Is CAGV Afraid Of A Little Political Theater?

Connecticut Against Gun Violence (sic) or CAGV was planning to have their 3rd Annual Conference on Saturday, October 3rd, at Yale University in New Haven. They were having a number of the bigwigs of the gun prohibitionist lobby attending. They were going to have Ladd Everitt of CSGV, Josh Sugarmann of VPC, and Colin Goddard of Everytown (formerly of Brady) among others.

Then they posted this announcement on Wednesday:

We regret that the CAGV Conference that was scheduled for October 3rd at Yale University has been cancelled. Unfortunately there are circumstances beyond our control that made this difficult decision necessary.

Rumor has it that a group of Californians was planning to attend that meeting.

Often when Californians talk to “gun folks” in other states, they express exasperation at our continued assaults on the fortress of prohibitionism, here. They encourage us to simply relocate to a Free State where we don’t have to worry constantly about complying with the California laws so Byzantine that not even the Bureau of Firearms successfully navigates them.

But we don’t want to leave, and even if we did, we’re seeing that California’s and Connecticut’s cancer is spreading toward the Heartland.

Draw the line now.

We’re organizing a protest at this meeting. We’re not going to stand out there with signs and matching t-shirts to scream at traffic. We’re going to disrupt it. Nothing violent, but political theater goes a long way.

Plans are coming together. Clear your schedule, we’re all going to Connecticut!

I wonder if the protest the Californians had planned was anything like this one planned for San Francisco a few years back.

Would those California gun owners have gone full Alinsky on CAGV?  I guess we’ll never know since CAGV cancelled their event. What a pity!

Fire Mission From CalGuns Foundation

It’s time to help out friends in California. While many might write California off as a lost cause, it isn’t so long as you have groups like CalGuns, Cal-FFL, and the Firearms Policy Coalition fighting them.

Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) might also be known as Gov. Moonbeam but he is a gun owner and signed on to the amicus brief in support of the McDonald case when he was the Attorney General.

So help out our friends in California and perhaps win a Benelli M4 while you are at it.

Works for me.

Oppose DOJ’s new anti-gun regulations NOW!


Write DOJ to OPPOSE new anti-gun regulations

 — less than 24 hours left to submit comments! —

WHAT: Send DOJ your written opposition to their proposed anti-gun regulations

WHEN: BEFORE 5 p.m. on Tuesday, September 24, 2013.

WHY: Among other things, DOJ is trying to make “DROS
delays” permanent and remove its lawsuit liability through their
proposed regulations.

HOW: Use FPC’s fast, easy, and free TAKE ACTION contact form at A
letter to DOJ addressing these outrageous proposed regulations is
already built-in to the FPC TAKE ACTION contact form; however, you may
edit the text as you like to reflect your personal concerns.

PUBLIC HEARING: DOJ will hold a public hearing to
receive public comments on the proposed regulatory action at 1:00 p.m.
on September 24, 2013, at the Department of Water Resources Auditorium
located at 1416 9th Street, in Sacramento, California. The auditorium is
wheelchair accessible. At the hearing, any person may present oral or written comments
regarding the proposed regulatory action. DOJ requests, but does not
require, that persons making oral comments at the hearing also submit a written copy of their testimony.

Please send your letter
RIGHT NOW, then SHARE THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE to all of your pro-gun
family and friends. Post on Facebook & Twitter — help us get the
word out!

WIN a Benelli M4 by sending Gov. Brown a letter at

Another Second Amendment Lawsuit Filed In California

The Second Amendment Foundation, the CalGuns Foundation, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees have filed suit in US District Court against Alameda County, California due to the county’s use of a zoning law to present a gun shop from opening. They are joined in the suit by John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza who had attempted to open a gun shop there.

The County of Alameda requires that all gun shops be 500 feet away from the nearest residence, liquor store, or school. The location chosen by the businessmen above had met that standard until the county changed how it measured the distance. Alameda County Board of Supervisors made this change after the gun shop had been given a condition use permit and a variable by the local Board of Adjustment. In doing so, the supervisors negated the variance that had been issued by the Board of Adjustment.

