramon Coronado and Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writers

Published 2:15 a.m. PST Thursday, January 1, 2004

Two national gun-rights groups will ask a Sacramento Superior Court judge Friday to block a new California law that they say will lead to unchecked favoritism in the granting of concealed weapons permits in the state.
The law, scheduled to take effect today, frees the state Department of Justice from collecting data on people who apply for gun permits from local law enforcement agencies.

The suit was filed this week on behalf of the Citizens Committee For he Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation, which together claim more than a million members nationwide.

A companion suit filed this week in Sacramento federal court contends that Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas doles out concealed weapons permits based on an applicant's political influence or law enforcement ties.

"It is the job of the people to make sure that government is fair and free from racial bias and political favors," said Sacramento lawyer Daniel M. Karalash, who filed the motion for an injunction in Superior Court.

The injunction, which seeks to delay implementation of the new law, is scheduled to be heard before Judge Loren E. McMaster.

The law, AB 1044, was sponsored by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who maintains that the Department of Justice was required as the "keeper of records" to accumulate applications, even though other laws, such as the Privacy Act, prevented public access to the information.

"For 18 years we have been wanting to rid ourselves of the applications, which we can do nothing with," Lockyer spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said.

The law still allows watchdog groups to seek application information from sheriffs and chiefs of police throughout the state, Jordan said.

The suit, however, maintains that the state records offer the only assurance that the permit process is fair and free from abuse by the state's 58 elected sheriffs and more than 300 police chiefs.

James March, a gun-rights lobbyist named as a third plaintiff in the Superior Court suit, claims in the suit that he had meetings with state officials in which he told them of an "abnormally low number of female holders" and "very few permit holders with Hispanic last names."

"March also described patterns where some sheriffs specifically 'redlined' towns in their counties with higher minority populations than the county as a whole," the suit said of the practice of discriminating in certain areas.

The federal suit focusing on Blanas alleges the new law is a "deliberate effort to conceal massive wrongdoing in the handling of concealed weapons permit applications across California."

Filed by Sacramento attorney Gary Gorski on behalf of a state worker whose application for a permit was rejected, the federal suit seeks an injunction barring discrimination in Sacramento County's permit process. No hearing has been scheduled in federal court.

"Defendant Blanas has personally taken in over $100,000 in campaign contributions from his small ... permit-holder pool," the suit alleges.

Undersheriff John McGinness strongly disputed any correlation between weapon permits and campaign contributions to Blanas.

"At the appropriate time, if necessary, we will provide information to the court that will dispel that idea," McGinness said. "Our procedures are very defensible, and the data will support them."

There now are 40,643 Californians with permits to carry concealed weapons, according to state officials.

Officials claim they are limited in their use of application and gun permit data to specific areas, including the investigation and arrest of criminals, and the return of stolen or lost weapons. The new law also frees state officials from what Jordan described as "nonstop litigation" with gun-rights' groups seeking access to the records, including those who filed the Superior Court suit.

The federal suit was filed on behalf of David K. Mehl, 38, identified as a chemical engineer with no criminal history who lives with his family in Sacramento County. Mehl "owns a handgun, which he would like to carry in his vehicle and on his person ... for protection of himself, his family, and other citizens, just as other privileged and well-connected citizens and retired peace officers and the sheriff's various cronies and campaign contributors are allowed to carry a concealed handgun," the suit says.

McGinness acknowledged that retired law enforcement officials, who often are targeted by people they have arrested or prosecuted, are entitled to permits.

Gorski insists that retired police officers and prosecutors have no more right to carry a concealed weapon for protection than other citizens. A policy that says otherwise is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, according to the federal suit. It alleges that the Sheriff's Department issues "honorary and low-level reserve law enforcement credentials," which confer "untrained reserve status" to "political campaign contributors just so (they) can carry a concealed weapon."

But McGinness said sheriff's mounted drill team members, to whom the suit refers, "do not, as a matter of course, receive a weapon permit. They have to meet the same criteria as everyone else." For example, he said, a physician who routinely carries controlled substances, or a jeweler transporting valuable gems would be eligible for a permit.

"We maintain tight control of this process," McGinness said.



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

About the Writer
---------------------------

The Bee's Ramon Coronado can be reached at (916) 321-1191 or rcoronado@sacbee.com.

If you enjoyed reading about "Our own Jim March creating a BIG stink re: CA CCW!!! MUST READ!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hkmp5sd
January 1, 2004, 08:46 PM
ATTABOY, Jim! :) Keep the faith. Surrender is not an option.

Standing Wolf
January 1, 2004, 09:13 PM
Well done, Jim March!

standingbear
January 1, 2004, 09:20 PM
Jim March for president!!........I'm surprised nobody here has thought of that one yet.Its not a big stink hes creating,I think hes cleaning up a big stink.:D

Jim March
January 1, 2004, 10:57 PM
Heh. Ya, I've seen this.

First, there's more comments here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56893

Second, tomorrow at 8:45am we've got a hearing on a temporary restraining order barring Cal-DOJ from trashing the records prior to the full trial. We expect to win. The moment that's done with, I'll have a much more full report (and website update) on what's going on.

AB1044 is very controversial in part because the NRA has supported it. See also:

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

The problem is, that page contains...well, it's hard to call it a "lie", but they're trying to make you think the records of CCW issuance are going to be destroyed.

That's not the case. At stake...well, read the other THR thread linked above. I'm too busy prepping for tomorrow to re-hash :).

Minor correction to the SacBee article: Gary Gorski's Federal case against Blanas isn't a "companion case", although he is using some of the same research material in the Dan Karalash and John Brophy are fighting for myself, SAF and CCRKBA.

Logistar
January 2, 2004, 12:05 AM
:) :) :) :) OUTSTANDING JIM! WAY TO GO !!! :) :) :) :)

I agree! JIM MARCH for President!

Jim March
January 2, 2004, 12:22 AM
Ain't no way I'm running for ANY office.

My "alpha male gene" is defective. Plus I've got too much self respect :rolleyes:.

10-Ring
January 2, 2004, 12:35 AM
Jim - THANKS for the devotion you have! CA will shine again because of your work!!

gunsmith
January 2, 2004, 12:39 AM
McGinness acknowledged that retired law enforcement officials, who often are targeted by people they have arrested or prosecuted, are entitled to permits.
I'm an armed security guard,face the same problem, but there's no
way for me to get a permit in San Francisco. Meanwhile I can carry on duty!?
What about citizens who call the police about crime in their neighborhoods?
they don't have the right to defend they're own life?!?:fire:

Jim March
January 2, 2004, 01:12 AM
Folks, thank you for the kind words throughout this thread.

Let me just add that full access to the DOJ's archive of CCW data may be the key to cracking this mess. DOJ is desperate to limit access.

There's a reason, folks.

stv
January 2, 2004, 01:47 AM
As I said in the other thread, THANK YOU. This is only the beginning of what could be a glorious struggle :D

sm
January 2, 2004, 02:35 AM
Jim March, thank you sir for fighting the fight !

HABU
January 2, 2004, 02:42 AM
"We maintain tight control of this process," McGinness said. I guess so! Otherwise more than 40,643 Californians would have permits.

Jim March
January 2, 2004, 03:04 AM
Beginning my hind end!

You know how LONG I've been at this (bleep)?

:)

Lesse...nine personal applications for CCW (all failed), two lawsuits, tons of research, TONS MORE RESEARCH...:)

Gawd.

"Beginning" he says.

:rolleyes:

:neener:

stv
January 2, 2004, 03:22 AM
OK, so it's the beginning for me :D :neener:

clubsoda22
January 2, 2004, 04:35 AM
Jim, you're definately fighting this the right way. It's hard for an anti-gun group to come out against you because it would make them look racist, sexist and classist. The best way to fight this is not fighting it on a RKBA platform, but a discrimination platform. I'm glad to see that's how you're doing it, because an RKBA platform is automatially doomed to fail in california.

The best part is, if an anti gun group does bite, you can seriously discredit them by saying "this isn't about guns, this is about civil rights! The rights of free americans--whether they are male or female, rich or poor, black, white, hispanic, or otherwise--not to be discriminated against by the state." Basically, you just call them a bunch of racists, sexists and classists without using charged language.

Now they're stuck, the only thing they can do is say, "statistics show that minorities and the poor commit more crimes." Ask a black guy what that quote sounds to him. He'll straight up tell you they're saying that poor blacks have nothing better to do than shoot each other is given guns, that they're iresponsible and cant be trusted not to commit crimes. He'll say that you're telling him blacks are natural criminals.

Now they're still stuck and the only thing they can do is say, "women will just get the guns taken and used agaist them." Ask a feminist what that sounds like and she'll tell you that is says women can't stick up for themselves, they're week and must rely on men for protection. A statement that even non feminist females will cringe at.

Kharn
January 2, 2004, 07:59 AM
Happy hunting. :D

Kharn

45R
January 2, 2004, 09:45 AM
Congrats on the front page article on the Sacramento Bee. Happy New Year Jim. May your efforts pave the way for CCW reform in Sacramento and CA.

45R

NorthernExtreme
January 2, 2004, 10:00 AM
Thank You Jim!

Quartus
January 2, 2004, 10:13 AM
Beginning my hind end!

You know how LONG I've been at this (bleep)?


Years, folks. On a shoestring. Unemployed at least part of the time.


Jim deserves our support.

Leatherneck
January 2, 2004, 10:37 AM
Good luck today, Jim: how's the $$ situation?

TC
TFL Survivor

KLDimond
January 2, 2004, 11:52 AM
Jim, you just keep it up. You are what we need here in PRK. I'll be looking/watching to see what I can do to help... and please make sure you let us know!

I've been seeing your work for some time, but been chasing activism in different ways. Time to bring it home. Eager to get stomping!

BTW, thanks for the link here that you left on Packing.org.

N3rday
January 2, 2004, 12:00 PM
Nice work, Jim!!

Well, what is the Department of Injustice hiding?

QuickDraw
January 2, 2004, 01:45 PM
Good job!
Keep up the good work!
Let us know if we can help $.

QuickDraw

R-Tex12
January 2, 2004, 03:17 PM
QuickDraw wrote:

Good job!
Keep up the good work!
Let us know if we can help $.

