You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It's coming: Calif. CCW lawsuit 12/20/99!
- Thread starter Jim March
- Start date
Mike in VA
New member
Good luck & Goodspeed, sir, and to quote the philosopher Cartman, "Kick Ass!".
M2
M2
Well here is the results from today that I got from the Blade Forum. Here is Jim March's post there. TRIAL UPDATE: Everything is delayed - about six to eight months worth.
--------------------
What happened is, the Judge decided that the other side SHOULD have let me apply for a permit. I explained that the old application form was grossly illegal but conceded that the new attorney-general-origin form is OK - but argued that the policies by which that form was being HANDLED were illegal as hell, including the fee structure ($43 over the AB2022 limits put in place 1/1/99).
The Judge ruled that the fee structure IS legal. He says that Government Code 54985 and 54986 allow county boards of supervisors to raise licencing fees for ANYTHING to match costs, and they include the phrase "notwithstanding any other provision of law". So per him, this overrides AB2022's $100-to-the-issuing-agency maximum AND the state gun law preemption in Government Code 53071.
I tried to argue that the rest of Rupf's policies contain rampant illegality, and THAT stuff in turn either masks or aids serious equal protection issues.
The Judge didn't want to hear any of that before I actually got denied after going through the current process (which the Sheriff partially reformed already as a result of my suit).
So the only ruling is, I am to be given the current blank app and allowed to apply, and the Sheriff's fee structure is declared legal.
Option #1: Appeal, based on them having committed violations of law prior to my filing suit, in particular not letting me apply. The Judge's ruling today meant that this illegality BENEFITTED them by letting them dodge the far more serious issues. Can the Judge allow them to benefit by illegality?
Option #2: Apply, get denied, come right back at 'em like God's own wrath. This has major appeal to me. You see, I've got their ENTIRE defense strategy in hand, all 40 or so pages of it. There's technical stuff here I'll need to consult with a lawyer on, and by re-filing the suit I can have the pros craft my pleading and make it a LOT stronger. All the evidence I've gathered so far can be recycled, a second attempt could go a LOT faster.
We could also bring in more Plaintiffs, make a real three-ring circus out of it.
Now, there's two possible gotchas. First, Richmond MIGHT actually approve me, which would take me out of the fight UNLESS I moved to another town and tried for a renewal via the Sheriff. I'd put the odds of Richmond coming through at under 50% though, per recent conversations. Second, the SHERIFF might finally be convinced I'm going to come back at him and approve me!
If scoring a permit takes me out of the fight, I'll gladly help anyone else by providing my notes, research and experience.
If you're in Contra Costa County and can afford $30, go get a blank app down at the Sheriff's HQ in Martinez and apply. DON'T WORRY ABOUT "GOOD CAUSE"! Good Cause isn't an issue because I have proof that the Sheriff's cronies and campaign contributors DON'T NEED GOOD CAUSE. Right? Based on equal protection, we don't either!
With evidence already gathered and a strongly crafted pleading, we can speedball a new case through in record time. We can also explain to whatever Judge that the new case should be fast-tracked because the last one was turned into an "abort mission" (dismissed without prejudice by bench motion) due to the DEFENSE'S tort...trust me, I can prove that beyond any possible doubt.
This is a delay, it's a pain in the ass, but long term it's gonna really screw 'em up good. I've learned a lot, it was expensive but it'll prove worth it in the end.
Jim March
--------------------
What happened is, the Judge decided that the other side SHOULD have let me apply for a permit. I explained that the old application form was grossly illegal but conceded that the new attorney-general-origin form is OK - but argued that the policies by which that form was being HANDLED were illegal as hell, including the fee structure ($43 over the AB2022 limits put in place 1/1/99).
The Judge ruled that the fee structure IS legal. He says that Government Code 54985 and 54986 allow county boards of supervisors to raise licencing fees for ANYTHING to match costs, and they include the phrase "notwithstanding any other provision of law". So per him, this overrides AB2022's $100-to-the-issuing-agency maximum AND the state gun law preemption in Government Code 53071.
I tried to argue that the rest of Rupf's policies contain rampant illegality, and THAT stuff in turn either masks or aids serious equal protection issues.
The Judge didn't want to hear any of that before I actually got denied after going through the current process (which the Sheriff partially reformed already as a result of my suit).
So the only ruling is, I am to be given the current blank app and allowed to apply, and the Sheriff's fee structure is declared legal.
Option #1: Appeal, based on them having committed violations of law prior to my filing suit, in particular not letting me apply. The Judge's ruling today meant that this illegality BENEFITTED them by letting them dodge the far more serious issues. Can the Judge allow them to benefit by illegality?
Option #2: Apply, get denied, come right back at 'em like God's own wrath. This has major appeal to me. You see, I've got their ENTIRE defense strategy in hand, all 40 or so pages of it. There's technical stuff here I'll need to consult with a lawyer on, and by re-filing the suit I can have the pros craft my pleading and make it a LOT stronger. All the evidence I've gathered so far can be recycled, a second attempt could go a LOT faster.
We could also bring in more Plaintiffs, make a real three-ring circus out of it.