I have served on my local Board of Adjustment for over 18 years and am the current vice-chair of the Board. The actions by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to change the ordinance after the fact and nullify the variance is most unusual. As boards of adjustment are quasi-judicial bodies, appeals of their decisions are usually made in the local Superior Court.

Below is the joint press release on Teixeira et al v. County of Alameda et al.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – The County of Alameda’s zoning law requiring that gun stores be located 500 feet away from residential properties is not rational and cannot withstand any form of constitutional scrutiny, argues a new federal civil rights lawsuit filed yesterday in San Francisco, California. Businessmen John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza are joined by the Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees as plaintiffs in the case. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason Davis of Rancho Santa Margarita.

The complaint describes how plaintiffs Teixeira, Nobriga, and Gamza had actually been granted a Conditional Use Permit and variance for the property on which they intended to open a gun store until the variance was revoked by the Alameda Board of Supervisors. “John, Steve, and Gary did everything right. They had their paperwork in order,” said attorney Donald Kilmer. “Their store was moving forward, things were going great, and then they were blindsided by the County long after putting money, labor, and time into opening their store. That’s a serious due process problem for the County.”

“The facts in this case are outrageous,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “In the fall of 2010, Gamaza, Nobriga, and Teixeira formed a business partnership with the intention of opening a gun store in Alameda County. When they began the process of getting permits to open their shop, they were advised of a requirement that gun stores not be located within 500 feet of any school, liquor store or residence.

“After carefully measuring distances between the shop’s front door and the front door of the nearest property,” he continued, “they found that they were well beyond the 500-foot limit. But then the county changed the measurement requirements.”

The City of Sunnyvale recently conducted a study that showed gun stores had no correlation with area crime. “The right to buy firearms is just as much a protected part of the Second Amendment as the right to buy books is protected under the First Amendment,” said Calguns Foundation chairman Gene Hoffman. “Just like we saw in the Nordyke case, Alameda County continues it’s long-running effort to undermine the fundamental civil rights of it’s citizens to purchase firearms that they have a right to buy.”

According to the lawsuit, the county allowed an objection to the businessmen’s permit to be filed even though the deadline had passed for such objections and the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments had voted to approve a conditional use permit and allow the gun store to operate. “The outcome of this lawsuit may very well have far-reaching implications for firearms dealers not just in California, but across the United States,” noted co-counsel Jason Davis. “Hopefully we can address these issues for dealers once and for all.”

“Alameda County has a long track record of denying Second Amendment Rights to its residents, even those enumerated in our Constitution,” explained Cal-FFL president Brandon Combs. “We’ve seen over and over again how local rules like those Alameda County adopted are sold to municipalities by anti-gun extremist groups like New York Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, and other Joyce Foundation-funded spinoffs.”

“They want to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution, but that’s simply not going to happen on our watch. We will make sure Americans have a neighborhood gun dealer to sell them the tools they need to defend themselves from violent attackers.”

The case is captioned as Teixeira, et al. v. County of Alameda, et al. The docket and filings as they become available can be viewed at

State Senator Leland Yee – The General Gage Of California

A few weeks ago, CBS 5 in San Francisco had a breathless report about a “loophole” in California gun laws that allowed people to have “assault weapons”. The so-called loophole that was just discovered by the intrepid reporters is something called a bullet button which has been around for five years or so. A bullet button allows the use of a removable magazine on an AR-15. However, one must use a tool or the tip of your bullet to remove that magazine. Essentially, it is device that allows fixed magazines to be removed for either loading or clearing a jam.

As sure as the sun sets in the West, you just knew that some politician was going to jump on this imagined bandwagon and introduce a law to outlaw bullet buttons. That politician is State Senator Leland Yee, Ph.D. who represents parts of San Francisco and San Mateo Counties.

Today, Yee introduced his bill to outlaw bullet buttons. He will be gutting the contents of SB 249 and replacing them with his anti-bullet button language.