Ditto!

Rick

Edward429451
January 2, 2004, 03:35 PM
Way to go Jim!

Kudos.

Balog
January 2, 2004, 04:07 PM
Do you have some sort of escrow account that THR'ers could chip in to?

Jim March
January 2, 2004, 04:58 PM
OK, first thing, I'm now doing this professionally, paid by CCRKBA (Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms). Yes, I was dirt broke for a long time. I don't make a mint in this gig, but it's way fun and it's plenty to live on.

We are also "sister orgs" with the Second Amendment Foundation in the same way the NRA and NRA/ILA are sister orgs, and for the same reason: each has different tax statuses capable of legally doing different tasks. SAF can fund lawsuits based on tax-deductable funds; CCRKBA can pay for a political lobbyist/activist such as myself (and others!) with NON-tax-deductable funds.

I will be setting up a method by which you can sign up for memberships with the above and kick in extra money that is earmarked for California efforts and lawsuits. Which is not to say "in Jim's pocket". You will be both helping the cause, AND sending a signal to my bosses that California reform efforts do NOT go unnoticed. (Not that Alan Gottlieb and pals need a lot of prodding, but proof is always good...)

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

Next: during today's temporary restraining order hearing, we got what we wanted in a weird way: the data we need is now preserved intact until the full injunction hearing coming in less than a month, via an agreement directly with Cal-DOJ's attorneys versus via court order.

Here's what happened: we didn't have "hard proof" that DOJ was going to fire up a shredder and trash their CCW denial and good cause data. We could prove they now COULD, but the motions judge (fill-in for a guy who was sick) was having a hard time with doing a court order based on what the government COULD do. The DOJ lawyer then spoke up in open court and said they would preserve the records until a full hearing, and made repeated and clear promises to that effect in open court, with a reporter from the SacBee present as well as the judge, clerk, etc. (Same reporter as wrote the first story in this thread.)

So even though we "lost" the restraining order motion, the only reason the judge turned us down was because the DOJ attorney promised not to trash the stuff. Had he NOT made such a promise, our side's attorneys would have had the adequate proof needed to GET the temporary restraining order.

So the DOJ cannot now trash the stuff (prior to the next hearing) without being exposed as con artists, in which case we'd win and force DOJ to re-create what they'd trashed by querying local records!

:cool:

So we "lost", but really won :).

OK, fine. The next hearing will be a proper slugfest with evidence introduced, questions asked of DOJ staff, a real opportunity to take 'em apart. And with a different (and reputedly very good) judge.

Onwards.

publius
January 2, 2004, 06:43 PM
Thanks for the update, but I'm not so sure you're now safe. The political calculation for their side now must be: which is more damaging, keeping these records around so that Jim and his pals can trash us with them, or destroying them and thus breaking the courtroom vow?

The answer depends on just what kinds of patterns would emerge from those records.

Drjones
January 2, 2004, 07:19 PM
Jim, you're definately fighting this the right way. It's hard for an anti-gun group to come out against you because it would make them look racist, sexist and classist. The best way to fight this is not fighting it on a RKBA platform, but a discrimination platform. I'm glad to see that's how you're doing it, because an RKBA platform is automatially doomed to fail in california.

The best part is, if an anti gun group does bite, you can seriously discredit them by saying "this isn't about guns, this is about civil rights! The rights of free americans--whether they are male or female, rich or poor, black, white, hispanic, or otherwise--not to be discriminated against by the state." Basically, you just call them a bunch of racists, sexists and classists without using charged language.

Now they're stuck, the only thing they can do is say, "statistics show that minorities and the poor commit more crimes." Ask a black guy what that quote sounds to him. He'll straight up tell you they're saying that poor blacks have nothing better to do than shoot each other is given guns, that they're iresponsible and cant be trusted not to commit crimes. He'll say that you're telling him blacks are natural criminals.

Now they're still stuck and the only thing they can do is say, "women will just get the guns taken and used agaist them." Ask a feminist what that sounds like and she'll tell you that is says women can't stick up for themselves, they're week and must rely on men for protection. A statement that even non feminist females will cringe at.

Clubsoda, your post just gave me chills...

:D :D :D

You reading this Jim??? Print out this post!!!

QuickDraw
January 2, 2004, 08:01 PM
Heres something I been thinking about.
Could the Govenator have told the AG to backoff?And more importantly, could the Govenator help in making California a shall issue state?
Any chance We have a friend in Sacto.?

QuickDraw

Hkmp5sd
January 2, 2004, 08:29 PM
Now that you're a professional, after you beat California, how about getting elected to the NRA board and go straighten then out? :)

DJ E.
January 3, 2004, 01:00 AM
Thank you Jim for all your hard efforts! Everyone in CA owes you a big one!:)

DJ

Gray Peterson
January 3, 2004, 02:53 AM
Could the Govenator have told the AG to backoff?

No. The AG's office is an elected position. There isn't much the governor can actually do since he's not the chief law enforcement officer of the state.

Pendragon
January 3, 2004, 03:08 AM
CA DOJ is full of scoundrels.

My money is on a midnight shredding party in the next 28 days.

Excuses will be made, appologies offered, the left hand did not know what they right hand was doing, etc.

Not to detract from Jims victory - I hope I am wrong, but based on the whole circus that is CA CCW SOP, you simply have to expect them to be dastardly.

I don't think Arnold is going to want to get into this fight - and he does not have to, but remember, he is more conservative than most of the voters in CA - he is unlikely to start jumping on our causes - he needs to preserve his opinion capital for all the cuts he is making in the budget.

If we make to the next hearing with the records in tact, then we got a shot.

Darnit - I thought I did not have to worry about it after moving to Texas, but it looks like we will be heading back as soon as we can...

Jim March
January 3, 2004, 03:10 AM
Fixing the Calif CCW system will be EASIER than fixing the...oh never mind.

:)

No, I don't think Arnold is involved at all. Probably doesn't even know, unless one of his guys caught that SacBee thing. We'll have to win the full prelim injunction on or around the 26th of Jan before we even have a prayer of getting him involved...and even then, there's really not much he can do. I don't mean "he can't get involved due to political considerations", I mean he's basically not in the chain of command on this mess. The buck stops at Locker's desk (state attorney general) on this one.

No, the issue I expect Arnold to weigh in on is the threatened statewide gunshow ban. Jackie Spier has been making noises about introducing it, and of course various wildly anti-gun counties and cities like LA, SF and the like are wailing for it.

Here's where that gets complex:

1) The California DOJ (Randy Rossi, Tim Rieger and company) are on record as AGAINST banning gun shows. Yup, they're our allies on that one. I'll explain why in a sec.

2) California has already totally banned private party no-FFL in-state sales, 'cept between close family members. So the grabbers can moan about "gun show loopholes" in other states all they want and if you squint right and cock your head sideways, they sorta/kinda have a point. (Not a very good one, don't worry.) But in California, there is NOTHING going on at gun shows that can't go on at storefront gun dealers. 'Cept storefront dealers don't tend to sell high-end beef jerky.

3) And that's why DOJ is in favor of gun shows. With the strict laws, it gives them another law enforcement opportunity to bust the unwary - morons that hear the hoopla about "gun show loopholes" and believe the media!

Yes, I'm serious. They've heard gun shows are "easy meat" so they wander around looking for off-paper deals, and walk right into DOJ traps.

:rolleyes:

Without gun shows, attempted off-paper dealmakers would be chased further into the woodpile and away from the pigpile that constitutes your average gun show.

4) Now here's the real kicker: the political program and organization that proved it was possible to do grassroots referendums/initiatives on the cheap was the Geoff Metcalf-derived "VetoTheGovernor" movement of...1999 or 2000, I forget. First, note the name of the group...I assure you the DEMS paid attention. Second, this bunch came within a whisker of getting on the ballot, despite early paperwork bloops from before attorney Don Kilmer joined up. While they didn't make the sigs, they proved we COULD. And they did it in large part by gathering signatures at gun shows.

Understand something about the recent Davis recall: it was started on a shoestring and cloned straight off of the earlier Metcalf organization. They were on track to make it a vote on Davis in the Spring of '04 with nothing but volunteers. Issa pumped a couple mil in and using professional signature gatherers, moved the vote backwards to October. But the money wasn't critical to actually making the ballot!!! Issa thought that October would be easier to actually dump Davis than in the same race as the Dem primary but we now know it probably didn't make a difference. Getting the sigs to put the issue on the ballot in early '04 could have been done on the cheapo.

And THAT fact has the state Dems running terrified.

So, they want to ban gun shows - TO LIMIT THE POLITICAL POWER OF A GROUP THAT DOESN'T TEND TO VOTE DEMOCRAT.

If we (the orgs I work with, NRA, GOA, etc, we're all going to be on board for this) can get that message out to the public and hence to Arnold, we can expect a veto on it.

Jim March
January 3, 2004, 03:15 AM
Pendragon: at this point, the disadvantages of a midnight shred session are outweighed by the utter destruction of DOJ's credibility in court should they try.

If they shred before the next hearing, they'll lose the main case. If that happens, we can have the court order them to re-create the records by querying the local agencies. THAT would turn into more fun than a barrel full of monkeys on crack :D.

Now, if we hadn't done this hearing today, and DOJ's lawyers hadn't made promises not to shred, we'd have been screwed. Their case would be stronger - still dire, but with a chance of winning despite shredding. If they shred AND win the main case, well THEN we'd be screwed.

As is, we're in very good shape.

Langenator
January 3, 2004, 09:56 AM
While they didn't make the sigs, they proved we COULD. And they did it in large part by gathering signatures at gun shows.

I don't live in CA anymore, nor even claim it as my state of residence, but my folks still do, so I do pay attention to what goes on there. Any chance of doing a similar referendum to add an RKBA clause to the state constitution?

I recomend lifting Maine's: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms, and this right shall never be questioned." Art I, SS 16. Enacted in 1987.

Quartus
January 3, 2004, 10:19 AM
Any chance We have a friend in Sacto.?


Not in Arnold. He's as much our friend as Barbara Boxer. Well, maybe not quite THAT bad. He's not going to spend much energy in going after our rights, but believe this:

He's not going to spend ONE PENNY of political capital to help us.


