Month: August 2011

Uncategorized

Hurricane Irene Brings With It The Usual NC State Of Emergency

August 26, 2011 by 5 Comments

Gov. Beverly Perdue (D-NC) issued Executive Order Number 103 today which declares a state of emergency for 39 eastern North Carolina counties due to the approach of Hurricane Irene. The counties are:

Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Duplin, Edgecombe, Gates, Greene, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Robeson, Sampson, Tyrrell, Washington, Wayne, Wilson

As Bob Owens notes, these are essentially all the counties east of Interstate 95. He is also correct in asserting that it invokes a ban on off-premises carry of a firearm in the affected counties due to the provisions of NCGS 14-288.7 which goes into effect when a state of emergency is declared under Article 36A of Chapter 14. I must correct his assumption that it is only that part of a county on the east side of I-95 that is impacted. As the order above states, it is the whole county and not just part of it.

Gov. Perdue invoked the State of Emergency using both sections of the General Statues that deal with emergency management and states of emergency.

Section 7.

This order is adopted pursuant to my powers under Article 1 of Chapter 166A of the General Statutes and under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. It does not trigger the limitations on weapons in G.S. § 14-288.7 or impose any limitation on the consumption, transportation, sale or purchase of alcoholic beverages.

Bev Perdue is incorrect in her assertions that the declaration of the State of Emergency does not trigger firearm restrictions. As I noted last year when she invoked a State of Emergency in the face of Hurricane Earl, if she uses Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes, it invokes G.S. § 14-288.7 which states in part, “it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area” if a state of emergency is declared. Just because she is the governor does not give Bev Perdue the authority to ignore plainly written state laws when it is politically inconvenient for her.

The relevant section on the declaration of an emergency under Article 36A is § 14‑288.15. This section grants the power to the governor to declare a state of emergency AND to impose further restrictions on firearms and alcohol as enumerated in § 14‑288.12(b) which include:

The ordinances authorized by this section may permit prohibitions and restrictions:
(1) Of movements of people in public places, including directing and compelling the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened area within the governing body’s jurisdiction, to prescribe routes, modes of transportation, and destinations in connection with evacuation; and to control ingress and egress of a disaster area, and the movement of persons within the area;
(2) Of the operation of offices, business establishments, and other places to or from which people may travel or at which they may congregate;
(3) Upon the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, and consumption of alcoholic beverages;
(4) Upon the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, storage, and use of dangerous weapons and substances, and gasoline; and
(5) Upon other activities or conditions the control of which may be reasonably necessary to maintain order and protect lives or property during the state of emergency.

I thought Gov. Perdue had learned her lesson giving the uproar over the State of Emergency at the start of last year’s dove season. Subsequent Executive Orders 75, 78, and 87 which declared states of emergency had this statement:

This order is adopted pursuant to my powers under Article 1 of Chapter 166A of the General Statutes and not under my authority under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. It does not trigger the limitations on weapons in G.S. § 14-288.7 or impose any limitation on the consumption, transportation, sale or purchase of alcoholic beverages.

Notice that these Executive Order explicitly noted that they were not adopted under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. By contrast Executive Order 103 was adopted “pursuant to my powers under Article 1 of Chapter 166A of the General Statutes and under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes.”

I don’t know whether it was a drafting error in Executive Order 103 that included both Chapter 166A and Chapter 14 or not. I do know that legally – the Governor’s proclamation notwithstanding – that the method she chose to invoke her  powers just triggered a ban on the off-premises possession of firearms in those counties named above.

And as we all know, this is the basis of the suit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Grass Roots North Carolina against Governor Perdue and Secretary of Crime Control and Public Safety Young. Bateman et al v. Perdue et al is still proceeding albeit too slowly for my tastes!