Leland Yee – California’s General Gage

From his press release:

“There is absolutely no reason why these military style weapons need to have such easily changeable magazines,” said Yee. “While most gun owners are law abiding, I am deeply concerned with these assault weapons getting into the wrong hands, resulting in mass casualties of civilians or law enforcement officers.”

Magazines, or the storage areas that allow for repeat firing, that can be removed by a normal push button in combination with features such as a pistol grip and telescoping stock are banned in California. The law essentially requires magazines to be fixed, or removed or replaced with the use of a tool, in order to slow down the process of reloading.

To get around the law, gun makers have created a new mechanism, or “tool,” that allows the magazine to be easily removed by the tip of a bullet or in some cases by just putting a small magnet over the “bullet button,” basically recreating a normal push button and allowing magazines to be changed within seconds.

“These conversions are circumventing the spirit of California’s assault weapon statute,” said Yee. “Absent this bill, California’s assault weapon ban is significantly weakened. For the safety of the general public, we must close this loophole.”

Fortunately, the people of California have groups like CalGuns and its president, Gene Hoffman, fighting for them. I just loved the historical lesson Gene gave the reporter from CBS 5 and Senator Yee.  Having seen them in action, it would be good for them to take it to heart.

Yee seems to be the type of politician that thrives on attention from special interest groups such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center. In his recent effort to be elected Mayor of San Francisco, he touted how he had landed virtually “every major endorsement in the race for mayor.” Yee finished in 5th place.

As a final aside, I find it amusing that Senator Yee insists on putting Ph.D. after his name on his legislative website. While some may find legislators childish, Yee’s doctorate in child psychology has nothing to do with his job as a State Senator. I am reminded of something my late wife Rosanne said about her own Ph.D. – earned at a much more prestigious institution and in a more rigorous field – when asked why she didn’t put it after her name in general usage. She said, and I quote, “that and 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee.” I think that puts it into perspective.

Jerry Finally Makes Up His Mind

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) finally made up his mind on a slate of firearms-related bills that required either his signature or his veto. He did it on the last day that he could make a decision.  He signed four bills and vetoed one. As to the impact, the result is mixed for California gun owners.

Let’s start with the veto. Brown vetoed SB 427 which would have forbidden mail order shipments of certain ammunition to California. In his veto message, he noted:

This measure would amend a recently enacted law concerning the sale and purchase of handgun ammunition. That law is currently being litigated.

Let’s keep our powder dry on amendments until the court case runs its course.

Now to what he signed.

SB 610 amends the California carry application process in such a way as to require sheriffs to make the determination on whether the applicant shows “good cause” before the applicant has gone through the required training process. Thus, the applicant is saved the cost of going through training only to find out he or she is going to be denied for a carry permit. This was a CalGuns backed measure.

AB 144 is the bill that got most of the attention because it would outlaw unloaded open carry. It was introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Portatino (D-Pasadena). There had been a concerted effort by many gun groups to get Gov. Brown to veto this bill as it outlaws the only mode of carry available to most Californians. In that sense it is bad. However, signing this bill may in a counter-intuitive way be to our advantage especially when it comes to moving California forward to becoming a shall-issue state.

In Peruta v. San Diego, U.S. District Court Judge Irma Gonzalez cited the exceptions that would allow the plaintiff, Edward Peruta, to have armed self-defense outside the home. One of those exceptions under California law was unloaded open carry. Because of this, she felt justified in denying Mr. Peruta the ability to obtain a concealed carry permit. With Gov. Brown’s signing AB 144, this exception is now removed. The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the foreclosing of this option could well have an impact upon the case.

AB 809 now requires the registration of long guns in California starting in 2014. Handguns are currently required to be registered and this bill sponsored by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-LA) extends it to all guns. In a signing statement attached to this bill, Gov. Brown noting that the state already requires a background check on all firearm purchases but only retains it with regard to handguns, said, “I see no reason why the state should not also retain information pertaining to the sales of long guns.”

