Very Interesting Federal Lawsuit In California

Status
Not open for further replies.

damien

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
1,212
Location
Northern IL, USA
This is interesting. In a nutshell, the plaintiff alleges that the may-issue nature of CA law is, on its face, discriminatory, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. He is taking it to federal court and just served the sheriff that denied him a permit plus everyone on his city's council. This deserves, in my opinion, backing from the gun right community, just like Parker received. Anyone know anything about this?

http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2007/09/19/news/centralcoast/news03.txt

City Council, police chief served with lawsuits

Each member of the Santa Maria City Council, along with Police Chief Danny Macagni, was served Tuesday night with a federal lawsuit filed by a resident who claims his civil rights were violated when he was denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

As the council members assembled for their meeting, private investigator Preston Guillory, on behalf of Santa Maria resident Kurt McCloud, served them with the suit that was filed Sept. 11 in U.S District Court. The package included a 50-page complaint plus hundreds of pages of exhibits.

McCloud claims the council members and Macagni have intentionally denied his constitutional rights to equal treatment by treating McCloud's application to carry a concealed weapon differently than those who have been granted such permits. According to the suit, that is a violation of McCloud's 14th Amendment rights.

City Attorney Gil Trujillo said the city intends to defend Macagni and his actions, and noted that California law provides police chiefs with the responsibility and the discretion when issuing concealed-weapons permits.

Guillory, a licensed private investigator based in Riverside, bills himself as an expert in helping Californians obtain concealed-weapons permits in a state that has a subjective permitting process.

On his Web site, www.clueseau.com, Guillory says he is permitted to carry a concealed weapon in 29 states, and has a team of lawyers and volunteers committed to helping people with concealed-weapons permit application processes.

None of the council members kept a copy of the suit, and instead left them with Trujillo.

Since the suit was filed in district court in Los Angeles, Trujillo said, the city will have to hire outside counsel in Los Angeles to handle the case.

To carry a concealed weapon in California, a person must receive a permit from a local law enforcement agency.

According to the California Penal Code, a chief of police or a county sheriff can issue a concealed-weapons permit “upon proof the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance and the person applying is a resident of that city and has completed a course of training ...”

In his 2006 application McCloud, 42, states he is employed as a nuclear security officer and armed responder for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County.

Because he lives in Santa Maria, McCloud requested a permit from Macagni to carry a .40-caliber Glock handgun since his job, and the knowledge he has of the nuclear power plant, could put him or his family at risk.

“I know that being able to defend myself against those who would use this information against our community would be an advantage,” McCloud wrote in his application. “As a Delta unit I am well-trained in the use of firearms, levels of force, and justifiable homicide. I take my job seriously in protection [of] our community, and I will not abuse the privilege of a CCW license.”

Macagni denied McCloud's application in August 2006 letter, saying there was “not enough convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or great bodily harm which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources.”

Since California is known as a “may issue” state, the chief or sheriff has discretion over who can receive a permit, and also have liability and can be named in any future lawsuits, Macagni said Monday prior to being served with the suit.

Normally, an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, Macagni said he would grant more concealed weapons permits if the state removed liability from the issuing chief or sheriff.

“I feel strongly about people and their personal protection,” he said, but added that the liability to the city trumps his “pro-Second Amendment” beliefs.

If California was a “shall issue” state, the discretion, and liability, would be removed and anyone who is a qualified applicant would be issued a permit, he said.

“Frankly, the people I have issued (permits) to are well-known,” Macagni said, adding they are people he has known for years and “I feel comfortable that they won't go out and get themselves in trouble.

“The system subjects me to personal liability; if it didn't I would probably be more liberal with it,” he added.

Macagni estimated he has issued about eight permits to people who have shown just cause to carry weapons. In addition to the standard application, people could be subjected to physical or psychological evaluations.

The number of permit requests from Santa Maria residents varies from year to year, Macagni said. Some years there are no applicants, and others can see about a dozen people seeking permits.

In Santa Barbara County, Sheriff Bill Brown has come under fire for the limited number of permits he has issued.

During the first five months of his term, Brown issued 10 concealed-weapons permits and denied 10 others. Current numbers were not available from the sheriff's office by press time.

As of May, there were about 160 active concealed-weapons permits in the county, and the majority were issued to law enforcement and judicial officers.

In a previous interview, Brown said he doesn't believe communities are made safer with large numbers of people carrying weapons.

In order to receive a permit from the sheriff, people must show good reason other than “I want to protect myself,” Brown has said in the past.

In Lompoc, Chief Timothy Dabney hasn't issued a single permit since he took office in January, said Sgt. Deann Clement, department spokeswoman.

