Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-21-2018, 7:38 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,071
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
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.
Thanks for the insight!

So basically the NRA sucked up to the best choice and both parties maintained a love affair of convenience.

I would compare this relationship to the Clinton/Lewinsky affair both parties could claim they didn’t have sex with each other. Just inappropriate touching lol
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-21-2018, 9:44 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
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.
As I explain in the "Preliminary Matter" section of my thread on getting a CoCoCo SO CCW, CA CCWs have NOTHING to do with our 2nd A RKBA. That's what the current state of the law is according to CA9 en banc in Peruta and SCOTUS did not take issue with that. CA CCWs are issued according to CA statutory law, nothing else.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1482924

While this state of affairs may change with future court decisions, for better or worse, that's reality right now. If OC is determined to be "the Right," then restricting CCWs will clearly not be "an infringement."
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-21-2018, 10:50 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,071
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
As I explain in the "Preliminary Matter" section of my thread on getting a CoCoCo SO CCW, CA CCWs have NOTHING to do with our 2nd A RKBA. That's what the current state of the law is according to CA9 en banc in Peruta and SCOTUS did not take issue with that. CA CCWs are issued according to CA statutory law, nothing else.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1482924

While this state of affairs may change with future court decisions, for better or worse, that's reality right now. If OC is determined to be "the Right," then restricting CCWs will clearly not be "an infringement."
Being a permanent resident with a green card is not a disqualifying factor in this state to get a CCW. Eligibility, good moral character and good cause are. This is an issue
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-21-2018, 2:05 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Being a permanent resident with a green card is not a disqualifying factor in this state to get a CCW. Eligibility, good moral character and good cause are. This is an issue
If you read my post that you quoted and the post that it quoted, or the "Preliminary Matter" at the posted link, you'd see they're all saying CA's statutory CCW permit laws have NOTHING to do with our 2nd A RKBA. That's the off topic issue CitaDeL brought up. I was trying to clear up that confusion.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-21-2018, 6:39 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
As I explain in the "Preliminary Matter" section of my thread on getting a CoCoCo SO CCW, CA CCWs have NOTHING to do with our 2nd A RKBA. That's what the current state of the law is according to CA9 en banc in Peruta and SCOTUS did not take issue with that. CA CCWs are issued according to CA statutory law, nothing else.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1482924

While this state of affairs may change with future court decisions, for better or worse, that's reality right now. If OC is determined to be "the Right," then restricting CCWs will clearly not be "an infringement."
Restricting 'CCWs' for whom? Again, it is discriminatory to refuse to issue to legal resident aliens and if there is no OC and no lawful CC option - it is an injury to the rights of the applicant.
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-23-2018, 2:51 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Restricting 'CCWs' for whom? Again, it is discriminatory to refuse to issue to legal resident aliens and if there is no OC and no lawful CC option - it is an injury to the rights of the applicant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
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.
The bolded is the language of the 2nd A. I'm merely pointing out what CA9 en banc has held: that CA's CCW permit system is not protected by the 2nd A. It does not invoke the 2nd A's "right" that "shall not be infringed." For some reason you keep trying to cloud this issue. While you personally may believe that CA's CCW scheme should fall under 2nd A, and SCOTUS may eventually make a holding that somehow ties the two together, that's not reality at this point.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-23-2018, 7:36 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I'm kind of surprised no one has discussed the fact that the plaintiff didn't even apply for a CCW. Check it out, see the attached complaint at page 6. He just called and spoke to some random deputy who told him he could not get one. The plaintiff was never actually denied, and nowhere does the sheriff's policy or instructions (attached as an exhibit to the complaint) state that he cannot obtain one.

The only logical conclusion I can draw is, based on the timing, that this is a blatant political play to smear Sniff just prior to the election. Obviously, if the plaintiff took the time to go through the actual application process so as to attain proper standing, the lawsuit would have to wait until after the election. But then that wouldn't be politically expedient, would it? Which tells me that they have no intent on actually following through with this suit. This is not to mention that if Bianco does win, guess who becomes the new defendant?

