California "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry Weapon Permits, Here We Come!

About time that the corrupt, discretionary and idiotic issuing system for Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permits we have here in California to be challenged and struck down in a court of law.

With the help of the Calguns Foundation and The Second Amendment Foundation, a lawsuit was filled on behalf o several California citizens that were arbitrarily denied the right of self defense. In the light of the Heller and Nordyke rulings, the prospects of a big win for the Second Amendment supporters in California are better than ever.

So how can you help win this fight? It's simple: open your wallet and DONATE TO CALGUNS FOUNDATION. No matter how much you can or cannot afford, just do it.
And as they say: "as California goes, so the rest of the country goes", the impact on the Second Amendment rights of the ruling in this lawsuit will not only be felt in the Golden State, but in the rest of country as well.

Lawsuit Seeks Stronger Gun Rights For California Citizens

(AP) In theory, law-abiding Californians who undergo a criminal background check and pass a government training course can receive a permit from their local sheriff to carry a concealed firearm.

But in practice, many California counties flatly deny permits to residents who meet the requirements for a concealed carry permit -- a situation that a lawsuit filed in federal court in Sacramento on Tuesday hopes to remedy.

The lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation says the routine denials of concealed carry permits violate the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

One of the plaintiffs is Deanna Sykes, a lesbian and a firearms instructor who says she believes her sexual orientation and small stature make her a target for criminals. Another is Andrew Witham, a private investigator and campus public safety officer, whose local sheriff denied his request to carry a handgun while away from work.

The case "presents a very simple legal issue: people have the right to bear arms," Alan Gura, a Virginia attorney representing the plaintiffs, told CBSNews.com on Wednesday. "The state is able to regulate that right, but it cannot arbitrarily deny the right to bear arms based on the whims of local officials. The current law has absolutely no standards to it, and some local officials regrettably abuse their discretion. They decide self-defense is not a valid reason to deny the gun carry permit."

Section 12050 of California law says that "the sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character" may issue a concealed carry permit. Californians who carry a concealed weapon without a license are subject to criminal penalties including fines and a one-year jail term. (Nearly every state has some form of concealed carry laws, with 36 states saying that sheriffs must issue them by default, and two states -- Alaska and Vermont -- require no advance permission.)

What the pro-gun rights groups that filed this lawsuit hope to do is apply the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in the landmark D.C. v. Heller case decided last year. Even though Heller focused on the firearm restrictions of the nation's capital, by recognizing a constitutional right protecting individual possession of firearms, the justices expressed a dim view of sweeping prohibitions on Americans' Second Amendment rights.

Gura said that he knew of no case filed since the Supreme Court's decision that has led to a definitive ruling about how Heller applies to concealed carry permits.

A map prepared by the CalCCW.com site shows that the more liberal counties around San Francisco and Los Angeles tend to be the ones that deny permits to regular citizens. A 2007 report from the state of California shows that the county of San Francisco, for instance, issued only six permits that year -- while the rural, wooded, and far less populous county of Shasta issued 2,306 permits.

A bill titled AB 357 introduced in the California legislature in February would remove some discretion from local officials if the applicant for a permit qualified for one. (The city of Davis, for instance, tells applicants: "An evaluation and comparison of our current services to available resources has forced us to discontinue processing and issuing CCW [Carry Concealed Weapon] licenses. I apologize for the inconvenience this action will cause you.")

Last month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment -- which required states to offer freedoms found in the Bill of Rights such as a jury trial -- protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That decision is important because it means extreme state laws violate the Second Amendment as much as extreme federal laws would, and it is binding on the Sacramento court where the lawsuit was filed this week.

Representatives of the defendants in this case, Sacramento county and Yolo county, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
Source

Pizza Guy Delivers Fresh & Hot .45 ACP Bullet To Robber Waiting In Ambush

Final score: pizza delivery man 1, robbers -1

One of the punks got what he deserved; too bad the rest got away with their hides intact. In a few short years they will be out on parole and back on the streets again.

WIS10 reports:
IRMO, SC (WIS) - A $250,000 surety bond was set for three people involved in a weekend shooting.

Officials say four people tried to rob a pizza delivery man Saturday night, but the man ended up shooting and killing one of the attackers.

Deputies say the incident happened at about 10:30pm Saturday.

Lexington County Sheriff James Metts says 18-year-old Jason Todd Beckham, 20-year-old Carlos Renard Dates, 18-year-old Justin Towan Roundtree and 17-year-old Paul Andrew Sturgill, Jr. placed an order with the Pizza Hut on Irmo Drive for two large pizzas to be delivered to a home on Avery Place Lane.

