Posted on 08/31/2002 6:22:42 PM PDT by monkeyshine
Background:Jim March is a fighter for equal access to the right to conceal carry in California. After having been denied a CCW permit by his local sheriff, he filed a suit in Federal court based on equal protections. He alleged that the sheriff was using uneven criteria for issueing permits, that only large contributors, politicians and the well connected received permits while the average men and women were routinely rejected.
He began to subpeona documents detailing all the CCWs issued in his county. The documents confirmed his suspicions, but the trial judge refused to beleive that such widespread corruption existed and dismissed the case without trial.
Next Step: His next step is to file a lawsuit based on racial, ethnic and financial discriminatory practices.
To combat this tactic, State Attorney General Lockyear conspired with local sheriffs to change the CCW forms so that "good cause", "occupation" and "Age" of the applicants could not be turned over under the freedom of information laws. Naturally, anybody alleging that the CCW practices of local sheriffs are capricious and arbitrary would need to have this information to make the case. Lockyear and the Sheriffs have conspired to insultate themselves from investigations. It is clear from CBS v Block (lawsuit from 1986) and Guillory v Gates (lawsuit from 1982) that the state and the sheriffs are legally obligated to turn this information over. How else can the public at large know if the Sheriffs are using their discretionary power in an abusive, racist, capricious, or corrupt manner?
Update The upshot of all this is that a "suit of mandamus (mandate)" has been filed against the state AG, asking the court to order the attorney general to turn over the relevant information. This information will be used in a new federal lawsuit against the sheriff with broader implications for the state.
Current state law gives broad discretion to the Sheriffs and Police Chiefs when issuing CCWs. While they are supposed to issue them in a uniform manner based on need, the reality is that the well connected can simply cite "personal safety" and receive a permit, while a woman who has been threatened with death from an abusive drug addicted boyfriend or a many-times-robbed convenience store owner carrying large sums of cash in a bad neighborhood is denied.
Evidence shows that in a city which is 45% Hispanic, only 3% of the CCW permits are issued to Hispanics. This kind of overt discrimination is the basis for a new lawsuit being prepared. Tactically, the plaintiffs need the statewide CCW information that the AG is trying to stonewall in order to make the allegations. Racial discrimination, capricious issuance, cronyism, campaign contributorism, etc are the allegations.
The Goal is to get the federal courts to force the state to reform their CCW practices. Some counties are practically "shall issue" while others are virtual "non-issue"... although no county is officially "non-issue" because state law requires sheriffs to accept applications and make a finding in each individual case. Blanket denials is illegal, but is widely practiced in large counties -- with the exception of a few well connect, wealthy donors. It's time to change California's CCW system.
Nevertheless, I am a supporter of his cause and want to keep freepers informed of the progress.
The author obviously did not understant. The judge understood perfectly well what was happening. The judge is just part of the power elite in the community that wants the "rift raff" unarmed.
In any event, instead of appealing his own case, he has brought in some more attorneys and took another tactic which broadens his claims. By claiming racial discrimination they have more reasons for the case to be heard and appealed if dismissed or lost at trial.
The racial discrimination angle doesn't have to prove intent. It merely needs to prove that racial disparity exists, in which case the methods need to be reformed. You and I both know (without actually seeing the data) that the vast majority of CCW holders in the state are rich white men. Hispanics, Blacks, Women and the Poor make up only a small percentage of CCW holders. But of course they need this data to make the case stick.
The case won't just be about race, but including race makes the case less assailable and increases the chances that it will go to trial and not be dismissed. Going to Federal Court should help insulate it from the cronyism factor of the local courts but nothing is a guarantee.
He needs more plaintiffs for this case. Anyone who has been rejected for CCW should contact him. Especially if one is a "minority", but anyone who has been rejected may be able to join as a plaintiff. Not sure if it will be "class action" but having more plaintiffs helps to prevent the causes from being dismissed, as each plaintiff's case will have to be dismissed.
The law is bizarre. If you violate the law and carry concealed, the first offense is only a misdemeanor. But you may still lose your right to purchase firearms, so it isn't worth the risk.
I'm not sure if carry concealed without a permit qualifies as one of these, but I'm fairly certain that certain misdemeanors do.
fwiw I have no felonies or misdemeanors.
What county are you in umgood. Orange?
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.