Californians: AB1044, full alert, THIS IS NOT A DRILL!

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim March

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
8,732
Location
SF Bay Area
Well, this is a message I do NOT enjoy writing.

As some of you know, the California Department of Justice has made a number of mistakes with the handling of the new state-standard CCW application form and some other related “paperwork issues†they were tasked with dealing with under AB2022, an NRA supported bill that instituted a number of CCW reforms effective 1/1/99.

This year, Cal-DOJ is pushing a bill that would legalize the illegal actions Cal-DOJ has already been engaged in. They presented it to a Democrat legislator (Gloria Negrete McLeod) without telling her the full details of why they want it passed. In my view, Assemblywoman McLeod is in fact a victim here but as of this writing I’ve been unable to convince her staff, therefore I’m “going publicâ€.

At present, AB1044 is officially unopposed by anybody and sailing through the legislature; Ed Worley and company are officially neutral and Ed has explained that he actually wants it to pass. His stated reasoning is that it destroys some records on gun owners (the list of who’s been denied) but while that’s a theoretical “good thingâ€, AB1044 covers up so much “dirt†on CCW issuance that in my opinion, it’s not worth it.

Why would Ed not want to see CCW misconduct come to light?

Because the California State Sheriff’s Association has in the past helped us block various dumb gun bills including handgun registration and licensing, the “junk gun†bills and others. They’re now calling the favor: since Ed and others in the California NRA/CRPA network don’t think CCW reform is possible in the courts or legislature, they’re willing to halt digging into the various CCW malpractices in exchange for enhanced “defense†on the anti-gun onslaught.

I’ve therefore been banned from talking about CCW abuse at MC meetings and the NRA mailing list, and Chuck Michel’s investigations into CCW misconduct via the Public Records Act appears to have been halted for the same reason: avoid pissing off the sheriffs. Which makes me strongly suspect that the infinitesimally small “pro-gun aspects†to AB1044 aren’t the motivation for supporting it behind the scenes while keeping it quiet from the members.

I can’t play along with that.

This is the proposed statement of opposition I’ve written on AB1044, to be included in the legislative committee digests:

-----

Statement of opposition to AB1044, by <name of organization here, I’m in communication with several>

On 1/1/99, Assembly Bill 2022 took effect, altering the process for obtaining a Carry Concealed Weapon (“CCWâ€) permit.

In addition to other reforms, AB2022 put three new duties on the office of the Attorney General and California DOJ:

1) Copies of all records of CCW denial were to be forwarded to Cal-DOJ from the sheriffs and police chiefs and stored.

2) The complete records for all approved and denied applicants would be stored by Cal-DOJ, instead of just summary data for the approved. This includes the records of “good cause for issuance†pursuant to Penal Code 12050.

3) The AG’s office was tasked with creating a new statewide standard form to replace the existing local agency forms. If they exercised their regulatory authority while doing so, they were to do so in public, with public comments, as per Government Code 11340.

Contrary to state law, the California DOJ completely ignored the first two legal requirements and handled the third in secret, implementing illegal action to violate the California Public Records Act. A California Supreme Court decision (CBS vs. Block, 1986, 230 Cal.Rptr. 362) had already thrown open the “good cause for issuance†records of CCW issuance and application because of the potential for issuance abuse; Lockyer and the California DOJ want the records sealed to hide material embarrassing to corrupt sheriffs and police chiefs across the state.

The collective effect of AB1044 is to cover up evidence of corruption, racial discrimination and gender bias in the CCW issuance process by retroactively legalizing a conspiracy to violate the Public Records Act, and multiple violations of AB2022.

The failure on item #1 above also constitutes a public safety threat, as it allows applicants to apply, get denied for a cause known to the agency where they live, move and apply elsewhere, and tell the new agency that they’ve never applied before. The lie will never be caught due to the lack of central records.

There’s a technical term for what happens when law enforcement can make up their own rules: “police stateâ€. We believe that AG Lockyer and the California DOJ should be told to obey existing law rather than violate it and make a mockery of the Public Records Act, only to get a retroactive “free pass†from the legislature in the form of AB1044.

