California

Uncategorized

It’s Bush’s Fault

November 9, 2012 by 1 Comment

Police in Manhattan Beach, CA are investigating a pig’s head wrapped in a Romney T-shirt left at a local GOP headquarters as an “illegal dumping of an animal carcass”.

You know in your heart of hearts that if that pig’s head was left at a Demcratic Party officer or an Obama for America headquarters that the Party of Tolerance™ would be screaming about a “hate crime”. The Secret Service would be involved and there would be a joint press conference with representatives from the LAPD, the FBI, and the LA District Attorney’s Office promising to track down the miscreant.

Go figure.

Uncategorized

Cal Bureau of Firearms Slapped Down For Unlawful “Underground Regulation”

August 21, 2012 by

The California Office of Administrative Law just slapped down the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms for their “underground regulation” of “assault weapons”. The Bureau of Firearms was refusing corporations permits to own so-called assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles contending only individuals could obtain these permits.

I’ll let the release from Cal-FFL complete the story:

Reference: CA OAL determination at http://www.scribd.com/doc/103439872/Cal-FFL-2012-OAL-Determination-re-DOJ-Corporation-AW-Permits

MORGAN HILL, CA – In a significant decision for firearms manufacturers, dealers, and purchasers throughout California, the State of California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) determined that the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms’ prohibition against the issuance of “assault weapon” permits to corporations and other entities to be an unlawful “underground regulation.” Jay Jacobson of Franklin Armory petitioned the Office of Administrative Law after being informed by the Bureau of Firearms that only “individuals” could apply for permits.

“As a California businessman, I strive to comply with all requirements of the law – and so must DOJ,” said Jacobson. “Companies in the firearms industry, like ours, often face a dilemma of whether to stand up and challenge the regulatory agency that holds licensing authority over them or just accept and submit to unlawful policies. We chose to act in favor of a final resolution and, thankfully, had the support of the firearms community and Cal-FFL.”

As reported by Cal-FFL in April, the DOJ had held steadfast by its opinion that only “individuals” are able to obtain permits to sell “assault weapons” or “.50 BMG Rifles”. However, the express text of Penal Code section 16970 states that “any entity” within the definition of “persons” may obtain such permits. Franklin Armory argued that the DOJ policy conflicted with the express language of the Penal Code, which defines “person” for the purposes of the Assault Weapon Control Act as “an individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or any other group or entity, regardless of how it was created.” In spite of the clear language of the Code, DOJ disagreed, arguing that the language does not permit corporations to obtain the requisite permits to manufacture and sell such firearms. OAL’s determination put the matter to rest.

“This has been an issue for years,” said firearms and civil rights attorney Jason Davis. “We had requested that this policy be abandoned in 2003, but the previous administrations refused and the underground regulation was perpetuated. Until Franklin Armory decided to take action, with Cal-FFL’s support, the willingness within the firearms industry to challenge DOJ on this issue simply didn’t exist.”

OAL received comments in support of Franklin Armory’s petition from Brandon Combs of California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc., as well as attorney Clinton B. Monfort of Michel and Associates, P.C.

“This action should eliminate the burden, both financial and procedural, that law-abiding businesses face in this segment of the fast-growing firearms market,” said Brandon Combs of California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc. “Though we often find ourselves on opposite sides of issues, we appreciate the DOJ’s professionalism throughout the process and look forward to working closely with their representatives to ensure a smooth application of this determination.”

The OAL Determination is captioned as 2012 OAL Determination No.8 (OAL FILE NO. CTU2012-0207-01) and can be viewed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/103439872/Cal-FFL-2012-OAL-Determination-re-DOJ-Corporation-AW-Permits.
—
California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (www.calffl.org) is California’s premier non-profit industry association of, by, and for firearms manufacturers, dealers, collectors, training professionals, shooting ranges, and others, advancing the interests of its members and the general public through strategic litigation, legislative efforts, and education. For more information or to join, please visit Cal-FFL.

