Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=330)
-   -   van Nieuwenhuyzen v. Sniff CGF FPC (CCW CARRY CASE) (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1484324)

taperxz 10-19-2018 10:25 AM

van Nieuwenhuyzen v. Sniff CGF FPC (CCW CARRY CASE)
 
https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/sniff

taperxz 10-19-2018 10:27 AM

Sheriff Sniff of Riverside, refuses to give legal residents a CCW based on the fact that they are not a CITIZEN (LEGAL RESIDENT WITH GREEN CARD) of the United States.

gobler 10-19-2018 11:32 AM

Cue grumpy cat... in 3... 2...

faris1984 10-19-2018 11:42 AM

Well in Sacramento CCW is must be a citizen.

riderr 10-19-2018 1:59 PM

Probably, I am not reading it correctly, but CCW license can only be issued to USC

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=25610.

Librarian 10-19-2018 2:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riderr (Post 22242263)
Probably, I am not reading it correctly, but CCW license can only be issued to USC

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=25610.

No, that's the transport section.

CCW is
Quote:

26150.


(a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:

(1) The applicant is of good moral character.

(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.

(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the county, or the applicantís principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business.
No mention of citizenship.

riderr 10-19-2018 2:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Librarian (Post 22242292)
No, that's the transport section.
.

That's right. However, if one can't transport the gun legally, how is it possible to carry it, then? Or more interestingly, how the person in question was able to bring the handgun home from FFL?

IVC 10-19-2018 2:50 PM

There is quite a bit of history between Sniff and some Calguns members who are now in other gun organizations and who no longer post much here. It's a very long story, but my personal opinion is that this case is misguided and that it won't achieve anything good for the Riverside county no matter which way it goes.

The "may issue" in CA is what we have from the legislators. The proper fix is to get the law changed (won't happen in CA), or to have CA-9 or SCOTUS rule that carry is a right and thus force some sort of "shall issue" the way it happened in CA-7 with Moore.

Going after sheriffs is not going to convert "may issue" into "shall issue." What it can do instead is mess up the existing system. This is particularly troublesome in any "green" county, where people are getting CCW licenses.

wolfwood 10-19-2018 4:20 PM

This is a easy win. Riverside will likely revise its policies mooting the case prior to any major litigation. The equal protection argument is slam dunk. There have been about a dozen wins on this issue already.

Fjold 10-19-2018 5:06 PM

But Sheriff Sniff is a Calguns darling! A strong supporter of the Second Amendment and individual gun rights according to the power that be.

IVC 10-19-2018 5:13 PM

Sheriff Sniff is more of a half-and-half - some people praise him, others can't stand him.

I have seen and talked to both groups and have met sheriff Sniff on several occasions personally. He operates in a tough political and financial environment, so that is something that the latter group doesn't recognize. On the other hand, he could get rid of reference letters and have a bit more streamlined CCW process, which is something that the former group doesn't recognize.

Overall, my impression has been that he is a good friend of the NRA and of the 2A, but also that he is an elected official who isn't going to push the envelope by accepting vanilla "self defense" as the good cause.

No matter what people say, sheriffs who create virtual shall-issue are prodding the legislators into centralizing the CCW process and requirements. We've already seen some CCW requirements being tightened by the Sacramento...

IVC 10-19-2018 5:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfwood (Post 22242770)
This is a easy win. Riverside will likely revise its policies mooting the case prior to any major litigation. The equal protection argument is slam dunk. There have been about a dozen wins on this issue already.

Which is why I see this more of a settling of a personal score, and nothing to do with any strategy.

homelessdude 10-19-2018 5:42 PM

Vote for Bianco in two weeks and the problems mentioned above could go away. Sniff is better than many other sheriffs but Bianco is better than Sniff.

Excuse the spelling.

CitaDeL 10-19-2018 5:55 PM

An infringement is an infringement, regardless of who is doing it. To defend someone like Sniff (who was endorsed by both the NRA and the CRPA) rather than hold him accountable to a standard ALL issuing agencies should achieve, undermines the very rights we want respected.