-----

I’m not calling for anybody’s heads here. I have a disagreement with one aspect of what is going on with the California NRA system, *however* I feel that the combination of Ed Worley and the Sacramento NRA staff, Chuck Michel and company in LA and the MC system in general is an unmatched system for BLOCKING the anti-self-defense insanity coming out of Sac.

There’s no way to replace that structure, and I hope that despite my problems with some aspects of how they play OFFENSE, nobody will quit that system because of this post! What’s needed is a parallel structure for offense, especially investigation and court action, and I hope to be a part of that. Monitor the CA-Firearms mailing list (on the Yahoo Groups system) and the Gun Rights section of the online discussion forum at http://www.calguns.net for more details.

For more info on the issue, see this thread on THR:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19889

WHAT TO DO:

First step, *politely* tell Assemblywoman McLeod’s office you are NOT happy with legalizing massive misconduct by the Cal-DOJ: (916) 319-2061

There will be a small-scale fight over this bill at the Assembly Appropriations Committee, but the real fight will probably be in the Senate Safety Committee. While the Senate Safety Committee is chaired by John Burton, Burton actually has a very good stance regarding public records, and may take a very dim view of the systematic illegalities by Cal-DOJ.
 
Last edited:
Jim March, I admire your activism. If we were all just 10% as active and informed as you are, we would've won this fight for good a long time ago.

Best of luck (from Michigan) in your endeavor.
 
There’s no way to replace that structure, and I hope that despite my problems with some aspects of how they play OFFENSE, nobody will quit that system because of this post! What’s needed is a parallel structure for offense,
Click to expand...

One of those sposed to be DEFENSE?
 
Jim, my first thought as I began to read the thread was "is this bill directed at him (Jim) because he's effective?"

As you pointed out, it would appear to be so.

Other activists need to take note:

A single dedicated individual working in conjunction with other like minded citizens has managed to uncover enough wrongdoing by a government agency (Cal-DOJ) that they are willing to dupe an Assemblywoman into sponsoring a bill to cover-up their illegal activities.

Simply terrifying in its ramifications if it should manage to pass. I’m sure every other government agency will take note of the new tactic to thwart those that would oppose their agendas.

And those of you outside California make no mistake: Bill Lockyer will do whatever it takes to disarm every “regular citizen†in this state whether it’s legal, moral or ethical or not. The brazenness of this bill is ample evidence of that fact.
 
If somehow it does pass I think that the story needs to be spread to any and all sympathetic media (or even if it doesn't) to show just how bad things are and how deep the corruption is.

Greg
 
GRRR!

Oh, I see. There are piles of incriminating or embarassing records gathering dust at several Sherriff's Offices. Solution? Shred 'em all, whee! It'll be fun, there's nothing like a good shredding party to cover up the sins of the past. While we're at it, lets retroactively clean the slate of dirt Jim's already dug up. :mad:

What's next, installing a Daley as Governor?

I'm sorry I don't have any useful info to contribute (as usual). I just wanted to say: I feel for ya, Jim.

-PH

P.S. I was all set to make the trip to that Public Safety Committee hearing of yours back in March -- with company! -- until they played Calendar Twister with the dates. Twice. On short notice. Grr!
 
Here's the actual legislation, should have done that right off the bat:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1044_bill_20030220_introduced.html

Here's the Assembly Safety Committee legislative analysis:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1044_cfa_20030407_112703_asm_comm.html

- note the lack of opposition, and the apparant cluelessness as to what's really going down. I spoke to the safety committee staffer who wrote that, spent about five minutes filling him in, and he was just shocked. Quote: "I wish I'd known all this when I was writing it." Not his fault, Cal-DOJ is presenting this as a non-controversial thing. McLeod's office was just as clueless.

It passed Assembly Safety unanimously.

As new committee documents are crafted that reflect the opposition and my information, I'll post links here. Fortunately, they're "hard URLs" versus database links...
 
