Is CAGV Afraid Of A Little Political Theater?

Connecticut Against Gun Violence (sic) or CAGV was planning to have their 3rd Annual Conference on Saturday, October 3rd, at Yale University in New Haven. They were having a number of the bigwigs of the gun prohibitionist lobby attending. They were going to have Ladd Everitt of CSGV, Josh Sugarmann of VPC, and Colin Goddard of Everytown (formerly of Brady) among others.

Then they posted this announcement on Wednesday:

We regret that the CAGV Conference that was scheduled for October 3rd at Yale University has been cancelled. Unfortunately there are circumstances beyond our control that made this difficult decision necessary.

Rumor has it that a group of Californians was planning to attend that meeting.

Often when Californians talk to "gun folks" in other states, they express exasperation at our continued assaults on the fortress of prohibitionism, here. They encourage us to simply relocate to a Free State where we don't have to worry constantly about complying with the California laws so Byzantine that not even the Bureau of Firearms successfully navigates them.

But we don't want to leave, and even if we did, we're seeing that California's and Connecticut's cancer is spreading toward the Heartland.

Draw the line now.

We're organizing a protest at this meeting. We're not going to stand out there with signs and matching t-shirts to scream at traffic. We're going to disrupt it. Nothing violent, but political theater goes a long way.

Plans are coming together. Clear your schedule, we're all going to Connecticut!

I wonder if the protest the Californians had planned was anything like this one planned for San Francisco a few years back.

Would those California gun owners have gone full Alinsky on CAGV?  I guess we'll never know since CAGV cancelled their event. What a pity!

Fire Mission From CalGuns Foundation

It's time to help out friends in California. While many might write California off as a lost cause, it isn't so long as you have groups like CalGuns, Cal-FFL, and the Firearms Policy Coalition fighting them.

Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) might also be known as Gov. Moonbeam but he is a gun owner and signed on to the amicus brief in support of the McDonald case when he was the Attorney General.

So help out our friends in California and perhaps win a Benelli M4 while you are at it.

Works for me.

Oppose DOJ's new anti-gun regulations NOW!

** GUN RIGHTS FIRE MISSION ** Write DOJ to OPPOSE new anti-gun regulations  -- less than 24 hours left to submit comments! -- WHAT: Send DOJ your written opposition to their proposed anti-gun regulations WHEN: BEFORE 5 p.m. on Tuesday, September 24, 2013. WHY: Among other things, DOJ is trying to make "DROS delays" permanent and remove its lawsuit liability through their proposed regulations. HOW: Use FPC's fast, easy, and free TAKE ACTION contact form at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-issues/california/2013-2014/proposed-doj-regulation-11-ccr-4210-et-seq. A letter to DOJ addressing these outrageous proposed regulations is already built-in to the FPC TAKE ACTION contact form; however, you may edit the text as you like to reflect your personal concerns. PUBLIC HEARING: DOJ will hold a public hearing to receive public comments on the proposed regulatory action at 1:00 p.m. on September 24, 2013, at the Department of Water Resources Auditorium located at 1416 9th Street, in Sacramento, California. The auditorium is wheelchair accessible. At the hearing, any person may present oral or written comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. DOJ requests, but does not require, that persons making oral comments at the hearing also submit a written copy of their testimony. Please send your letter RIGHT NOW, then SHARE THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE to all of your pro-gun family and friends. Post on Facebook & Twitter -- help us get the word out! WIN a Benelli M4 by sending Gov. Brown a letter at DemandRights.com

follow on Twitter | friend on Fac

Another Second Amendment Lawsuit Filed In California

The Second Amendment Foundation, the CalGuns Foundation, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees have filed suit in US District Court against Alameda County, California due to the county's use of a zoning law to present a gun shop from opening. They are joined in the suit by John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza who had attempted to open a gun shop there.

The County of Alameda requires that all gun shops be 500 feet away from the nearest residence, liquor store, or school. The location chosen by the businessmen above had met that standard until the county changed how it measured the distance. Alameda County Board of Supervisors made this change after the gun shop had been given a condition use permit and a variable by the local Board of Adjustment. In doing so, the supervisors negated the variance that had been issued by the Board of Adjustment.