Finally, SB 819 sponsored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) expands the use of the fee charged in the dealer record of sale (DROS) process. From the analysis of the bill provided by the legislature:

Provides that the Department of Justice (DOJ) may use dealer record of sale (DROS) funds for costs associated with its firearms-related regulatory and enforcement activities regarding the possession, as well as the sale, purchase, loan, or transfer, of firearms, as specified.

In essence, SB 819 changes the DROS fee into a tax because it will now be used for purposes beyond activities related to just the sale and transfer of a firearm. The fee is already being challenged in Federal court by the CRPA/NRA Legal Project in the case of Harris v. Bauer and this will only help the case.

California gun attorney Clint Montfort had this to say about the bills on the CalGuns forum. He is an associate with Chuck Michel in Michel & Associates.

The DROS bill will necessarily and immediately be challenged in the NRA’s Harris v. Bauer case. If anyone doesn’t understand the DROS issue or SB 819, I recommend reading the NRA’s alert in that case on or reading the complaint in that case.

Everyone knows how AB 144 will be used agaist the other side in the current LTC cases (SAF/CGF & NRA/CRPAF).

SB 427 was vetoed as a result of the NRA’s Parker v. CA case from last year that overturned AB 962 and is currently being appealed.

Obviously it certainly would have been nice if AB 809 wasn’t signed. But at the end of the day, two of the three bills that were signed aren’t the end of the world. They become part of litigation that was already set in motion. So while those cases are litigated, enjoy purchasing all of your ammo over the internet and in stores without leaving a thumbprint. Lets see how litigation plays out regarding long gun registration.

The pro 2A bill on his desk was signed.

CalGuns Foundation’s Strategy For Carry In California

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!

CalGuns Sues Merced County Sheriff Over CCW Policies

The CalGuns Foundation is doing a great job in keeping California sheriffs honest when it comes to concealed carry law in that state. They have just filed a suit in Merced County against the county, the sheriffs department, and Sheriff Mark Pazin for the additional requirements that Sheriff Pazin imposes on CCW applicants. CalGuns alleges these additional requirements contravene California state law.

I think it is safe to say that other counties in California may expect such lawsuits if they try to skirt the state law on concealed carry.


San Carlos, CA (July 27, 2011) – As part of its ongoing Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, the Calguns Foundation has filed a lawsuit in Merced County Superior Court challenging Merced County and its Sheriff’s firearm carry licensing policy for violating state law. Joining CGF are three individual plaintiffs who have been harmed by these policies, Michelle and Seth Rossow and James Clark. The plaintiffs are represented by Jason Davis of Mission Viejo and Donald Kilmer of San Jose.

California firearm carry license laws currently require applicants to have “good cause” and “good moral character.” The Calguns Foundation believes that those requirements are an unconstitutional prior restraint on the people’s right to bear arms, and is challenging those requirements in its Federal lawsuit over Yolo County’s carry licensing scheme in Richards v. Prieto, currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

However, in Merced County, the Sheriff saddles applicants with additional forms, fees, and processes – even for individuals who meet the heightened good cause and moral character requirements – that, CGF alleges, violate state law.

“Sheriff Pazin has had ample time to create a policy that adheres to state law,” said Brandon Combs, a director of CGF and leader of the Initiative. Calguns Foundation first contacted Merced in October of 2010, when it discovered that the Sheriff had established an unlawful moratorium on carry license applications. The Sheriff subsequently lifted the moratorium, but has since refused to modify parts of his policy that CGF identified as unlawful.

“This case is definitely important to all Merced County residents who seek a carry license,” added CGF chairman Gene Hoffman. “What Sheriff Pazin has done is further burden a process that’s already costly and complex with unlawful requirements and fees. We are merely requesting the court mandate that the Sheriff’s policy be consistent with existing law.”

In 1999, California enacted Assembly Bill 2022 to enforce standards upon the carry licensing process. “The Legislature, in AB 2022, sought to address the arbitrary and widely-varying abuses in carry license policies between different cities and counties in California,” said Jason Davis. “They made it clear that application requirements, forms, and fees are to be uniform throughout the state.”