Oh. OK. :)

Jim,

You said:
"At present, AB1044 is officially unopposed by anybody and sailing through the legislature ... AB1044 covers up so much “dirt†on CCW issuance ... [NRA is] willing to halt digging into the various CCW malpractices ... I’ve therefore been banned from talking about CCW abuse at MC meetings and the NRA mailing list ... [to] avoid pissing off the sheriffs ... [The bill NRA is running cover for is effectively] legalizing massive misconduct ..."
Click to expand...
And you also said:
"I hope that ...nobody will quit that [NRA] system [which I've just told you trades favors to cover for thugs in government]."
Click to expand...
:banghead:
 
Jim March:
Send this sucker off to Fox News, they love dirt on Democrats. At least you know you're scaring them into doing this, there must be lots more dirt if they are going to this extreme.

Kharn
 
Angel: I understand your frustration :D. Believe me.

But here's the situation: we don't have anything else to play defense with. Look, the combination of a full-time state capitol lobbying operation combined with a whole network of grassroots chapters of people making phone calls on bills *works*. It's how MCRGO got shall-issue in Michigan.

Why can't we build up anything equivelent? Because a *lot* of the most dedicated lower-level people making those phone calls aren't on the Internet at all. What's the demographics of the average gun owner? Two words: "gray hair". The *average* age of people showing up at NRA Member's Council meetings is somewhere around 45+, with many up past 50 or even 60. These people are the least likely to be Internet savvy. So you have to MAIL THEM directions to a physical meeting place, and then hand them flyers on who to call over which bills using which talking points.

OK, who's got their addresses? Right. That big database in Fairfax. The one in the building marked "NRA". That's how the MC system was built: Fairfax did mailings to NRA members in each area, directing them to their local NRA MC chapter.

We can't duplicate that!

It would take 5+ years to build up an equivelent structure with the same level of membership activity. And most of that activity is spent on defensive work, and Angel, they *are* good at it.

So we leave it in place. We even keep supporting it. But we build up a much smaller, leaner, meaner "offensive" organization, set up to investigate wrongdoing and exploit it to the max in court, in the media, in the legislature. A group that can offer pro-freedom legislators, the ones left, with tools to go on the attack against the Liberal freaks, exposing their support of racism, corruption and gender bias in the gun issue as their main driving motivation.

That "offense group" can be "purely Internet based" and still be effective.

Follow?
 
----- Original Message -----
From: [DELETED - post by a current permitholder on the CA-Firearms list]
To: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 5:18 AM
Subject: [ca-firearms] Re: Californians: AB1044, full alert, THIS IS NOT A DRILL!
>
> Whoa, there!!!
>
> You mean that the NRA is opposing an effort, by the California
> government, to keep a list of gun owners, their permit status, and
> guns that they own. I'DE SAY THAT THAT IS A GOOD THING!!!
>
> AS A GUN OWNER, AND CCW PERMIT HOLDER,
> I DON'T WANT MY PRIVATE/PERSONAL INFORMATION
> AVAILABLE TO ANYONE ON A GOVERNMENT LIST.
>
> Every gun owner in California knows that the ccw system is corrupt.
> That is NOT the important point in this discussion. The ONLY
> important points that I can see are *gun owners MUST do everything
> that is possible to stop the government from keeping another list of
> gun owners* and *any group(s) that supports keeping lists of gun
> owners is working against the interest of gun owners in California.*

First: the California Supreme Court has already decided to throw open the list of CCW permitholders and their "good cause for issuance" data. That happened in 1986, hell, that was before I'd ever shot a gun, so there's no point blaming me. The court threw open the data to expose suspected wrongdoing by the issuing agencies which had (and still have) "unfettered discretion" over who gets to pack. You can see the court's reasoning (summary and full text) here:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/cbsvblock.html

The data we're talking about having "destroyed" under AB1044 is the list of people who've been *denied* CCW, which Cal-DOJ is supposed to have been getting from local law enforcement starting on 1/1/99.

But guess what? The data doesn't exist! Cal-DOJ never collected it - the issue is "why did they willfully break the law on that?".