This, of course, also begs the concern of what donation-based gun rights organizations (some of them non-political non-profits), such as FPC/FPF/2AF etc., are doing with their contributions. If you are a Riverside County resident that supports Bianco, then you probably like this move. But if you are a Sniff supporter, well sorry, you are out of luck. As are the rest of the donors from all over California who couldn't care less about a sheriff election in one of the 58 counties in this state. And to think of all those fundraising e-mails where we keep hearing about how limited resources are.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Sniff Complaint.pdf (688.8 KB, 15 views)
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-23-2018, 8:19 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

BumBum,

Quote:
20. On October 9, 2018, plaintiff Van Nieuwenhuyzen was advised by a Deputy of the RCSD, via email that he could not apply for a CCW with the County, due to the Sheriff Department’s policy prohibiting CCW permits to regarding non-U.S. citizens. Specifically, plaintiff was advised: “you must be a U.S. Citizen, either born in the U.S. or naturalized, in order
to apply for a CCW permit, with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.” Plaintiff was thus
dissuaded and discouraged from submitting his application in the first place.
According to the actual Pg 6 reference you gave. [quoted above from the filing] Plaintiff was advised by EMAIL from RCSD he could not apply as a non-citizen. Not just called and spoke to a random deputy.

To allegedly claim that these Pro-2A groups would bring a spurious suit based solely on a uncorroborated phone call as a political hit job, is a bit of a stretch.

That would lower the integrity of this plaintiff and his Pro 2A co-filers down to the level of Sniff. And his obvious specious claims against Bianco. Example.....having one of his good ole boyz WCs travel all the way to Palm Springs to speak to the city council with false and uncorroborated claims of threats based on homosexual bias by Bianco. Which were BTW unknown to the claimant, videoed and proven to be lies.

JM2c
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-23-2018, 8:51 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
According to the actual Pg 6 reference you gave. [quoted above from the filing] Plaintiff was advised by EMAIL from RCSD he could not apply as a non-citizen. Not just called and spoke to a random deputy.
Read it closer. "Plaintiff was thus dissuaded and discouraged from submitting his application in the first place." In the legal world, that is a big difference from actually being denied. For a lawsuit to proceed, there must be an actual controversy for the court to decide. Without the application process playing out, it is purely speculative what the result would have been. Maybe this one random deputy was wrong in his e-mail and would have been corrected by the time the decision was rendered. Remember that the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and mere speculation does not carry the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
To allegedly claim that these Pro-2A groups would bring a spurious suit based solely on a uncorroborated phone call as a political hit job, is a bit of a stretch.

That would lower the integrity of this plaintiff and his Pro 2A co-filers down to the level of Sniff.
Yes, and ... ? You really think this is a bit of a stretch? FPC and company has been after Sniff for years.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-23-2018, 10:30 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post

Read it closer. "Plaintiff was thus dissuaded and discouraged from submitting his application in the first place." In the legal world, that is a big difference from actually being denied. For a lawsuit to proceed, there must be an actual controversy for the court to decide. Without the application process playing out, it is purely speculative what the result would have been. Maybe this one random deputy was wrong in his e-mail and would have been corrected by the time the decision was rendered. Remember that the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and mere speculation does not carry the day.
Quote:
21. On information and belief, defendants have a longstanding and current policy, practice and custom of dissuading, discouraging, and preventing non-United States citizens from applying for a CCW license by having a posted written policy and by telling them when they inquire that only United State citizens may even apply for such permits,
thereby preventing or dissuading many otherwise legally eligible residents of the County of Riverside from even considering the submission of CCW applications in the first place
I personally do not believe that 5 separate 2A legal advocacy groups would bring a Federal Civil Rights case.

List in the filing "posted written policy" as cause. And not have evidence of same posted policy to present in support of the Email as evidence?

Yeah, sorry, if it looks like a stretch, walks like a stretch, and smells like a stretch, it is most likely, pretty much a stretch.

You allude to the damning Email as being from "this one random deputy". Out of a dept of thousands of deputies. Which also has a specified CCW Dept. of just (2) deputies. Just who do you suppose "this random deputy" is? And if not part of the small CCW dept. Why would they be sending such Emails?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-24-2018, 7:01 AM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Hey, I am just a lawyer providing perspective on how pleadings actually play out in a courtroom. Unless it was Sniff himself sending that e-mail (the actual named defendant), then the outcome is purely speculative without having gone through the application process. You mention a "posted written policy", but back to my original post, nowhere does the sheriff's policy or instructions (again, attached as an exhibit to the complaint) state such a policy. There is a rule in pleading that the allegations in a complaint are disregarded to the extent that they conflict with incorporated attachments. You may believe that this e-mail constitutes evidence of a different policy, but I can tell you that this case likely won't even make it to an evidentiary stage with the way the allegations are set forth. This complaint most likely will be dismissed via demurrer, but that wouldn't even happen until after the election, either.

