|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 15, 2012, 08:51 AM | #1 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
CA: Orange County Sheriff sued over carry permits
This just in from CA:
Quote:
The lead attorneys are Carl (Chuck) Michel, Glenn McRoberts and Sean Brady (a member of TFL), all attorneys for Michel & Assoc. Filed on Sept. 5th in the the US District Court for the Central District of CA. An amended complaint was filed on Sept. 7th. On Sept. 11th, a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (MPI) was filed. Due to fairly recent changes in CA law, most CA residents/citizens are prohibited from almost any form of carry, except by permit and such permit is a concealed carry permit. This lawsuit is tailored to the CA requirement (and discretionary use by the permitting officials) of "good cause." The suit also advances the 1A concept of "prior restraint" as it applies to the 2A. |
|
September 15, 2012, 09:20 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
In CA we have variance in practice from Sacramento County, which accepts "self-defense" as good cause to liberal bastions such as Los Angeles City and County, which do their best to preclude people from even applying (unless you are part of the glitterati or poltical classes), much less issuing.
Hutchens I understood had revised her anti-attitude, learned while working for LASD Lee Baca, and was working hard to make the stony path of the law as practical as possible. I would have preferred another target, but not my case. Banning open-carry in any form occured last year and removed the fig leaf. The Democrat Legislature and hoplophobes got what they wished for, and teed this up. Orange County abuts Los Angeles, and perhaps the savants there will get the message. It will be a long ride, but sometime CA will have to go "shall-issue" in law.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
September 15, 2012, 09:26 AM | #3 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
Glad to see it filed in Federal District Court but will not help with the Ninth Circuit in the way. But might make it to the Supreme Court. Trial court ruling will have no impact. Thank God for good law firms doing what needs to be done.
|
September 15, 2012, 10:07 AM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Looking forward to reading more about this one.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
September 15, 2012, 01:27 PM | #5 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
September 15, 2012, 04:55 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Thanks for your comments, Al.
I retook the qualification course for a CA permit about 4 months ago and it was reported anecdotally that Hutchens had figured out being anti was not going to keep her in the job, so she was behaving much more like Riverside and San Bernardino counterparts in working with applicants to assist with issuing CCW's. A friend told me (and he should know) Riverside issues on 95% of applications. I recall Hutchens' move to take back permits issued by Carona, immediately upon her hiring. A couple of years in the job had mellowed her, but maybe not so much. I did not know that none of those revoked had not been reissued. The common thread appears to be "self-defense" as good cause. The Sacramento County Sheriff announced in 2010 he would accept "self-defense". Hutchens clearly hasn't, though she may be issuing on other bases. In fact, living in Los Angeles County, I refrained from attempting to apply as I was told I had to have the Police Chief in my little town (which does its own [non] issuing) approve my good cause before I could apply. The tone very much was "please don't try this", in my discussion with the leading officer. He went so far as to mention that I needed "appropriate insurance", which is not a feature of the requirements at all. I bit on that one and he backed down hurriedly. The message was pretty clear. This is consistent with Los Angeles PD policy for a number of years. Despite the fact they lost in court and were told to change policies/procedures, they have not and were sued last year for continuing the old routine. I am in the same boat as the plaintiffs in OC. I have had a TX permit for 12 years (acquired when I lived there), and now have permits for some other states, so that I can carry in 35 of 50 states. CA has no reciprocity arrangements with any states, though some will honor a CA permit. This will be an interesting case. The current situation produces rankly different results for CA citizens in simiar situations, at the whim of a local authority. A zip code sort of CCW permits in LA County in 2006 showed clusters of permits in danger zones such as Beverly Hills, and nothing in safe places such as Compton. It has racist and classist outcomes, which apparently suit some people just fine. Most rural CA counties are effectively shall-issue. LA County with far more people has issued far fewer CCW's than some rural counties alone, must less those urban counties adjacent to it. San Diego, Santa Barbara and areas around San Francisco similarly frown on armed citizens. Things may get worse as the Legislature has passed a bill which allows LA County to make its own rules with regard to....BB guns, regardless of any CA State laws that might relate. I can only guess where this precedent will go next. Our governor and AG are both very much in favor sharing the monopoly on carrying concealed between LEO's and criminals. The rest of us are just too scary to trust.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
January 9, 2013, 11:59 AM | #7 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As you can see, quite a bit has happened with this case. The relevant documents at the district court are available at the Internet Archive, but the documents at the CA9 Last edited by Al Norris; January 10, 2013 at 10:32 AM. Reason: brain-fart |
January 10, 2013, 12:09 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
I'd love to see them go to shall issue. I'd spend more time in California.
|
January 10, 2013, 04:53 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
I will be buying my first handgun when that day comes
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
January 10, 2013, 10:31 AM | #10 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Some days I should just not even try to think!
