Is San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey Above The Law?

[YihChauChang]

After 32 years in office, San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey believes that every common, law-abiding Californian's basic, fundamental, and enumerated civil right to self-defense does not deserve to be honored within his jurisdiction. What do you think?

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-oakland/san-francisco-county-sheriff-michael-hennessey-is-above-the-law

[Al Norris]

I see you posted the same thing (under a different user name) over at CalGuns.

Perhaps you should have read this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=440281) thread, while you were over there. That thread is about how the CalGuns Foundation is attempting to get Hennessey to abide by the current CA Law... Before CalGuns sues for compliance.

Ah... Having just read your article, I see you are in communication with CGF (via Brandon Combs). Nice article, by the way. Thanks for bringing this to the attention of TFL members from CA who have yet to discover the weight of CalGuns.

Now personally, I believe Sheriff Hennessey will need to be sued, in order to bring him and his dept. in compliance.

[secret_agent_man]

Politics should have got him by now. Except that most of his constituency probably thinks just like him. So he continues to stick.

[YihChauChang]

Yeah, I am in close contact with several CGF Foundation Board Members and they are a very dedicated bunch of guys. We have really been able to coordinate well in our struggle to restore 2A rights in California this year and that is really because the different gun rights groups are really coming together in a very effective way. The tide is turning in our favor in the Golden State.

[Double Naught Spy]

The sheriff, and others like him, should not be ignoring the law. Why have y'all let him slide for so long? Why do you let the others slide.

[Uncle Buck]

Interesting. I wonder how long it will take him to finally comply? I am sure he has been threatened with a law suit before.

[Al Norris]

The sheriff, and others like him, should not be ignoring the law. Why have y'all let him slide for so long? Why do you let the others slide.
The CA CC laws are wrote in such a manner that gives almost absolute discretion to Sheriffs. There are what, 57 counties in CA? That's 57 different approaches to those laws.

CA does not have a 2A analog in their constitution. Even after Heller, what was anyone to do? The CA Supreme Court had already ruled (some time ago) that the Federal 2A was a collective right, as had the 9th Circuit.

McDonald is barely a year old. It has taken time and many resources to put together the many challenges that we are seeing, including this one.

Together with the CalGuns Foundation, and a newly re-energized and re-organized CA Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA - the CA arm of the NRA), they are now making inroads.

The constant sarcasm and outright animosity leveled against CA as a State, although justified in many cases, cannot be justified here. Here, tens of thousands of CA gunnies have come together, put aside their differences, and are working together to bring 2A rights to a State whose Legislators (and people) are mostly anti-gun.

Instead of the sarcasm, the rest of us would do well to learn from these folks, fighting for their rights.

[Double Naught Spy]

The CA CC laws are wrote in such a manner that gives almost absolute discretion to Sheriffs. There are what, 57 counties in CA? That's 57 different approaches to those laws.

CA does not have a 2A analog in their constitution.

Sure, I understand this. I also understand that the discretion criteria are also very vague. However, this isn't a 2A issue per se. This is a compliance with the law about the sheriff making his requirement for granting a conceal carry permit known. He hasn't even bothered to pen requirements that are exclusionary which he is free to do per the way the laws appear to be written. It would not matter if this pertained to guns or not. The sheriff does not appear to be in compliance with a law stating how part of his job is to be performed and hasn't complied, apparently, since the law went into effect 11 years ago. That is a long time and his lack of compliance has been known from the start.

I take it that there is no penalty for not complying with the law. Would that be correct?

[Mike40-11]

Instead of the sarcasm, the rest of us would do well to learn from these folks, fighting for their rights.
Well said. I am disgusted by the laws and politics of California and can't imagine living there. But I have a lot of respect for the 2A guys fighting the uphill battle out there.

[secret_agent_man]

I take it that there is no penalty for not complying with the law. Would that be correct?

Yes. However, one might get a writ of mandamus compelling a public official to enforce existing law.

[KyJim]

This is a compliance with the law about the sheriff making his requirement for granting a conceal carry permit known. He hasn't even bothered to pen requirements that are exclusionary which he is free to do per the way the laws appear to be written.Since the content of the written policy has been largely discretionary with the sheriff, it would have been ridiculously easy to write a policy that left it virtually impossible to get a permit except for selected cronies. Now, the incorporation of the 2A and its application to individuals will add force to the argument the sheriff must adopt a written and reasonable policy and to process applications in a non-arbitrary manner.

[Double Naught Spy]

Since the content of the written policy has been largely discretionary with the sheriff, it would have been ridiculously easy to write a policy that left it virtually impossible to get a permit except for selected cronies.

Right, and that is what I was basically trying to convey, expcept for the part about his cronies, but that would be correct as well.

Now, the incorporation of the 2A and its application to individuals will add force to the argument the sheriff must adopt a written and reasonable policy and to process applications in a non-arbitrary manner.

So there is no penalty for him not complying with the law, so to help make compliance happen, we are throwing more reasons at him? Laws that mandate behavior (compliance in some form) without penalty are not very useful laws.

I would think there has to be some penalty for not complying with the law, or isn't there? If there is, why hasn't it been used against the sheriff and others like him?

[ConlawBloganon]

Best of luck with the case, hope it pans out. The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves if they about some of the shenanigans from guys like this.

[Al Norris]

DNS, such a thing was done with LAPD back in the mid 1990's. This document, http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Memo-Re-Assenza-Davis-v-LA.pdf, shows the trouble with enforcing the law upon a government agency.

The SF County (Hennessy) troubles have been ongoing. Now that both Heller and McDonald are the law of the land, expect not only SF to come into compliance (through harsher court action), but all CA counties.

There are additional implications should Peruta have a favorable ruling or Williams be granted cert and be successful.

[Standing Wolf]

After 32 years in office...

I believe I've just spotted the problem. The solution is term limits, very short term limits.

[Webleymkv]

To me, this simply highlights the folly (and need for replacement) of the may issue system. Were CA a shall-issue state, Hennessey wouldn't even be an issue to begin with. Unfortunately, it seems as though the politicians of CA are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming through the courts in order to do away with some of the draconian laws they've enacted.