Now, there's two possible gotchas. First, Richmond MIGHT actually approve me, which would take me out of the fight UNLESS I moved to another town and tried for a renewal via the Sheriff. I'd put the odds of Richmond coming through at under 50% though, per recent conversations. Second, the SHERIFF might finally be convinced I'm going to come back at him and approve me!
If scoring a permit takes me out of the fight, I'll gladly help anyone else by providing my notes, research and experience.
If you're in Contra Costa County and can afford $30, go get a blank app down at the Sheriff's HQ in Martinez and apply. DON'T WORRY ABOUT "GOOD CAUSE"! Good Cause isn't an issue because I have proof that the Sheriff's cronies and campaign contributors DON'T NEED GOOD CAUSE. Right? Based on equal protection, we don't either!
With evidence already gathered and a strongly crafted pleading, we can speedball a new case through in record time. We can also explain to whatever Judge that the new case should be fast-tracked because the last one was turned into an "abort mission" (dismissed without prejudice by bench motion) due to the DEFENSE'S tort...trust me, I can prove that beyond any possible doubt.
This is a delay, it's a pain in the ass, but long term it's gonna really screw 'em up good. I've learned a lot, it was expensive but it'll prove worth it in the end.
Jim March
Typical BS. I thought something like this would happen. Man, they just cannot answer a direct question, they always make this kind of thing so darn difficult for us. Well, I guess we shall hear in 6 to 8 months.
Even money that they approve the permit just to get Jim out of their hair.
Even money that they approve the permit just to get Jim out of their hair.
Go with option #2. Sucks to do, but you have to work the process to change the process.
If denied, you obviously have strong grounds to sue, with stronger outcomes.
If approved, that will take the winds out of _your_ sails, but set precident for others: apply, be denied, sue, reapply, be approved. If enough people go thru this "must sue for approval" process, you can lead a class-action "conspiracy to deny rights" suit. A tough road, but necessary that someone do it.
If denied, you obviously have strong grounds to sue, with stronger outcomes.
If approved, that will take the winds out of _your_ sails, but set precident for others: apply, be denied, sue, reapply, be approved. If enough people go thru this "must sue for approval" process, you can lead a class-action "conspiracy to deny rights" suit. A tough road, but necessary that someone do it.
Well...it's not as simple as it seems. I'm going to quote David on BF first:
------------------------------------
>>Well. Without being there it sounds like the Sheriff got the benefit of the doubt. I don't understand the benefitting from an illegality. Can you tell me more? Glad your app sounds assured. Keep us informed.<<
------------------------------------
My answer:
David, my Sheriff is screwing up in a LOT of ways, varying from minor to oh-my-god catastrophic. Not handing out the blank apps was just one, and only an "intermediate level" thing at that. The racism, elitism, corruption and bias are the worst.
What's happened is, the Judge has fixated on one fairly minor thing and ordered the Sheriff to change (supplying the blank applications, which they ALREADY fixed).
There are other minor issues. As one example, none of the guns I own are acceptable for carry per the Sheriff's policies.
So if I now apply, I could be turned down for some relatively petty issue, take 'em back to court, the judge could rule FOR me on that one issue and then send the application back to the Sheriff for reconsideration.
WE CAN DO THAT 'TILL F&^CKING DOOMSDAY, because there's so MANY areas of petty illegality. It will take a decade at this rate to get down to the REAL issues of racism, bias and corruption. And since the Sheriff's office is doing all this petty illegality, it's "stalling" consideration of the REAL issues!
Hence they're gaining by putting in petty illegal rules. In today's judgement, their illegal prior policy of not handing out applications GAINED them a delay in hearing the real hardcore issues that I was 100% prepared to shred them over.
I'm strongly considering an appeal.
Jim
------------------------------------
>>Well. Without being there it sounds like the Sheriff got the benefit of the doubt. I don't understand the benefitting from an illegality. Can you tell me more? Glad your app sounds assured. Keep us informed.<<
------------------------------------
My answer:
David, my Sheriff is screwing up in a LOT of ways, varying from minor to oh-my-god catastrophic. Not handing out the blank apps was just one, and only an "intermediate level" thing at that. The racism, elitism, corruption and bias are the worst.
What's happened is, the Judge has fixated on one fairly minor thing and ordered the Sheriff to change (supplying the blank applications, which they ALREADY fixed).
There are other minor issues. As one example, none of the guns I own are acceptable for carry per the Sheriff's policies.
So if I now apply, I could be turned down for some relatively petty issue, take 'em back to court, the judge could rule FOR me on that one issue and then send the application back to the Sheriff for reconsideration.
WE CAN DO THAT 'TILL F&^CKING DOOMSDAY, because there's so MANY areas of petty illegality. It will take a decade at this rate to get down to the REAL issues of racism, bias and corruption. And since the Sheriff's office is doing all this petty illegality, it's "stalling" consideration of the REAL issues!
Hence they're gaining by putting in petty illegal rules. In today's judgement, their illegal prior policy of not handing out applications GAINED them a delay in hearing the real hardcore issues that I was 100% prepared to shred them over.
I'm strongly considering an appeal.
Jim