Then there is the issue of exhaustion of non-judicial remedies. Neither I nor most attorneys would have taken this case without the plaintiff having at least gone through the actual application process. This case is not ripe for adjudication. There is just no way to get around this missing piece of the puzzle, and you will gain no sympathy from a judge on this.

In my opinion, if FPC/CGF, etc. really cared about CCW issuance in California, they wouldn't be wasting time in Riverside, which is one of the most generous counties in terms of issuance. They'd be mounting a fight in LA County or the like, somewhere where virtually everyone is being denied.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-24-2018, 11:02 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,996
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Okay folks, here's the issues....

I won't go into all the obvious 2A/14A issues, but

  • legal noncitizens in good legal standing do have 2A rights.
    .
  • CA CCW law is very specific on issuance criteria. Gun groups including NRA and others all try to
    hold, generally, issuing authorities to rule and not random issuance (or denials).
    .
  • CA CCW issuance does not require citizenship nor can it be in conflict with 2A.
    .
  • Sniff has been somewhat useful in going from "not many to some XXX amount" being issued.
    .
  • NRA general political policy is to support candidates who have supported gun rights to some fair
    degree and to maintain that support, generall regardless of issues in other areas. This backs up
    "NRA keeps you elected" theme...

    It's actually not a bad overall policy, for that organization, and in general. They're smart enough
    to understand realpolitik. It does assure candidates that if they are pro-gun, at least relative to
    the field, and incrementally over time, they get backing they can trust and not just be "one time
    Louies" that help people stay elected.
    .
  • By contrast large coastal CA counties (SF, LA, etc.) ain't gonna go CCW without Supremes and a
    Peruta win, and/or other things that cement & increase power of Heller & McDonald decisions.

    Tiiting at those windmills now won't get us much, from/via any gun org. Yes, certain wins can
    happen on non-2A specifics (city vs county and "declaring G" issues, and things like the LA
    Assenza litigation that at least got somewhat near shall-issue for about a dozen specific application
    categories.)
    .
  • Keep your enemies close, keep your friends closer.

    Allowing sheriffs to make up random issuance criteria in conflict with law, even it it's "somewhat pretty
    good" on issuance is not good for long term rights-based work, esp if other depts have to be attacked
    on their following (or not!) other rules for issuance.

    It's also FAR EASIER to attack, with good prospects for success, a dept or personage that issues quite a bit,
    and denies some amount, for relatively specious reasons not codified into law. ESPECIALLY when there are
    parallel court holdings wins in other districts.

    Also: my understanding is the vaunted 97%?? Riverside issuance rate does not include "early denials" early
    in the apps process (telling people to go away because of XYZ, even though XYZ is not a lawful codified criterion
    - these apps never get carried to the final acceptance or denial state and thus never get counted in stats as a a
    true denial) If the dude accepting apps tells you you can't file because of Illegal Reason #17 and appears not
    to even wanna accept your money, is that a denial?
    .
  • If a win happens "nobody loses anything".

    Sniff (or successor) has to issue more CCWs lawfully. He's at a point where he can't issue less, and he can't pull
    CCWs without severe pushback.

    And contrary to Rick Travis' assertion, CGF folks - certainly not me - have no beef with the actual 'personage' of
    Sniff or carrying water for other people. This is not about another candidate this is about making a mark with
    the policies Sniff has.

    What I don't like is the posing as "ultra pro gun" when in fact he blocks apps for no good reason, and then his PR
    people generate stuff that he's "shall-issue". Nothing is further from the truth.

    When you have someone who's made himself an easy target - "scored an own goal", "threw an interception", etc.
    - you HAVE to take advantage, especially on a key "2A for all" issue.
    .
  • Note that the fight "carry for noncitizens" is just a different aspect of the 2A fight compared to fighting "bans for
    18 - 21 for XYZ gun type".

    All involve some key personal attribute being used to deny some key aspect of gun rights. I do note the NRA is
    pushing back significantly on attempts at taking gun rights away from 18-21 yr olds, and so this litigation is in a
    way consonant with that effort.
Period.

Hello to everyone. Been busy with life and taking care of mom with cancer.
Will try to at least lurk some more.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Last edited by bwiese; 10-24-2018 at 10:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-24-2018, 2:48 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Then there is the issue of exhaustion of non-judicial remedies. Neither I nor most attorneys would have taken this case without the plaintiff having at least gone through the actual application process.
This case is not ripe for adjudication. There is just no way to get around this missing piece of the puzzle, and you will gain no sympathy from a judge on this.
The bolded portion of this quote is the crux of the suit. Not the denial of AN APPLICANT. The suit was filed because the plaintiff was DENIED his right to APPLY.