Michel & Associates have all the filings, as my very first post in this thread indicated [slaps head]: http://michellawyers.com/mckay-v-sheriff-hutchens/ So looking at the chart, the appellants opening brief on 11-29 would be this entry: Appellants’ Opening Brief You will find the related amicus briefs at the above link. |
January 18, 2013, 10:34 PM | #11 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
And Orange County Submits their answer. Appellants have until Feb. 3 to file a reply.
Quote:
|
|
January 19, 2013, 12:19 AM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Wow. Legal brilliance on display.
Starting off with trying to defend "may issue" by citing cases that date to well before Heller determined that the RKBA is an individual right, and before McDonald stated that the RKBA is a "fundamental" right. (p. 18) Good God! At the end of page 20, they explained EXACTLY why citizens SHOULD be allowed to carry! There it is, on page 34 Quote:
With minds like these defending them, I think the county is on the road to defeat. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; January 19, 2013 at 04:47 PM. |
|
January 19, 2013, 03:40 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Good work, OC. I am pleased with your defense, very much so.
If you lose big enough and decide to go to SCOTUS, this one will team nicely with the appeal from IL as questions, and your legal team should compliment Madigan's.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
February 9, 2013, 05:02 PM | #14 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 8, 2013
Posts: 2
|
Reply
A reply was due on 2/3/13. Has there been any reaction to the review and when will information be published? For those of us not familiar with this process what can we expect to happen next?
|
February 10, 2013, 01:12 PM | #15 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
he Appellees’ Brief was filed on Jan. 17th.
On Jan. 23rd, we had the Brief of Amicus Curiae Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Supporting Sheriff Sandra Hutchens filing an amicus brief (the LCPGV is the new name of the LCAV). The very next day, we had the Brady's filing an amicus: Brief for Amici Curiae Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Ron Davis and Lucia McBath, Parents of Jordan Davis; Major Cities Chiefs Association; and International Brotherhood of Police Officers In Support of Defendants-Appellees and In Support of Affirmance Also on the 24th, the Appellants’ Motion for Extention of Time to File Reply Brief. On Jan. 29th, the unopposed motion was accepted. Reply brief now due on or before Mar. 7, 2013. |
February 11, 2013, 11:53 AM | #16 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 8, 2013
Posts: 2
|
Next
It sounds like others have joined the Sherif. I am sure this was expected but how will this effect the case. This adds to the time. Will all that has happened in the last few months influence the case? Good question that may not be possible to answer.
Thanks for you work. Bob |
February 11, 2013, 02:52 PM | #17 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Those that have "joined" the OC Sheriff are the two most political (and litigious) anti-gun groups in the nation. For those that have been following these cases over the years, the names are immediately recognizable. Heck, we don't even read their briefs anymore. They say the same thing, over and over and over....
|
October 8, 2013, 04:31 PM | #18 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
While the oral arguments were made yesterday, they didn't show up until today (unlike the Jackson case). Listen to the arguments, here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/vi..._id=0000011343
|
October 8, 2013, 05:19 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Gets real interesting about the 22 minute mark. Orange County attorney was really struggling there!
|
October 9, 2013, 12:42 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
How is this case any different than the three other cases already pending before the Ninth that were argued 9 months ago? Same basic stuff, different sheriff, right?
|
October 9, 2013, 07:38 AM | #21 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Orange County CA sheriff?...
Im not quite sure but isn't the Orange County CA sheriff under a indightment or convicted in a major scandal?
Sheriff Corona? Is that political mess slowing down the CC process? |
October 9, 2013, 10:42 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Carona hasn't been sheriff for years now. This suit was filed well after he was replaced and is directed at the current sheriff's issuing practices.
|
October 9, 2013, 02:21 PM | #23 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Fed time....
I checked online, he's now a convicted felon in a BoP location in CO.
He had a promising career too. Just like Bernard Kerik of the NYPD. |
October 9, 2013, 06:57 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
I told Ed Worley of the California NRA in 2002 that Carona was trouble...that corrption in permit issuance was still going on. He didn't listen.
__________________
Jim March |
October 10, 2013, 04:59 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
I thought Carona basically issued to everyone?
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|