Uncategorized

Sunnyvale Planning Commission Wants To Impose Unconstitutional Restrictions Due To NIMBYs

August 26, 2011 by 6 Comments

Attorney Chuck Michel who works with the NRA/CRPA Legal Action Project in California posted an article this evening about the Sunnyvale, California Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is seeking to have the Sunnyvale City Council adopt a new municipal ordinance which would put increased restrictions on the sale of firearms in Sunnyvale. The Commission is responding to unfounded complaints from some neighbors of a firearms dealer that opened in Sunnyvale in 2010. The complaints include that they weren’t notified and that children walk by the store on their way to school as if just merely seeing guns will turn their kids into the next Klebold and Harris (of Columbine infamy).

NRA & CRPA OPPOSE NEW REGULATIONS RESTRICTING FIREARMS DEALERS IN SUNNYVALE, CA

On August 22, 2011, the Planning Commission for the City of Sunnyvale held a meeting to consider the City’s ongoing “Firearms Sales Study Issue.” The issue originated when a firearms dealer, U.S. Firearms, opened for business in Sunnyvale in the fall of 2010. Despite the fact that the dealer had all necessary permits and licenses from both the state and federal government, neighbors made complaints to Sunnyvale staff and elected officials.

The Sunnyvale Planning Commission ultimately decided to sponsor the issue as a result of the complaints, but the City Council ranked it number 4 of 4 for 2011. Even though this issue had the lowest ranking by the City Council for 2011, and the fact that the Staff Report on the issue (AVAILABLE HERE) indicates that “there has been no evidence of increased crime, property devaluation or land use incompatibilities as the result of the businesses,” and Sunnyvale “staff ha[d] not identified any adverse land use impacts associated with a firearms store,” the Planning Commission nonetheless recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the City’s municipal code to place restrictions on firearm sales in Sunnyvale. Though the staff report acknowledged there had been no problems with firearm sellers, staff nonetheless inexplicably noted in the report that, “[t]he greatest concern regarding firearm sales is the business operator that is engaged in buying and selling the firearms.”

The approved ordinance would: 1) add a definition for “firearms sales business;” 2) prohibit these businesses in commercial and industrially-zoned districts within 200 feet of public schools in order to provide a buffer to the schools; and 3) require a new DPS Firearms Dealer Permit that would include additional conditions such as requiring a security plan to be installed and then inspected by the City, and that the Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder and all employees meet the state and federal requirements regarding past criminal convictions, etc. (current requirements are limited to the dealer and not the employees).

Michel & Associates attorneys submitted an opposition letter to the Planning Commission on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) noting that firearm dealers are subject to a variety of background checks at both the state and federal levels. The letter (AVAILABLE HERE) also noted that firearm dealers are generally some of the most upstanding members of society, and that after the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision, they enjoy a protected status as purveyors of a fundamental right. So the fact that some “residents [of Sunnyvale] have expressed [unfounded] concerns about the potential crime and public safety risk associated with a firearm sales business located near their homes and schools” does not mean that the City of Sunnyvale is free to infringe on fundamental Second Amendment rights.

The letter explains that since the Second Amendment is a newly court-recognized right, the contours of the Second Amendment’s protections are still being litigated in courtrooms across the country. The letter also amicably explains the current legal landscape regarding firearm regulation, and suggests Sunnyvale should avoid litigation on these issues by consulting with the NRA, CRPA, and their attorneys.

As the city continues moving forward with the proposed ordinance, additional correspondence will be submitted.

I have examined the 141 page staff report submitted to the  Sunnyvale Planning Commission. Much of the document was devoted to reporting on the comments at a public meeting on the issue. Approximately 120 people attended the June 2011 meeting and it appears that the overwhelming majority were against any new regulations and were indeed pro-rights. Many of the letters received also support the existing gun store, U.S. Firearms, and gun stores in general.

However, the Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) has weighed in on the issue with a 59 page submission urging the Planning Commission to adopt new regulations. Unfortunately, this submission and not the majority of the residents of Sunnyvale seems to have carried the day. You must wonder if LCAV will also foot the legal bills for Sunnyvale when they get the pants sued off of them on Second Amendment grounds. I somehow doubt it.

