Implications of discressionary permits?

J

Jim March

New member
This is section 7B in Article 1 of California's Constitution:

"(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked."

(Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 )

Now, let's ponder how this equates to CCW, shall we? CCW is clearly a "privilege or immunity" in California at this time, and no, I'm not going to argue about that with "second amendment purists", we agree completely.

Let's just take Alameda County as an example: we know an anti-gun politico got a permit (Don Perata) and we know the entire DA's office staff got 'em, never mind the fact that many "ordinary peons" face far greater threats of criminal assault daily. BOTH of these seem to be in direct violation of the
first sentence of this section of the Constitution. The DA's staff would be
a "class of citizens" and Perata is a "citizen"...so can we sue the Sheriff
of Alameda county (who issued all of these permits) for constitutional violations if he won't issue to "commoners", which is the case?

Anyone who's paid any attention to discretionary permits knows that the permit process was crafted as an "inducement" to Sheriffs and PD Chiefs to discriminate against various groups, originally on a racial basis. That does NOT mean it's actually legal to do per the constitution, right?

Per a lawyer, the second sentence: "Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked." means that if the legislature grants rights, they can revoke 'em. It doesn't invalidate the first sentence.

Better yet, there's a clause identical to the first sentence buried in the 14th FEDERAL amendment.

So: if we can get lists together of permitholders issued by a particular agency, we can start tracking "classes of citizens" that have been granted the "priveledge *and* immunity" that is CCW. And if the 14th reads the same way, the very same gag would work for *any* discressionary gun OWNERSHIP or carry permit system.

Is it worth trying?

Hell yes.

Jim March
 
Jim: or, they may decide that according to the letter of the law, no one is permitted CCW, since any attempt would segregate those that carry and those that can't. They could revoke the privilege for all. Somehow I can't see everyone loseing the privilege to carry though. There are just too many Stalone types that glorify guns on camera, damn them in public life, and rely on armed body guards to protect them. The idea might have some merit, and like they say, nothing ventured,,,,

------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
George Washington Jan 8,1790--There can be no doubt about the Second Amendment.
 
Well, I'm of the opinion of bringing these issues out front. Yes there is risk, but we've played safe and still lose. I think the more issues that are brought out in the open in the public light and consciousness the fewer issues these corrupt politicos can play with behind the scenes. We may lose, but it forces politicos to make public statements (like in KAM's thread about sueing cities if you have victimized by a criminal) and go on record.
Why can Perata and Feinstein obtain CCWs and not regular folk? Why can a jeweler and not a woman...there are multitudes more rapes than there are jewelers getting robbed. Why does one have to be rich and contribute to a particular politico in order to get one?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Does CA have a Freedom on Information Act (FOIA) law? With all the activist wankers running loose, I'd be suprised if they didn't. Use it to build the lists, hang 'em high, and sue the rest. They may try to dawdle and stonewall, but you can use that against them too. Nothing is better for mildew than fresh air and sunshine. Good luck.
Best regards, M2

[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited February 15, 1999).]
 
When we consider the question of risk, we must remember that this war, and I do mean war, on our rights have been waged much more heavily by the anti-rights people than the RKBA groups. We must see this as nothing less than a war, which means we fight all out. They've been compromising us to death.

In my experience those who believe in the 2nd amendment tend to be a group who believes in integrity and honor. Unfornately that same belief prevents us from fighting in the gutter the way the antis do. They have no shame and there is nothing they would not resort to for what they want. We should be just as proactive. Instead of just proposing what we no is right, we should also find their weaknesses and exploit them. We should find what corruption is in their ranks and expose them. Basically, we need to wage war on their way of life. Keep them on the defensive so they have less time trying to pass oppressive laws.
 
<a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/crimeprev/crimeprevmem.htm">Commission members' list</a>

OK, folks...help me out. After noon today, start calling (or emailing)...these folks make SF0274 (make MN shall-issue...not mess it up further like several competing bills) live or die. Thank you

PS: I will return the favor to the New Jersey ally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top