Why? Because the local agencies (esp. the urban agencies) "deny people" mainly by refusing to give them the application forms in the first place, or if that doesn't work, discourage people from applying by extract hundreds of dollars in extra fees, illegal fees, or fees that don't have to be paid up front but they make you anyways as "punishment" for applying.

Of the nine times I've applied for CCW, I've actually been allowed to see and fill out an application form twice - in those cases, as a result of lawsuits filed! In one case, Richmond PD, it took 'em 11 months to finally cough up a written letter of denial (due in 90 days per statute!) after over 25 phone calls.

Had Cal-DOJ actually tried to collect denial data, it would have been too blatantly obvious that the sheriffs and police chiefs are screwing up, and since the California DOJ is tasked with investigating local cop misconduct, they might have found themselves forced to actually pay attention to the abuses, which is the LAST thing they want. And worse, the records of denial, if actually kept, would show too many denials of ladies and Latinos plus the people denied are the people with the right to sue and that list can be extracted via discovery in a lawsuit to see if more people want to join a class-action <GRIN>. Which is the gun-grabber's worst nightmare.

So they flat-out ignored the statute, and once I called 'em on it, conned some poor legicritter into sponsoring a "make it all better for the poor little DOJ" bill.

This isn't about "gun owner privacy", it's about exposing rampant misconduct going all the way to state Attorney General Lockyer's office!

If your concern is actual privacy of the permitholder list, you'll support a true reform of this freakshow to the hilt. Why? Because California has a state constitutional "right to privacy" clause. At present, the California Supremes have ruled that permitholder privacy takes a back seat to the right of the people to know if their cops are corrupt or not (see also the reasoning in the case linked above). But if you get rid of that awful "discretion" with it's built-in tendency for abuse, that ruling stops being effective and we can sue to keep the permitholder roster private under the state privacy clause!!!

Yes, I'm being completely serious about that.

> Regarding your statements claiming that the NRA lobbyist (Worley)and
> guy doing the "investigations" (Michel) are in colusion with the
> "California State Sheriff's Association," I think that they might
> not appreciate your alegations. What is your proof of such a serious
> charge? If, as you say, "They're now calling the favor" this
> MUST be proved and it MUST come out into the public.
> Otherwise, your statements appear to have little value or credibility.

Good point. I know exactly who else Ed told the same thing to and will find out ASAP if he'll go public.

> You wrote: "Why would Ed not want to see CCW misconduct come to
> light?" I think the more important question should be, "Why would
> Ed, > or any gun owner, want the government to keep a list of gun owners
> and make that list available to the public?" The answer is simple. NO
> GUN OWNER WANTS THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION
> ON ANOTHER GOVERNMENT LIST, ESPECIALLY ONE
> THAT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND IN CALIFORNIA.
>
> Do YOU trust the California government?
>
> I sure don't!!!

Any such list of denials held by Cal-DOJ would probably need a lawsuit on CCW misconduct to pry loose, NOT a "general public request".

Even if the list of denials was public record, at present there's nothing ON the list (that they're required by statute to keep) and the reasons that's the case expose the Cal-DOJ as "defenders of illegality". And exposing THAT is a great way to fix this crap once and for all!

Seriously: what do you think a Federal Judge is going to make of an illegal conspiracy, documented six ways from Sunday, going all the way to the office of the state attorney general!? Normally, they prefer not to meddle in state affairs but prove something like THAT and it's a foregone conclusion they will!
 
OK, finally got back from the capitol last night, and have a LOT of updates.

FIRST POINT: I made a mistake with my first post, in that I lumped the CRPA (California Rifle and Pistol Association) in with Ed Worley and the California NRA Member's Council system.

Wrongo. In fact, CRPA's position isn't at all the same on this one. There are still a lot of discussions in play on how the bill will be altered as it hits the Senate Safety Committee soon; the exact positions of the CRPA and GOC (Gun Owners of California) are still being worked out once we know how Cal-DOJ will further manipulate the bill but CRPA and GOC aren't interested in covering up sheriff/chief misconduct the way the NRA is.