The owner of the home did not know the four men, and didn't know his home was being used as a location for a robbery, Metts said.

The delivery man, 43-year-old Christopher Steven Miller, told deputies Sturgill was standing on a sidewalk outside the home when Miller arrived to deliver the pizzas. Miller told deputies Sturgill asked him whether Miller could make change for a $100 bill, and Miller saw that Sturgill had no cash in his wallet.

Miller says he saw two men run out of some nearby woods towards him, and tried to run away. However, Miller says Sturgill began to punch him.

While Sturgill was hitting him, Miller told deputies that he took a .45-caliber handgun from his fanny pack and shot Sturgill in the upper torso.

Miller called 911, and deputies arrived to find Miller bleeding from his nose and Sturgill lying on the ground.

WIS tv10 Video Here

EMTs took Sturgill to Palmetto Health Richland Memorial Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Detectives arrested Beckham Sunday morning at Sturgill's home. Deputies and a U.S. Marshals fugitive task force arrested Dates Sunday afternoon at his home. Roundtree turned himself in Sunday evening.

The three were being held at the Lexington County Detention Center on charges of robbery and criminal conspiracy.

An autopsy will be performed on Sturgill Monday.

Miller has a concealed weapons permit, and has not been charged, Metts said. However, the incident remains under investigation.

I Told you So

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
says the new A.G. Eric Holder.

Some say we will take up our guns and defend our rights. Good luck with that; those who will oppose the new gun ban will be painted by the media as crazed gunslingers, gun loons, people who want children to die of accidental gunshot wounds, cop killer types; in other words they will be chastised and declared an unacceptable risk to society. Armed revolt or not, in the end we still lose.

Some say we need to start to sending letters explaining to our Democrat RULERS a new ban won't do anything else but take guns from the hands of the law abiding Americans while leaving only the drug gangs armed.
That's just as useless proposition as an armed revolt. Simply because Obama and his thugs already know the new AWB won't do a damn thing to improve the security of the people in the US or Mexico. Security and less crime isn't what they want; reducing gang violence it is only the pretext to pass a law giving them more control over our lives and liberties while expanding and consolidating their power.

Liberal Democrats are fearing the guns in the hands of the American people. They know all too well revolutions against oppressive governments cannot succeed with if revolutionaries are disarmed or don't have access to small arms matching the capabilities of those issued to the troops sent out to repress the revolt.
The enemies of Liberty have the media on their side, they have control over the White House and the Legislative; they have a sizable number of Elmer Fudds who believe the 2nd Amendment it's only about their Remington 700 bolt action and the deer tag; and they also have the backstabbing AR/AK liberal rifle owner types populating gun forums. These are the most disgusting ones; until not too long ago they used to be very vocal Obama supporters claiming he and Biden are friends of gun owners and if we disagree with them we are scaremongering black helicopter conspiracy types. These days they are gone, nowhere to be found. I guess they can call their mission accomplished.

Orange County Board of Supervisors to Hold Hearing on Right-to-Carry Policy Today!

Here is a Live video feed of the Orange County Board Of Supervisors starting at 9:30 AM PST.

What is this meeting all about and why is it so important?

Due to the enormous backlash generated by Sheriff Sandra Hutchens illegal actions among law abiding OC citizens CCW permit holders and gun rights activists, hundreds and hundreds of people are expected to attend the upcoming meeting taking place today February 10th (live video feed starting at 9:30 AM PST).

But what exactly the Sheriff did to generate this kind of backlash? It all started when on December 8th when at the OC Board of Supervisors meeting, hundreds of Second Amendments rights activists came to the Meeting Hall to peacefully express their dissaproval with the newlly appointed Sheriff Sandra Hutchens policy of revoking and restricting the issuance of concealed weapons permits (CCW) to law abiding citizens.

The Sheriff reaction to this simple manifestation of American democracy? Really ugly: we are talking about Sheriff Hutchens deputies singling out and bullying people for simply wearing a button with the letters CCW on it; intimidating and pat down searching of peaceful citizens in attendance; use of undercover deputies; mocking and ridiculing citizens attending in email and Blackberry messages; using surveillance cameras to spy on the Board of Supervisors members who oppose her anti-Second Amendment policies.

