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