Franklin Armory (www.franklinarmory.com) is part of a California corporation that has been in operation for over 20 years and specializes in producing legal firearms for restrictive jurisdictions such as California. They also build full feature firearms for “free” states. Every firearm produced at their facility in Morgan Hill, California, is made with 100% American made parts & materials.

Uncategorized

In California, Much Ado About Nothing

February 22, 2012 by 4 Comments

The Humane Society of the United States’ California branch is all bent out of shape because the President of the California Fish and Game Commission, Dan Richards, went mountain lion hunting in Idaho. While mountain lion hunting has been prohibited in California since 1990, it is perfectly legal in Idaho where Mr. Richards also owns a cabin. Indeed, California is the only state from the Rockies to the Pacific that bans hunting of mountain lions. The prohibition that began in 1990 was not the result of scientific study by wildlife biologists but rather the result of Proposition 117.

Mr. Richards had posted this picture and story in the Western Outdoor News about his hunting trip to Idaho.

NEW COMMISSION PRESIDENT CELEBRATES A SUCCESSFUL HUNT – California Fish and Game commissioner Dan W. Richards travelled deep into the wicked terrain of Idaho’s Flying B Ranch to fulfill a long-held goal. “It was the most physically exhausting hunt of my lifetime. Eight hours of cold weather hiking in very difficult terrain. I told the guides I appreciated the hard work. They were unbelievably professional, first class all the way,” he said. Richards said he took the big cat over iron sights using a Winchester Centennial lever action .45 carbine. Asked about California’s mountain lion moratorium, Richards didn’t hesitate. “I’m glad it’s legal in Idaho.”

Photo courtesy of Dan Richards

This prompted the Humane Society of the US-California chapter to start a campaign to get Mr. Richards removed. They posted this on their Facebook page:

Posing with this dead mountain lion is California’s new Fish and Game commission president Dan Richards. Since mountain lions are protected in our state, he went to Idaho to bag this trophy. As a hunter friend of mine said when he saw this photo, “That’s not right. You don’t kill what you don’t eat.” I agree. If you do too, drop a (polite) email to the folks at the Fish and Game Commission and ask for a new president: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/contact/

Dan Richards is what these so-called environmental and animal rights groups hate – a Republican hunter who is a life member of the NRA who refuses to bend to their will.

A San Bernardino County Republican appointed to the five-member commission by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008, Richards has been its most outspoken advocate for expanding hunting, often clashing with environmental and animal welfare groups.

As president, Richards can set the commission’s agenda on a range of issues including endangered species protections, ocean fishing rules and all types of hunting regulation from rabbits to black bears. If he were to bring the dead mountain lion back to California from Idaho, he would be in violation of state law.

As such, given our new political climate, he must be destroyed. Unfortunately, they have willing allies in the media and with certain Democratic legislators. The news report below, while it emphasizes the hunt was legal, devotes most of its time to Jennifer Fearing of HSUS-California. Ms. Fearing has compared Richards’ legal hunt to an American drug czar using drugs in a country where it was legal.

And, according to a report in the Mercury News, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, chairman of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, may introduce a resolution in the California Assembly to have Richards removed. Richards cannot be removed by Gov. Jerry Brown but can be removed from office by a majority vote of both houses of the California legislature.

“He’s thumbing his nose at California law,” Huffman said. “He’s mocking it. Frankly, I think he should face the music and step down. He’s done something that’s a disgrace to his position and to responsible hunters in California.”

The comments by Assemblyman Huffman are a joke. What Mr. Richards did would be the equivalent of me going to the Rockies to hunt elk. While elk have been reintroduced to the Smoky Mountains, they are a protected species.

The mountain lion or cougar is an apex predator. While humans may be above it in the predatory hierarchy, as many reports show, the mountain lion will attack humans. They are not the big kitty that fears man and just wants to be left to live its life in peace as the anti-hunting groups would have you believe.