If perchance he does come down on our side from time to time, follow the money. He'll only do so if he thinks there's something in it for him.


Remember who his advisors are/were: Prominent liberals like Willie Brown, Warren Buffet, Pete Wilson, and Richard Riordan. These folks are all antis.

(Yes, I know those last two call themselves Rebublicans. Your point?)


That should clear up any illusions that you had.

Jim March
January 3, 2004, 12:26 PM
Langenator: funny you should mention that:

http://www.caproprkba.org/

The language Don Kilmer wrote for the last effort is what they'll be trying again, and it's GOOD stuff.

Quartus: you're being too harsh. WAY too harsh.

Arnold cannot constitutionally control the actions of an independent elected statewide official like Lockyer. Saying that it's "won't" instead of "can't" is slander.

Jim March
January 3, 2004, 12:46 PM
Meanwhile, we have another SacBee story:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/8039071p-8974800c.html

Judge: Weapons permit data safe

He says no evidence will be destroyed as lawsuit proceeds.

By Ramon Coronado and Denny Walsh -- Bee Staff Writers

Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 3, 2004

A temporary restraining order to prevent the state attorney general's office from destroying records of concealed weapons permits was rejected Friday by a Sacramento Superior Court judge.

Judge Raymond M. Cadei said the restraining order wasn't necessary because any possible evidence will be preserved for the hearing on the permanent injunction, which was set for Jan. 26.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation are seeking an injunction to block the new law, which frees the state Department of Justice from keeping applications for concealed weapons permits issued by California's sheriffs and police chiefs.

Daniel M. Karalash, who filed the suit, told the judge that during a previous legislative hearing on the new law, officials from the attorney general's office stated that they would destroy the records.

Deputy Attorney General Geoffrey Graybill said the law doesn't require the department to automatically destroy the records and that there are no immediate plans to dispose of them.

Other officials from the attorney general's office maintain that keeping the records is a burden and that the same records are available at local law enforcement agencies.

The gun-rights advocates say they need the centrally located records to prove what they describe as statewide abuse in the issuance of permits to carry concealed weapons. They claim ethnic minorities and women are discriminated against and preferential treatment is given to campaign contributors.

In a companion suit filed this week in federal court, Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas is accused of collecting more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from concealed weapon permit holders in the county. Blanas is also accused of favoring those with law enforcement ties.

On Friday, Sacramento County Undersheriff John McGinness said while judges and retired police officers and prosecutors generally qualify for permits, there is no correlation between contributions to Blanas and permits being issued.

He said that all 440 current permits from the department are renewals initially issued during the tenures of previous sheriffs.

Eight percent of the permit holders have contributed to Blanas' campaign organization at one time or another, he added.

"Obviously, someone who exercises his constitutional right to financially support a candidate for public office can't be precluded because of that from holding a concealed weapon permit if he otherwise qualifies," McGinness said.

The federal suit was filed on behalf of David K. Mehl, identified as a chemical engineer with no criminal record who works for the state. It seeks an injunction against the Sheriff's Department barring discrimination in the handling of applications for concealed weapon permits.

Mehl, 38, claims his application for a permit was rejected for no good reason.

McGinness said department records show Mehl submitted an incomplete application, which was rejected based on the lack of required information. More recently, he added, Mehl submitted what appears to be a copy of the same application, with the same information missing.

The undersheriff said a panel of two captains and a chief deputy consider and rule on applications. Appeals from the panel go to a second chief deputy. Blanas has no role in the process, he stressed.

"The system, which goes back to (former Sheriff) Glen Craig, acts as a fire wall to protect the sheriff from baseless allegations such as the ones in this lawsuit," McGinness said.


About the Writer
---------------------------

The Bee's Ramon Coronado can be reached at (916) 321-1191 or rcoronado@sacbee.com.

Zundfolge
January 3, 2004, 01:48 PM
So Jim, what are you going to do if they decide to "sweep this under the rug" by passing Shall Issue CCW? :evil:

Ya know, enough legal pressure on the right people could make that happen.

Jim March
January 3, 2004, 02:27 PM
We're not going to get shall-issue out of the legislature UNLESS the current legicritters stonewall Arnold's economic initiatives, and the voters realize it's happening.

In that case, the state legislative elections of '04 and '06 will be bloodbaths, with the Dems losing control over one or even both houses (Senate and Assembly).

This isn't all that unlikely. At present, Arnold has more "credibility points" than the legislature, yet the legislature is playing the same old games. If they don't wise up in a hurry, they're going to get creamed.

DJ E.
January 3, 2004, 02:45 PM
Jim-I'm sorry, my mind is simple. The way I understand the article is that they have centrally located records but are not required by law to keep them. What is stopping them from just destroying the records anyway, and when they go to court they just claim that the few records they have left are the only ones they've ever had on record? Mind clearing that up for me. Sorry:uhoh:

Jim March
January 3, 2004, 03:08 PM
No problem.

First, they've made a promise to a judge not to trash the records. ON THAT BASIS, he withheld the temporary restraining order. If they trash the stuff, they're toast in court later.

Second, sure, they physically could trash PART of the records. But there ain't no way in HELL they'll do that.

Ya know why?

Because the most damning thing about the records is that they're INCOMPLETE. Look, DOJ was supposed to be compiling this crap starting 1/1/99. You know when they ACTUALLY started?

Summer of '02.

Swear to God, Randy Rossi told me that personally in a phone call. See, when I started asking for this stuff, they went back and looked at both their records, and the actual law...and went "whoops!".

Then there's the equally illegally poor record-keeping by local law enforcement, most of which are total goofs with this crap.

It'll be a major egg-on-face situation for EVERYBODY involved in CCW.

Don't get me wrong, there's still some juicy stuff IN there and we want it. Esp. the current names of permitholders. But the sickest part of the records is what's NOT there.

That's what the cover-up is about, folks. DOJ doesn't want to admit a monumental failure in legally required record-keeping.

So the last thing they'll do is make it worse by trashing records :).

If they cover up this woeful lack of proper records by SAYING they trashed part or all between 1/1/04 and the hearing date (1/26/04, probably) then they get around the illegal poor records problem by convincing the court they're a howling pack 'o liars. And then when the court orders them to query local law enforcement to re-create the DOJ's archives, they're basically back to square one and pathetic records caused by local law enforcement.

Oh, what a sweet pickle :D.

DJ E.
January 3, 2004, 06:37 PM
Ahh, I understand now. Sounds like this is about to get juicy! Good job Jim!

DJ

Carnitas
January 3, 2004, 10:58 PM
Jim,

If you're successful in getting ahold of the DOJ records what uses will the data be put to?

Jim March
January 4, 2004, 12:24 AM
There's basically four areas we'll look at:

1) Records which ain't there, but should be. This will be based in part on people who tell me they've been denied, but they're missing in the records. Each of these people will then have a CHOICE to go public, join in a lawsuit or whatever. I'd ask permission even before using their case in a presentation to the legislature.

2) We'll get the full lists of names of approved people, in many cases the FIRST complete access to that we've ever had for a given jurisdiction, and run the names past major contributor logs. I'll do that myself where possible, or rely on other gun rights activists who have been active for a LONG time and promise not to release names without consulting myself and the Sacramento legal team. Only the most blatant and obvious of cronies would be named after that process. The vast majority of California's permitholders aren't cronies of any sort, and we'd never publish their names.

3) "Good cause data" will be scrutinized for "obvious cronyism and bias" on the sheriff's/chief's part. Really disgusting examples (references to campaign contributions as a reason for issuance have been spotted!) will be displayed...but no full archive would ever be released. Don Perata's "good cause statement" is an example of a really obnoxious specimen and I had no qualms at all about releasing it (and cheered when Matt Drudge picked it up). But for such release, it's either gotta be close to that bad, or it's got to be REALLY obvious that virtually all of a given sheriff's permits are crony-related (Rupf in Contra Costa, fr'instance...I'm not prepared to say for sure that ALL of Blanas' permits in Sacramento are that bad, as I don't have the full data yet).

4) Denial data - we'll do statistical analysis of the rate of female and Latino denied folks via name analysis...this would not threaten anybody's privacy. If the stats are VERY shocking, we'll get an unbiased academic somewhere to oversee their own analysis, with their promise not to release names. Individual denied minority/female applicants might be invited to join discrimination lawsuits at no cost - again, this would be completely voluntary.

That's about it.

Does anybody have a problem with the above?

Gray Peterson
January 4, 2004, 02:16 AM
Does anybody have a problem with the above?

My question is: What's the final endgame here? It's good that you want to expose the data that the CCW laws as it's being enforced is racist and sexist, but to what end is this lawsuit being filed? Is it to basically force a "shall-issue by court order" deal?

Pendragon
January 4, 2004, 03:34 AM
Allow me :)

The end game is this:

Equal Protection

The Federal Case law dealing with equal protection issues is well established. If a law is disproportionally affecting one race or gender - even if there is no intent to do so, then the law is illegal.

The CA CCW law has been modified to not look as racist as it did when it was first enacted, but probably 70% or better of the permits are going to wealthy white men.

Equal protection law was a big stick for the liberals over the past few decades, now we are going to pick up that big stick and very possible make the practice of discretionary issue illegal in America.

Imagine discretionary issue in any of the following areas:

Business License
Marriage License
Drivers License
Hunting License
Access to credit and housing
Welfare

Thats a tiny list. Most people would not tolerate going in to get their drivers license and having to have an interview with someone who gives them the license based on whether they think they need it or not. Everyone has bias and no man is fit to determine such things in a free and equal society - even if the issuing person was able to remain 100% objective, even the APPEARANCE of bias would create problems - as it is doing right now. Blanas may be trying to issue "fairly" if strictly, but it is impossible for him to appear that way - thus it is impossible for us to be certain.

If we can wield the power of Equal Protection, we have a chance. The liberals will not listen to us when we recite the 2ndA or toss out prim little cold dead hands saying - they just do not care.

But when we demand that whatever the gun permit system is - it must be fair and treat everyone equally, then we got 'em.

I suspect a lot of 'em are not too happy about a bunch of hispanic and asian and black young men getting gun permits - but they also cannot stand to hear about discrimination.