If this was a VOTING RIGHTS suit, for example. Brought by a certain class of citizens, because they were denied the right to register to vote.

Do you believe it should be thrown out because the citizens didn't actually "VOTE"?

Quote:
Then there is the issue of exhaustion of non-judicial remedies.
This seemingly never ending battle for our 2A rights. Has a history of many times "our side" has repeatedly been forced to file suit; in order to force our oppressive adversaries to the table to resolve issues non judicially.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-24-2018, 3:02 PM
Gunlawyer's Avatar
Gunlawyer Gunlawyer is offline
Libertatem Vivit Hic
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lancaster, CA
Posts: 456
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default Should focus on the priorities

If he's giving to US Citizens then the resources would be better used elsewhere where noncitizens still cant get carry IMHO. I understand going on multiple angles but doesnt seem important IMHO.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms…" Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.

Disclaimer:
Any posts by me are intended to be for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. No attorney/client relationship is formed.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-24-2018, 3:58 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.nratv.com/videos/relentl...18DT1-lZBq2yK8

I haven't watched this since I am out of free views but this is the NRA's take on this litigation.

Last edited by wolfwood; 10-24-2018 at 4:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-24-2018, 5:23 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
https://www.nratv.com/videos/relentl...18DT1-lZBq2yK8

I haven't watched this since I am out of free views but this is the NRA's take on this litigation.
Mr Travis representing CRPA compared RivCo to LACo, "which borders RivCo". While bad mouthing those groups that have the audacity to sue their Buddy Sniff. CRPA is now claiming Sniff has issued "over 4,000" CCWs.

WOW, quite a jump from the "almost 2,000 CCWs" that the same CRPA claimed he had issued just last month.

Why didn't Mr Travis compare Sniff to Sheriff Hudgens of OCSD? Her County also borders RivCo. She has issued 15,000 CCWs in the last 4 yrs since the original PERUTA 3 JUDGE RULING. THAT IS ALMOST 4,000 A YEAR. As I did in the CRPA-Wrong Side thread

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...9#post22259549

Quote:
Lets do a comparison of Sniff, and a TRUE 2A sheriff. Whose cnty BTW borders RivCo.

Sniff has been in office since Oct 2007. According to CRPA link below. He has issued less than 2,000 CCWs in his 11 yrs in office. CRPA claims he has another 450 being processed. So benefit of the doubt, lets round it up to 2,5000 CCWs in 11 yr. >>>227 per anum avg<<< Or 0.6 per day.

Has a 2+yr backlog of applicants. Has implemented many extraneous and extra legal policies, detrimental to ease of aquiring a CCW. And is given a big Hoorah by CRPA for finally hiring, just before this election cycle ONE CLERK to assist with said backlog.

Not quite what most 2A advocates would call a stellar record of support for the "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" part of the SECOND AMENDMENT!

https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/river...-ccw-issuance/


While at the OCSD, bordering Sniff on the south. Sandra Hutchens has been in office since June of 2008. She has issued, at last count, almost 15,000 CCWs in 10 yrs. >>>1500 per anum avg.<<< or 4.1 per day.
And has lessened all requirements to bare minimun required by state PC. And if you care to read the OCSD CCW link provided. You can go start to finish with the whole CCW process in a matter of a few weeks.

Don Barnes, the current undersheriff, who is the top favorite to take the sheriffs slot in Nov has pledged to do everything possible to facilitate CCW applications in as speedy as possible manner.

https://www.californiagunpermit.com/...in-the-oc.html

I've been an NRA LIFE MEMBER since 1979. And a LIFE MEMBER of CRPA since not long after Chuck Michel took the helm. As such, I feel entitled to disagree with bad choices for candidates they promote.

Sniff is slightly better than nothing [LASD McDonnel]. But far from a good choice as a 2A sheriff.
And he senselessly raised the same obsfucatory deflection Re.... [a] Denial of Applicant.... versus.... [b] Denial of Application; that BumBum mentioned.

Sadly IMO, the CRPA is making the same mistake of believing Sniffs lies. Over supporting a true 2A Advocate, who is Bianco. That the BOD of CalGuns made 4 yrs ago.

All 2A organizations should consistently promote, advocate for, and support THE BEST 2A CANDIDATES. Not the one that only makes hollow 2a claims.