I, for one, shed no false tears of moral outrage over Dan Richards killing a mountain lion after a long and arduous hunt. Rather I would congratulate him on his successful hunt and nice trophy.

UPDATE: The Outdoor Wire today published an editorial from Bill Karr of the Western Outdoor News in response to the HSUS campaign to remove Dan Richards. It is an excellent read and points out that Jennifer Fearing of the HSUS-California is nothing but a carpetbagger. She arrived in California 3 years ago from the DC headquarters of HSUS. Other animal rights activists are siding with Richards on this one.

This all comes from two people, and an organization, that has had no physical presence in California whatsoever until the past few years. The HSUS headquarters is in Washington, D.C., and that is, in fact, where the California head of HSUS, Jennifer Fearing, came from just 3 years ago to try and influence California politics. And the crying shame is, they found some success with the gullible, left-leaning California majority.

It seems to me, though, that HSUS has gone way out on a limb with this one, though. Even other animal rights activists disagree with HSUS. In comments to the San Jose Mercury News, Eric Mills, Coordinator for Action for Animals out of Oakland had this to say about Richards: “The anger here is misplaced. Commissioner Dan Richards did nothing illegal. Mountain lion hunting is not against the law in Idaho. Nor was this a ‘canned’ hunt, as some have claimed. Dan Richards is not the enemy. He’s an avid outdoorsman, hunter and fisherman, which has been well-known for years. No one has a right to be surprised by this hunt.”

Mills even went so far as to say “I’ve found him to be honest, thoughtful, articulate, fair and outspoken.”

Uncategorized

Enough To Cause Wailing and Gnashing Of Teeth … By The Anti Gunners

December 13, 2011 by 1 Comment

Let’s face it, the gun prohibitionists are a humorless lot who turn their patrician noses up at what the rest of us find funny. Imagine their consternation over a series of ads being aired by PRK Arms of Fresno, CA that spoof puppy adoption and male enhancement ads. You can hear the ads here or here. From the transcript at HotAir.com:

“They’ve been mistreated and misunderstood for generations,” the ad begins. “Abusive owners have done severe damage and given these beautiful creatures a bad reputation.”

“You can make a difference by giving a gun a loving home,” the ad says. “These guns want nothing more than to adore and protect you. So, please, have a heart. … PRK Arms has the kinds of guns that need a loving home more than anything else — like AK-47s, Glocks and the biggest selection of AR-15s in Fresno.”

And from this TV report, it sounds like the ads are working. Sales have never been better according to the store’s owner.

You just knew that any gun store called PRK Arms as in People’s Republic of Kalifornia had to have a sense of humor. Given the gun laws in California, a sense of humor – and a donation to the CalGuns Foundation – may be the only thing that lets you deal with it.

H/T Firearm Blog and HotAir

Uncategorized

Except If You Live In A Free State

November 9, 2011 by 2 Comments

The San Francisco Chronicle ran an article today about law enforcement officers under investigation in the Sacramento area for their weapons purchases. The investigation is being headed by ATF.

Under California law, a law enforcement officer can purchase handguns that are not on the California-approved list, standard (more than 10 round) capacity magazines, and what California defines as as an “assault weapon”. They are also exempted from the 10-day waiting period. All that is required for purchases of magazines and handguns not on the approved list is for the LEO to show his or her credentials. A letter of permission from their sheriff or police chief exempts them from the 10-day waiting period and allows them to buy California-defined “assault weapons”. Moreover, there are few limits or checks on how many of these weapons that an officer may purchase.

In other words, in California, law enforcement officers are treated just like you or me but only better.

With regard to purchases of AR-15s and the like with all of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s evil features, a spokesman for the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department had this to say:

Sacramento sheriff’s spokesman Jason Ramos said his department has an informal practice of letting deputies buy one assault rifle during their career, with the approval of the sheriff and the captain in charge of weapons and training.