Uncategorized

What Ever Happened To Thinking

August 25, 2011 by 3 Comments

The Chicago Public Schools have suspended Doug Bartlett, a second grade teacher at Washington Irving Elementary School, for “weapons possession” and “negligently supervising children”. From the charges you would have thought he was letting the little kids play with a loaded Glock. Instead he was doing a “show and tell” on tools for a learning module. The tools included wrenches, screwdrivers, pliers, and, horror of horrors, a 2.25 inch penknife. The children were just shown the tools and did not handle them. Mr. Bartlett stands accused of violating the school system’s zero tolerance policy. Zero tolerance policies should be renamed zero thinking policies!

Fortunately for Mr. Bartlett, his case is being taken up by The Rutherford Institute. Their press release is below:

8/24/2011

Zero Tolerance Alert: Chicago Elementary School Teacher Accused of Weapons Possession for Demonstrating Use of Tools in Classroom
CHICAGO, Ill. — In yet another instance of zero tolerance run amok, The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a Chicago public school teacher who is being charged with possessing, carrying, storing or using a weapon after he displayed such garden-variety tools as wrenches, pliers and screwdrivers in his classroom as part of his second grade teaching curriculum that required a “tool discussion”. Despite the fact that all potentially hazardous items were kept out of the students’ reach, school officials at Washington Irving Elementary School informed Doug Bartlett, a 17-year veteran in the classroom, that his use of the tools as visual aids endangered his students. Bartlett now faces disciplinary action and possible termination. Warning the school that disciplinary action under these circumstances could constitute a violation of Bartlett’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, Rutherford Institute attorneys are demanding that the school halt the disciplinary proceedings against Bartlett.

The Rutherford Institute’s letter to Washington Irving Elementary School officials in defense of Doug Bartlett is available here.

“The charges against Doug Bartlett are absurd—a gross overreaction to a simple teaching demonstration—and underscore exactly what is wrong with zero tolerance policies in the schools,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “School officials should know better than to impose such draconian punishments for innocent actions. Commonplace, basic tools such as wrenches and pliers used as part of a classroom exercise are clearly not weapons. Education truly suffers when school administrators exhibit such poor judgment and common sense.”

Doug Bartlett teaches second graders at Washington Irving Elementary School in Chicago. On August 8, 2011, Bartlett used several garden-variety tools he uses around the classroom, including wrenches, screwdrivers, a box cutter, a 2.25″ pocketknife, and pliers, as visual aids for a “tool discussion” which is required by the teaching curriculum. It is common for teachers to use such visual aids to help students retain their lessons. As he displayed the box cutter and pocketknife in particular, Bartlett specifically described the proper uses of these tools. None of the tools were made accessible to the students. When not in use, the tools are secured in a toolbox on a high shelf out of reach of the students.
However, on August 19, Bartlett received notice that he was under investigation for, among other things, “possessing, carrying, storing, or using a weapon,” and for negligently supervising children. If found at fault, Bartlett faces punishments ranging from a simple written reprimand to termination. Bartlett then turned to The Rutherford Institute for help. In coming to Bartlett’s defense, Institute attorneys point out Bartlett had no intent to use the tools as weapons. In fact, he has used some of the same tools for years without incident.

Institute attorneys are urging Valeria Newell Bryant, the principal of Washington Irving Elementary School, to immediately dismiss any and all disciplinary actions against Bartlett. “In an age where public schools face an unprecedented number of real challenges in maintaining student discipline, and addressing threats of real violence, surely no one benefits from trumped up charges where no actual ‘weapons’ violation has occurred and there is no threat whatsoever posed to any member of the school community,” stated the Institute in its letter.

Uncategorized

New Second Amendment Case From Hawaii

August 25, 2011 by 2 Comments

A challenge on Second Amendment grounds to Hawaii’s concealed carry laws has been launched by Chris Baker and the Hawaii Defense Foundation. They are suing the State of Hawaii, the City and County of Honolulu, and the Honolulu Police Department on Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.

Hawaii is one of those may issue states like New Jersey where it damn near impossible to obtain a permit. The suit is also challenging the ban on non-lethel items such as stun guns.

