California CCW: "The Chosen One" may have arrived.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The nationwide march of shall-issue CCW “laws” seems inexorable, but the likelihood of California going shall-issue seems perpetually remote given the Democratic stranglehold on the Legislature. Will the courts save the day or lead us instead to no-issue status? Too many Californians have nothing to lose.

The CCW issue is something of a ticking clock for my family. We’ve lived here for over 150 years, but I’ve already promised my wife that we’ll be in a shall-issue state by the time our daughter reaches adulthood. Can that state yet be California?

Thank you for all the hard work, Jim.

And TacoGrande, here is your ñ.

~G. Fink
 
Ah, gracias, Señor! I will use my tijara to cut that out and paste it where ever I need it.

Anyway, it's inconceivable to me that any case like this would make the state no-issue. That doesn't make logical sense. The state already has issued permits. That can't be undone. The court can't remedy an application that was denied in the past by stopping issuance in the future.

As you say, CCW is marching forward. I've seen lots of efforts (mostly successful) to expand CCW. I've never yet heard of a serious effort to undo a CCW law once it has passed. Surely if the Brady Bunch believes CCW is bad they would be trying to get them overturned, but (aside from some nuisance court cases) they have not been successful.

The only question is, will it come to CA? I think it will, through this court case. I don't think the legislature will move forward on it any time in the next decade. I don't think anyone is even introducing bills. But this court case is, as we say, solid.

What about the other holdouts, namely IL, NY, NJ and HI? Victory is a long way off in all of those.
 
OK. I posted that late before going home to do major wrenching on my bike :). Haven't had a chance to respond until now.

First, y'all are premature thinking it's Baca in LA. Might be, might not be. Don't get too excited. Even if it is, the case will take a while to develop outside of the mainstream media and won't affect any 2006 sheriff's races.

Now. As to what such a case could do.

Let's go back to two US Supreme Court cases upon which this strategy is based.

In Arlington Heights (1977) somebody challenged a law on the basis of it being racist:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=429&invol=252

The plaintiffs did NOT succeed. The court laid out a set of requirements to do it:

1) You have to prove that the law was passed with racist intent.

2) You have to show a current pattern of discrimination based on this law, even if the discrimination is unintentional on the part of the modern administrators of the law. (Presumably, if you can prove intent, that's icing on the cake.)

3) There has to be an affected minority plaintiff.

In 1985 a group succeeded in using this gameplan to strike a state law (actually, a state constitutional amendment but the standard was applied the same way). That was Hunter vs. Underwood, again US Supreme Court law:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/471/222.html

So far as any lawyer I know has been able to determine, no later ruling has overturned these two.

Now let's be clear so far: these BOTH refer to ditching an ENTIRE state law.

In 1923, the new California CCW law set up the CCW program. But at the same time, it created laws against carrying without a permit and set up the penalties for doing so.

In other words, a strict application of Arlington/Hunter nets us Vermont Carry.

Ooops :).

There is a parallel case from the California courts, surprisingly pre-dating Arlington.

People vs. Rappard found that a state law was of racist origin and was having a racist effect, and then struck down a portion of that law.

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/rappard.txt

The law in question? The California CCW law of 1923!

The court found that the pieces denying handgun ownership and CCW from legal alien residents was "discrimination on the basis of national origin". As was the bit declaring illegal felony for such green-card holders a felony when a citizen would face a misdemeanor for the same action.

So.

Since the Rappard court already declared the 1923 law racist (!) and with the rest of the evidence we've got to that effect:

http://www.equalccw.com/sfchronicle1923.pdf (and more)

...we've got the first piece of the Arlington Heights puzzle in the bag.

With the evidence of current racial discrimination such as:

http://www.equalccw.com/CCWDATA2003.html (and again, much more, don't EVEN think I'm showing all our cards here!)

...we've got the second leg.

In 2001 I went to a Federal judge in San Francisco with the above. I was thrown out because I didn't have the third leg.

A minority plaintiff. One tough enough to go the distance.

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

So what do we do? Do we do a Rappard gameplan, throw out the last racist piece of the '24 law leaving shall-issue behind? Or do we go pure Arlington Heights and go Vermont?

I can make a good argument for Rappard and shall-issue, but I'm not in full control here, I'm only an advisor.

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

What can the legislature do?