JM2c

Last edited by pacrat; 10-24-2018 at 5:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-24-2018, 6:30 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,275
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Sadly IMO, the CRPA is making the same mistake of believing Sniffs lies. Over supporting a true 2A Advocate, who is Bianco. That the BOD of CalGuns made 4 yrs ago.

All 2A organizations should consistently promote, advocate for, and support THE BEST 2A CANDIDATES. Not the one that only makes hollow 2a claims.

JM2c
I'm assuming this is a more or less standard "follow the money" situation.

Sad.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-24-2018, 7:29 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
The bolded portion of this quote is the crux of the suit. Not the denial of AN APPLICANT. The suit was filed because the plaintiff was DENIED his right to APPLY.

If this was a VOTING RIGHTS suit, for example. Brought by a certain class of citizens, because they were denied the right to register to vote.

Do you believe it should be thrown out because the citizens didn't actually "VOTE"?
That is not the same thing, your analogy does not fit the situation. Registering to vote is still an application process. A better comparison would be, applying for a CCW is like registering to vote (seeking government permission to exercising that right - geez, that seems so wrong, doesn't it?), and carrying a firearm in public is like voting (actually exercising the right). You would not be able to sue for not being able to vote if you never bothered to first attempt to register.

(I am also compelled to correct your characterization of this suit as the plaintiff being denied a right to apply. The actual allegation is "dissuaded and discouraged from submitting an application". There is a significant difference between the two.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
This seemingly never ending battle for our 2A rights. Has a history of many times "our side" has repeatedly been forced to file suit; in order to force our oppressive adversaries to the table to resolve issues non judicially.
I'm not sure that I understand your point here. If you are insinuating that the filing of frivolous lawsuits is a good negotiation tactic, again I would disagree. An old attorney mentor of mine always told me, "your threats are not scary unless they are correct".

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
And he senselessly raised the same obsfucatory deflection Re.... [a] Denial of Applicant.... versus.... [b] Denial of Application; that BumBum mentioned.
Obfuscatory, really? Look, if you want to debate the motives of the lawsuit, i.e. whether the timing has anything to do with the election, you are entitled to your opinion. But you don't get to make up your own law. (And I'm again compelled to correct your characterization of "denial of applicant", when the proper contrast is actually "dissuaded and discouraged from submitting an application" versus denial of an application). Failing to actually apply is a pretty significant legal hurdle as I have explained above.

For example - how do we know the other CCW deputy wouldn't have approved it? What if Sniff stepped in and overruled his deputies? What if the plaintiff would have been denied for other reasons? What if the plaintiff decides not to make an application due to other considerations? Too many 'what ifs' to make this ripe for adjudication.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-24-2018, 7:40 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Okay folks, here's the issues....
  • legal noncitizens in good legal standing do have 2A rights.
    .

    Period.
Hi Bill, I don't necessarily disagree with your points. But the one point missing from your list is the one addressing the the failure of the plaintiff to actually apply. Surely this was a discussion held among the key players here. What would be the harm in waiting a few extra months for the application to be submitted and denied? Unless the goal is to send a message to the voters?

I'm sorry to hear about your mother's cancer and I hope she is doing well. I wish you all the best.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-24-2018, 7:46 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,889
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Hi Bill, I don't necessarily disagree with your points. But the one point missing from your list is the one addressing the the failure of the plaintiff to actually apply. Surely this was a discussion held among the key players here. What would be the harm in waiting a few extra months for the application to be submitted and denied? Unless the goal is to send a message to the voters?

I'm sorry to hear about your mother's cancer and I hope she is doing well. I wish you all the best.
The sheriff's published policy requires "Copy of your birth certificate and/or naturalization papers." A Green Card holder wouldn't have either document.

http://www.riversidesheriff.org/pdf/...O-CCW-2018.pdf
__________________

Last edited by HowardW56; 10-24-2018 at 7:46 PM.. Reason: Added Info
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 10-24-2018, 8:47 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
The sheriff's published policy requires "Copy of your birth certificate and/or naturalization papers." A Green Card holder wouldn't have either document.

http://www.riversidesheriff.org/pdf/...O-CCW-2018.pdf
Why wouldn't a Green Card holder have a birth certificate? I'm fairly certain that these are issued by virtually every country.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-24-2018, 9:48 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,996
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Why wouldn't a Green Card holder have a birth certificate? I'm fairly certain that these are issued by virtually every country.
Would they necessarily be honored if person came from a "poor records"
country? ;-)

And in many countries births might not be well recorded - family bible, etc.