HONOLULU POLICE CHIEF AND STATE OF HAWAII SUED FOR SECOND AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

For Immediate Release: 8/23/2011

Honolulu, HI – The Hawaii Defense Foundation’s founding director and president, Christopher Baker, has filed a lawsuit against Honolulu Chief of Police Louis Kealoha, the Honolulu Police Department, the City and County of Honolulu, the State of Hawaii, and Governor Neil Abercrombie in connection with civil rights violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States constitution.

The complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii by attorneys Richard Holcomb, Alan Beck, and Kevin O’Grady alleges that Hawaii’s license to carry statute and various other firearm regulations are unconstitutional. State law mandates that citizens may be provided licenses to carry only in “exceptional circumstance” or “where a need or urgency has been sufficiently indicated,” all at the discretion of the county’s Chief of Police. The complaint asserts that this language violates the Second Amendment, which secures the right of all responsible, law-abiding citizens to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Additionally, the complaint also addresses the use of non-lethal tools for self-defense such as electric guns, which are banned in in Hawaii.

“The Second Amendment protects the right to self-defense. Everyday around the islands good people are robbed, assaulted, raped, or in the worst cases murdered. It’s simply a matter of physics, the Police can’t be everywhere to stop criminals from committing violent acts. We must be allowed to carry the tools that give us a chance to protect ourselves from harm,” says Chris Baker. “We want criminals to have to think about the consequences of attacking someone,” he continued, “but right now, nothing serves as a deterrent to them – the odds are in their favor.”

 The only criticism I might have about their suit is that it isn’t narrowly focused. The issue of the non-lethel weapons might have been better to be in a separate lawsuit. I come from the Alan Gura school of suing on the most egregious item as opposed to the NRA school of suing bases on everything plus the kitchen sink. The respective suits against Chicago’s New Gun Law provides examples of both of these approaches.

I have embedded the full complaint from Baker v. Kealoha et al below. I haven’t had time to read it in its entirety yet so cannot speak to its points of law.

CV11-00513SOM-RLP
(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

H/T Brandon Combs

Uncategorized

The Donkey Whisperer

August 25, 2011 by 5 Comments

I love good political ads. Last year we had some good ones like the one for Dale Peterson of Alabama – though his gun-handling skills left a bit to be desired.

The first really good political ad of the season is from Roger Williams who is running as a Republican for the newly created 33rd District in Texas. This district is in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex of North Texas. Williams is a former Texas Secretary of State and a small businessman.

I think the ad below is ingenious. It gets his message across very clearly about the Democrats but is still friendly given the herd of donkeys surrounding him.

Since this IS a gun blog, here is Williams’ statement on the Second Amendment.

I’m a Texan, a lifetime NRA member, and a gun owner. I don’t want anyone messing with my 2nd Amendment rights, and I won’t allow anyone to mess with yours.

H/T Sister Toldjah

Uncategorized

The NRA, Gun Manufacturers, and GCA ’68

August 24, 2011 by 1 Comment

I was alive when the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted. However, given I was an 11-year old, I don’t have any memories of its enactment and the debate around it. I do remember Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King being assassinated and the riots after Dr. King’s death. I do remember the war in South Vietnam because my Dad was “in country” at the time. However, policy debates on firearms just were not on my radar at the time.

Fortunately, Sebastian at Snowflakes In Hell has done an excellent job of examining some of the myths around the passage including those that the NRA and major gun manufacturers were complicit in its passage. He also looks at some of the other myths regarding the enactment of  the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Sebastian is correct that much more research using original documents is needed to get a better handle on all the issues surrounding the passage of this legislation. Rather than relying on undersourced modern accounts of the bill’s passage, using the original documents will give a clearer picture of the forces involved in the bill’s passage as well as the forces that opposed it.

Uncategorized

On Crossbows

August 24, 2011 by 5 Comments

Now that North Carolina has not only changed regulations to allow the use of a crossbow for hunting but gotten rid of its ridiculous requirement for a pistol permit to buy a crossbow, I am seriously thinking of buying one. Part of my rationale is that I just don’t have the upper body strength anymore to adequately and humanely hunt with a compound bow. Another part is that I think they are kinda cool. Finally, I want one just because I can have one now without all the regulations that were out there in the past.