Well it depends. Either way we've struck one hell of a PR win of course.

If they're faced with sudden Vermont, they'll completely freak :). God knows what they'll do. But instituting a racist system back into play won't be in the cards.

IF they dump CCW completely, they screw over 40,000 of the richest people in the state. Who may react with their wallets :). Big oops.

I think they might try and set up explicit "good cause requirements" but it'll never work...it'll lead to endless legal wrangling, big costs, more expenses for local government. They'll cave in eventually.

Best of all, we'll send a message to the other discretionary states, and change the nature of the national debate. Clayton Cramer's "Racist Roots Of Gun Control" is at this time NOT well known among the general public. We can change that, guys, we can knock the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and that whole pack of urban "keep our people helpless" fools out of the gun control debate, with a bit of luck we can make CCW among honest urban blacks more socially acceptable, start to turn inner city murder rates around.

Change the debate. Take our culture back.

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

All that from one lawsuit? No promises. But it's a step.
 
Go Jim!

Whichever legal tactics you go with, I'm sure it's the right one. As for this sheriff's race, I know, it's done in June and no court case that starts now will have any impact on anything for a year or more.

If the entire CCW disapears and we default to Swiss carry, you can be sure I will be packing right away, for as long as it lasts. I'm sure the legislature would have a freak-out and they would need to do SOMETHING. You are absolutely correct; they can't realisticly make the state no-issue (Illinois-style). That just isn't viable. 50,000 very angry well-connected rich people or former judges, etc, will not stand for that. And a whole lot of people here carry illegally as it is. Probalby some of the wiser LEOs recognize that it's better to start issuing permits than it is to end up with tens of thousands of people packing sin permit. Permits make LEOs jobs safer: when they run the guy's plate they will know right away that he's carrying. That's a good thing.

Our legislators can't do anything quickly, so the longer they wait the more people will get used to Swiss carry and the more momentum a shall-issue concept would get.

One intermediate option they have is they could make it "shall issue" for certain listed and well-defined classes of people, such as former LEOs and judges.. That might be viable.

Or they could go shall-issue. Shall-issue may have enough national momentum that it might be viable here. The first time they passed it (Florida) everyone said, "there will be blood in the streets". Every state after they say the same thing. But now that 40 states are shall-issue (or effectively shall-issue), it becomes more difficult to claim, "well, umm, you know it didn't cause any problems in Kansas, but wow, if we pass it in Nebraska, THERE WILL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS!" Same thing here: Let's see, EVERY STATE within a thousand miles of here is shall-issue, but you know, California is fundamentally different, it's really full of psychos, there will be BLOOD IN THE STREETS if we pass it here.

But wouldn't that be cool for CA, the most liberal and anti-CCW state in the US, to have Swiss carry even for just a few months!

(Note: I'm introducing the term "Swiss carry" as an alternative to "Vermont carry". I'm tired of misoconceptions of Europe being a gun-free paradise. People own lots of guns in Europe, and some of them even pack, without permits!)
 
They CAN act quickly, but they'd need a 2/3rds majority (urgency legislation).

We may have at least 1/3rd-plus-1 "gunnie enough" in at least one house to make sure the "emergency legislation" isn't too screwed up. (A good chunk of legislators have CCW now and if they tried Chicago-style "Aldermen get CCW"...that might not go down real well.)

Hey, you know what? At least we can give the Sacramento anthill a good swift kick :D.

Now...look, this may not work out, OK? It's real early. But damn...this could work, OK?
 
Senor March said:
Chicago-style "Aldermen get CCW"
Click to expand...

"Chicago-style" just won't work here. There are way too many classes of people here who traditionally have CCWs, which is not the case in Chicago:
  1. All judges and retired judges can get it, even in SF
  2. Lots of retired cops
  3. Lots of VIPs
  4. Rep. Don Perata, the 2nd-most anti-gun guy in the state assembly
  5. Governor Moonbeam's spiritual advisor (oh woops, he has already gone back to Morocco)
Lots of other miscelanious VIPs. Chicago-style just couldn't accomodate such a hodge-podge.

GO JIM!
 
As my dear old Pa used to say,
"Counteth not thy chickens prior to their hatcheth."