Or birth occurs during transit, family returns, goes on with life, no real b/c issued.

Hell, my late dad (yeah, it was 1920) had to have, IIRC, a "regenerated" b/c.
based on affirmation. He was born in small logging "town" in E. Oregon.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Last edited by bwiese; 10-24-2018 at 10:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-24-2018, 9:52 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,996
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Also, I think you can see this is a bit of a 'ripe' issue... Montana, Nebraska, N. Carolina,
New Mexico already have address variants of this matter...


https://www.guns.com/news/2013/10/26...-carry-permit/

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300398293.html

https://canadafreepress.com/article/...alien-ccw-case

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/04...-right-to.html
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Last edited by bwiese; 10-24-2018 at 9:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-24-2018, 10:36 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
What if Sniff stepped in and overruled his deputies? What if the plaintiff would have been denied for other reasons? What if the plaintiff decides not to make an application due to other considerations? Too many 'what ifs' to make this ripe for adjudication.
Yeah, that is a lot of ifs. So What? None of them are relevant or based in reality. They were pulled from your hat after your humorous, SORDDI [Some Other Random Deputy Did It] defense failed to fly in the face of reason..

Try this one. IF Sniff didn't have an unconstitutional discriminatory policy of disallowing non-citizen legal residents to even apply for a CCW in RivCo. He would not have been sued for his policy just weeks before election day.

And as to the issue of timing. Sniff has had 4 yrs in which he could have vastly improved his CCW policies. AS HE PROMISED to do last election cycle.

He chose not to do so. Until now; just weeks before he is on the ropes this election cycle. Now that he is at dire risk of losing his job, he finally steps up issuance in a [to little to late] attempt to show false pro 2A support once again.

Just last month waiting period for interview was still over 2 yrs.

How's that for timing?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-25-2018, 7:54 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 jack-booted gov thug
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 15,379
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Why wouldn't a Green Card holder have a birth certificate? I'm fairly certain that these are issued by virtually every country.
Would they necessarily be honored if person came from a "poor records"
country? ;-)

And in many countries births might not be well recorded - family bible, etc.

Or birth occurs during transit, family returns, goes on with life, no real b/c issued.

Hell, my late dad (yeah, it was 1920) had to have, IIRC, a "regenerated" b/c.
based on affirmation. He was born in small logging "town" in E. Oregon.
Add to this the destruction of records and official documents and inability to get official copies based on war, natural disaster, reformation/dissolution, invasion, ...
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-25-2018, 9:32 AM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Yeah, that is a lot of ifs. So What? None of them are relevant or based in reality. They were pulled from your hat after your humorous, SORDDI [Some Other Random Deputy Did It] defense failed to fly in the face of reason..
Those are just illustrative examples set forth in layman’s terms of why the complaint is legally speculative without an application being submitted. Nothing I have set forth above has “failed” in any respect. Nothing you have said or will say will change that. The law is the law. It is up to the court at this point. I really do hope I’m wrong, but years of experience and handling hundreds of cases tell me otherwise.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-25-2018, 9:41 AM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Would they necessarily be honored if person came from a "poor records"
country? ;-)

And in many countries births might not be well recorded - family bible, etc.

Or birth occurs during transit, family returns, goes on with life, no real b/c issued.

Hell, my late dad (yeah, it was 1920) had to have, IIRC, a "regenerated" b/c.
based on affirmation. He was born in small logging "town" in E. Oregon.
True, there are exceptions. But as far as I’m aware that is not an issue in this case. I didn’t see an allegation that he couldn’t locate a birth certificate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Also, I think you can see this is a bit of a 'ripe' issue... Montana, Nebraska, N. Carolina,
New Mexico already have address variants of this matter...
Legal ripeness is not the same as being a hot button issue. Again, I’m not saying the theory is wrong or that the plaintiff wouldn’t eventually be entitled to relief under the right legal circumstances. I’m saying this particular lawsuit is not ripe due to the fact an application was not submitted, an explanation for which is still not forthcoming.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-25-2018, 10:21 AM
Gunlawyer's Avatar
Gunlawyer Gunlawyer is offline
Libertatem Vivit Hic
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lancaster, CA
Posts: 456
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
https://www.nratv.com/videos/relentl...18DT1-lZBq2yK8

I haven't watched this since I am out of free views but this is the NRA's take on this litigation.
Awe ok shows why the lawsuit was likely filed. Thanks for the video.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms…" Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.