That is why the only real tactic they have is to ignore, divert, redirect, bury and ignore again. If you can put their nose in it, they have to give in.

RKCheung
January 4, 2004, 07:00 AM
What if they declare "may-issue" permits illegal under equal protection and we just end up with "no-issue" instead? I guess it wouldn't really matter that much for me anyway since LA is practially no-issue already...

Pendragon
January 4, 2004, 09:58 AM
That is a possibility - but VERY unlikely.

Right now, there are a LOT of connected/wealthy/important/famous people with permits. Not to mention all the retired LEOs - these guys are not going to want to give up CCW and they will apply pressure to the needed soft spots.

At worst, they would just come up with a heavily restricted CCW system - with lots of exclusions and pitfalls for the unwary.

Jim March
January 4, 2004, 10:05 AM
First, Pendragon missed one thing: in order to have a law (or piece of a law) thrown off the books as producing a racial disparity, if the disparity is "accidental" in modern times (or you can't prove it's deliberate!) you have to go back and find a deliberate racist purpose in the law's creation.

Fortunately, in the case of the original 1923 Callifornia CCW law, we can meet that burden.

More good news:

The 1923 law had a "severability clause" thrown in. That means that if one piece of it is thrown out, the rest stays. They did that because even back in '23, they had qualms about it's constitutionality - see also the last page of this file for a 1923 SF Examiner article showing racial bias and discussing this issue:

http://www.equalccw.com/AB462.PDF

This has already happened once! In the 1972 California Appelate Court case of People vs. Rappard (http://www.equalccw.com/rappard.txt) the court threw out the portion of the 1923 law that discriminated against legal alien residents in both gun ownership and criminal penalties for packing without a permit (which they couldn't get anyways before the Rappard case). Those pieces were thrown out as "discrimination on the basis of national origin".

So ultimately, our goal is to throw out the remaining "bad bit" - the discretionary element, leaving in the objective requirements and hence ending up with shall-issue.

Now, is there a risk the legislature would then try and end all permits?

Somewhat, BUT keep in mind that Arnold has put the Dems seriously on the ropes (well, more like Davis' incompetence did it but nevermind) and the 40,000ish current permitholders are a VERY wealthy bunch...a lot of millionaires in there, several billionaires. Piss THAT bunch off, and the California GOP is going to see a big flood of money in retaliation.

Will the Dems risk that?

:evil:

No, the two lawsuits in progress now won't get us there statewide, although Gary has a chance at reforming Sacramento County by court order. David Kopel's opinion is that we'll need several successful local discrimination suits before taking on the whole law statewide.

Both current suits are critical steps along the way. Of the two, I'd say the fight against AB1044 is critical because without the data, we'll never go all the way.

Final thought: whoever wrote AB1044 screwed up. They left out a severability clause. We only need to find ONE thing wrong to junk it all :D.

Carnitas
January 4, 2004, 10:29 AM
Jim March wrote:

That's about it.
Does anybody have a problem with the above?

What about the isse of of LEO permits. I'd imagine that a significant portion of the existing permits are retired LEO's. I dont for a second begrudge them the right to carry, but if the legislature moved to a "no issue" stance, would the permiting of ex-LEO's also be a violation of equal protection?


Another thing that occurs to me, kind of an aside really, is the racial profiling data that departments currently collect on vehicle stops. I did a ride along with a buddy. After every stop he has to enter a little bit of demographic data about the people he stopped and where he stopped them. This is deemed to be necessary and approriate, I gather, because the stops are "discretionary". The data provides a check and balance against the improper (racist, sexist, ageist) use of that discretion. With that as a premise it would seem entirely reasonable for LEO's to be required to collect similar data for their permit applicants which they will also handle on a discretionary basis. That would sure make your job easier eh?

Jim March
January 4, 2004, 10:50 AM
OK, right now what I'm focused on is discrimination in the "normal CCW issuance process" - Penal Codes 12050 - 12054.

There's a separate shall-issue system under 12027 for various types of retired cops (difference sections for retired Feds, locals, etc.).

I've not been one to harp on that. And the lawsuit that myself, CCRKBA and SAF are involved in is NOT going after those records at the state or local level. We're dealing purely with 12050 - 54 issues.

BUT...well, the one point that Gary Gorski won in Silveira was that setting up easy access to "assault weapons" for retired cops versus ordinary folks IS an equal protection violation. That gives him an obvious opening to discuss the same disparity in CCW and I've heard he may be "going there" in his discrimination lawsuit against Blanas. I have mixed feelings about that, but...oh well, nothing I can do about it.

The good news is, he's not going to need to get or publish data on those 12027 folks. NONE are issued on a "crony basis" the way 12050 - 54 permits are handled, and the law on what's going on speaks for itself. So there's no possibility of privacy rights violations on those people.

Langenator
January 4, 2004, 02:53 PM
Jim-

Are you planning on doing any sort of geographical analysis of denied vs granted permits (ie, the Contra Costa Cty Sherriff granted all the permits in Blackhawk, but none in Richmond)? I know you mentioned looking for redlining at some point, but I didn't see it in the more recent 'what we're going to do with the data' post.

Jim March
January 4, 2004, 03:50 PM
Ah, that's a VERY good idea. Missed that :). (Hey, never said I was perfect.)

The only problem is that the worse the sheriff is in general at CCW handling, the less denial data I think they'll generate. And Rupf of Contra Costa is right at the bottom along with Blanas of Sacramento, Laurie Smith in Santa Clara, etc.

So it might not be possible in all cases. But in the counties where it isn't, we'll have proof of suggestively illegal records keeping.

Another thing: in Contra Costa County itself, we don't need that. We have the written cross-jurisdictional agreement whereby Rupf agrees not to issue at ALL to the lower-income, higher-minority-population towns. It's called the "Contra Costa Police Chiefs Association Model CCW Protocol" and we have one copy from 1999 under the current rules. See also:

http://www.equalccw.com/cccc2.pdf (esp. starting page 6 - "SPPD" is the San Pablo Police Department, the agency which responded to a Chuck Michel PRAR with this document)

MikeHaas
January 5, 2004, 08:44 AM
Now this is precious! These two "send us money instead pro-gun groups" are trying to HELP THE GOVERNMENT KEEP LISTS OF GUN-OWNERS after NRA got a law passed to destroy these databases! There is so much wrong with what SAF and CCRKBA are trying to do here, and all because of Jim March's antics.

For the truth about AB1044, see:

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

and

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml


From their "press announcement" (pressing others for cash, more like it).

>
> SAF and CCRKBA filed for a temporary restraining order against Attorney
> General Bill Lockyer and DoJ Director Randy Rossi and their agencies. The
> two organizations want to prevent destruction of records under the
> guidelines of AB 1044, a new law that allows the state to destroy permit
> applications.

No, it REQUIRES the state to destroy it's lists of CCW applicants data.
Every list of gun-owners that the government maintains is a bad thing. I am incrtedulous that ANY gun-owners actually WANTS to be on a government list!?!

>
> "Normally," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, "we would fight to protect the
> privacy of gun owners, but this is not a normal situation.

Ignore the spin - Gottlieb is saying that he no longer cares about the privacy of gun-owners. (There's FUNDRAISING to do!)

> If those records
> are destroyed, it could prevent California gun owners from ever finding
out
> whether they have been the victims of ethnic or gender discrimination in
> their attempts to secure concealed pistol licenses.

Not true. As always, every CCW applicant who is rejected receives written notice with the reasons for rejection. Gottlieb wants that data (which could be very damaging to the CCW applicants) to be made PUBLIC via a governemnt database! (paid for with our taxes!)

CCW applicant data is available via FOIA requests, like always. And the CCW applicant that was rejected should have SOME SAY in what happens to their rejection data without March or Gottlieb (or anti-gunners!) taking that info and doing anything with it (like entering it as evidence in a court case!)

If Gottlieb want to see why a person is rejected, he should have to ask THAT PERSON for the reason. Gottlieb shouldn't be able to take that personal info and do anything with it without permission. Same for VPC, DOJ, Jim March and anyone else.

Any group that would support government lists of gun-owners and casually setting aside your privacy rights over some perceived benefit isn't clear on the concept of individual rights. Their own claims use words like "COULD" and "MAY BE" - and for that they set aside your privacy?

>
> "This is an important issue," he added, "because there have already been
> indications of racial and gender imbalances in the issuance of concealed
> carry licenses."

If true, betraying the privacy concerns of gun-owners is NOT an answer. Mr. Gottlieb is not telling you that more counties issue CCW's freely in CA than not, because some people are trying to make careers and monies off this issue.

>
> CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron said his organization joined in the
> lawsuit after having opposed the legislation for the very reasons Gottlieb
> stated.

There is NO good reason to support the government's attempt to maintain lists of gun-owners. If they think this helps them uncover CCW abuse, I remind these lazy researchers of the efforts of John Lott, who personally researched data from EVERY COUNTY IN THE US over a ten-year period.

John Lott didn't betray the privacy of gun-owners to aquire HIS data.

>
> "California gun rights activists advised us months ago that there appears
to
> be a pattern of discrimination against some permit applicants," Waldron
> said, "There may be an even larger pattern of entire communities, with
high
> minority populations, having been completely 'red-lined' by local sheriffs
> for blanket non-issue of permits to anyone living in those communities.

This isn't true - this is only because of Jim March, who until a few years ago, was a FERRET activist and had zero connection to the RKBA cause. His tactic of pissing off every law enforcement official in the state against gun-rights (by suing them) has caused him to be alienated by credible pro-gun organizations.

This is because when NRA protected gun-owner privacy by getting AB1044 passed, it threw a big monkey works in March's plans. Apparently he doesn't WANT to exert effort like John Lott, instead preferring the governemnt hand him what he wants on a silver platter. The problem is, the government hands the SAME data on the SAME silver platter to anti-gun forces! (Neither March nor Gottlieb care about THAT aspect of what they are trying.) There is nothing to prevent VPC from publishing the lists of perople who apply for CCW in a newpaper ad, for example, or use potentially damaging rejection informatoion against those applicants.

>
> "We're asking for a temporary restraining order to stop implementation of
> the law," Waldron explained, "while the court has an opportunity to review
> our request for a permanent order. Ultimately, we would like to see this
law
> overturned in favor of a law protecting the equal rights of all California
> gun permit applicants, regardless of race or gender."