I have served on my local Board of Adjustment for over 18 years and am the current vice-chair of the Board. The actions by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to change the ordinance after the fact and nullify the variance is most unusual. As boards of adjustment are quasi-judicial bodies, appeals of their decisions are usually made in the local Superior Court.

Below is the joint press release on Teixeira et al v. County of Alameda et al.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - The County of Alameda’s zoning law requiring that gun stores be located 500 feet away from residential properties is not rational and cannot withstand any form of constitutional scrutiny, argues a new federal civil rights lawsuit filed yesterday in San Francisco, California. Businessmen John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza are joined by the Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees as plaintiffs in the case. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason Davis of Rancho Santa Margarita.

The complaint describes how plaintiffs Teixeira, Nobriga, and Gamza had actually been granted a Conditional Use Permit and variance for the property on which they intended to open a gun store until the variance was revoked by the Alameda Board of Supervisors. “John, Steve, and Gary did everything right. They had their paperwork in order,” said attorney Donald Kilmer. “Their store was moving forward, things were going great, and then they were blindsided by the County long after putting money, labor, and time into opening their store. That’s a serious due process problem for the County.”

“The facts in this case are outrageous,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “In the fall of 2010, Gamaza, Nobriga, and Teixeira formed a business partnership with the intention of opening a gun store in Alameda County. When they began the process of getting permits to open their shop, they were advised of a requirement that gun stores not be located within 500 feet of any school, liquor store or residence.

“After carefully measuring distances between the shop’s front door and the front door of the nearest property,” he continued, “they found that they were well beyond the 500-foot limit. But then the county changed the measurement requirements.”

The City of Sunnyvale recently conducted a study that showed gun stores had no correlation with area crime. “The right to buy firearms is just as much a protected part of the Second Amendment as the right to buy books is protected under the First Amendment,” said Calguns Foundation chairman Gene Hoffman. “Just like we saw in the Nordyke case, Alameda County continues it's long-running effort to undermine the fundamental civil rights of it's citizens to purchase firearms that they have a right to buy.”

According to the lawsuit, the county allowed an objection to the businessmen’s permit to be filed even though the deadline had passed for such objections and the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments had voted to approve a conditional use permit and allow the gun store to operate. “The outcome of this lawsuit may very well have far-reaching implications for firearms dealers not just in California, but across the United States,” noted co-counsel Jason Davis. “Hopefully we can address these issues for dealers once and for all.”

“Alameda County has a long track record of denying Second Amendment Rights to its residents, even those enumerated in our Constitution,” explained Cal-FFL president Brandon Combs. “We’ve seen over and over again how local rules like those Alameda County adopted are sold to municipalities by anti-gun extremist groups like New York Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, and other Joyce Foundation-funded spinoffs.”

“They want to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution, but that’s simply not going to happen on our watch. We will make sure Americans have a neighborhood gun dealer to sell them the tools they need to defend themselves from violent attackers.”

The case is captioned as Teixeira, et al. v. County of Alameda, et al. The docket and filings as they become available can be viewed at http://ia600408.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256462/gov.uscourts.cand.256462.docket.html.

State Senator Leland Yee - The General Gage Of California

A few weeks ago, CBS 5 in San Francisco had a breathless report about a "loophole" in California gun laws that allowed people to have "assault weapons". The so-called loophole that was just discovered by the intrepid reporters is something called a bullet button which has been around for five years or so. A bullet button allows the use of a removable magazine on an AR-15. However, one must use a tool or the tip of your bullet to remove that magazine. Essentially, it is device that allows fixed magazines to be removed for either loading or clearing a jam.

As sure as the sun sets in the West, you just knew that some politician was going to jump on this imagined bandwagon and introduce a law to outlaw bullet buttons. That politician is State Senator Leland Yee, Ph.D. who represents parts of San Francisco and San Mateo Counties.



Today, Yee introduced his bill to outlaw bullet buttons. He will be gutting the contents of SB 249 and replacing them with his anti-bullet button language.

Leland Yee - California's General Gage

From his press release:

“There is absolutely no reason why these military style weapons need to have such easily changeable magazines,” said Yee. “While most gun owners are law abiding, I am deeply concerned with these assault weapons getting into the wrong hands, resulting in mass casualties of civilians or law enforcement officers.”