Disclaimer:
Any posts by me are intended to be for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. No attorney/client relationship is formed.

Last edited by Gunlawyer; 10-25-2018 at 10:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-25-2018, 11:12 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,071
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
True, there are exceptions. But as far as I’m aware that is not an issue in this case. I didn’t see an allegation that he couldn’t locate a birth certificate.



Legal ripeness is not the same as being a hot button issue. Again, I’m not saying the theory is wrong or that the plaintiff wouldn’t eventually be entitled to relief under the right legal circumstances. I’m saying this particular lawsuit is not ripe due to the fact an application was not submitted, an explanation for which is still not forthcoming.
How does one submit an application when it would be rejected without proof of citizenship?

If a green card holder walked in, and tried to submit the application and was told that the application could not be accepted..... Applicant walks out with application not accepted as being incomplete or unacceptable.

The law in CA requires the application to be accepted and then a determination in writing why the applicant was rejected for a CCW (30 days?) In other words, all applications must be accepted and reviewed.

This protocol is happening in Riverside? IDK

Last edited by taperxz; 10-25-2018 at 11:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-25-2018, 12:29 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
How does one submit an application when it would be rejected without proof of citizenship?

If a green card holder walked in, and tried to submit the application and was told that the application could not be accepted..... Applicant walks out with application not accepted as being incomplete or unacceptable.

The law in CA requires the application to be accepted and then a determination in writing why the applicant was rejected for a CCW (30 days?) In other words, all applications must be accepted and reviewed.

This protocol is happening in Riverside? IDK
The plaintiff doesn’t allege that RSD wouldn’t accept the application. As noted above, the allegation is only that he was “dissuaded and discouraged” from doing so.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 10-25-2018, 1:05 PM
malfunction's Avatar
malfunction malfunction is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: low crawling towards the state line...
Posts: 385
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
How does one submit an application when it would be rejected without proof of citizenship?

If a green card holder walked in, and tried to submit the application and was told that the application could not be accepted..... Applicant walks out with application not accepted as being incomplete or unacceptable.

The law in CA requires the application to be accepted and then a determination in writing why the applicant was rejected for a CCW (30 days?) In other words, all applications must be accepted and reviewed.

This protocol is happening in Riverside? IDK
Not my county, but I've been reading/watching RSD for years and it sounds a lot like this.

Sniff doesn't really want to issue, he just plays both pro-ccw and anti-ccw at the same time to collect votes from both so he can keep his job. To appease the pro-ccw side he touts his 98% approval rate, but of course he only achieves that by throwing up a few extralegal requirements (citizenship, references) and having his staff use them as one of their tools to discourage people from applying.

He requires people submit their application in person, but if they won't accept the application because the applicant doesn't meet their arbitrary requirements, or the applicant simply gave up because they were told it was a waste of time and they were guaranteed to lose their money, then there's not ever going to be a denial. The issue stats look good and there's fewer gunz on the street. Win for Sniff.

There's no requirement in the standardized DoJ application to produce a birth certificate or naturalization papers, nor for letters of reference at all. My county required none of those, neither did I need them for NV or UT.

BumBum's concerns are valid, but in a situation where they won't accept the application or tell you not to bother even applying, then one must hope the court is smart enough to see though the games played by RSD, as a denial isn't going to be forthcoming. SAF have won similar cases in several other states so they likely see this as an easy win.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
What we have in practice is a legal system, not a justice system.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-25-2018, 1:51 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,275
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malfunction View Post
Not my county, but I've been reading/watching RSD for years and it sounds a lot like this.

Sniff doesn't really want to issue, he just plays both pro-ccw and anti-ccw at the same time to collect votes from both so he can keep his job. To appease the pro-ccw side he touts his 98% approval rate, but of course he only achieves that by throwing up a few extralegal requirements (citizenship, references) and having his staff use them as one of their tools to discourage people from applying.

He requires people submit their application in person, but if they won't accept the application because the applicant doesn't meet their arbitrary requirements, or the applicant simply gave up because they were told it was a waste of time and they were guaranteed to lose their money, then there's not ever going to be a denial. The issue stats look good and there's fewer gunz on the street. Win for Sniff.

There's no requirement in the standardized DoJ application to produce a birth certificate or naturalization papers, nor for letters of reference at all. My county required none of those, neither did I need them for NV or UT.