CCWFacts 10-19-2018 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IVC (Post 22242478)
Going after sheriffs is not going to convert "may issue" into "shall issue." What it can do instead is mess up the existing system. This is particularly troublesome in any "green" county, where people are getting CCW licenses.

I don't know anything about Sheriff Sniff but I agree with your point 100%.

nick 10-19-2018 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riderr (Post 22242304)
That's right. However, if one can't transport the gun legally, how is it possible to carry it, then? Or more interestingly, how the person in question was able to bring the handgun home from FFL?


One doesn't have to be a citizen in order to buy ot transport a gun.

nick 10-19-2018 7:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IVC (Post 22242478)
There is quite a bit of history between Sniff and some Calguns members who are now in other gun organizations and who no longer post much here. It's a very long story, but my personal opinion is that this case is misguided and that it won't achieve anything good for the Riverside county no matter which way it goes.

The "may issue" in CA is what we have from the legislators. The proper fix is to get the law changed (won't happen in CA), or to have CA-9 or SCOTUS rule that carry is a right and thus force some sort of "shall issue" the way it happened in CA-7 with Moore.

Going after sheriffs is not going to convert "may issue" into "shall issue." What it can do instead is mess up the existing system. This is particularly troublesome in any "green" county, where people are getting CCW licenses.

But you can't sue the state here, so you sue the sheriff. They're the ones issuing (or not issuing) carry licenses.

taperxz 10-19-2018 8:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IVC (Post 22242478)
There is quite a bit of history between Sniff and some Calguns members who are now in other gun organizations and who no longer post much here. It's a very long story, but my personal opinion is that this case is misguided and that it won't achieve anything good for the Riverside county no matter which way it goes.

The "may issue" in CA is what we have from the legislators. The proper fix is to get the law changed (won't happen in CA), or to have CA-9 or SCOTUS rule that carry is a right and thus force some sort of "shall issue" the way it happened in CA-7 with Moore.

Going after sheriffs is not going to convert "may issue" into "shall issue." What it can do instead is mess up the existing system. This is particularly troublesome in any "green" county, where people are getting CCW licenses.

Typical biased reaction! Fanboy much?

taperxz 10-19-2018 8:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfwood (Post 22242770)
This is a easy win. Riverside will likely revise its policies mooting the case prior to any major litigation. The equal protection argument is slam dunk. There have been about a dozen wins on this issue already.

Agreed! If anyone knows about winning 2A cases.... itís You!

taperxz 10-19-2018 8:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCWFacts (Post 22243243)
I don't know anything about Sheriff Sniff but I agree with your point 100%.

Then you drink kool aid and misinformed

taperxz 10-19-2018 8:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CitaDeL (Post 22243045)
An infringement is an infringement, regardless of who is doing it. To defend someone like Sniff (who was endorsed by both the NRA and the CRPA) rather than hold him accountable to a standard ALL issuing agencies should achieve, undermines the very rights we want respected.

Yep

Eat Dirt 10-19-2018 8:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fjold (Post 22242904)
But Sheriff Sniff is a Calguns darling! A strong supporter of the Second Amendment and individual gun rights according to the power that be.

If you're in his ' Good 'O Boys ' club

IVC 10-19-2018 8:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 22243452)
Typical biased reaction! Fanboy much?

C'mon, read the rest of my posts.

IVC 10-19-2018 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CitaDeL (Post 22243045)
An infringement is an infringement, regardless of who is doing it. To defend someone like Sniff (who was endorsed by both the NRA and the CRPA) rather than hold him accountable to a standard ALL issuing agencies should achieve, undermines the very rights we want respected.

You can blame Sniff for CCW situation in CA as much as you can blame him for the AWB in CA - infringement is an infringement, right?

Sniff could do things a bit differently, but he also must get his funding from a group of people who don't look kindly on CCW. Could he do things differently? I'm pretty sure he could. Can we find fault in his current stance? I'm pretty sure we could. Has he added staff and expedited the process significantly? Yes he has.

The situation in CA is way more nuanced than just "infringement" and " 'murica."

IVC 10-19-2018 8:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eat Dirt (Post 22243484)
If you're in his ' Good 'O Boys ' club

A lot of people got their CCW who are not part of the club.