“When we found out my wife was about to become a new mom,” said plaintiff Seth Rossow, “we knew we needed to take steps to protect our family when we weren’t in our home. We’ve had problems with meth users hiding at our ranch, and we watch the news like everybody else. In this day of budget cuts and reduced law enforcement patrols, it is important for us to be able to easily apply for our carry licenses.”

“The Rossow’s concerns for their safety are not unique,” added Don Kilmer. “California created a system that was designed so that applicants could focus on important issues, like training, rather than worry about a local form the Sheriff might or might not want them to fill out that day.”

“Ultimately, this case is about making carry license policies consistent with California law,” said Gene Hoffman. “We believe that we can accomplish this without 58 lawsuits, but if that’s what it requires, that’s what we are prepared to do.”

A downloadable copy of the complaint may be found at CGF’s downloads library. More information on Calguns Foundation’s Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative and other Second Amendment-related litigation and educational efforts can be found at

– Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

CalGuns Forces San Francisco Sheriff To Adopt CCW Policy

The CalGuns Foundation sent out this release this evening regarding their victory in forcing the Sheriff of San Francisco County to comply with California law regarding concealed carry permits. Congratulations to CalGuns for getting San Francisco to obey the law. When I attended the Gun Rights Policy Conference in San Francisco, I was shocked to find out that there were only eight CCW permits issued for all of San Francisco County. While this number may have changed some, it is still ridiculously small for a city and county of the size of San Francisco.

San Carlos, CA (Tuesday, July 5, 2011) – After a litigation threat from the Calguns Foundation, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey has adopted a policy for firearm carry license (“CCW”) applications.

As part of its ongoing Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, The Calguns Foundation sent San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey a letter demanding that he immediately bring the firearm carry license application acceptance, processing, and evaluation policies of his department into compliance with California law.

“As a direct result of our letter, San Franciscans now have a path to apply for a permit to exercise their fundamental right of self defense,” notes Gene Hoffman, Chairman of CGF. “We look forward to assisting San Francisco residents to that end by publishing on our website copies of approved ‘good cause’ statements, the Sheriff’s policy, DOJ standard application, a ‘CCW Application Flowchart’, and other valuable tools and information.”

The new policy is being reviewed for requirements and practices that violate the law. “While we’re pleased that Sheriff Hennessey chose to produce a policy rather than spend taxpayers’ money to defend an indefensible position, it’s perplexing that he created such an onerous carry license program that practically begs for further scrutiny and possibly litigation,” said Brandon Combs, a director of CGF and leader of the Sunshine Initiative.

Calguns Foundation provided a copy of their Model Carry License Policy, downloadable here, to San Francisco Sheriff Hennessey and the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. The CGF Model Policy reflects the process and procedures found in state law and comports with constitutional principles. San Francisco, however, chose to largely ignore CGF’s offer of assistance and create its own policy.

“We’re taking a very hard look at policies that burden the carry license application process with unlawful or unconstitutional provisions,” stated Gene Hoffman. “We expect that some sheriffs will dig in their heels and refuse to comply with the law. Those sheriffs should expect to be taken to court.”

A copy of the San Francisco carry license policy is available for download here. More information on Calguns Foundation’s Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative can be found at For more information on other Second Amendment-related litigation and educational efforts, please visit

Coalition Files Amicus Brief In Colorado Carry Case

The Second Amendment Foundation and a coalition of 17 other gun rights organizations have filed an amicus brief with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Peterson v. Garcia. Gray Peterson’s case has been supported in this lawsuit against Denver by the CalGuns Foundations.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has been joined by 17 other firearms rights groups in an amicus brief filed in a case now before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms by law-abiding non-resident U.S. citizens in Denver, Colorado.

The case, Peterson v. Garcia, was filed by Washington state resident Gray Peterson, who cannot exercise his right to bear arms because Colorado statute prohibits the issuance of a concealed carry permit to non-residents, and does not recognize Peterson’s Washington license or his Florida carry permit because he is not a Florida resident. Denver bans the open carry of firearms, leaving Peterson – who visits Colorado frequently – without any legal means of carrying a firearm for his personal protection.