(How do I know the NRA's position? Because of what they've forbid me saying at NRA meetings and on the NRA mailing list: I've been specifically banned from saying anything that will piss off the California State Sheriff's Association, such as reports of misconduct in CCW issuance...)

AB1044 did indeed pass the Assembly Safety Committee. No surprise there. In fact, despite my filing notices of opposition with the committee chair on Monday and all the members of the committee by Tuesday, come Wednesday and the Appropriations Committee hearing the bill was still on the "consent calendar", meaning NO opposition supposedly existed and it was scheduled for rubber-stamping with no debate. I had to scramble all over lining up a legislator on the committee who would pull it off of the consent calendar and open it for debate. Fortunately I caught Assemblyman Ray Haynes in the hall and was able to explain just enough in 20 seconds to get him to agree to pull it off consent and gain the ability to speak against it.

Thank God we've got some honest guys up there or it'd be a TOTAL madhouse :).

After that, everything at Appropriations went about as planned, sorta. We at least got the idea across that there's opposition.

The way it works in that committee is, the bill's authoring legislator stands at a "pulpit" and describes the bill. The committee chair then asks if there's public comment in support, and then opposition. Public speakers sit to either side of the legislator, at their own microphones.

So I get up, and said something close to the following:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, AB1044 is "stealth legislation" in that it doesn't do what it appears to do..."

At around that point, I realize that Assemblywoman Gloria Negrete McLeod, standing to my left, was making "airplane gestures", waving back and forth, making "whoooo whooooo" noises and generally mocking me. I rolled my eyes and continued:

"...it was in fact designed to cover up evidence of racism, corruption and gender bias in the handling of these permits..."

At which point McLeod stops making a jacka$$ of herself. I couldn't see the look on her face unfortunately. The committee chair interrupts me and says:

"Mr. March, we're only here to debate the fiscal effects of the bill..."

"I realize that, sir, but the committee digest and other summaries of the bill are inaccurate and hence I have to explain what the bill really does."

He let me get maybe another half sentence in, I was cramming as fast as I could, then shut me up as some guy ran up to the other sit-down mike position. That turned out to be a Cal-DOJ aid who was recognized by the chair and assured them that it was just a harmless paperwork cleanup bill.

Yea, right.

So where are we at now?

Sam Parades of GOC assures me that Cal-DOJ is in the process of suggesting changes. The Cal-DOJ guy who rushed into the committee late talked to me in the hall talked with me for, I dunno, at least a half hour on all this and at least listened politely.

Cal-DOJ and Ed Worley both seem to be focused on the idea of Cal-DOJ not doing so much records retention, such as the complete copies of all apps (incl. "good cause") and the *central* records of denial. I could actually live with those bits of AB1044 as they're of the least concern - at least the data will still exist at the local level.

But what folks are missing is that those are "window dressing" elements, designed to make the whole thing look like cost savings and support the passage of the REAL killers, like this bit at the very end:

------------
Applications from individuals who are denied a license may,
upon final legal disposition of the denial, be destroyed by the
licensing agency.
------------

THAT is a problem. It was clearly put in to gain the support of the sheriffs in particular; once they have the ability to destroy all the papers related to denials, nobody will ever be able to prove they've been denied(!) and in theory, nobody will ever be able to prove "standing" to sue over this crap! And even if the courts realize that and let people past that problem, with no denial data making claims of widespread racial discrimination becomes much harder.

The other big problem involves the Cal-DOJ gaining the ability to tweak the application form with no public comments or similar. That would effectively legalize the misconduct of '99, when they "sealed" all the "good cause data" from Public Records Act scrutiny in violation of a California Supreme Court order. And contrary to what some of the pro-gunner professionals in Sacramento think, that won't get cleaned up "quietly" (read: Cal-DOJ won't cave in on that point) because the goal is to save Bill Lockyer (state attorney general) from a scandal.

So at the committee yesterday, I stood alone against this bill while the various "pros" worked back-room contacts. Which is fine, because we all knew we weren't going to stop it there. What matters is, who's going to stand with me at Senate Safety because that's where we CAN stop it.

