Alan Gura at it again...

[cbrgator]

Here goes California's stupid gun laws. Alan Gura is starting with their CCW practices.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4996598.shtml

Here is part of the article

Lawsuit Seeks Stronger Gun Rights For California Citizens
Posted by Declan McCullagh | Comments 10


In theory, law-abiding Californians who undergo a criminal background check and pass a government training course can receive a permit from their local sheriff to carry a concealed firearm.

But in practice, many California counties flatly deny permits to residents who meet the requirements for a concealed carry permit -- a situation that a lawsuit filed in federal court in Sacramento on Tuesday hopes to remedy.

The lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation says the routine denials of concealed carry permits violate the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

One of the plaintiffs is Deanna Sykes, a lesbian and a firearms instructor who says she believes her sexual orientation and small stature make her a target for criminals. Another is Andrew Witham, a private investigator and campus public safety officer, whose local sheriff denied his request to carry a handgun while away from work.

The case "presents a very simple legal issue: people have the right to bear arms," Alan Gura, a Virginia attorney representing the plaintiffs, told CBSNews.com on Wednesday. "The state is able to regulate that right, but it cannot arbitrarily deny the right to bear arms based on the whims of local officials. The current law has absolutely no standards to it, and some local officials regrettably abuse their discretion. They decide self-defense is not a valid reason to deny the gun carry permit."

Section 12050 of California law says that "the sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character" may issue a concealed carry permit. Californians who carry a concealed weapon without a license are subject to criminal penalties including fines and a one-year jail term. (Nearly every state has some form of concealed carry laws, with 36 states saying that sheriffs must issue them by default, and two states -- Alaska and Vermont -- require no advance permission.)

What the pro-gun rights groups that filed this lawsuit hope to do is apply the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in the landmark D.C. v. Heller case decided last year. Even though Heller focused on the firearm restrictions of the nation's capital, by recognizing a constitutional right protecting individual possession of firearms, the justices expressed a dim view of sweeping prohibitions on Americans' Second Amendment rights.

 

[Justin]

Alan Gura > All of the Internet Keyboard Kommandos Talking About the Revolution


Seriously. The guy is one of my freakin' heroes.

 

[cbrgator]

As a law student, he is my hero and my object of envy. This guy is going to make millions of dollars fighting to restore gun rights to the citizens of this country. I could not think of a more noble and more enjoyable way to spend my future as a lawyer!!!!!!!! Maybe hell hire me as an associate one day?

Getting the opportunity to hear him speak a few months ago in an intimate atmosphere of only 10-15 students was amazing. He is an incredibly smart man and by the time he retires, he will have had as big effect on gun rights in this country as the founding fathers and the NRA. His plan is to attack laws 1 by 1 until gun rights are what we all think they should be (short of machine gun ownership).

He should win this now that Nordyke incorporated the 2A against the states out west. He is only going after laws he has a great chance of winning because he doesn't want there to be any bad precedent to have to fight against.

 

[Quiet]

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

Written by Gene Hoffman
Tuesday, 05 May 2009 13:04


BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and three California residents today filed a lawsuit seeking to vindicate the right to bear arms against arbitrary state infringement.
Nearly all states allow qualified law-abiding citizens to carry guns for self-defense, but a few states allow local officials to arbitrarily decide who may exercise this core Second Amendment right. In the action filed today, Plaintiffs challenge the policies of two California Sheriffs, in Sacramento and Yolo counties, who reject the basic human right of self defense by refusing to issue ordinary people gun carry permits. Of course, violent criminals in the impacted counties continue to carry guns without police permission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the complaint is available: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf

 

[Quiet]

SAF, Calguns Foundation Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme

Written by Kevin Thomason
Thursday, 30 April 2009 23:05


BELLEVUE, Wash. & REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Apr 30, 2009 -- The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of "certified" handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, D.C., Hanson v. District of Columbia.
California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that California "tells Ivan Pena that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions," he said. "A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government-approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee."

"The Para Ordnance P-13 was once approved for sale in California," Pena noted, "but now that a manufacturer didn't pay a yearly fee, California claims the gun I want to own has somehow become 'unsafe'."

"The Glock-21 is the handgun I would choose for home defense, but California has decided the version I need is unacceptable. I was born without a right arm below my elbow and therefore the new ambidextrous version of the Glock-21 is the safest one for me. The identical model designed for right hand use is available in California, but I can't use it," said plaintiff Roy Vargas.

Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, "The Supreme Court's decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether the State likes it or not. California needs to accept the Second Amendment reality."

Co-counsel Jason Davis remarked, "The California Handgun Roster has always been about making the possession of handguns for self defense more difficult by imposing arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions that limit choice and increase the cost of exercising a fundamental right."

Joining plaintiffs Pena and Vargas are Dona Croston and Brett Thomas. Dona Croston's handgun would be allowed if it were black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly 'unsafe' merely based on color. "I didn't realize that my constitutional rights depended on color. What is it about two colors that makes the gun I want to purchase 'unsafe'?"

Brett Thomas seeks to own the same model of handgun that the Supreme Court ordered District of Columbia officials to register for Dick Heller. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured, and its maker is no longer available to process the handgun's certification through the bureaucracy.

"There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun," said Mr. Thomas.

"The so-called 'safe' gun list is just another gun-grabbing gimmick," said co-counsel Donald Kilmer. "California can't get around the Second Amendment, as incorporated, by declaring most normal guns 'unsafe,' and gradually shrinking the number of so-called 'safe' guns to zero."

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

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

You can find the complaint in the case here: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pena/Pena-v-Cid-complaint.pdf

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Man, he found some PERFECT plaintiffs...

 

[bnkrazy]

That's awesome!