So what do I see in my e-mail yesterday but a link to a story by Outdoor Life where they tested eight of this season’s newest crossbows. As shown in the video below, they were quite rigorous in their testing of things like vibration, noise, and speed. I really was surprised to find out that some of the bows exceed 100 decibels when fired. So much for believing what you see in a James Bond movie!

Their Editor’s Choice Award went to the TenPoint Stealth XLT. It retails for only $1,199. I didn’t realize that crossbow prices were quite that high. I’ve bought good rifles with good optics for half of that!

The Outdoor Life Editor’s Great Buy went to a crossbow from Horton Archery – the Horton Ultra-Lite Express – which retails for $599.

I think I have my work cut out for me. I see a number of visits to different outdoor and archery shops to check out and test fire a number of crossbows before I make a purchase.

If anyone who reads this blog has a crossbow, I’d love to hear your experience on buying one. Why did you buy the one you did? What features are essential and what are just nice to have?

Uncategorized

How Is This Possible?

August 23, 2011 by 2 Comments

On Saturday, both during and after the traditional pre-season exhibition game between the San Francisco Forty-Niners and the Oakland Raiders, violence broke out. In addition to a brawl in the stands shown in the video below, two people were shot in the parking lot. One of the victims was shot multiple times in the stomach and is in the hospital in serious condition. It is reported by police that he was wearing a T-shirt that said “F*** the Niners”.

Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

There is some dispute over the police report about the man’s T-shirt. According to story today in the San Francisco Chronicle:

The father of the victim shot in the abdomen said his son had described an out-of-control scene at the stadium.

“It was crazy out there,” said the father, who was not at the game. He declined to be named and asked that his son not be identified.

He said his son is a 49ers fan, denying police reports over the weekend that the man had been wearing a “F- the 49ers” T-shirt. The son was driving in a pickup truck after the game, following a friend to make sure he got to his car safely, his father said.

People wearing Raiders garb attacked the friend before he got to the car and kicked him on the ground, the father said. When his son got out of the pickup to help, he said, someone shot him four times in the abdomen.

“My son got out, took two steps and heard boom, boom, boom,” the father said. “He said he didn’t realize it until it hurt. He stumbled back to his truck and drove to the front gate. He opened the door and told them, ‘I think I’m dying.’ “

He said his son, born and raised in San Francisco, is married and has a 10-month-old son.

If one listens to the drivel from the Violence Policy Center, concealed carry permit holders are prone to acts of violence.

In addition, the gun lobby has been successful at hiding the truth about crimes committed by concealed handgun permit holders by forcing most states to keep secret the identities of permit holders. As a result, until recently, the false claims made by pro-gun advocates regarding these “upstanding community leaders” have been left unchallenged.

In 2009, the Violence Policy Center began an ongoing research project to identify killings from May 2007 to the present involving citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns. Because detailed information on such killings is not readily available, the VPC is forced to rely primarily on news accounts for reports of such killings and subsequent legal proceedings.

If one makes the assumption that the shooters in the incidents are from the counties surrounding San Francisco Bay so as to take in fans of both the Niners and Raiders, just how many permit holders are we talking about?

Thanks to Brandon Combs of the CalGuns Foundation I have those numbers for 2010. If we look to the south of Candlestick, you have 101 permit holders in San Mateo County and 53 in Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley). If you look to the East Bay area, you have 11 permit holders in Contra Costa County and 75 in Alameda County (Oakland). Immediately to the north of San Francisco is Marin County with its 35 permit holders. Finally, in San Francisco itself you have one permit holder. That is correct – in a city and county of approximately 800,000 people you have one permit holder.

According to the gun prohibitionists, controlling permits and controlling firearms will reduce this sort of violence. So how is it possible to have two shootings at a stadium in a region with only 276 combined concealed carry permit? Using their logic, it is unpossible! Try telling that to the young father who is lying in San Francisco General with multiple gunshot wounds to the abdomen.

