SAF/Gura Score Win In CA

Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
9,249
Likes
2,824
Location
Southcoast of PRM
Feedback: 40 / 0 / 0
Mods: I'm posting the entire email because SAF specifically asks that it be as widely distributed as possible. I checked and didn't see it posted elsewhere. [grin]

I just received the following email alert from SAF:


SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS REAFFIRMED AFTER SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CHANGES CARRY LICENSE POLICIES SAY GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS

CASE CONTINUES AGAINST YOLO COUNTY TO SECURE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE


BELLEVUE, WA & SAN CARLOS, CA - The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Calguns Foundation have dismissed their case against Sacramento County, California and its Sheriff, John McGinness, after the Sheriff modified his handgun carry permitting policy. Law-abiding Sacramento County residents may now successfully apply for permits to carry handguns by asserting self-defense as a basis for carry permit issuance. A one-year residency requirement has been eliminated, as has policy language that tied self-defense to arbitrary geographic factors.
While Sacramento County has changed its policies, other counties still fail to recognize that self-defense is a legally sufficient reason for issuance of a handgun carry permit. The litigation will continue against Yolo County and its Sheriff, Ed Prieto, on behalf of SAF, Calguns, and Davis resident Adam Richards. Additionally, this past March, Calguns supporter Brett Stewart unsuccessfully asserted self-defense as a basis for seeking a carrying license from Sheriff Prieto. The Sheriff's written policy states that "self protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence)" are insufficient reasons to exercise Second Amendment rights. Mr. Stewart will seek to join the litigation as a plaintiff in this case, now styled Richards v. Prieto.

"We are very happy to have been able to work with Sheriff McGinness to assist Sacramento County in revising their policies and practices," said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of the Calguns Foundation. "Over the past year, more than 30 of our law abiding members and supporters have received licenses to carry firearms with good cause' statements that are simple variations of self-defense. Even though the Sheriff is retiring at the end of the year, both candidates to replace Sheriff McGinness have publicly stated their support for Second Amendment rights and that they consider self-defense a compelling reason for issuance of gun carry permit."

"The Second Amendment Foundation will continue working with the Calguns Foundation and keep funding attorney Alan Gura's lawsuits in California until everyone's firearms civil rights are fully protected," added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "Together, we will see many more legal victories."

For those who wish to apply for a CCW permit, the Calguns Foundation maintains an informational portal to assist applicants in all 58 California counties as part of its recently announced Carry Licensing Compliance and Sunshine Initiative. The Sacramento County page has details on the actual procedure and successful good cause statements and is available at http://bit.ly/CGFSacCarry .




The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) 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 650,000 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 and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which serves its members by providing Second Amendment-related education, strategic litigation and the defense of innocent California gun owners from improper or malicious prosecution. The Calguns Foundation works to educate government and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own, and lawfully use firearms in California.

MA residents: please take note of the bolded language in the first paragraph. I realize that this wasn't an actual court decision, but would I be overly hopeful that the same grounds for a challenge could be waged in MA?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
MA residents: please take note of the bolded language in the first paragraph. I realize that this wasn't an actual court decision, but would I be overly hopeful that the same grounds for a challenge could be waged in MA?

Thoughts?

It sounds to me like Sac county is one of the first to pick the "lets get to define the rules instead of getting them rammed down our throat" option. Maybe it finally dawned on the Sheriff there that being the "test case" for CA's RKBA battle isn't exactly a title they would be proud of.

In MA I don't see the worst red towns folding like this at all. In MA it's going to take court action to blunderbuss things like discretionary licensing. Basically someone is going to need to take an utter douchebag town like Canton to court, and then break their nose in the process. Once that happens then things might get interesting. [laugh]

-Mike
 
It sounds to me like Sac county is one of the first to pick the "lets get to define the rules instead of getting them rammed down our throat" option. Maybe it finally dawned on the Sheriff there that being the "test case" for CA's RKBA battle isn't exactly a title they would be proud of.

In MA I don't see the worst red towns folding like this at all. In MA it's going to take court action to blunderbuss things like discretionary licensing. Basically someone is going to need to take an utter douchebag town like Canton to court, and then break their nose in the process. Once that happens then things might get interesting. [laugh]

-Mike

I'm not familiar with Cali's laws, but it sounds like they approve or deny licenses for different reasons in different counties. In MA, they do it by city and town. Sounds very similar.