For the readers who don't know the story from the beginning read this blog entry first:

Vigilant Citizens In Action: O. C. Gun Grabbing Sheriff And Her Deputies Caught Red Handed

Then this follow-up entry:

More Trouble Coming For The O.C. Gun Grabbing Sheriff And Her Deputies


So if you are a resident of Southern California and you want to be in attendance today here is the address: Board Hearing Room, First Floor, 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana
Directions

If you can't make it there in time, you can watch the live video feed of the meeting starting with 9:30 AM Pacific Standard Time by clicking this link.

UPDATE 1:

Email from a guy attending the OC-BOS meeting:

I'm in the OC BOS chambers now.

I have noticed that the Sheriff is NOT in uniform and wearing her gun.

Maybe she got a CCW???????

Update 2:

CCW policy is item #22, starts at 11:00 AM PST; 37 speakers to take the microphone

Update 3:

Email exchange with meeting participant:

Q: Is there the same show of force as there was last time?


A: No. No "show of force" but there are some OBVIOUS "undercovers" but not a lot.

I was talking with one of the "undercovers" (claimed to be a NRA lifer) and he told me that "the department" was very "touchy" after the last fiasco. He stated that "they" are "using more females for survailance activities" - whatever that means.

More later.......

Update 3:

Starting right now

Update 4:

Major asshwoopin' in progress.

Update 5:

Spectacular ass whooping.

Recess until 1:35 and some clarifications:

Q: Whats the deal with most speakers wearing the bow ties?

A: At the last meeting the Sheriff command staff was texting about one of the speakers mocking his bow tie (something along the lines "look at that guy with the bow tie, do you think he's alive?).
Speakers wearing bow ties today is an unity thing.


Q: What is with the "Friends of Janet" thing some speakers referred to?

A: It's a reference to another text message sent by the Sheriff command staff last meeting saying that (I quote): "Supervisor Janet Nguygen's only friend is a pet". Speakers declaring they are Janet's friends is also an unity thing.

More Trouble Coming For The O.C. Gun Grabbing Sheriff And Her Deputies

For the readers who don't know the story from the beginning, the following article is a follow-up of this blog posting I published on February 3rd: Vigilant Citizens In Action: O. C. Gun Grabbing Sheriff And Her Deputies Caught Red Handed

Due to the enormous backlash generated by Sheriff Sandra Hutchens illegal actions among law abiding OC citizens CCW permit holders and gun rights activists, hundreds and hundreds of people are expected to attend the upcoming meeting taking place on February 10th.

But what exactly the Sheriff did to generate this kind of backlash? We are talking about Sheriff Hutchens deputies singling out and bullying people for simply wearing a button with the letters CCW on it; intimidating and pat down searching of peaceful citizens attending a public meeting; use of undercover deputies; mocking and ridiculing citizens attending in email and Blackberry messages; using surveillance cameras to spy on the Board of Supervisors members who oppose her anti-Second Amendment policies.

Here is how things are now, just three days before one of the most anticipated meetings of the Orange County Board of Supervisors ever:

Text messages, surveillance tapes widen rift between sheriff, supervisors
Battle between Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and county supervisors could soon end up in court.

By TONY SAAVEDRA and NORBERTO SANTANA Jr.
The Orange County Register Friday, February 6, 2009


Eight months into office, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens is locked in a bitter power struggle with the same Board of Supervisors that appointed her.

And the two sides could soon end up in court.

What started as a debate over Hutchens' plan to reduce concealed weapons permits has morphed into a multi-faceted fight with supervisors, who accuse her department of spying, bullying and misusing public property.

Twice in recent weeks, Hutchens has publicly apologized to board members. Once, after a deputy used a surveillance camera to zoom on supervisors' notepads during a hearing, and again after command staff used its department BlackBerrys to exchange text messages ridiculing supervisors and critics of her proposal to reduce the number of concealed gun permits.

Supervisor Chris Norby responded this week by sending a mass e-mail accusing Hutchens of mounting a "misguided jihad" on gun-rights advocates, prompting calls from Hutchens' supporters for Norby to apologize.

"It's just childish on both sides," said George Wright, chairman of the criminal justice department at Santa Ana College. "(Hutchens) is going to have to tighten things up pretty quickly."

Some observers say that Hutchens is having a tough time adjusting from her past as a law enforcement bureaucrat to the give and take of politics.

Even Hutchens has noted that she doesn't see her job as political. She sees herself as sworn to uphold the state's laws in an objective manner.

"I don't make my decisions based on how the (county) supervisors will react," Hutchens said. "I'm the sheriff first."