Magazines, or the storage areas that allow for repeat firing, that can be removed by a normal push button in combination with features such as a pistol grip and telescoping stock are banned in California. The law essentially requires magazines to be fixed, or removed or replaced with the use of a tool, in order to slow down the process of reloading.

To get around the law, gun makers have created a new mechanism, or “tool,” that allows the magazine to be easily removed by the tip of a bullet or in some cases by just putting a small magnet over the “bullet button,” basically recreating a normal push button and allowing magazines to be changed within seconds.

“These conversions are circumventing the spirit of California’s assault weapon statute,” said Yee. “Absent this bill, California’s assault weapon ban is significantly weakened. For the safety of the general public, we must close this loophole.”

Fortunately, the people of California have groups like CalGuns and its president, Gene Hoffman, fighting for them. I just loved the historical lesson Gene gave the reporter from CBS 5 and Senator Yee.  Having seen them in action, it would be good for them to take it to heart.

Yee seems to be the type of politician that thrives on attention from special interest groups such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center. In his recent effort to be elected Mayor of San Francisco, he touted how he had landed virtually "every major endorsement in the race for mayor." Yee finished in 5th place.

As a final aside, I find it amusing that Senator Yee insists on putting Ph.D. after his name on his legislative website. While some may find legislators childish, Yee's doctorate in child psychology has nothing to do with his job as a State Senator. I am reminded of something my late wife Rosanne said about her own Ph.D. - earned at a much more prestigious institution and in a more rigorous field - when asked why she didn't put it after her name in general usage. She said, and I quote, "that and 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee." I think that puts it into perspective.

Jerry Finally Makes Up His Mind

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) finally made up his mind on a slate of firearms-related bills that required either his signature or his veto. He did it on the last day that he could make a decision.  He signed four bills and vetoed one. As to the impact, the result is mixed for California gun owners.

Let's start with the veto. Brown vetoed SB 427 which would have forbidden mail order shipments of certain ammunition to California. In his veto message, he noted:

This measure would amend a recently enacted law concerning the sale and purchase of handgun ammunition. That law is currently being litigated.

Let's keep our powder dry on amendments until the court case runs its course.

Now to what he signed.

SB 610 amends the California carry application process in such a way as to require sheriffs to make the determination on whether the applicant shows "good cause" before the applicant has gone through the required training process. Thus, the applicant is saved the cost of going through training only to find out he or she is going to be denied for a carry permit. This was a CalGuns backed measure.

AB 144 is the bill that got most of the attention because it would outlaw unloaded open carry. It was introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Portatino (D-Pasadena). There had been a concerted effort by many gun groups to get Gov. Brown to veto this bill as it outlaws the only mode of carry available to most Californians. In that sense it is bad. However, signing this bill may in a counter-intuitive way be to our advantage especially when it comes to moving California forward to becoming a shall-issue state.

In Peruta v. San Diego, U.S. District Court Judge Irma Gonzalez cited the exceptions that would allow the plaintiff, Edward Peruta, to have armed self-defense outside the home. One of those exceptions under California law was unloaded open carry. Because of this, she felt justified in denying Mr. Peruta the ability to obtain a concealed carry permit. With Gov. Brown's signing AB 144, this exception is now removed. The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the foreclosing of this option could well have an impact upon the case.

AB 809 now requires the registration of long guns in California starting in 2014. Handguns are currently required to be registered and this bill sponsored by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-LA) extends it to all guns. In a signing statement attached to this bill, Gov. Brown noting that the state already requires a background check on all firearm purchases but only retains it with regard to handguns, said, "I see no reason why the state should not also retain information pertaining to the sales of long guns."

Finally, SB 819 sponsored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) expands the use of the fee charged in the dealer record of sale (DROS) process. From the analysis of the bill provided by the legislature:

Provides that the Department of Justice (DOJ) may use dealer record of sale (DROS) funds for costs associated with its firearms-related regulatory and enforcement activities regarding the possession, as well as the sale, purchase, loan, or transfer, of firearms, as specified.

