California DOJ Sponsors Bill to Mask Corruption and Racism, Says Foundataion

BELLEVUE, WA - California Assembly Bill 1044 is part of a deliberate effort to conceal massive wrongdoing in the handling of Concealed Weapons (CCW) permit applications across California, including wrongful actions on the part of state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.

"SAF has received complaints from our members in California for years that the gun permit issuance system is being handled improperly," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "The key to proving it has always rested with timely access to public records held by local agencies. We have now learned that AG Lockyer has taken specific steps in violation of the California Public Records Act to mask the local misconduct. Instead of correcting the problem, he is trying to have his past misconduct declared legal by the current legislature.

"While painting AB1044 as a 'cost savings measure'," Gottlieb continued, "Lockyer also drafted it to eliminate the records of CCW denial both at the California DOJ headquarters and at each local agency. These records have already been declared public by the California Supreme Court (CBS vs. Block, 230 Cal.Rptr. 362) for the specific purpose of examining equal protection issues in the handling of CCW applications. We will take any necessary court action to prevent the destruction of these records should this bill pass."

In 1999, Lockyer was tasked with creating a new state-standard CCW application form to replace those forms created and used by local agencies.

Significant changes to the application form could only be made under existing protocols, which required publishing the proposed regulation, accepting and responding to public comments, and publishing the finished regulation and its number with the Office of Administrative Law.

"Instead," Gottlieb said, "in early 1999, Lockyer created a commission within the California DOJ to create the forms, with advice from five sheriffs and police chiefs. They met in secret, stamped all of their documents 'confidential,' and in mid-1999 released a CCW application form on which applicants no longer provided their 'good cause for issuance,' age, occupation or similar details. Instead, these were to be dictated onto the form by the applicant in an interview with a peace officer from the local department. They labeled this section of the form 'police investigator's notes,' knowing that such notes aren't public under the state Public Records Act."

"Had they taken the required public comments for a change this drastic," Gottlieb noted, "someone could have pointed out that the 'good cause data' was declared public by the Supreme Court in 1986, for the specific purpose of evaluating equal protection claims. Lockyer apparently believes he can overturn a state Supreme Court decision with an illegal, secret regulation and then quietly get the legislature's approval after the fact once caught red handed."

AB1044 has provisions to destroy records at the central California DOJ headquarters that they claim are "superfluous," but that doesn't explain why they want to destroy records of denials at the local agency level or why they want the legislature to whitewash illegality on Lockyer's part dating back to 1999.

"While the Second Amendment Foundation does not get involved in legislative affairs, the actions taken to date and the attempted destruction of records crucial to making equal protection claims in both Federal and State courts requires us to speak out," Gottlieb said. "The simple fact that Lockyer and his cronies would try and quietly pass a bill this underhanded speaks volumes for the necessity of further court review of the California gun control program and we will pursue that review as necessary."

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers & an amicus brief & fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

The Penn is Mightier Than the Rest of Us

by Carma Lewis, Executive Director
Armed Females of America

It takes a lot to drag me away from my other duties for Armed Females and speak my mind about news events, and this story has to be one of them.

On Tuesday April 08, an automobile owned by super actor/super activist Sean Penn was stolen from a Berkeley, CA restaurant where Mr. Penn and another person were having lunch.

Along with his car the thief also got Sean Penn’s loaded 9mm Glock and an unidentified revolver in his trunk. Now we have a car thief running around Berkeley with a loaded firearm that he can use with impunity, or sell to another member of the criminal element.

Is Penn going to be held responsible if these firearms are used in a crime? What if a child is harmed by either of these guns? Is Penn going to be held liable for not maintaining control of his firearm? If he has a permit to carry a concealed firearm…why wasn’t he carrying it?

Reading this story made my blood boil. Given the track record of Sean Penn I’m surprised that the ATF even allowed him to own a gun. Who knows, maybe they don’t know he has a gun.

Let’s take a quick look at Mr. Penn and you decide if he deserves a permit to carry a concealed firearm over the rest of the GOOD citizens of California.

In 1986 Sean Penn fired a gun at a news helicopter that was covering his wedding to Madonna.

In 1987 Mr. Penn spent 34 days in jail for punching a movie extra that took his picture without his permission.

Mr. Penn was given a court ordered psychotherapist as a condition of his release from jail, presumably for his suspected alcohol abuse.

In 1996 Penn’s wife, Robin Wright, was carjacked at gunpoint in her own driveway.

Okay, now we have Penn’s reason for wanting to carry a firearm. But why is his reason any more desperate or more compelling than the rest of the citizens living in California? This is one more example of a Hollywood lowlife that preaches his left-wing elitism… “guns are for us beautiful people, not the commoners” Mantra.

In a quote attributed to Sean Penn, he said, “I hate journalists. Or better, I hate paparazzi. Yeah, I punched them out and I’ll do it again if it’s necessary. I think a fist in their face is the only way to protect my private life. I demand my freedom. And I must have it.”

I have a news flash for you Sean! We all demand our freedom, but we don’t go around punching people in the face to get it! Only common criminals and social misfits do that.

Because of Sean Penn’s belligerent attitude he should not be allowed to carry a firearm, and it’s probably illegal under California and Federal law for him to do so. Penn wants to own a gun to protect himself from “us”, but who is protecting us from people like him while the local sheriff is pandering to the elite?

Don’t get me wrong; Armed Females of America wants to see these arbitrary, unconstitutional gun laws overturned. But in the meantime, level the playing field so that other Californians can enjoy the liberty of self-protection. If California is going to pass these onerous laws, at least change the law to allow for “shall” issue, not “may” issue of concealed handgun permits.

Under California law a permit to carry a concealed firearm can only be issued if the applicant is of “good moral character” and has completed a course of instruction. How can Sean Penn prove he is of good moral character when there is so much evidence to prove otherwise? And did Sean Penn use his influence as a celebrity to avoid the required training?

Did Penn learn the rules of the use of “deadly force”? Did he learn about dispute resolution? Or how about simple marksmanship, and firearm safety? The answer is, probably not! Like other celebrities all he probably did was take his request to the local Sheriff for the “rubber stamp.” It’s obvious to me that the local Sheriff turned his back on the law and his duty to protect the citizens to accommodate a common thug.

Even though I don’t think Mr. Penn is worthy of special privileges, I do believe he deserves to have the right to defend himself and his family. My problem is that he has this privilege to the exclusion of the rest of the citizenry of California.

Every Californian should appeal to their so-called leaders to close this “loophole” in the law that allows people like Sean Penn to carry a firearm while subjecting the majority of citizens to just bend over and take it. We all deserve equal protection under the law, and no one is entitled to be placed above the law…especially people like Sean Penn. This kind of vile hypocrisy must end.

As for me, I will never return to California to be a victim of this kind of arrogance and discrimination.

Carma Lewis, Executive Director
Armed Females of America

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.