In a letter sent Friday, county CEO Tom Mauk warned Hutchens that her fight with the board is a distraction that she can't afford. Instead of the gun permit issue or the videotape dispute, Hutchens' department should be concentrating on serious budget shortfalls, as well as curbing overtime and expanding the jail, Mauk wrote.

And so far, "little progress has been made," he wrote.

The fight between Hutchens and the board intensified this week when the sheriff learned that county executives made copies of the sheriff's surveillance tapes involving supervisors. Hutchens threatened to sue unless county officials agreed to certain conditions on how the tapes are kept and viewed.

Supervisors late Friday were balking at Hutchens' conditions.

"There is a crisis of confidence between the board and the sheriff, and that is not a good place to be eight months into office," Norby said.

For her part, Hutchens has said: "All I'm trying to do is put the policy back in line with what the law says (on concealed weapons). You can kind of see this is getting sliced up into a lot of different issues."

Hutchens inherited a generous gun-permit policy from ex-Sheriff Mike Carona, who was elected in 1998 on a platform that included allowing as many people as possible to carry weapons. Carona's administration issued 1,100 gun permits, among the most in the state. Hutchens is using tougher guidelines, which has incurred the wrath of supervisors as well as permitholders.

A hearing Nov.18 brought a crowd of angry gun activists to the Santa Ana boardroom, where they spent hours defending their perceived right to bear arms. During the mammoth meeting, high-level sheriff's officials used their BlackBerrys to send text messages among themselves, often mocking the board and the speakers.

"We are locked in mortal battle. It is ugly," texted Assistant Sheriff Michael Hillmann, a former LAPD deputy chief recruited by Hutchens to help rebuild the department. In a later text, Hillmann wrote that he wanted to poke his eyeballs out after listening to hours of testimony.

Hillmann next turned his BlackBerry on Supervisor Janet Nguyen, a critic of Hutchens' gun-permit plan: "I hope Janet has a pet she can call a friend."

Amid a firestorm of criticism, Hutchens apologized, acknowledging the texts as "unprofessional."

At the next hearing, Jan. 13, sheriff's officials increased security in the boardroom because of an unspecified threat. Activists were met with large placards warning against carrying weapons into government buildings. Uniformed and undercover deputies roamed the boardroom in what some supervisors called an intimidating show of force. At lease three people were pulled aside by deputies and questioned.

Gun activists charged that the extra security was intended to dissuade them from testifying, a suspicion strengthened by the release of the text messages. (Emphasis added)

During that meeting, a deputy used a surveillance camera to zoom on Norby's notepad and on Nguyen's BlackBerry. Hutchens discovered the intrusion and reported it to the board, along with her apologies.

Norby and Nguyen accused the department of using government equipment to snoop on them, sparking a new battle over who owns the surveillance recordings. Earlier this month, in a public rebuke of Hutchens, supervisors voted unanimously to take ownership of the surveillance video and took action to remove the Sheriff's Department from providing security for the board.

This week, the dispute went red hot.

In a letter written to county supervisors Chairwoman Pat Bates on Feb. 4, Hutchens said she learned that the county computer staff had secured a copy of the recording from the meeting without her knowledge.

Hutchens said that she is worried that public disclosure of the video recordings could threaten undercover officers and their families. She also threatened litigation. (Emphasis added)

Hutchens' letter, called a "missile" by Bates, triggered a fierce response.

Mauk wrote Hutchens back on Friday, saying he was "highly offended" that she suggested board members or the county staff would willingly put undercover officers in harm's way by exposing their identities.

That was done by Hutchens, Mauk said.

"I've seen a lot of contentious meetings," Mauk said in an interview, "and I have never seen a police chief put an undercover officer in a public meeting."

Hutchens' approach, said Mauk, Bates, Nguyen and Norby, is drawing heavy opposition and could have long-term consequences.

"This issue is really escalating. And she keeps on pushing," Nguyen said. "Some of these issues have escalated to the point where we do have a problem. There's a sheriff that doesn't want to work with us; she wants to do what she wants to do."

Bates remembers talking to Hutchens when she first took office, issuing a friendly warning about the challenges of moving from a bureaucrat to an elected official.

"Our job as decisionmakers is to see the gray," Bates said. "This is a job of representation, not just following the book."

For her part, Hutchens has said she is focused on enforcing the law, not politicking.

And she's comfortable leaving her political fate in the hands of Orange County residents, as opposed to supervisors, political parties or activist groups.

She likes her chances, often saying "I have tremendous faith in the voters of this county."