“This is a case that affects citizens in at least 20 states and the District of Columbia,” noted Miko Tempski, SAF legal affairs director. “We’ve been joined by organizations from 16 of those states in this brief, because they all have members who may travel to Colorado and face the same problem if they enter the City of Denver.”

Joining SAF are the Buckeye Firearms Foundation (Ohio), Citizens’ Rights Action League (Rhode Island), Commonwealth Second Amendment (Massachusetts), Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Calguns Foundation, Inc. (California), Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (Minnesota), Hawaii Defense Foundation, Illinois Carry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Maine Open Carry Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Wisconsin Carry, Inc., SCOPE, Inc. (New York), Stillwater Firearms Association (Nevada), Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. and West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. All are state-focused non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving, defending and promoting firearms rights.

“The Second Amendment doesn’t only say you have a right to keep arms,” Tempski continued, “it also stipulates that citizens have the right to bear arms. Because of our successful lawsuit in the McDonald case last year, leading to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, the right to bear arms is very much at issue with Mr. Peterson’s challenge. Any law or ordinance that touches on this right must be held to the strictest of scrutiny.”

CalGuns Demands San Franscisco Sheriff Obey Law

The CalGuns Foundation issued this press release yesterday demanding that San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey obey California state law regarding concealed carry.

San Carlos, CA (June 2, 2011) – As part of its ongoing Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, The Calguns Foundation sent San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey a letter demanding that he immediately bring his firearm carry license application acceptance, processing, and evaluation policies into compliance with the law.

In the letter sent Tuesday, Calguns notes that the Sheriff has failed to comply with state law for nearly thirteen years, even after being notified of the deficiency on a number of prior occasions. Calguns also claims that the policies of the Sheriff in issuing licenses to some, including one of his employees, while refusing to accept all applications from “regular” San Francisco residents violates applicants’ constitutional rights of self-defense and equal protection under the law.

“While the Sheriff may have grown accustomed to following only those laws he chooses, we intend to hold the County’s highest law enforcement officer to the same laws he took an oath to uphold,” notes Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “The rights of San Francisco residents are no less valuable than those of his employees and friends.”

In 1998, then-Assemblymember Rod Wright authored a bill to make firearm carry permit applications consistent across the state due to tremendous variations in local practices by licensing authorities. That bill, AB 2022, established a mandate that all licensing authorities create and publish a written policy on carry license applications by April 1, 1999. It also instituted a specific process that licensing authorities – county sheriffs and city chiefs of police – must use in receiving and processing applications.

“We’ve spent thousands of hours requesting and reviewing the policies and practices of hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the state. Sheriff Hennessey’s, obviously, stood out – it simply didn’t exist,” said Brandon Combs, member of the Board of Directors of Calguns Foundation. “It’s exceedingly frustrating to see the Sheriff turning away so many qualified San Francisco residents who are complying with the law.”

In an effort to avoid litigation, Calguns provided Sheriff Hennessey with a comprehensive model carry license policy. “We would strongly prefer that the Sheriff simply choose to use our model policy, much as San Francisco has done with LCAV policies in the past,” Brandon Combs said. “However, should he choose to go another direction, we’re prepared to litigate as necessary to bring his policies and practices in line with the law.”

A downloadable copy of the model policy is available at this link. CGF’s letter to Sheriff Hennessey is located here.

More information on Calguns Foundation’s Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative can be found at For more information on other Second Amendment-related litigation and educational efforts, please visit

I had the distinct pleasure of getting to know Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGuns Foundation, at the LuckyGunner Blogger Shoot. I’m proud to say that he is a Tar Heel native and bleeds Carolina Blue especially during basketball season.

Gene and the CalGuns Foundation are doing great work in California in their efforts to preserve, protect, and expand our Second Amendment rights in that state. As one-fifth of all Americans live in California, what happens in California eventually will impact the rest of us. Rather than mocking those gun owners who choose (or are forced by economic necessity) to live in California, we ought to be asking how can we help.