This is amazing - that the government would protect the rights of gun-owners by ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC DATABASE OF CCW APPLICANTS? What planet are Jim March and Gottlieb living on?

Mike Haas - mike@muzzleenergy.com
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
(510) 223-5207 Voice & FAX
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://AmmoGuide.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/

Gray Peterson
January 5, 2004, 09:34 AM
You are treading on thin ice with your flaming of March on this issue. The problem is that destroying the evidence in the central repository of the state agency of the CCW denial records would not allow gun owners to live SAFE in California. Have you forgotten that California is a corrupt, may issue state? Have you forgotten that CBS v. Block required good cause issuance and other data to be public because they smelled a rat and believed it was possible that there was unconstitutional discrimination involved here?

Until California becomes a shall-issue state by either court order or state law, I don't believe at this point that all denial records and all records of who has permits should be privitized, to do exactly what March and Gottlieb are trying to do: Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a majority of permit holders in certain counties are overwhelmingly campaign contributers and promoting illegal discrimination. I'm sorry, but lack of campaign contributions should NEVER be a barrier to get something that can defend your life LEGALLY. Cal NRA and the members councils in California can wrap this up in "protecting the gun owner" all you want in the counties that freely issue permits, but what good is it if no one can get permits where they need it the most? Like LA County? Or San Francisco? Or Sacramento? Or San Diego?

MikeHaas
January 5, 2004, 10:40 AM
>You are treading on thin ice with your flaming of March on this issue.

Must be a case of the truth hurting too much. I'm flabbergasted that you want to be put on a government list.

>The problem is that destroying the evidence in the central repository of the state agency of the CCW denial records would not allow gun owners to live SAFE in California.

Huh? You think that what happens with AB1044 will determine if you are SAFE or not? Oh, my, you have certainly ingested a lot of hype about this.

>Have you forgotten that California is a corrupt, may issue state?

No.

>Have you forgotten that CBS v. Block required good cause issuance and other data to be public because they smelled a rat and believed it was possible that there was unconstitutional discrimination involved here?

It was "possible"? And you want to betray the privacy of every CCW applicant in the state over what MIGHT BE? So you'll give up some rights for a possible gain? WHich ones are you willing to sacrifice? Me? Not any.

Have you forgotten that governemnt lists of gun-owners are to be avoided at all costs? The violation of privacy that March & Co. want to perpetrate on you, for some PERCEIVED benefit that may not even be there, is foolishness at it's height.

I have had gun-owners afraid to join NRA because they are afarid of being put on any list. That's why NRA's leaders have promised to go to jail if necessary to protect the privacy of it's membership...

"...We have never and will never release our membership information. We will not release ten names nor one single name, period..."

Former NRA President Marion Hammer
http://nrawinningteam.com/0101/florida.html

This is very amatuerish of SAF and CCRKBA. They should know better than to listen to Jim March.

>Until California becomes a shall-issue state by either court order or state law, I don't believe at this point that all denial records and all records of who has permits should be privitized, to do exactly what March and Gottlieb are trying to do:

You want to be put on a government list? You want the world to be able to know why you were rejected without you having any say about it? What about gun-owners who are rejected for VALID REASONS? Just because they asked to carry a weapon concealed, they should now have forgotten negative aspects of their background - MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS - now popping up to cause them grief in their lives decades later?

And you want the government to use YOUR TAXES to provide that info to every Tom, Dick amd Jim with a political agenda?

Have YOU forgotten?

We all know CCW abuse happens. Giving up your privacy is no way to improve matters.

Have March et al. put some shoe leather on the ground like John Lott did. Use the FOIA to get that info. We don't need to betray the privqcy of EVERY CCW APPLICANT IN THE STATE for what Jim March thinks might be there. In all of his lawsuits, he hasn't been right yet.

>Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a majority of permit holders in certain counties are overwhelmingly campaign contributers and promoting illegal discrimination. I'm sorry, but lack of campaign contributions should NEVER be a barrier to get something that can defend your life LEGALLY. Cal NRA and the members councils in California can wrap this up in "protecting the gun owner" all you want in the counties that freely issue permits, but what good is it if no one can get permits where they need it the most? Like LA County? Or San Francisco? Or Sacramento? Or San Diego?

I agree CCW abuse is a problem. But you want to BETRAY THE PRIVACY OF THOSE CCW APPLICANTS for an agenda that is unproven and many think anti-productive.

March has done more harm alienating law enforcement to gun rights issues than anyone in the last 5 years. And he has totally blown his credibility at the capitol with his misrepresentation about AB1044 last year. (Legislators don't like misrepresentations in testimony.)

It's been a long time since March had a win... years, in fact. The only one I know of is his accidental exposure of the MMM financial dealings (and I still see MMM all over California - they are trying to ban .50 caliuber rifles in my own county!). As far as CCW reform - zero progress. And remember, I've know Jim March for years, since he first became involved in CCW issues. I gave him a job for awhile when he needed one! He started out a member of my Members' Council! His first lawsuit was against my county sheriff. Needless to say, I haven't had much luck getting the sheriff to see things our way now.

Turning law enforcement against gun rights is no way to get CCW. You have to understand how complex this issue is. Progress will be slow and it will take years, but these inflammatory lawsuits and attacks just cause law enforcement to band together against us, and we need their support with other gun control issues - ones that there is a much better chance for progress than CCW issuance. CCW reform will happen in due time but that isn't now.

I'm as frustrated as anyone with my inability to get a CCW. I live in Contra Costa County - one of the real hotbeds of anti-gun activity in California. See
http://NRAMembersCouncils/com/contracosta/

AB1044 did other good things = it isolated CADOJ from interfering with local CCW policies and injecting their items on local forms. It's absolutely UNREAL that any pro-gun organization would support a government list of any kind of gun-owner for ANY reason. Talk about the upltimate compromise!!!

Mike Haas - mike@muzzleenergy.com
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
(510) 223-5207 Voice & FAX
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://AmmoGuide.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/

Bruce H
January 5, 2004, 10:56 AM
Sniff sniff, do I smell the odor of a political contribution that someone doesn't want unearthed?

Mute
January 5, 2004, 11:49 AM
Put on a government list? If the NRA has been doing **********ns such great favors why don't they try to eliminate the registration of handguns. I don't see myself being removed from that list anytime soon do to the NRA's great efforts.

I don't question the NRA's motives. I do question their conclusions.

MikeHaas
January 5, 2004, 12:04 PM
> I'm as frustrated as anyone with my inability to get a CCW. I live in Contra Costa County - one of the real hotbeds of anti-gun activity in California.

Ok - for those on highroad.org that DON'T READ posts before attacking, I'd like to point out one of my last comments above...

"...I'm as frustrated as anyone with MY INABILITY to get a CCW. I live in Contra Costa County - one of the real hotbeds of anti-gun activity in California..."

I don't have a CCW. I wouldn't pay $700 to get one while people more in need can't have one becausxe they don;t make enough money.

You see, I'm as dedicated to CCW reform as Jim March is, and have been longer. But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if you pardon the use of an old, but very appropriate, saw.

I was trying to help NRA pass CCW reform legislation at the capitol when Jim March was trying to own a ferret. It lost because it was too much, too soon. Only within the last year have we been able to pass any pro-gun bills. Five. See
http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/sum2003.shtml

Yes, contrary to the pablum that Jim March is feeding you, AB1044 is one of those pro-gun bills. IT PROTECTS THE PRIVACY OF CCW APPLICANTS AND ISOLATES LOCAL CCW PROCEDURES FROM CADOJ INTERFERENCE.

Jim March isn't doing any gun-owners any favors, folks. Look at the big picture. After all, many of you also own hunting rifles with scopes (sniper rifles) and large-caliber (read: .50 cal) handguns and BMG target rifles ("favorites of terrorists for attacking oil refineries", didn't you know?)

IMO. March's tactics make it harder to get law enforcement support for pro-gun issues and therefore makes it less likely we will be able to continue to pass pro-gun bills and kill bad ones. This lawsuit will threaten goodwill we've gained with some legislators this year. For just one example, the state-wide .50 cal. ban failed because Senator McPherson changed his vote from a YES to a NO in the Senate Public Safety Committee. Sen. McPherson HAD NEVER VOTED WITH NRA BEFORE. We asked NRA members to thank the senatpor, and they did. POoliticians really like enthusiastic "thank you"s.

In the big picture, theses antics may be blowing a lot political credibility for "gun owners" in the eyes of legislators and law enforcement, all for an issue that is unlikely to move much in the near future anyway for political reasons. In fact, he may be hurting the advancement of CCW issues overall - every state that gained shall-issue did so through the legislature. NONE did it via lawsuit. And remember, the courts can be notoriously political, and I haven't seen any CCW victories by Mr. March's tactics in the past.

SOMEONE ought to point out that YOU IGNORE THESE FACTS AT THE PERIL OF YOUR RIGHTS.

Mike Haas - mike@muzzleenergy.com
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
(510) 223-5207 Voice & FAX
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://AmmoGuide.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/

dav
January 5, 2004, 12:06 PM
MikeHaas wrote:
It's absolutely UNREAL that any pro-gun organization would support a government list of any kind of gun-owner for ANY reasonMike, I have a real problem deciphering your meaning on this.

I bought a gun in California. I had to register both it and myself. I was fingerprinted. This is standard operating procedure (ie: "the law") in California at this time.

I am already ON the list. No, not the CCW list, it is obvious that I would never qualify in San Diego, so have not bothered applying.

But the government knows who I am, where I live, how much I earn, and how many guns I own.

So what is your point?

The NRA, as far as I can tell, approves of NICS. Isn't this just a big database of "gunowners and other criminals"? How is what you are saying not self-contradictory?

Second smaller point. Why is it good that CCW be at the local level instead of the state level? I would prefer it be uniform state-wide. Why do you believe it is better left up to local law enforcement how CCW is done?

David Row
San Diego

MikeHaas
January 5, 2004, 01:02 PM
>Mike, I have a real problem deciphering your meaning on this.
>
>I bought a gun in California. I had to register both it and myself. I was fingerprinted. This is standard operating procedure (ie: "the law") in California at this time.

