My goal is to get the Sheriff to ultimately realize that the current CCW system is NOT gonna fly if I sue. I tried getting ahold of the County Attorney's office, couldn't get anywhere. With luck this supervisor can connect me with the County's lawyers or a lawyer within the Sheriff's department and I can make a case.
Feel free to plagarize whatever bits you need to try a similar gag in your County. It's optimized for California.
-------------------
California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7B:
"(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."
(Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 )
Can someone in your office please explain how Sheriff Rupf's CCW (concealed carry weapon) permit issuance policies are NOT in violation of the above section of the state Constitution?
In particular, the Sheriff has a policy of absolute non-issuance in the predominantly minority towns of Richmond and Pittsburgh, and will not even allow residents of those towns to submit applications. The Sheriff issues permits to Judges, DA's office staff and various politicians while routinely denying "ordinary peons" concealed carry permits. No attempt at applying "equal protection principles" are being applied to CCW issuance, the issue is being completely ignored. He has in effect supported an "armed aristocracy class", and taken the county's political structure literally "back to the middle ages". He's gotten away with it only because most residents don't tend to worry about their own self defense, and those that do often live in the "worse neighborhoods" and never bothered to read the state constitution.
This fiasco isn't a surprise. CCW permits in California are almost universally being issued on an elitist, racist and in some cases outright corrupt basis. Our "discretionary" permit system was put in place in 1923; it was patterned on earlier statutes common in the South, such as Florida's system of 1893. In 1941 a white gent was hauled into court for packing sans permit, and the case went all the way to the FL Supreme Court. In the majority opinion releasing the guy, Justice Buford said:
"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied." - Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941)
In 1923 California's legislature set up CCW as an inducement to causing PD Chiefs and Sheriffs to violate citizen rights to equal protection. That doesn't make it legal.
Please contact me at 510-xxx-xxxx. The Sheriff's Department will either bring this last sad chapter of Jim Crow to a rapid halt in Contra Costa County, or I will sue - and submit a press release outlining the issues involved. One of the first things that will happen in such a suite is a subpoena requesting all CCW permit and applicant data - this will be cross-referenced with major campaign contributor data at which point there's a good chance the excrement will well and truly hit the rotary air movement device.
Note: I am addressing this to Supervisor Gioia in hopes he can convince the Sheriff that elitist CCW issuance is NOT going to be supported by the courts, and we can avoid a messy suite and horrid publicity.
Jim March
Richmond, California
(plus my contact info)
-----------------
I also sent this on the next page:
-----------------
Attached are four pages from a 1994 Sheriff's department report, Sacramento County. A drunk with a gun flashed it in a threatening manner at a party; on his arrest by responding Sheriff's deputies, he made statements that simply have to be seen to be believed; this document was leaked by a disgusted deputy. As you can see, these documents have been published on the Internet, they have their own website and are slowly gaining attention.
I do not at this time know if this particular category of law enforcement corruption is happening in Contra Costa. I promise that if I have to sue to make the Sheriff obey the State Constitution, I will find out.
-----------------
Followed of course by all four pages of the Colafrancesco papers. If you haven't seen these horrors yet, do an "open in new window" on these ugly puppies:
<a href="http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jemonaly/hobby/ca_firearms/94076998_1.jpg">First page</a>
<a href="http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jemonaly/hobby/ca_firearms/94076998_2.jpg">Second page</a>
<a href="http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jemonaly/hobby/ca_firearms/94076998_3.jpg">Third page</a>
<a href="http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jemonaly/hobby/ca_firearms/94076998_4.jpg">Fourth page</a>
Will Supervisor Gioia take an interest? Helifino...but this ain't going away.
Feel free to plagarize whatever bits you need to try a similar gag in your County. It's optimized for California.
-------------------
California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7B:
"(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."
(Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 )
Can someone in your office please explain how Sheriff Rupf's CCW (concealed carry weapon) permit issuance policies are NOT in violation of the above section of the state Constitution?
In particular, the Sheriff has a policy of absolute non-issuance in the predominantly minority towns of Richmond and Pittsburgh, and will not even allow residents of those towns to submit applications. The Sheriff issues permits to Judges, DA's office staff and various politicians while routinely denying "ordinary peons" concealed carry permits. No attempt at applying "equal protection principles" are being applied to CCW issuance, the issue is being completely ignored. He has in effect supported an "armed aristocracy class", and taken the county's political structure literally "back to the middle ages". He's gotten away with it only because most residents don't tend to worry about their own self defense, and those that do often live in the "worse neighborhoods" and never bothered to read the state constitution.
This fiasco isn't a surprise. CCW permits in California are almost universally being issued on an elitist, racist and in some cases outright corrupt basis. Our "discretionary" permit system was put in place in 1923; it was patterned on earlier statutes common in the South, such as Florida's system of 1893. In 1941 a white gent was hauled into court for packing sans permit, and the case went all the way to the FL Supreme Court. In the majority opinion releasing the guy, Justice Buford said:
"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied." - Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941)
In 1923 California's legislature set up CCW as an inducement to causing PD Chiefs and Sheriffs to violate citizen rights to equal protection. That doesn't make it legal.
Please contact me at 510-xxx-xxxx. The Sheriff's Department will either bring this last sad chapter of Jim Crow to a rapid halt in Contra Costa County, or I will sue - and submit a press release outlining the issues involved. One of the first things that will happen in such a suite is a subpoena requesting all CCW permit and applicant data - this will be cross-referenced with major campaign contributor data at which point there's a good chance the excrement will well and truly hit the rotary air movement device.
Note: I am addressing this to Supervisor Gioia in hopes he can convince the Sheriff that elitist CCW issuance is NOT going to be supported by the courts, and we can avoid a messy suite and horrid publicity.
Jim March
Richmond, California
(plus my contact info)
-----------------
I also sent this on the next page:
-----------------
Attached are four pages from a 1994 Sheriff's department report, Sacramento County. A drunk with a gun flashed it in a threatening manner at a party; on his arrest by responding Sheriff's deputies, he made statements that simply have to be seen to be believed; this document was leaked by a disgusted deputy. As you can see, these documents have been published on the Internet, they have their own website and are slowly gaining attention.
I do not at this time know if this particular category of law enforcement corruption is happening in Contra Costa. I promise that if I have to sue to make the Sheriff obey the State Constitution, I will find out.
-----------------
Followed of course by all four pages of the Colafrancesco papers. If you haven't seen these horrors yet, do an "open in new window" on these ugly puppies:
<a href="http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jemonaly/hobby/ca_firearms/94076998_1.jpg">First page</a>
<a href="http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jemonaly/hobby/ca_firearms/94076998_2.jpg">Second page</a>
<a href="http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jemonaly/hobby/ca_firearms/94076998_3.jpg">Third page</a>
<a href="http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~jemonaly/hobby/ca_firearms/94076998_4.jpg">Fourth page</a>
Will Supervisor Gioia take an interest? Helifino...but this ain't going away.