A nose-count:

There's six members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. Two are GOP; the chair is now GOP but McPherson isn't know as a pro-gunner. That's OK - stopping this bill forces Bill Lockyer to clean up his own huge mess and even McPherson will just love that idea :).

While no longer chair, Phil Burton is on the committee and the very best thing I can say about Burton is that he's strong on public records/sunshine issues. I have contacts in the various newspaper lobbies who aren't going to like how Bill Lockyer raped the Public Records Act; Burton is approachable from that direction.

There's also Democratic Senator Vasconcellos. Last year, I spoke before the committee in support of a Haynes bill to mildly reform CCW (issuance to domestic violence and hate crime victims) and Vasconcellos was visibly disturbed at my recitation of the abuses in the current system. He's an honest man; he also has a staffer who's been a CCW reformer for a lot longer than I have - Matt Gray introduced me to the subject back in '98. If asked to pass a bill to cover up those abuses, I seriously think he'll refuse.

Well that's up to four possible votes - and we only need three to kill this thing!

So what do we do?

DON'T call Burton, I'll work on him via the newspaper lobbyists.

DO call Vasconcellos - 916-445-9740 or his local office at 408-286-8318 - be polite, ask him to vote NO on AB1044 in Senate Safety because it covers up racism, gender bias and corruption in gun permit issuance. Treat him as a friend who needs info because there's a very good chance that's exactly what he'll prove to be. Anyone can call but Santa Clara County residents will get preference.

DO call McPherson: the message is, Bill Lockyer broke the law and especially the Public Records Act six ways from Sunday, and AB1044 was crafted to cover up his illegality - let Lockyer clean up his own mess! 916-445-5843 at the capitol or 831-425-0401 - he covers Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito and parts of Santa Clara counties.

We can kill this bill - but if we fail, at a minimum it's necessary to make it clear the REAL purpose of the bill: cover up racism, gender discrimination, general bias and corruption. Then, if it passes, that real purpose *willful* on the part of the legislature and both individually or as a group, they can be sued for passing it! Folks, normally the legislature has immunity from lawsuits over the legislation they pass - but not in Federal Court when they pass bills designed to promote or conceal racism. The various pro-gun pro lobbyists aren't considering the courtroom fallout of this bill if it passes - and that fallout could be simply enormous.
 
Last edited:
Right now, there's nothing we can do. It'll hit the floor of the assembly soon, and pass. THEN it gets scheduled for the Senate Public Safety Committee and that's where there's gonna be major action. We'll need to put pressure on, but not until it's definately heading for Senate Safety.

Let me be clear: we may not be able to stop this sucker in the legislature, and if it gets to Davis' desk he'll sign it. Except that by the time it even looks close to that point, we'll have a lawsuit filed that will ask a Federal Judge to put a hold on it if it passes, because the primary goal of the legislation is to hide and destroy evidence in the case - evidence of racism, corruption and gender discrimination.

Except that argument won't have a lot of effect on the court unless we can prove they're doing it deliberately.

That means somebody's gotta tell 'em on the record what really going on. Whether they like it or not.
 
I am speachless.

I can't beleave California is that low. :fire:

Do you want me to post this on other boards i frequent?

Thank you for all your hard work Jim March
 
Spread it far and wide. Best bet: write your own short summary and then link to this thread for more info.
 
Last edited:
Contact Info and politicritter treatment :D

Senator John Vasconcellos
State Capitol, Room 5108
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-9740
Fax (916) 324-0283

Senator John Vasconcellos
100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 209
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 286-8318
Fax (408) 286-2338

Treatment: Be polite, ask him to vote NO on AB1044 in Senate Safety because it covers up racism, gender bias and corruption in gun permit issuance. Treat him as a friend who needs info because there's a very good chance that's exactly what he'll prove to be. Anyone can call but Santa Clara County residents will get preference.