(Thank you for the focused questions, David.)

It has been so since 1913, I believe. DOJ can't even find many of the pre-computer records. :)

>I am already ON the list. No, not the CCW list, it is obvious that I would never qualify in San Diego, so have not bothered applying.

First, good question. But you actually answered it.

First, "The state list" is not open to the public. You and I can't get to it, Jim March can't get to it, VPC, HCI, etc can't get to it - only DOJ can, and well, they are supposed to be accountable under the law (which, if not, is another matter).

Now, I don't speak for NRA - I'm a volunteer (a very highly-connected volunteer, but still a volunteer) but have heard it stated many times that NRA never supports government lists. They didn't support this one, and worked successfully to destroy it. That's called CONSISTENCY. I take that to mean that if there were a chance in political hell, they would get the CA state list destroyed too. But who doubts that just can't happen right now, and I don't want them spending our dues on dumb battles, do you?

They were able to kill this list, so money well spent. The PUBLIC ones are the worst in many ways.

Remember, federal law prevents the federal gov. from keeping any list of gun-owners, but Janet Reno did it anyway. The length those records are kept has been a constant bone of contention ever since. Why? IMO - because we can win there (and did just recently).

One HAS to "fight smart" as well as "hard". Fighting losing battles, well, buys you nothing. (Unlless you can maybe get some temporary financial support for making it look like you are fighting the good fight and saving the world from the evil NRA, who is always compromising... yadda... yadda....)

>But the government knows who I am, where I live, how much I earn, and how many guns I own.

>So what is your point?

the point is made above. While still objectionable, the state list is not directly usable by forces that might want to harm gun-owners, unless it's a government agency, and that should be trackable. And we can't so anything about that list right now, but that doesn;t mean we should start SUPPORTING PUBLIC DATABASES OF GUN OWNERS. That's insane.

>The NRA, as far as I can tell, approves of NICS. Isn't this just a big database of "gunowners and other criminals"? How is what you are saying not self-contradictory?

Again, it's not a public database and...

Fighting smart. Again, no NRA line here (just my opinion), but remember how NICS came about. After 10 years of defeating the Brady Bill under Reagan and Bush Sr., in'93, the first year Clinton was pres (with a Dem Congress and Senate), NRA knew Brady was going to happen. So they worked WITH the system and managed to get NICS in there as an amendment. The national waiting period was no longer permanent. AFter 5 years, the Brady-imposed national waiting period just dried up, and the government was mandated to have a system in place that served to clear gun transactions INSTANTLY (well, 3 min). Do you think that was palatable to Sarah? It actually makes a statement that being able to buy guns is important enough for the gov to have a system, at great cost, to quickly give it the clearance it wanted.

I know NICS breaks down sometimes. But in CA, I have a 10-day waiting period (was 15 not too long ago) no matter what I buy. I would love for the CA gov to have NICs, instead of shoving a finger in my face everytime I want to buy another rifle, shotgun, doesn't matter - I wait 10 days EVERY TIME, EVERY GUN.

And I understand NICS is infinitely better than the alternative that Sarah designed. You don't think NRA proposed NICS out of the blue, did you?

>Second smaller point. Why is it good that CCW be at the local level instead of the state level? I would prefer it be uniform state-wide. Why do you believe it is better left up to local law enforcement how CCW is done?

Well, local law enforcement is typically much less influenced by politics and problems (read: less anti-gun) and YOU have a better chance of having a good relationship with local officers. As I saifd - more CA counties actually issue CCW freely than not, and not all of them are rural. Of COURSE there is rampant abuse in many of the metro areas. But a state system just imposes the evil of centralized control on those counties that are doing a good job. All of a sudden, those CCW-friendly sheriff who didn't charge exhorbitant rates are finding dictates from above. That's Jim March-style thinking. AB 1044 ISOLATES local agencies from such issues.

The issue is - is it effective to try to FORCE the system to allow state-wide shall issue by lawsuits and the like? I've come full circle and today, say definitely NOT.

Too costly, and not just financially - although every dollar spent on a losing lawsuit may have also helped elect an anti-gun legisltor over a pro-gun candidate by not being there for the pro-gun candidate. In any event, that dollar SURE DIDN'T HELP ANYTHING). The real cost is political. These "in your face", lawsuit-happy approach is not only a loser, but hurts LEO and other alliances.

And, just as we lost our rights, lets expect to gain them incrementally, and do what Jim seems unable to do anymore - work together toward that end...

http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/volunteer/

There are no magic pills, and that's what Jim has been trying to sell you.

>David Row
>San Diego

Thanks for the questions, David.

And again, for those that don't read messages before attacking...

THIS IS ALL MY OPINION - don't bother anyone at NRA about it if it ruffles your feathers the wrong way. In fact, I apologize if that happens, it's not my intent.

Mike Haas

...awww, you probably have seen the signature enough times. You all know I do web sites. :)

MikeHaas
January 5, 2004, 01:22 PM
>>The NRA, as far as I can tell, approves of NICS. Isn't this just a big database of "gunowners and other criminals"? How is what you are saying not self-contradictory?

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the NICS amendment NRA got added to Brady made it illegal to keep records of those transactions after the clearance was issued, which IN MY OPINION is CONSISTENT with AB 1044 - protecting gun-owner privacy.

Of course, Reno still kept them for 90 days under some "needed for maintenence of the system" reason, and NRA unsuccessfully sued (yeah - let's take CCW to the courts in CA!). But recently, DOJ has dropped that to either 24 or 48 hours, so it appears gains are being made in breaking down whatever administrative infrastructure the Clinton admionistration built that requires them.

If Jim has his pipe-dream, let's follow things through to their logical conclusion - what do you think will happen when CCW gets to the Ninth Circuit? Do you think CCW will become the law of the land, or will they use it like Silveira to ESTABLISH MORE CASE LAW AGAINST GUN-RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA?

Do you think RKBA amatuers taking gun-rights cases to court is a bad idea? I do.

Mike Haas

Jim March
January 5, 2004, 01:23 PM
Mike, you're a liar several times over in the above and on your website.

Let's start with...

No, it [Ed: AB1044] REQUIRES the state to destroy it's lists of CCW applicants data. Every list of gun-owners that the government maintains is a bad thing. I am incrtedulous that ANY gun-owners actually WANTS to be on a government list!?!

Sounds like the state will no longer know who's got CCW, right?

WRONG.

The state will still have the names of all the permitholders, their occupations, their addresses, phone numbers, issuing agency, date of issuance, what guns they hold on their permit...ALL of the information that is contained on the face of the actual CCW finished license will be retained by Cal-DOJ.

This deliberate twisting of the truth is a hallmark of what Haas/Payne/Worley have been saying about AB1044.

The data on approved permitholders that WILL be destroyed (and is clearly public record) is the "good cause" data. The good cause data is one of the keys to cracking this mess as it often contains ridiculous and embarassing material. Perata's "good cause" was so wild it made the Drudge Report.

Somebody must have told Haas that if you repeat a lie often enough:

Have you forgotten that governemnt lists of gun-owners are to be avoided at all costs?

Again: the lists of permitholders are NOT going to be destroyed. Read the actual law:

http://www.equalccw.com/ab1044fulltext.html

Yes, lists of denied applicants will be trashed at the state level. But there's more to it than that: many agencies aren't keeping these lists at all. Don't take my word for it: call up the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Alameda or Contra Costa sheriff's offices, ask to speak to the CCW application co-ordinator, and ask them how many files they have on denied applicants. Last I checked, the numbers were zero for all four. And these are BIG counties - Sac is 1.2mil population, SJ is 600k or so, Alameda 1.6mil, CC is a hair under a mil.

Because DOJ hasn't been asking for the data at the local level, the locals haven't been compiling it. With good reason: the discrimination would be far more easily tracked if that stuff existed.

Again: a large part of what the current lawsuit does is determine what Cal-DOJ does NOT have, but should!

CCW applicant data is available via FOIA requests, like always.

You mean from the local agencies? Sure, except the DOJ acted to seal the "good cause data" at the local agency level, by illegally rigging the CCW application form of 1999...at the request of some of the WORST sheriffs and police chiefs such as Larry Todd of Los Gatos and Rupf in Contra Costa.

Don't believe me? Check out DOJ's own memo to law enforcement on how to use the new forms, and the Santa Clara sheriff's office reply to a PRAR:

http://www.equalccw.com/dojevidence.html - note that in the "Concerns have been raised..." key paragraph, "Section 7" is where the "good cause data" goes - you can download the actual form here:

http://www.equalccw.com/appform.html

Or hey, let's look at another example:

http://www.equalccw.com/carona.jpg

See that reference to "exempt from public disclosure as law enforcement investigatory records"?

That's the game, folks. The part of the 1999 forms where the "good cause" data goes was subtitled "police investigator's notes", even though it's simply dictated by the applicant. They abused that "police notes" clause in the public records act to override the California Supreme Court. And they did it withough the required oversight under Government Code 11340 (see below).

Who's "they"? Well AG Lockyer was tasked with coming up with the forms, but it was the law enforcement advisory panel that came up with this scam. In addition to the aforementioned Rupf and Todd, the NRA's "best friend", Sheriff Carona of Orange County was also a panel member and also clearly using this abuse to his advantage.

Thanks, "NRA friend" Carona. :cuss:

March has done more harm alienating law enforcement to gun rights issues than anyone in the last 5 years. And he has totally blown his credibility at the capitol with his misrepresentation about AB1044 last year. (Legislators don't like misrepresentations in testimony.)

I didn't misrepresent anything. That'll be proven soon enough.

As to "alienating law enforcement", the sheriffs that are acting like Barbary Coast Pirates (maybe 30 - 40%) have indeed been buying limits to the NRA's criticism of their CCW handling by coming out (with the California State Sheriff's Association) against new gun control. They were verbally against the "Assault Weapon" bill, the "junk gun" bill and others. (The counterpart police chief's group has remained firmly in support of every muddle-headed bit of tripe Perata and the rest can work up a drunken stupor for.)

Fat lot of good it's done! I can't think of a single bill stopped because of the sheriff's group's opposition. Hell, Randy Rossi tried to stop the San Mateo gun show ban by speaking to the Board of Supes down there...good for him, but they didn't listen.