If you're going to find fault, I suggest you look at the areas that are both under Sniff's control and could be done better. Letters of reference are in that general direction...

Riverside is "light green" on the map. The process has been significantly improved recently. We can't treat it as "yellow" or "red" just because CA is not a shall-issue state.

IVC 10-19-2018 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homelessdude (Post 22243003)
Vote for Bianco in two weeks and the problems mentioned above could go away. Sniff is better than many other sheriffs but Bianco is better than Sniff.

The true test for any new sheriff will be how they navigate funding issues that come with political strings attached. There is also talk about CA legislators yanking all CCW licenses issued by sheriffs who use virtual shall issue.

We live in CA and the playground is full of minefields.

IVC 10-19-2018 9:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 22243462)
Then you drink kool aid and misinformed

Riverside IS light green. That's what he was agreeing with.

Who is misinformed here?

CitaDeL 10-19-2018 9:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IVC (Post 22243577)
You can blame Sniff for CCW situation in CA as much as you can blame him for the AWB in CA - infringement is an infringement, right?

Sniff could do things a bit differently, but he also must get his funding from a group of people who don't look kindly on CCW. Could he do things differently? I'm pretty sure he could. Can we find fault in his current stance? I'm pretty sure we could. Has he added staff and expedited the process significantly? Yes he has.

The situation in CA is way more nuanced than just "infringement" and " 'murica."

Oh, so the state made Stan Sniff deny a legal resident alien?

(That would be a no. Sniff is wholly responsible for how his department administers his concealed carry license policy. )

And yeah, any Sheriff that holds his right hand in the air and his left on the Bible and swears to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America and the state of California and enforces any subsection of the California penal code regulating the ownership of so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines is a liar who would benefit from a piping hot coat of tar and fuffy downy feathers, before being run out of town on a rail. (Any of their supporters could use a boot in the *** too.)

Quiet 10-20-2018 2:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riderr (Post 22242304)
That's right. However, if one can't transport the gun legally, how is it possible to carry it, then? Or more interestingly, how the person in question was able to bring the handgun home from FFL?

Under CA laws...

A legal resident over the age of 18 can legally transport an unloaded firearm in a locked container while going directly to and from: [PC 25505]
1. Their residence. [PC 25525(a)(1)]
2. Their place of business. [PC 25525(a)(2)]
3. To any property that is legally owned or possessed by them. [PC 25525(a)(3)]
4. From the location where they legally acquired the firearm. [PC 25525(b)]

If they do not have a valid CA LTC permit, a legal resident over the age of 18 can also legally open carry or conceal carry a firearm in their residence or at their place of business or on property they own. [PC 25605]
^This is restricted to areas that are not open to the public. [PC 25605(c)]

If they have a valid CA LTC permit, then they can legally carry throughout CA. [PC 25655 & 26010]

ulmapache 10-20-2018 8:32 AM

My 2 cents worth...seems to me that it should be mandatory requirement to be a citizen to legally purchase or carry firearms...

gobler 10-20-2018 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ulmapache (Post 22244517)
My 2 cents worth...seems to me that it should be mandatory requirement to be a citizen to legally purchase or carry firearms...

Please read the Second Amendment closely. It states "The Right of the PEOPLE to Keep and Bear". Not the Citizen. The Constitution differentiates between People and Citizens.

taperxz 10-20-2018 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IVC (Post 22243612)
Riverside IS light green. That's what he was agreeing with.

Who is misinformed here?

Green light for a particular class. I supposed you agree that the the roster is a good thing and hey! Cops can buy off roster so i guess the roster is no big deal?

IVC 10-20-2018 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 22244917)
Green light for a particular class. I supposed you agree that the the roster is a good thing and hey! Cops can buy off roster so i guess the roster is no big deal?

It's open to regular people, that's what makes it light green vs. yellow.

Remember, there is a lot of animosity between Sniff and some activists, much like there is a lot of personal connections between Sniff and some other activists. I'm on neither side, but believe that both sides are exaggerating their positions.

Overall, part of Sniff's historical criticism is well deserved, but this case doesn't address any of that criticism.

taperxz 10-20-2018 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IVC (Post 22245095)
It's open to regular people, that's what makes it light green vs. yellow.

