Sacramento County, CA now SHALL ISSUE

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=345), Sacramento County has now adopted a de facto shall issue policy in California.

This isn't news to those of you who have been following Al Norris's excellent work in the Current 2A cases (http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=345) thread; but for those of you who aren't I thought I would highlight it.

There is a lot of good information in that thread, if you aren't checking it regularly you should. So far the Second Amendment crowd is doing very well in the court system.

[Standing Wolf]

It's a step. Well done!

[HoraceHogsnort]

Yeah that's good news and it appears that Sheriff Christianson here in Stanislaus Co. is honoring his campaign promise to issue with "Self Defense" as good cause. Things are looking up. I thought it'd never happen here. Maby the San Joaquin Co. sheriff will start to look at things differently as well.

[Tom Servo]

It's a great result for great work, but the policy could be reversed on the election of a new sheriff.

Still, it sets an interesting precedent, as local officials realize that they could be sued for simply "following orders" in violation of the Constitution.

[jmortimer]

It is all up to the Sheriff. Riverside County is a no-go. I don't know why so many here support the current sheriff. I expect there will be a few more counties that will follow suit but watch out, the democrats in suckramento will put an end to giving the Sheriff the final say if it gets too popular. All in all, good news.

[Wag]

Good to hear.

One step at a time.....

--Wag--

[Al Norris]

A couple of points....
... but the policy could be reversed on the election of a new sheriff.

First and foremost, the courts take a real dim view of an agency changing its policy to abate a civil rights lawsuit, only to change it back. Real Dim. Secondly, all rights were reserved to refile if the policy does in fact change to be as or more prohibitive than the settlement. Third, even though McGuiness is retiring, both candidates have publicly endorsed the new policy (obviously in order to get votes), so they would open themselves to not only the 1983 suit, but possibly to a 1982 suit (personal liability).

Fourthly, Bret Thomas was denied a CCW in Yolo county, based upon the same "good cause" statement that others were granted. This is an equal protection suit and is a no-brainer. The Yolo county suit will continue to resolution, creating a citible precedent.

Finally, about 30 CCW applications have already been granted in Sacramento on a "good cause" statement which essentially says, "I wish to carry concealed for self defense," so that any change there will invoke an equal protection suit.
It is all up to the Sheriff. Riverside County is a no-go.

That's as it stands, right now. Give this less than 2 years and CA may well be a virtual Shall Issue State.

... the democrats in suckramento will put an end to giving the Sheriff the final say if it gets too popular.

I'll wager by the time your legislature gets in gear, carry in one form or another will be the law of the land. The cards are now stacked against any State that tries to disallow its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Despite the rhetoric of the anti-gunners (more to the point, despite how narrowly they are reading the decisions), neither Heller or McDonald said that the right stops at the door to the outside of your house.

[Tom Servo]

Bret Thomas was denied a CCW in Yolo county, based upon the same "good cause" statement that others were granted. This is an equal protection suit and is a no-brainer. The Yolo county suit will continue to resolution, creating a citible precedent.
Good point. It's an interesting angle from which to challenge California's CCW regulations, and it's good to see.

[blume357]

looking at firearms related items on the internet and discovered the 'Racist Gun Control' theme and read several articles on this.

One always stood out... that statistically several counties in California were obviously guilty of this.... after having to show their list of permits issued it was determined that the sheriffs generally did not issue to blacks and hispanics.... who would have thunk that high and mighty liberal left wingnut California would be high on the racist list?

It's always amazed me that people can get elected or put in a government job and not only not have read the constitution but can't fathom what it means.