“A guy can’t be in the habit of every year or two buying another one,” Ramos said. “You can’t just be out buying these cool weapons.”

To which my response is, sure you can…if you live in a free state.

H/T Josh

Uncategorized

Jerry Finally Makes Up His Mind

October 10, 2011 by

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 www.calgunlaws.com 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.

Uncategorized

Fixed It For Them

September 19, 2011 by 1 Comment

AB 144 which bans unloaded open carry in California is sitting on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk awaiting either a signature or veto. The Brady Campaign opposes UOC because it scares rich white liberals buying overpriced coffee. That it may or may not deter a criminal is irrelevant to them.

Paraphrasing a quote by one of their spokespeople made to the L.A. Times:

Cop carry control advocates hope that California will now pave the way for the rest of the country to outlaw the practice.

“Openly carrying a cop on your back into Starbucks and other establishments creates a culture of fear and intimidation,” said Brian Malte, director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Cop Carry. “It is irresponsible and dangerous.”

“People in other states look to see what California does,” he said. If Brown signs the bill, “other states will follow suit.”

My paraphrase of Brian Malte’s comment makes about as much sense as his statement does. The sad thing is that I realize it and he does not.

Uncategorized

Was She Really A NRA Operative In Disguise?

September 14, 2011 by 5 Comments

Kinde Durkee and her firm are long-time campaign consultants and treasurers for many California Democrats. As the New York Times says,

For almost 15 years, Kinde Durkee has been one of the go-to accountants for Democratic candidates in California. She and her firm kept track of expenditures and contributions and made sure that candidates and party committees’ campaigns complied with California’s tangled election finance laws.

Her firm, Durkee and Associates, proclaims itself an accounting and business management firm specializing in campaign finance.

Durkee and Associates is an accounting and business management firm that specializes in political, non-profit and small business accounting and financial management. Since 1972 we have worked for 5 presidential campaigns, 4 gubernatorial campaigns, numerous senate, congressional, state and local candidates, initiatives, political action committees and many non-profit associations and small businesses. Our proprietary reporting software handles electronic filing to both the Federal Election Commission and the California Secretary of State.

Unfortunately for all these campaigns and candidates that put their money in her hands, she is now the Bernie Madoff of California politics. Durkee was arrested on September 2nd by the FBI for stealing money from the campaign coffers of Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Anaheim). It is estimated that she stole almost $700,000 from his campaign accounts to use for personal purposes. Durkee, pictured, below also had control of an estimated 400 campaign accounts.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the FBI complaint included charges that Durkee used campaign money to pay her American Express bill:

one of the checks she paid to American Express was for $16,855, which in turn went to charges at Amazon, Baskin-Robbins, Turners Outdoorsman, Decker Surgical, Ariel’s Grotto at Disneyland, TIVO and Bixby Animal Clinic, among others.

A number of anti-gun politicians may have had their campaign war chests wiped out by Durkee. In addition to Assemblyman Solorio, NRA-rated F and who voted this year to ban unloaded open carry (AB 144), they include such leading California Democrats as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (F-rated), Rep. Susan Davis (F-rated), and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-rated). To make matters even worse for them according to the San Francisco Chronicle, they don’t know how much she has taken.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s $5.2 million re-election war chest may or may not be “wiped out” by a trusted – and now arrested – treasurer, campaign officials for California’s senior senator suggested Tuesday.

Bill Carrick, Feinstein’s top campaign consultant, said First California Bank, which holds the campaign funds for Feinstein, Reps. Loretta Sanchez and Susan Davis and others involved in Kinde Durkee’s alleged fraud, will not allow anyone access to the accounts without signing a release that indemnifies the bank against lawsuits.

Given the financial harm she has done to leading anti-gun politicians in California, one could only hope that she also handled campaign finances for certain anti-gun politicians in New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois!

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

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!