Remember, there is a lot of animosity between Sniff and some activists, much like there is a lot of personal connections between Sniff and some other activists. I'm on neither side, but believe that both sides are exaggerating their positions.

Overall, part of Sniff's historical criticism is well deserved, but this case doesn't address any of that criticism.

A green card holder can buy any firearm they want in this country. Don't you think that a permanent resident should have a right to a CCW if the sheriff is in fact issuing on a shall issue basis to citizens?

The lawsuit is rightfully brought IMHO regardless of the 2A inside politics.

IVC 10-20-2018 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CitaDeL (Post 22243708)
Oh, so the state made Stan Sniff deny a legal resident alien?

The real issue with Sniff has been about letters of reference and additional paperwork that he required of the CCW applicants. It's been going on for a decade or more. This particular case seems to be just a way to push him around.

To answer your question, you are correct that it's his choice. He will almost certainly moot it, the way Wolfwood described it above.

So, what's the point of filing a case instead of working with the department to update policies? It's most likely that the department wasn't responsive enough and that several pro-gun groups wanted to make a point. The unwillingness to cooperate is most likely due to personality conflicts that go way back. It's a matter of sending a message.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of this, but looking at it from the outside and trying to frame it as some sort of 2A stance is silly. This has almost nothing to do with 2A or CCW in Riverside. It's a Richard measuring contest...

IVC 10-20-2018 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 22245124)
The lawsuit is rightfully brought IMHO regardless of the 2A inside politics.

I will concede this point.

It's the "why" and the "how" of the process that we should at least be informed about.

IVC 10-20-2018 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 22245124)
Don't you think that a permanent resident should have a right to a CCW if the sheriff is in fact issuing on a shall issue basis to citizens?

It's not shall-issue.

Let's look at this without Sniff himself. If Bianco was sheriff, would he face the same type of lawsuit? By "type," I mean a lawsuit on a technicality that affects very small number of people and that can be resolved behind the scenes. My guess is that it would get resolved quietly.

taperxz 10-20-2018 9:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IVC (Post 22245149)
The real issue with Sniff has been about letters of reference and additional paperwork that he required of the CCW applicants. It's been going on for a decade or more. This particular case seems to be just a way to push him around.

To answer your question, you are correct that it's his choice. He will almost certainly moot it, the way Wolfwood described it above.

So, what's the point of filing a case instead of working with the department to update policies? It's most likely that the department wasn't responsive enough and that several pro-gun groups wanted to make a point. The unwillingness to cooperate is most likely due to personality conflicts that go way back. It's a matter of sending a message.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of this, but looking at it from the outside and trying to frame it as some sort of 2A stance is silly. This has almost nothing to do with 2A or CCW in Riverside. It's a Richard measuring contest...

Sniff is a friend of the NRA. Why havenít they convinced him of the error in his ways?

Quiet 10-20-2018 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ulmapache (Post 22244517)
My 2 cents worth...seems to me that it should be mandatory requirement to be a citizen to legally purchase or carry firearms...

It use to be that way under Federal laws/regulations.
^For certain ethinicities, you had to be a US citizen in order to legally own/possess a firearm.
~Which is why it was illegal for any Asian immigrant to possess a firearm until 1952, when Federal laws changed to allow Asian immigrants to qualify to be naturalized as a US citizen.

The Federal laws/regulations were changed, in 1968, to allow immigrant alien and exempt non-immigrant alien to legallly acquire/possess firearms.

Quiet 10-20-2018 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 22246793)
Sniff is a friend of the NRA. Why havenít they convinced him of the error in his ways?

They've been working on it.
It's been a slow process.
From when he was a RSD Captain to where he is now, is a vast improvement.
^I first encountered & dealt with him when he was the precinct Captain at the Cabazon substation.



IMO...
Although he was the best choice for RSD Sheriff back in 2010 and 2014.
He's still too slow to enact departmental changes on 2A matters.
Kinda feels like he's only making small improvements in order to string along 2A organizations and maintain their support.
Which is why Bianco should be voted in, instead of re-electing Sniff.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.