She noted that to get a one-year concealed-weapons permit in Lompoc, people must fill out the application, have a physical exam, submit fingerprints for a background check, and show a need for the permit.
 
What I want to know now that they have said that a physical exam is necessary is, are all applicants required to take an exam, or just some? Does there appear to be discrimination in who is made to take it or not? I bet a good lawyer, or a fairly bright two year old, will find that not all applicants are made to take an exam and that the people who are rich or are known to the sheriff seem to get exempted, about, oh, 100% of the time.

I think they have already made an error in pointing this out. It is going to be easy to show discrimination. If the courts really care or not is an open question.
 
Having a CCW is a privilege, not an entitlement, and the Courts have ruled that a Californian CCW is not guaranteed to anyone under the 2nd Amendment.

Source: http://www.clueseau.com

That statement is completely backwards. It would appear that they have a long battle to fight, but good for them for trying.
 
Just the thought of the person in the wheelchair applying for a CCW for domestic violence reasons first needing a physical exam SCREAMS lawsuit. Like ones health has anything to do with personal protection and the 2A. :rolleyes:

Justin
 
Macagni denied McCloud's application in August 2006 letter, saying there was “not enough convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or great bodily harm which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources.”

With all due respect, law enforment generally responds after someone has already been maimed or killed.
 
Servicesoon;
the Courts have ruled that a Californian CCW is not guaranteed to anyone under the 2nd Amendment. Maybe the California courts have so ruled, but the 9th District, Oh Wait. Never mind. Maybe Heller will help.
 
Interesting case.

The sheriff's prime motivation for not issuing is his personal liability, so he only issues to people he "knows" regardless of the applicants reasons, abilities, and/or qualifications. If he only issues to people he personally knows, it sounds a heckuva lot like discrimination to me.

This one could be a scorcher.
 
this is a case destined for the ussc, if the guy can afford it that is. with Stephen Reinhardts ruling on the 2nd amendment, the case will probably be denied all the way up. it looks like he's trying to go straight 14th amendment and inequality because he's licensed in other states and that should have a shot.
 
Wait a minute ...

How can the sheriff be liable if a licensee does something wrong? He should have qualified immunity for anything he does as part of his duties, and issuing licenses is part of his job. :scrutiny:
 
Fordham Law Review had an interesting article a few years back
on why the New York Sullivan Act was unconstitutional: basically
all discretionary licensing systems are a fundmental violation of
the principles of due process and equal justice under
the law. That is the main reason most other states have gone
to the "shall-issue" permit system: it is more constitutional than
the discretionary system.

New York is different from the rest of the United States: people
there do not have rights, people basically have privileges granted by
politicians at their discretion. New York is a true Hobbesian state,
run by elitist overlords. California is racing to catch up.
 
The 14th Amendment is subject to the same “gun exception” as the rest of the Constitution.

The courts will rule that while it does seem that he is being treated unfairly, one can never be too careful when guns are involved. Keeping this man disarmed is a matter of public safety that is not to be taken lightly and we must not let things like the US Constitution get in the way of keeping people safe.
 
How can the sheriff be liable if a licensee does something wrong? He should have qualified immunity for anything he does as part of his duties, and issuing licenses is part of his job.

Agreed, I am also confused about the liability thing too. Under that reasoning, you could sue the DMV if you got hit by a car since they issued the driver's license.

Come to think of it, the state (not just CA) issues all kinds of licenses... business licenses, law licenses, medical licenses. I think even my hairdresser has to have a license.

I call shenanigans. Either the sheriff is a liar, ignorant, or CA law is...odd.
 
private investigator Preston Guillory

Go Billy Jack!

Guillory is the Guillory of Guillery v. Gates, Gates being the LA CoP at the time. Guillory sued in federal court over being denied a CCW in LA and won, got a big chunk of change, and a CCW permit.

He used to post on http://californiaccw.org until he had some kind of falling out with the forum owner. He used the pseudonym of Billy Jack when he posted there.
 
Macagni denied McCloud's application in August 2006 letter, saying there was “not enough convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or great bodily harm which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources.”

Sounds like the police state of Maryland. Maryland, too, is "may issue."
 
“Frankly, the people I have issued (permits) to are well-known,” Macagni said, adding they are people he has known for years and “I feel comfortable that they won't go out and get themselves in trouble.

It seems to me that the Chief had better hope to hell he knows them well because if one of the persons to whom he has issued a permit on a basis as arbitrary as a "feel comfortable" uses his weapon to commit a crime the Chief is in very deep doodoo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top