Uncategorized

NSSF Files For Preliminary Injunction In Suit Against ATF

August 22, 2011 by

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has filed for a preliminary injunction in it’s suit to stop the reporting requirement for the multiple sale of certain semi-auto rifles. Their release on this move is below.

Today, in its federal lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for America’s firearms industry, filed a motion asking the court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the ATF from requiring 8,500 federally licensed firearms retailers along the Southwest border (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) to report multiple sales of certain long guns. Specifically, the regulation requires retailers to report to ATF the sale of more than one semi-automatic rifle larger than .22 caliber and capable of accepting a detachable magazine that is purchased by the same individual within five consecutive business days. These commonly owned rifles, like all firearms, are lawfully sold by federally licensed firearms retailers only after an FBI background check is performed.

The NSSF lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 3. 2011, alleges that ATF exceeded its legal authority under the Gun Control Act by sending a letter imposing this new record-keeping and reporting requirement. Today’s motion, if granted, would freeze the reporting requirement while the court considers NSSF’s underlying lawsuit.

NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane commented on the NSSF motion: “A preliminary injunction will curtail an unlawful regulation by ATF that sets a dangerous legal precedent. If ATF can demand this information from these law-abiding retailers simply by sending a letter requiring it, then there is no record or report ATF cannot require of any licensee, anywhere in the country, simply because ATF had decided it wants to see the information. This is the proverbial ‘slippery slope.’ Our industry abhors the criminal misuse of firearms, whether on the streets of El Paso or in Juarez, Mexico. Though we can understand ATF’s motive is to try to curtail violence in Mexico, Congress simply has not granted ATF regulatory carte blanche.”

Despite its lawsuit, NSSF is encouraging all retailers to continue to cooperate with law enforcement and report any suspicious activity to the ATF.

“Members of the firearms industry take great pride in their longstanding cooperative relationship with ATF,” said NSSF President and CEO Steve Sanetti. “Retailers have long been considered by ATF to be a vital source of information for law enforcement in combating illegal firearms trafficking.”

Sanetti pointed out that for more than a decade the firearms industry has done its part to help prevent illegal straw purchases of firearms through its Don’t Lie for the Other Guy anti-straw purchasing program. The campaign, a cooperative effort between NSSF and ATF, educates retailers on how to better detect and deter illegal purchases of firearms and warns the public that it is a serious crime to attempt such an illegal purchase. The program is active in firearm retailer shops across the country. Over the last several years the firearms industry has solely funded the roll-out of Don’t Lie along the border to deter individuals from illegally purchasing firearms. See www.dontlie.org.

– Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Uncategorized

CalGuns Foundation’s Strategy For Carry In California

August 22, 2011 by 6 Comments

Gene Hoffman of the CalGuns Foundation is a really smart guy and it shows in the methodical strategy to win handgun carry for all in California that he has outlined below. I believe it was Gene who said last September at the 2010 Gun Rights Policy Conference, “we lost our gun rights one step at a time and we will have to win them back on step at a time.”

As to why anyone not living in California should even care, one-eighth of all Americans live in the Golden State. They have 53 Representatives in Congress. What begins there often ends up in the rest of the United States over time. If Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had her way concealed carry laws in the rest of the U.S. would look like those in California.

As I read around the web, I see a lot of confusion and lack of understanding about what CGF is up to to clean up and sanitize carrying a firearm in urban California.

I want to outline the strategy a bit as there have been enough public revelations to make it easy to help outline what’s going on.

The way we see the carry problem here is that there are big issues and little issues that can be resolved both before and after a SCOTUS carry case.