In essence, SB 819 changes the DROS fee into a tax because it will now be used for purposes beyond activities related to just the sale and transfer of a firearm. The fee is already being challenged in Federal court by the CRPA/NRA Legal Project in the case of Harris v. Bauer and this will only help the case.

California gun attorney Clint Montfort had this to say about the bills on the CalGuns forum. He is an associate with Chuck Michel in Michel & Associates.

The DROS bill will necessarily and immediately be challenged in the NRA's Harris v. Bauer case. If anyone doesn't understand the DROS issue or SB 819, I recommend reading the NRA's alert in that case on www.calgunlaws.com or reading the complaint in that case.

Everyone knows how AB 144 will be used agaist the other side in the current LTC cases (SAF/CGF & NRA/CRPAF).

SB 427 was vetoed as a result of the NRA's Parker v. CA case from last year that overturned AB 962 and is currently being appealed.

Obviously it certainly would have been nice if AB 809 wasn't signed. But at the end of the day, two of the three bills that were signed aren't the end of the world. They become part of litigation that was already set in motion. So while those cases are litigated, enjoy purchasing all of your ammo over the internet and in stores without leaving a thumbprint. Lets see how litigation plays out regarding long gun registration.

The pro 2A bill on his desk was signed.

CalGuns Foundation's Strategy For Carry In California

Gene Hoffman of the CalGuns Foundation is a really smart guy and it shows in the methodical strategy to win handgun carry for all in California that he has outlined below. I believe it was Gene who said last September at the 2010 Gun Rights Policy Conference, "we lost our gun rights one step at a time and we will have to win them back on step at a time."

As to why anyone not living in California should even care, one-eighth of all Americans live in the Golden State. They have 53 Representatives in Congress. What begins there often ends up in the rest of the United States over time. If Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had her way concealed carry laws in the rest of the U.S. would look like those in California.

As I read around the web, I see a lot of confusion and lack of understanding about what CGF is up to to clean up and sanitize carrying a firearm in urban California.

I want to outline the strategy a bit as there have been enough public revelations to make it easy to help outline what's going on.

The way we see the carry problem here is that there are big issues and little issues that can be resolved both before and after a SCOTUS carry case.

Big Issue

The big issues are the Good Cause and Good Moral Character requirements of California law. Also, we're taking the narrowest and strongest view of carry which is that it will be heavily influenced by governments' ability to place time place and manner restrictions on it so long as loaded carry of some sort is allowed all to all non prohibiteds. That's why we filed Sykes which became Richards v. Prieto. That's also why SAF also filed, Palmer v. DC, Bateman v. Perdue (NC), Higtower v. Boston, Muller v. Maenza (NJ), Woolard v. Sheridan (MD), and Moore v. Madigan (IL). The whole point was to get SCOTUS to confirm there is a right to carry and may issue/discretionary laws are a prior restraint on the right to carry. Williams and Masciandaro are criminal actions that moved faster and may get us a SCOTUS carry case faster. We are currently cautiously optimistic that we'll get a a carry case decision from SCOTUS by 6/30/2012, but we're pretty confident that if that date isn't hit, it would certainly be complete by 6/30/2013.

Pre SCOTUS Clean Up - The Sunshine Initiative

1. The clean up of California can start now - even before we win the big issue. Amongst the things that need to be fixed are Sheriffs with no policy, Sheriffs who force you to waste money by (having insurance, getting a doctor's note, making you apply to a PD who will absolutely turn you down first, etc.) This effort can be seen by SF Sheriff's Office finally issuing a (bad) policy and is exemplified by Rossow v. Merced.

2. Also, some sheriffs tend to be far more lenient on good cause statements from people they "know" for whatever reason. As such we can force a lot of sheriffs to head toward shall issue now (while we wait on SCOTUS) with cases like Scocca in Santa Clara that rely on Guillory v. Gates. This was why we sued Ventura for not disclosing their good cause statements.

3. Further, non California residents really have no way to carry in California. That's why we filed Peterson v. Denver County Sheriff of the Week. We can prove the issue in the 10th Circuit (and get Californian's the ability to carry in Denver) and then re-import that decision.

4. California's license is pretty darn clean. Even 18 year olds can get it. However, we're watching NRA's handgun purchase and carry cases in Texas because we'll want to import those wins here too.