Yolo county is hanging tough at this point, and that case may well make it to court. I agree with you that it will probably take actual court action in MA to get any changes. I'm pretty sure the state will appeal any adverse decision. What makes me hopeful is that these cases in Cali are based upon geography defining a reason for issuance. Hopefully a good outcome in CA will encourage other states to look at this a little differently. Sadly, I doubt if MA will do so willingly.
 
While this is really great for residents of Sacramento County, it's only a partial victory for SAF/CGF because it represents a policy change by just on sheriff and has no bearing on the law. I expect some other counties such as San Mateo to follow, but others will not. In a sense, this is NOT a victory because Deanna Sykes was such an outstanding plaintiff and now CA won't have the opportunity to try her case and let that decision become controlling law.

When it comes to discretionary licensing there are very strong parallels between CA and MA. But the capitulation by SC underscores a fundamental truth in both CA and MA: Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are not the problem - the law is the problem.
 
I was looking to a move to CA sometime back and hence did some reading. In CA you have, by default, something like a LTC-A with target restrictions. This is because you don't need a license to buy a handgun, just take a test and get a certificate. You can now carry at home and transport in a specified way to a range. What you need a license for is concealed carry and that, from what I read, is near impossible in some counties. You can open carry but that has it's risks and limitations (1000 ft of a school and there are a lot of schools etc).

I have been following this on CalGuns due to it's parallels. They are attacking the arbitrariness of the licensing and saying that self defense is a valid reason. This could be interesting in MA where some towns, including mine, seem to want you to be carrying lots of cash or have specific jobs to get an unrestricted LTC-A. Of course a squeaky clean plaintiff who was rejected would be the ideal...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 
When I was living in CA, San Diego county, the sheriff issued LTC's. When I walked in looking for one, they told me I needed a reason like carrying cash to get one. From talking to the people I would go shooting with, you pretty much needed to know someone. My supervisor was a volunteer with the sheriff and they wouldn't give him one.

I was told the way they get around not issuing licenses is by not requiring anything more then drivers license or proof of residence for military to purchase a gun, and that stupid unloaded open carry was legal.

People think MA is bad, there you have the AWB on steroids, one hand gun a month, 10 day waiting period, a 35 dollar CA state background check every time you buy a gun, a bullet button on your AR unless it has one of those ugly grip/stock things, no ftf transfers with out an FFL and the $35 background check and the FFL cost for the transfer and the 10 day waiting period.

I was very happy to leave that place.
 
While this is really great for residents of Sacramento County, it's only a partial victory for SAF/CGF because it represents a policy change by just on sheriff and has no bearing on the law. I expect some other counties such as San Mateo to follow, but others will not. In a sense, this is NOT a victory because Deanna Sykes was such an outstanding plaintiff and now CA won't have the opportunity to try her case and let that decision become controlling law.

When it comes to discretionary licensing there are very strong parallels between CA and MA. But the capitulation by SC underscores a fundamental truth in both CA and MA: Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are not the problem - the law is the problem.
Yes, victory through attrition is a very expensive process for our side of things... That's their hope... That we run out of money and/or will to fight this battle if they kill us with a thousand pin-pricks...
 
Plaintiff's Reply Brief Filed

Plaintiff Prieto through his attorneys Don Kilmer and Alan Gura filed his reply to the defense's MSJ. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 10.

This is one of the better right-to-carry cases that now working it's way through the court system. As noted above, the original plaintiff and defendant were dropped when Sacramento adopted a 'shall issue' CCW policy.

You've gotta love the way it starts:
Defendants are correct in claiming that the Second Amendment “does not grant” people
the right to carry “concealed” firearms in public for self-defense. Def. Br. at 1. The Second
Amendment, like the First or Fourth, does not “grant” any rights – it secures rights that the
people believe to be inherent and pre-existing their creation of the government.
 
CRPAF And NRA File Amicus Briefs In Ninth Circuit...

August 31, 2011 - Today, the California Rifle and Pistol Foundation (“CRPA Foundation”) and the National Rifle Association filed amicus briefs in support of appellants in Richards v. Prieto, who have challenged California’s regulatory scheme governing the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms (“CCW permits”) and Yolo County policies for its (non)-issuance of permits to residents seeking to exercise their right to carry a loaded firearm in public.

At issue in Richards is a Yolo County policy conditioning the issuance of CCW permits on a wholly discretionary assessment of each applicant’s “moral character” and stated “good cause.” In practice, Yolo’s policy prohibits the vast majority of county residents from obtaining a permit.