Don Kates, Chuck Michel and others have decided that the courts are rigged too badly against us even for an equal protection win. I think they're wrong and so do a lot of others including David Kopel, Clayton Cramer and a variety of attorneys.

Not true. As always, every CCW applicant who is rejected receives written notice with the reasons for rejection.

And you think this is actually happening? Consistently?

Got bad news for ya: after my first lawsuit, I applied with Richmond PD. By statute, they're supposed to make a decision in three months. In reality, it took 11 months, three letters and about 20+ phone calls to pry a decision out of 'em.

I've heard from numerous people who were just ignored.

Then, if the letter DOES get generated, you're assuming the agencies will keep the letters.

News flash: to date, not ONE area of illegality in CCW processing has been so much as spoken against by the AG's office. There are illegal fees, illegal procedures, illegal geographic redlining, illegal crap going on six ways from Sunday and DOJ says it ain't their job to do anything about it. It's madness. With absolutely no oversight of these agencies and DOJ actively helping cover up the problems, damned straight we need to take a look at what's going on. Nobody else is going to.

AB1044 did other good things = it isolated CADOJ from interfering with local CCW policies and injecting their items on local forms.

WHAT!?

Oh for God's sake.

Folks, DOJ illegally boogered the 1999 form. They sealed the "good cause data", overriding the state Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block using their "regulatory authority"...'cept in order to do craft regulations, they have to do public notice, public comments, etc. They didn't follow those rules (Gov't Code 11340 and forward). Having been caught at gross illegality, they stuck a piece in AB1044 saying they could do whatever they want with the forms without having to bother with the GC11340 stuff, effectively legalizing what they'd already hosed back in 1999. Again, read the law:

http://www.equalccw.com/ab1044fulltext.html

The text REMOVED by 1044:

-------------------
12051 (D) The Attorney General may adopt and enforce
regulations that are necessary, appropriate, or useful to
interpret and implement this paragraph pursuant to
Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of
Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Pending
the adoption of those regulations, the Attorney General
may adopt emergency regulations that shall become
effective immediately. The adoption of the emergency
regulations shall be subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing
with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of
the Government Code, and the emergency regulations shall
only be effective until June 30, 1999, or on the
effective date of the regulations adopted by the Attorney
General to implement this paragraph, whichever occurs
first, at which time the emergency regulations shall be
deemed to be repealed.
-------------------

...which was replaced with:

-------------------
The standard application form
described in subparagraph (A) is deemed to be a local
form expressly exempt from the requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 3.5 (commencing
with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of
the government Code.
-------------------

Folks, a major PROTECTION from abuse by the California DOJ was removed (the GC11340 public oversight provisions). The net result? DOJ can now booger the forms any which way they want, with no public oversight.

Thanks, NRA! :fire:

Don't take my word for it. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html - hit the checkbox for "Government Code", enter "11340" as a search term. Start reading. When I found this, I realized what sort of public oversight provisions DOJ ignored back in '99, and called 'em on it on 6/18/02. AB1044 is the DIRECT result. With NRA's blessing.

Finally, Mike repeatedly raises a boogey-man:

The problem is, the government hands the SAME data on the SAME silver platter to anti-gun forces! (Neither March nor Gottlieb care about THAT aspect of what they are trying.) There is nothing to prevent VPC from publishing the lists of perople who apply for CCW in a newpaper ad, for example, or use potentially damaging rejection informatoion against those applicants.

Horsecrap.

The LAST thing the grabbers want is any public attention on the California CCW issue.

At the meeting DOJ held on 6/18/02, HCI western regional manager Luis Tolley pretty much freaked out at my discussing CCW misconduct, and did his best to interrupt and shut me up.

CCW handling in this and other discretionary states does more than any other gov't action to show what's WRONG with gun control in general. When the NRA acted to help seal the records of what is going on, it warmed the cockles of Sarah Brady's smoke-blackened heart.

Could a newspaper print a statewide list of permitholders based on the DOJ data? Sure, but *why*? You know how much newsprint 40,000ish names take up!? They might print a LOCAL list, and there's nothing we can do about that before or after AB1044 as reporters can usually get most CCW data (except "good cause" stuff sealed by the DOJ's forms) without a hitch.

MicroBalrog
January 5, 2004, 01:26 PM
"We maintain tight control of this process," McGinness said

And that is good why?

Kharn
January 5, 2004, 01:28 PM
Do you think RKBA amatuers taking gun-rights cases to court is a bad idea? I do.

From my experiences, the bigshots usually refuse to get involved until there's a substantial amount of evidence. Gathering that evidence requires grass-roots activism, and we cant all be lawyers with 10-0 records before the Supreme Court on RKBA cases.

Kharn

MikeHaas
January 5, 2004, 01:46 PM
Here's a hypothetical I'd like the thread readers to think about for a moment...

Let's invent Joe, a nice guy who, years ago in one of those rash youthful moments, was convicted for some midemeanor, say possession of a small amount of marijuana.

Fast forward 35 years, and Joe has become the model of responsibility and an accomplished gun-owner. His non-violent misdemeanor conviction has never gotten in the way of enjoying firearms or affected his life in any way. He probably forgot all about it, and if not, hopes his kids never find out.

Now, even though Joe has heard he has little chance, he decides to apply at his local LE office for a CCW. No one is surprised that Joe is refused, but DOJ cites this misdemeanor conviction as the reason for denial.

WITH AB1044 - Joe receives written notification of his refusal, with the reason stated. Jim can find out via FOIA that Joe was refused. Jim contacts Joe and asks if he can know the reason for the refusal possibly for his lawsuit efforts. Were you Joe, would you let Jim use your info? Do you think people in Joe's position should have say in whther his info is used or not?

WITHOUT AB1044 - The fact that Joe was convicted of misdemeanor drug possession becomes public knowledge via Jim's database. Joe has no say in that fact - it happens only because he applied for a CCW. Talk about "Unintended Consequences!" And the fact that it IS a misdemeanor drug conviction probably means Jim wouldn't want Joe's denial info anyway - too hard to characterize as CCW abuse. Joe's private history is revealed without his permission, not only to his kids, but the world, and for what?

Now...

Do you think more or less people will apply for CCW (even in CCW-friendly areas) with AB1044?

Mike Haas

Bruce H
January 5, 2004, 01:56 PM
(Quote)
Turning law enforcement against gun rights is no way to get CCW. You have to understand how complex this issue is. Progress will be slow and it will take years, but these inflammatory lawsuits and attacks just cause law enforcement to band together against us, and we need their support with other gun control issues - ones that there is a much better chance for progress than CCW issuance. CCW reform will happen in due time but that isn't now (Quote)

Keep fiddling while California is burning Mr Nero Hass. Just what is your definition of due time. What is with the years of slow progress? Is that another way to state " throw money at us and we will piss it away". What other gun control issues? Don't you have enough gun control there now? Is somebody else playing in what you consider your sandbox? What happens to your funding if they win and win big.

Jim March
January 5, 2004, 01:56 PM
Microbalrog: the text you're quoting is a reference to the Sacramento Sheriff's Posse and CCW issuance.

They sure as hell DO maintain "tight control" - over the secrecy of the whole process.

First, Sheriff Blanas will not release the names (let alone "good causes") of any of his "law enforcement" permit holders - apparantly 190 or so split between "Level 1" (fully trained, able to do armed unsupervised uniformed policework) and "Level 3" (untrained, can do supervised crowd control under non-riot conditions and that's about it) reservists.

That's bad enough, but then he keeps the list of names of the Level 3s (basically cronies) in a separate location outside the sheriff's office at the offices of a private attorney.

That's downright creepy.

Getting THAT data is going to be like pulling teeth, even in a lawsuit discovery process (let alone Public Records Act Requests). Of course, Cal-DOJ is sitting on the same data but gee, they claim the same data that's public at the local level is private at theirs. Utter BS.

So why all the illegal secrecy on even the NAMES of the crony reservists on the parts of sheriffs?

One theory: a little-known clause in AB2022 (effective 1/1/99) allows a sheriff to issue CCW to anybody in the STATE, so long as he also makes 'em a reservist. Therefore, we may have situations where a sheriff is issuing to people from VERY anti-gun counties such as San Francisco via "Level 3" reserve deputy status. If it became public that this was going on, the continuing political alliance between the simply anti-gun police chiefs and sheriffs and the CORRUPT (mostly sheriffs) might break down.

As it is, they have both been publicly "anti-gun" and have worked in close cooperation.

In the PRAR response package Carona sent that applicant, the basic statistics Carnoa gave were enough to determine that a greater percentage of Carona's "Level 3s" had CCW than his Level 1s. Quite odd, considering it's the Level 1s with 700+ hours of mandated training. Carona won't release names on the reservists and trust me, there is no legal backing for him to do that. Makes me wonder how many permits he's issuing to bigwigs in LA County as "deputies", and what kind of mega-stink the LA Times would make of THAT if it got out.

Things that make ya go "hummmmmm"...

Ohhhhh ya, one more thing: according to BATF, there's 20,000 Class3 licensees in the state. Which is WAY more than there are movie props companies. Turns out "law enforcement" can own Class3s in this state.

How many of these crony reservists are scoring Class3?

:scrutiny:

Dunno, but I intend to find out.

Jim March
January 5, 2004, 02:09 PM
Regarding Mike Haas' "Joe":

The only thing I care about is Joe's last name for statistical purposes on Latino issuance, that he's a he (versus "Susan" or whatever) and that records ARE being kept.

I don't much care why people are being denied. Hell, I know personally that the denial data can be inaccurate as law enforcement tries to make up excuses not to issue. But that's not that common; the vast majority of denials are "you didn't meet the good cause requirement" or similar.

I have no reason to name "Joe" and neither does anybody else. The grabbers want no part of publicizing CCW issues so Joe is safe from them.

The only time I might approach "Joe" at all is if I know from other sources that he was denied (usually as in he EMailed me and told me) and his records are missing. In that case, he may have a slam-dunk due process violation proof that he might want to do something with...possibly including suing for all the fees he racked up in small claims court! That's up to him - I still wouldn't name him without permission. I would simply add him to the demographics statistics plus add a tally to the "improper records" column with his name stripped.

