Just heard back from the judge today

[Peetmoss]

Blawkhawk

You really believe I was that far off on my reasons? Maybe I was I don't know. Hell though 200 dollars I have been thinking of spending alot more then that. My only problem now is that I have already stated a reason that I either have to defend or in my opinion I will appear to be fishing for cause. Unless I get a crafty lawyer who can make it seem otherwise. I guess I should see if my membership fee to the GOA and the NRA gets me anything like the names of a few lawyers in my area

 

[Blackhawk]

Don't worry about your first letter. The judge is a lawyer. He knows you, not being a lawyer, are woefully unable to articulate what you mean in legalese. Judges appreciate it when petitioners hire lawyers to state their case. Some kind of professional courtesy....

 

[Peetmoss]

Blawkhawk

I think you are right about that Blawkhawk. I know from ticket expierance you get know where on your own, However if you spend the 150 for the lawyer to say the basicly the same thing you either get off or get a conviction of a reduced non moving violation give everyone some cash and everyone but your bank account is happy.

 

[Jim March]

OK, first step is seeing that there's an equal protection element in question, and digging into who HAS the permits. If the entire issuance system is "arbitrary and capricious", that's sometimes grounds alone to fix it.

However.

Next lesson is that the gov't CAN discriminate against people.

If the discrimination is along the lines of income, social and political connections, it may be ugly but it isn't affecting "protected classes", and therefore the courts apply a "rational basis" test to the discrimination. Where gun control is concerned, the courts will automatically determine that what's up is "rational".

I was warned about that almost three years ago by attorney Don B. Kates, who has more experience with equal protection law than anybody else in the RKBA movement - he used to do pro-bono law for Martin Luther King Jr. back in the early 60's.

So what do you do?

When racial discrimination is going on, the courts apply "strict scrutiny", at which point the law/procedure in question is generally toast.

So, is the race of each applicant even being recorded? If not, how many Hispanics are there in your area? If it's up around 15% or higher, good, a list of permitholders can be analyzed for last names like "Garcia" or whatever, giving you a rough comparison of permitholder demographics compared to the general population.

If proving racial discrimination is impossible, there's maybe a backup plan: *gender* discrimination is judged on a standard somewhere between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny". I can tell you that ladies hold about 19% of the permits in two shall-issue states that keep a count online: Texas and Tennessee. In California, under the "good ol' boys" issuance policies that are all too common, the gals hold a LOT less than that. And ladies are generally easy to spot in the list of names.

 

[grapenut67]

Peetmoss, have you tried to reapply? Any luck? I am about to have a go at it and was curious of there had been any changes?

 

[rbernie]

According to his public profile (which you can view, by the way), he's not been online since September 15th, 2004 06:54 PM.

I doubt he'll answer.