--------------
Senator Bruce McPherson
State Capitol, Room 4081
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-5843

Senator Bruce McPherson
701 Ocean St. Room 318-A
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 425-0401

Senator Bruce McPherson
25 San Juan Grade Rd. #150
Salinas, CA 93906
(831) 443-3402

Treatment: the message is, Bill Lockyer broke the law and especially the Public Records Act six ways from Sunday, and AB1044 was crafted to cover up his illegality - let Lockyer clean up his own mess! He covers Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito and parts of Santa Clara counties.
 
SAF Press Release from yesterday :)

NEWS RELEASE

Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

CALIFORNIA DOJ SPONSORS BILL TO MASK
CORRUPTION AND RACISM, SAYS FOUNDATION

For Immediate Release:

BELLEVUE, WA - California Assembly Bill 1044 is part of a deliberate effort to conceal massive wrongdoing in the handling of Concealed Weapons (CCW) permit applications across California, including wrongful actions on the part of state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.

"SAF has received complaints from our members in California for years that the gun permit issuance system is being handled improperly," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "The key to proving it has always rested with timely access to public records held by local agencies. We have now learned that AG Lockyer has taken specific steps in violation of the California Public Records Act to mask the local misconduct. Instead of correcting the problem, he is trying to have his past misconduct declared legal by the current legislature.

"While painting AB1044 as a 'cost savings measure'," Gottlieb continued, "Lockyer also drafted it to eliminate the records of CCW denial both at the California DOJ headquarters and at each local agency. These records have already been declared public by the California Supreme Court (CBS vs. Block, 230 Cal.Rptr. 362) for the specific purpose of examining equal protection issues in the handling of CCW applications. We will take any necessary court action to prevent the destruction of these records should this bill pass."

In 1999, Lockyer was tasked with creating a new state-standard CCW application form to replace those forms created and used by local agencies. Significant changes to the application form could only be made under existing protocols, which required publishing the proposed regulation, accepting and responding to public comments, and publishing the finished regulation and its number with the Office of Administrative Law.

"Instead," Gottlieb said, "in early 1999, Lockyer created a commission within the California DOJ to create the forms, with advice from five sheriffs and police chiefs. They met in secret, stamped all of their documents 'confidential,' and in mid-1999 released a CCW application form on which applicants no longer provided their 'good cause for issuance,' age, occupation or similar details. Instead, these were to be dictated onto the form by the applicant in an interview with a peace officer from the local department. They labeled this section of the form 'police investigator's notes,' knowing that such notes aren't public under the state Public Records Act."

"Had they taken the required public comments for a change this drastic," Gottlieb noted, "someone could have pointed out that the 'good cause data' was declared public by the Supreme Court in 1986, for the specific purpose of evaluating equal protection claims. Lockyer apparently believes he can overturn a state Supreme Court decision with an illegal, secret regulation and then quietly get the legislature's approval after the fact once caught red handed."

AB1044 has provisions to destroy records at the central California DOJ headquarters that they claim are "superfluous," but that doesn't explain why they want to destroy records of denials at the local agency level or why they want the legislature to whitewash illegality on Lockyer's part dating back to 1999.

"While the Second Amendment Foundation does not get involved in legislative affairs, the actions taken to date and the attempted destruction of records crucial to making equal protection claims in both Federal and State courts requires us to speak out," Gottlieb said. "The simple fact that Lockyer and his cronies would try and quietly pass a bill this underhanded speaks volumes for the necessity of further court review of the California gun control program and we will pursue that review as necessary."

The Second Amendment Foundation 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. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers & an amicus brief & fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

-END-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Update: AB1044 (we won so far...comedy alert!)
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Carnitas
C
J
  • Locked
Ab1044 - Bad Bill, Call 'em Up!
Replies
1
Views
422
Jim March
J
J
  • Locked
California Safety Committees (Assembly/Senate) report 4/13/04:
Replies
7
Views
448
Pendragon
P
N
  • Locked
NRA Endorses Bush, Badnarik Not Surprised
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
The Rabbi
T
A
  • Locked
Grabbed By The Mittledorf Police Department For Open-carry !!!
Replies
17
Views
780
Don Gwinn
D
Back
Top