BumBum's concerns are valid, but in a situation where they won't accept the application or tell you not to bother even applying, then one must hope the court is smart enough to see though the games played by RSD, as a denial isn't going to be forthcoming. SAF have won similar cases in several other states so they likely see this as an easy win.
I'd say an excellent and probably an accurate Sniff history. I was nauseous after reading about his lunch with his local NRA guy, not to mention getting a Calguns endorsement, later changed to a "recommendation"...guess that means whatever you'd like it to mean. Gullibility demonstrated.

Idaho has no birth or naturalization proof needed for a CWL...only requirement that you sign the app under perjury that there are no federal or Idaho state laws barring you from owning a pistol.

You obviously need the citizenship paperwork if you applying for the Idaho STAR DL.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-25-2018, 2:11 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Sniff doesn't really want to issue, he just plays both pro-ccw and anti-ccw at the same time to collect votes from both so he can keep his job. To appease the pro-ccw side he touts his 98% approval rate, but of course he only achieves that by throwing up a few extralegal requirements (citizenship, references) and having his staff use them as one of their tools to discourage people from applying.
An exceptionally astute observation...........
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-25-2018, 8:56 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,518
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malfunction View Post
Sniff doesn't really want to issue, he just plays both pro-ccw and anti-ccw at the same time to collect votes from both so he can keep his job. To appease the pro-ccw side he touts his 98% approval rate, but of course he only achieves that by throwing up a few extralegal requirements (citizenship, references) and having his staff use them as one of their tools to discourage people from applying.
The "XX% approval rate" is always a red herring since it's always based on the number of actual applications. This is nothing new and nobody who understands a bit of the process will look at this statistics. Instead, people ask: "what do I need to do to get a CCW?" Just look at our "Concealed Carry Forum" - it's all about what Sniff will accept as "Good Cause" and nothing about any percentages.

With that said, I've heard many times that additional requirements are "extralegal" or, more commonly, "illegal." However, this is simply wrong. The easiest way to see it is that no lawsuit has been filed over those requirements. The question is "why?" Well, it all comes down to how it's phrased. It's part of establishing a "good moral character," which is indeed codified in the law. That's how additional questionnaires, psychological evaluations (by Murrieta PD) and any additional documentation is justified.

Not that it makes it right (personally, I believe the extra requirements are there to slow down the flow of CCW, but that's just my speculation), but we should at least be accurate in describing it...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-25-2018, 9:55 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,996
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
Add to this the destruction of records and official documents and inability to get official copies based on war, natural disaster, reformation/dissolution, invasion, ...
Ubermcoupe...

Yeah, whatabout countries that "transitioned"?
USSR->CIS/Russia + Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania...
E. Germany->Germany (though Germans prob good at records!)

Oh - and Venezuela? You think much recordskeeping maintenance
is going on there?

[BTW, lots of my dad's military records were lost in with the
big St. Louis National Personnel Records fire in early 1970s...]
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-25-2018, 9:57 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,996
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
The plaintiff doesn’t allege that RSD wouldn’t accept the application. As noted above, the allegation is only that he was “dissuaded and discouraged” from doing so.
Yeah, that worked real well for voting rights in the 1950s in the South.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-26-2018, 7:57 AM
bigcasino's Avatar
bigcasino bigcasino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 279
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Sniff's days are numbered. Everyone from Riverside should vote for Bianco if they support 2A rights.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
NRA Patron Life Member
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
SAF Member
CCRKBA Member
CRPA Member
JPFO Member
#BlackGunsMatter #Glocks&Bagles
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-26-2018, 10:39 AM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Yeah, that worked real well for voting rights in the 1950s in the South.
I’d be really careful using that as an analogy. Intimidating black voters at the polls, often involving firearms, beatings, and lynchings, versus dropping off an application with a discouraging deputy. Hardly proportional. That’ll get you laughed out of a courtroom, not to mention the potential negative P.R. that would invite from the left.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:36 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,071
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
I’d be really careful using that as an analogy. Intimidating black voters at the polls, often involving firearms, beatings, and lynchings, versus dropping off an application with a discouraging deputy. Hardly proportional. That’ll get you laughed out of a courtroom, not to mention the potential negative P.R. that would invite from the left.
In other words "the 2A is a lesser right than the rest"
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-26-2018, 12:54 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,209
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
I’d be really careful using that as an analogy. Intimidating black voters at the polls, often involving firearms, beatings, and lynchings, versus dropping off an application with a discouraging deputy. Hardly proportional. That’ll get you laughed out of a courtroom, not to mention the potential negative P.R. that would invite from the left.
And yet Trump is compared to Hitler
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:08 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.