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.