The worst that could possibly happen to him is that if the stats are wild enough, we'll arrange an academic study based on the raw data (including his name) with a professor who will promise to keep the raw data confidential.

Langenator
January 5, 2004, 02:52 PM
I don't quite buy Mr Haas' hypothetical "Joe"

-If Joe's conviction was when he was a juvenile, the record would have been sealed; no reason for denial.

-If it happened after Joe turned 18, it is a matter of public record and anyone who wants to know can find out anyway.

The strawman just doesn't make sense.

Jim March
January 5, 2004, 03:00 PM
A new opinion piece at:

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21479~1868775,00.html

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

Long Beach Press Telegram

Gun favoritism

New law on permitting only dodges the issue.

Saturday, January 03, 2004 - Among the slew of new laws dumped on Californians, the latest about concealed weapons has gun-rights groups up in arms, so to speak. And they have good reason.

The law, effective last week, stops the Justice Department from gathering information about people who apply for gun permits from local police agencies. This is just fine with the Justice Department, but not with supporters of gun rights.

This seems backward, but it isn't. The Justice Department is caught between one law that requires collecting the data, and another that requires keeping it confidential. By getting rid of the data, the department could avoid a steady stream of lawsuits.

That's convenient, but not necessarily good policy. Gun-rights supporters want the information public for the same reason as gun-rights opponents. Both sides ought to be interested in who gets, and who doesn't get, a permit from the local sheriff or police chief to carry a concealed weapon.

The latest official to be accused of such favoritism is Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas. A lawsuit in federal court accuses him of giving concealed-weapon permits based on political influence or law enforcement connections. The suit says Blanas has collected $100,000 in campaign contributions from a small group of permit holders.

A separate suit in Superior Court, filed for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation, seeks to block the new state law.

The law, AB 1044, was sponsored by Attorney General Bill Lockyer to get himself and the Justice Department out of just such lawsuits as these. Lockyer maintains that anybody who wants information about gun permits should get it from the sheriffs and police chiefs who gave them out.

This is not a new issue. More than a dozen years ago, the then-sheriff of Orange County, Brad Gates, had to defend his policies in a lawsuit alleging that he gave permits to every campaign supporter who asked for one, but refused permits to private investigators whose jobs required them.

More often than not, the lawsuits go nowhere. The issue is nonexistent in such places as L.A. County or the cities of L.A. and Long Beach, where police agencies give out concealed-weapon permits sparingly. But policies differ. In all, more than 40,000 Californians have permits to carry concealed weapons.

Gun-rights opponents argue that more guns, concealed or not, inevitably means more gun violence. Gun-rights supporters argue that states like Florida, with more than 300,000 concealed-weapons permits, had decreases in gun violence when permitting was made easier.

Whichever argument you buy, it's hard to make the case that the Justice Department should avoid annoying lawsuits by ducking the issue. There is a solution to this problem, and it isn't AB 1044. It is to resolve the privacy conflict in favor of more openness and less favoritism.

CAPTAIN MIKE
January 5, 2004, 03:17 PM
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,

Langenator
January 5, 2004, 03:23 PM
I really like this phrase in that article:
Gun-rights opponents

Not exactly the norm for a newspaper editorial board, especially one in CA. Usually they call them "gun safety advacates" or some such.

armoredman
January 5, 2004, 03:35 PM
Good luck to any and all trying to refom Kali firearms laws - I thank God I live in AZ. Wish you guys could get a system like us....:(

Jim March
January 5, 2004, 03:46 PM
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.

stv
January 5, 2004, 03:47 PM
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:

Wakal
January 5, 2004, 03:47 PM
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

Frohickey
January 5, 2004, 04:11 PM
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

Jim March
January 5, 2004, 06:45 PM
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:

MacViolinist
January 5, 2004, 09:00 PM
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

Pendragon
January 5, 2004, 10:43 PM
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!

Frohickey
January 5, 2004, 10:59 PM
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!

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?

Art Eatman
January 5, 2004, 11:06 PM
"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

P95Carry
January 5, 2004, 11:10 PM
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.

Jim March
January 6, 2004, 02:12 AM
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?

artherd
January 6, 2004, 05:11 AM
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.

Jim March
January 6, 2004, 05:42 AM
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.

Jim March
January 6, 2004, 05:56 AM
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.

artherd
January 6, 2004, 02:56 PM
I have one file from a town I won't name that has the WHOLE FILE on 30+ permitholders.


???? me stupid. It's even worse than I thought lawfully, and this violation is absolutely horrible! Give 'em hell Jim.

Jim March
January 6, 2004, 07:00 PM
Remember what I was saying about illegally poor record-keeping on the part of local agencies?

http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/001197.php

A real-world example...

Sven
January 6, 2004, 10:55 PM
Wow.

MacViolinist
January 7, 2004, 06:19 AM
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

Gray Peterson
January 7, 2004, 10:22 AM
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?

Mute
January 7, 2004, 11:49 AM
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.

Jim March
January 7, 2004, 12:04 PM
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. [i]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:

Jim March
January 7, 2004, 12:20 PM
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.)

Langenator
January 7, 2004, 01:54 PM
Jim, if you're going to go through looking for names like Gomez, Martinez, Rodriguez, etc...it wouldn't be that much more work to run the same process looking for Le, Kim, Wong, Chin, Kobayashi, Nomura, Tran, etc. Asians should be just as easy to find by their last name as Latinos.

Jim March
January 7, 2004, 02:20 PM
Langenator: yes, except the Asians are mostly in the urban areas and don't make up a large percentage of the county's population.

Then, because the urban counties issue so few permits, doing accurate stats is borderline impossible.

With Hispanics, it's a whole different ballgame. Most are in rural counties up and down the central valley between Sacramento and the Mexican border. They make up as much as 72% of the county's population (Imperial County) and seldom less than 25%, so when they hardly turn up at all in the permitholder rosters, the differences are impossible to dismiss.

Worse, since minorities in general tend to show up in local government employment of some type, sometimes in the DA's office, Judges, or others who can usually score, and in urban areas those types dominate the permit rosters, you get what APPEARS to be less racial discrimination - until you look at cross-county comparisons such as the "black stats" I did at http://www.equalccw.com/ccwdata.html

In other words, the less issuance there is, the more difficult to prove racism WITHIN that county's borders, which is what name-analysis gets you. And with the Asians mixed into high-pop, low-issuance areas, the stats are probably THERE but nothing shocking.

Daniel T
January 7, 2004, 02:57 PM
Is this Mike Haas person officially associated with the NRA?

Jim March
January 7, 2004, 03:38 PM
Mike Haas is the President of the West Contra Costa NRA Member's Council. He also acts as the state NRA's "chief technology guy" on a volunteer basis, maintains various websites such as www.nramemberscouncils.com and www.nrawinningteam.com and moderates the invitation-only NRA state mailing list. His moderation of that latter has been described as "iron fisted" by a number of folks.

He is an unpaid volunteer last I heard.

He is part of the "zero dissent" movement within the state NRA MC system, a strong supporter of Paul Payne's management of that system. To his credit, I've seen Mike fail to play ball with Fairfax (NRA HQ) once when they backed Dan Lungren for Governor in '98. THAT was something worthy of revolt :barf:.

A few points here:

1) NRA state lobyist Ed Worley is VERY good at playing defense on bad bills, probably the best we'll ever see. A true master, and I don't mean that sarcastically, it's a necessary thing.

2) By cracking down on "dissent" within the MC system, Haas and Payne have (mostly) kept it together when every other state's MC system was abandoned (de-chartered by Fairfax) for playing sides during the endless Knox vs. LaPierre struggles or over policy issues. By keeping the MC system together ('cept for some notable breakaway chapters), lines of communication between the chapters and Ed Worley were preserved. That allows Ed to tell the MC system which legicritters to target with phone calls, faxes and letters, resulting in "precision bombing campaigns" that are highly effective.

Where I disagree is in Ed's/Paul's decision to play sides for the state GOP in support for their help blocking new gun control. They abandoned ME when I started going after crooked GOP sheriffs and it all started when I explained the problem back around February to a high-level GOP strategist who I won't name because it doesn't matter.

Ed is betting that he can hold the line well enough with the GOP's support to wait it out and see the GOP back in control.

I want to attack *now* in court, play hell with the crooked top cops of BOTH parties, and be seen as non-partisan by the Dems and able to work with 'em. And I've got another card up my sleeve for the Dems I can't talk about yet.

Daniel T
January 7, 2004, 04:18 PM
Thanks for that info, Jim.

I'll still have to think about whether I'll still support the NRA if they are going to associate with people like this. His vicious and specious attacks on you are unfounded at best.

Continue the good fight Jim, you are doing extremely well.

Mute
January 7, 2004, 04:28 PM
Thanks Jim. If you need anything done in the L.A. area, let me know.

Frohickey
January 7, 2004, 05:07 PM
NRA is a good outfit, at least when it comes to gun safety and gun marksmanship.
Somehow, the NRA-ILA has seen fit to be seen as the only 2nd amendment advocacy group, or it would like to the be only one, and that chaff people like Mike Haas when normal ordinary Americans take it upon themselves to regain the rights that have been compromised away in years past.

I wonder how the MC in California is doing? I remember getting an email from some person trying to get the MC in Silicon Valley back up after the original Silicon Valley NRA MC deaffiliated themselves from the NRA.

Art Eatman
January 7, 2004, 10:22 PM
Demise, regardless of any internal-politicking problems in California's chapters of the NRA, the national organization should be judged in light of its overall efforts and accomplishments.

Since you're in Texas, I strongly recommend that you join the Texas State Rifle Association. Probably find info at McBride's guns, 30th & N. Lamar.

:), Art

Daniel T
January 8, 2004, 03:42 PM
Art, you are probably right about the NRA in general.

As far as the TSRA goes, I've already made room in my budget to the membership fee. I'm suprised that they don't have a booth out front at the Saxet show, though. Does the NRA have an exclusive deal with Saxet that squeezes out the TSRA, or does it just cost too much?

I've been to McBride's many times, but do most of my purchasing from other places. It does act as a nice museum where you get to fondle the displays though. ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Our own Jim March creating a BIG stink re: CA CCW!!! MUST READ!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!