Plan-B: not exactly. Proving there's racism in CCW is easy. Esp. in Sac County - the sheriff there is one of three I know of who has blanket-blocked specific towns from all possible issuance AND the towns so excluded are of high minority content ("racial redlining within a county").
The issue is, unless you have one minority plaintiff, you CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT SAID RACIAL ISSUES IN COURT. You literally are barred from mentioning 'em.
This is among the sickest issues in the courts. The fact is, if there's racism going on in any gov't administered system, it's a dead certainty that there's other equal protection violations going on, or corruption, or God only knows
.
OK, so why discuss racism in CCW issuance at all?
Because according to the US Supreme Court, IF you have a state law that was founded in racist intent, AND you can prove that there is a racial disparity in the law's application (even if accidental in modern times) AND you have a minority plaintiff, you can take the "bad parts" of the law off the books, or junk the whole thing. But the latter won't happen in this case, because the court has to do the thing necessary to eliminate racism that otherwise has the least impact on the legislature's intent.
The US Supreme Court cases outlining this are Arlington Heights vs. Metropolitan Housing and Hunter vs. Underwood, both of which are extensively cited and linked to here:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/practicalrace.html
The good news: we can meet all of the "elements" with ease; the hard part is finding the minority co-plaintiff. California's 1923 CCW and general gun control law (one big statute covering a lot of ground) was patterned after earlier Southern statutes of confirmed KKK-lobbied origin and better yet, three portions of the same 1923 statute
have already been declared racist and struck down in 1972! In the case of People vs. Rappard, a California appellate court found that denying legal handgun ownership or carry to legal alien residents was racist, as was punishing them at a harsher standard if they packed illegally versus how a citizen would be punished for the same crime. All of those elements were thrown off the books, and all were part of the same bill enacted in 1923 that set up discretionary CCW.
The racist implications of the discretionary issuance process didn't come up in People vs. Rappard, but that court's finding of fact that the 1923 statute was racist will be of devastating importance in a modern case!
So let's say a court today chucks out the discretion, leaving us with a shall-issue system. Won't the legislature just turn around and gut it?
Probably not, although it is a risk. The legislature's options:
1) End CCW entirely. Problem is, a lot of the current 40,000 permitholders are VERY wealthy, with many millionaires in the mix and at least one billionaire that I know of. The Democrats aren't going to be eager to piss those folks off.
2) Try and put discretion back in. This will be legally difficult, if the courts have declared the entire principle racist. As a practical matter, if the courts have declared discretion an aid to racism and corruption, it won't be a political slam-dunk for the Dems to revive it.
3) Do nothing, and leave shall-issue in place. This has the least risk!
When all else is said and done, having a court declare a key element of gun control racist and corrupt will be WORTH DOING just on general principles!
How likely is this to work?
During Gary Gorski's oral arguments on the Silveira case before Judge Reinhardt, Reinhardt noted that the access to assault weapons by retired cops could easily be subject to cronyism/corruption by any of several means. When the gov't lawyers objected to that, Reinhardt replied that as an LA County resident, he paid close attention to the LA Times reports where Sheriff Baca issued CCW permits and reserve deputy status on an elite basis to political cronies. He was referring to the same series of reports I have archived on my website's "Expose Project" area, look under "Los Angeles":
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/expose.html
Folks, Reinhardt is the single most liberal, anti-gun, anti-self-defense "judge" in the
nation and HE WAS ALREADY SICKENED BY CCW CORRUPTION AND CRONYISM.
This is a winner, guys. This is how we fix the system once and for all.
Now, who knows a black or Latino gunnie in Sac?!
.