In its brief, CRPA Foundation argues in support of the appellants that Yolo County’s CCW permitting policies are unconstitutional to the extent they deny law-abiding residents the only lawful means of exercising their right to bear operable handguns for self-defense anywhere in the State, despite the United States Supreme Court’s declaration that armed self-defense is a “central component” of our Second Amendment rights.

CRPA Foundation’s brief further provides an historical analysis of the right to keep and bear arms, which establishes that Yolo County’s broad prohibition on the carriage of loaded firearms is categorically unconstitutional and, at a minimum, fails to satisfy the heightened scrutiny required of regulations that so severely burden the right as to eliminate it altogether.

CRPAF is itself currently before the Ninth Circuit, litigating its own challenge to prohibitory local CCW permitting policies. Briefing in that case, Peruta v. San Diego, will be completed on September 6, 2011.

In its brief, NRA provides the Ninth Circuit panel with significant background on the practices and experiences of other states in issuing carry permits throughout the nation. NRA’s amicus brief beautifully illustrates the fact that issuing such permits to law-abiding citizens will not increase crime rates and may, in fact, cause them to fall.

http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php...inth-circuit-appeal-of-richards-v-prieto.html

CRPAF amicus brief here: http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/st... prieto_crpaf amicus brief iso appellants.pdf

NRA amicus brief here: http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/NRA.Peruta/richards v. prieto_nra amicus brief.pdf
 
I am wondering if in MA an LTC-A holder moved to a red town and then was issued a restricted LTC upon renewal if that would be a good case to try. (assuming the person was a "good" plaintiff) Also wondering if/who would step up to fight this case here in MA. Would this be a good way to attack discretionary licensing?
 
I am wondering if in MA an LTC-A holder moved to a red town and then was issued a restricted LTC upon renewal if that would be a good case to try. (assuming the person was a "good" plaintiff) Also wondering if/who would step up to fight this case here in MA. Would this be a good way to attack discretionary licensing?

I believe Comm2A is anxious to litigate such a scenario on behalf of a willing and sympathetic plaintiff.
 
I am wondering if in MA an LTC-A holder moved to a red town and then was issued a restricted LTC upon renewal if that would be a good case to try. (assuming the person was a "good" plaintiff) Also wondering if/who would step up to fight this case here in MA. Would this be a good way to attack discretionary licensing?

I think it would be an excellent way to attack this.

I believe Comm2A is anxious to litigate such a scenario on behalf of a willing and sympathetic plaintiff.

Good to know. I'm currently in a green town and I come up for renewal in a few months. I'm pretty sure that I won't have a problem, but I'm also aware that a simple change in the office of CoP could result in a change in policy across the board.

If it ever happens to me, I think I'd make a willing and sympathetic plaintiff...well, pathetic at least, but I don't think that's the same thing. [wink]

I'm liking COMM2A more and more.
 
I am wondering if in MA an LTC-A holder moved to a red town and then was issued a restricted LTC upon renewal if that would be a good case to try. (assuming the person was a "good" plaintiff) Also wondering if/who would step up to fight this case here in MA. Would this be a good way to attack discretionary licensing?
That scenario would be a good opportunity to assert a property interest in a license - the idea that once you do have a license, it's yours. You have a property interest in it, renewal is an administrative function, and in order to take your 'property' the government must utilizes some form of due process. That's a great legal theory and has substantial merit in and of itself. But it's really only a partial solution.

The real holy grail here is right-to-carry which, if settled in our favor, would moot the whole down-grade issue. Despite all the hand-wringing and speculation as to what might happen in a green to red renewal, we've found very little evidence that this occurs on a regular basis. It's clear that a few cities and towns will down grade as a matter of course, but there are many more that apparently will not if someone has lived in their town for some period of time with an unrestricted license. Bottom line is that this is a corner case that would be obviated if right-to-carry became the norm.
I believe Comm2A is anxious to litigate such a scenario on behalf of a willing and sympathetic plaintiff.
We'd be a lot more interested in talking to some people who might get denied any license on suitability grounds because they were unable / unwilling to fulfill some capricious, invasive, and non-statutory licensing requirement.
Looking good. Calguns is writing the How To manual for rolling back gun laws.
Calguns Foundation has had remarkable success being a thorn in the side of the CA political and LE establishments. Our challenges are very different however.
 
Last edited:
Calguns Foundation has had remarkable success being a thorn in the side of the CA political and LE establishments. Our challenges are very different however.

Definitely agree the specifics are different, but the general approach (ie challenging through the courts and having the support to push a case all the way) is sound...

The approach has been successful throughout the United States.
 
Back
Top Bottom