Strategy, sound.
Tactics. correct.
Jurisdiction questionable (9th District... ultimately)... sigh, which means...
Long Term, long run, all sorts of built in delay possibilities w/ probable trip to DC/SCOTUS???

Still and All

A boy can dream
 
(Note: I'm introducing the term "Swiss carry" as an alternative to "Vermont carry". I'm tired of misoconceptions of Europe being a gun-free paradise. People own lots of guns in Europe, and some of them even pack, without permits!)
Click to expand...

Just a note: Swiss handgun laws, including carry, vary by canton.
 
ok, how about "Czech carry"? AFAIK, concealed carry is legal and widely-practiced there, and no permit is needed, although there might be a permit to purchase.

Europe is the next frontier of CCW reform.
 
You guys know from my posts what a pessimist I am when it comes to these anti-CWL states..but -

My prayers are with you and your efforts. I hope this can actually become a vehicle to drive a solid pro-CWL law in California.

A LOT of lives will be saved if this somehow leads to the liberalization of CC laws and possibly "shall-issue"...wow.

That's the thing isn't it? We never really treat concealed carry for what it REALLY is. It is a matter of life & death. Every year that goes by without shall-issue results in the deaths of people who could have fought back and saved lives. As a movement, we do not focus on the human/life aspect nearly as much as we should.

For a State like California, they need race thrown right back into their politically correct, "tolerance" loving faces...
 
A replacement CCW law would almost certainly be heavily restricted.

IMO... if this suit goes forward and looks like it's going to succeed, we need a massive lobbying campaign. I emphasize "massive"... without a tsunami of public opinion supporting shall-issue, we will see a law that permits judges, DAs, etc. to get permits. The replacement for "good cause" will be set on a statewide basis. there will be no more shall-issue counties, where a good Sheriff can decide that "for personal protection" is "good enough".

As for the "pissing off 40,000 rich people", that isn't a concern. Look at the data Jim wrenched out with his PRAR requests (hey, Jim... what happened with the rest of your requests, like for San Diego County?). An awful lot of those permits are from "shall-issue" rural / desert counties. Most of the ones issued in populated counties are almost certainly for retired DAs, judges, etc. who aren't covered by the LEO section. And, let's face it... a "rich guy" who carries without a permit is going to receive whatever "courtesy" he's going to receive, regardless. A few phone calls to wealthy, connected friends who, in turn, contact the DA and mention that they'd love to be able to support him in his next reelection campaign, and the CCW charges are dropped or never filed.

Please, everyone, keep your eyes wide open here. Don't fall for some Utopian dream that we'll suddenly have Vermont-style carry, or that the Legislature will be "reasonable" or "fair". This will have to be the biggest gun fight in Sacramento ever to get anything even as good as what we have now. Don't think that "Aww, they can't take CCW away, they'll have to pass a good law". No, they don't. Look at Maryland, New Jersey. Common sense, reason, and logic have nothing to do with it. Tell Sacramento "Hey, 40-someodd other states have shall-issue, and there are no problems there", and they'll simply ignore you and continue to screech that our streets will run with blood. The media will happily print that, and editorialize on their own. Public opinion will not be with us... the sheople will listen to the left and furiously write in begging their Legislature to not allow homicidal maniacs to carry hidden guns into schools, churches, day cares, etc.

If we do not have a huge effort, including CRPA, NRA, GOC / GOA, SAF / CCRKBA, etc. we will lose all CCWs. If they don't get emergency legislation through, the next gang-banger picked up carrying a gun will be presented as an example why we must have a law banning hidden guns now, and they'll get their 50% + 1.
 
Jnojr, you could be right on that. They could pass an NJ-style law where a judge has to approve it. That would be fair, and a lot more restrictive than what we have now.

Our current situation is not so bad (for whites) actually: Carrying without a permit is only a misdemeanor, and (as with all misdemeanors I believe) a LEO has discretion of how he handles it. If he thinks that it isn't a problem he can let it go, or he could just confiscate the gun and take no further action. If you have the cojones to take a small risk fighting a small misdemeanor type thing you can carry today. If they made it a felony, that would shift the risk calculation considerably; a misdemeanor wouldn't have any major impact on my life, but a felony would.

Anyway, the worst thing that could happen is that 40k people lose their permits. Bummer for them, but for the 10mil of us who live in LA, well, it won't get any worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top