Big Issue

The big issues are the Good Cause and Good Moral Character requirements of California law. Also, we’re taking the narrowest and strongest view of carry which is that it will be heavily influenced by governments’ ability to place time place and manner restrictions on it so long as loaded carry of some sort is allowed all to all non prohibiteds. That’s why we filed Sykes which became Richards v. Prieto. That’s also why SAF also filed, Palmer v. DC, Bateman v. Perdue (NC), Higtower v. Boston, Muller v. Maenza (NJ), Woolard v. Sheridan (MD), and Moore v. Madigan (IL). The whole point was to get SCOTUS to confirm there is a right to carry and may issue/discretionary laws are a prior restraint on the right to carry. Williams and Masciandaro are criminal actions that moved faster and may get us a SCOTUS carry case faster. We are currently cautiously optimistic that we’ll get a a carry case decision from SCOTUS by 6/30/2012, but we’re pretty confident that if that date isn’t hit, it would certainly be complete by 6/30/2013.

Pre SCOTUS Clean Up – The Sunshine Initiative

1. The clean up of California can start now – even before we win the big issue. Amongst the things that need to be fixed are Sheriffs with no policy, Sheriffs who force you to waste money by (having insurance, getting a doctor’s note, making you apply to a PD who will absolutely turn you down first, etc.) This effort can be seen by SF Sheriff’s Office finally issuing a (bad) policy and is exemplified by Rossow v. Merced.

2. Also, some sheriffs tend to be far more lenient on good cause statements from people they “know” for whatever reason. As such we can force a lot of sheriffs to head toward shall issue now (while we wait on SCOTUS) with cases like Scocca in Santa Clara that rely on Guillory v. Gates. This was why we sued Ventura for not disclosing their good cause statements.

3. Further, non California residents really have no way to carry in California. That’s why we filed Peterson v. Denver County Sheriff of the Week. We can prove the issue in the 10th Circuit (and get Californian’s the ability to carry in Denver) and then re-import that decision.

4. California’s license is pretty darn clean. Even 18 year olds can get it. However, we’re watching NRA’s handgun purchase and carry cases in Texas because we’ll want to import those wins here too.

All of this means that, while we wait, more people get permits, more counties get closer to shall issue, and when SCOTUS hits, we can quickly remove all the silly roadblocks to getting permits once they’re clearly our right – in many cases because we already have removed unlawful procedures in most of the California counties.

Post SCOTUS clean up.

1. Hold outs. We’ll have a few. However, we should have fresh case law to prove that much of what they do is unlawful. Add that to the Ezell standard that denial of 2A rights is irreparable harm and we’ll choose one or two counties to make examples of with TROs and PIs.

2. Too slow. Some counties will move too slowly – or are already too slow. Part of the plan with point 1, is to address that. Some time is allowed to complete the background checks, but after the initial crush of applicants 30-60 days is more than enough to process licenses.

3. Too expensive. Many gun owners can’t afford the license. Government is going to have to make accommodations for them. Our initial license is expensive. It’s ongoing maintenance is actually pretty cheap.

4. Other stuff. Psych evals will be killed by inference from a SCOTUS decision but we may have to pick on some issuer. More 42 USC 1988 fees for the attorneys!

A couple additional notes.

1. Licensed carry may be the bare minimum. Just as those of us closely watching Heller got a lot wider decision than we were expecting around carry, who knows how wide SCOTUS’ carry decision will be. We’re asking for the narrowest that gives us a real right because it’s prudent. If we get more on the first bite, well… Things above may be stated too conservatively.

2. CGF has focused on Sheriffs because they can’t weasel out like a PD can/could. However, that means in the future (and even now) sometimes the PD you live in could be a better option. We expect competition based on customer service between sheriffs and PD’s to pop up after SCOTUS. That’s the flip side of our relatively expensive initial permit – it’s a decent revenue source for cash strapped agencies.

I’m sure there is something I’ve forgotten, but I hope this clarifies what we’re up to a bit. There is nothing truly proprietary here – it’s just the best way to go about making life easy for CA gun owners who want to carry a firearm. There are a couple of additional items/clean ups that I’ve not talked about as we need to hold those back until we file them, but suffice it to say that there is a plan and that it should be relatively easy for all who want to carry – hopefully starting July 4, 2012.

I expect the biggest problem to be the lines. I can already tell you that BoF is impressed at what we’ve done in a couple of counties already based on their “carry applications pending” stats.

I certainly hope Gene is correct that the biggest problem will be the lines!