All of this means that, while we wait, more people get permits, more counties get closer to shall issue, and when SCOTUS hits, we can quickly remove all the silly roadblocks to getting permits once they're clearly our right - in many cases because we already have removed unlawful procedures in most of the California counties.

Post SCOTUS clean up.

1. Hold outs. We'll have a few. However, we should have fresh case law to prove that much of what they do is unlawful. Add that to the Ezell standard that denial of 2A rights is irreparable harm and we'll choose one or two counties to make examples of with TROs and PIs.

2. Too slow. Some counties will move too slowly - or are already too slow. Part of the plan with point 1, is to address that. Some time is allowed to complete the background checks, but after the initial crush of applicants 30-60 days is more than enough to process licenses.

3. Too expensive. Many gun owners can't afford the license. Government is going to have to make accommodations for them. Our initial license is expensive. It's ongoing maintenance is actually pretty cheap.

4. Other stuff. Psych evals will be killed by inference from a SCOTUS decision but we may have to pick on some issuer. More 42 USC 1988 fees for the attorneys!

A couple additional notes.

1. Licensed carry may be the bare minimum. Just as those of us closely watching Heller got a lot wider decision than we were expecting around carry, who knows how wide SCOTUS' carry decision will be. We're asking for the narrowest that gives us a real right because it's prudent. If we get more on the first bite, well... Things above may be stated too conservatively.

2. CGF has focused on Sheriffs because they can't weasel out like a PD can/could. However, that means in the future (and even now) sometimes the PD you live in could be a better option. We expect competition based on customer service between sheriffs and PD's to pop up after SCOTUS. That's the flip side of our relatively expensive initial permit - it's a decent revenue source for cash strapped agencies.

I'm sure there is something I've forgotten, but I hope this clarifies what we're up to a bit. There is nothing truly proprietary here - it's just the best way to go about making life easy for CA gun owners who want to carry a firearm. There are a couple of additional items/clean ups that I've not talked about as we need to hold those back until we file them, but suffice it to say that there is a plan and that it should be relatively easy for all who want to carry - hopefully starting July 4, 2012.

I expect the biggest problem to be the lines. I can already tell you that BoF is impressed at what we've done in a couple of counties already based on their "carry applications pending" stats.

I certainly hope Gene is correct that the biggest problem will be the lines!

CalGuns Sues Merced County Sheriff Over CCW Policies

The CalGuns Foundation is doing a great job in keeping California sheriffs honest when it comes to concealed carry law in that state. They have just filed a suit in Merced County against the county, the sheriffs department, and Sheriff Mark Pazin for the additional requirements that Sheriff Pazin imposes on CCW applicants. CalGuns alleges these additional requirements contravene California state law.

I think it is safe to say that other counties in California may expect such lawsuits if they try to skirt the state law on concealed carry.

FOUNDATION SUES MERCED COUNTY, SHERIFF MARK PAZIN OVER UNLAWFUL FIREARM CARRY LICENSE APPLICATION POLICIES

San Carlos, CA (July 27, 2011) – As part of its ongoing Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, the Calguns Foundation has filed a lawsuit in Merced County Superior Court challenging Merced County and its Sheriff’s firearm carry licensing policy for violating state law. Joining CGF are three individual plaintiffs who have been harmed by these policies, Michelle and Seth Rossow and James Clark. The plaintiffs are represented by Jason Davis of Mission Viejo and Donald Kilmer of San Jose.

California firearm carry license laws currently require applicants to have “good cause” and “good moral character.” The Calguns Foundation believes that those requirements are an unconstitutional prior restraint on the people’s right to bear arms, and is challenging those requirements in its Federal lawsuit over Yolo County’s carry licensing scheme in Richards v. Prieto, currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

However, in Merced County, the Sheriff saddles applicants with additional forms, fees, and processes - even for individuals who meet the heightened good cause and moral character requirements - that, CGF alleges, violate state law.

“Sheriff Pazin has had ample time to create a policy that adheres to state law,” said Brandon Combs, a director of CGF and leader of the Initiative. Calguns Foundation first contacted Merced in October of 2010, when it discovered that the Sheriff had established an unlawful moratorium on carry license applications. The Sheriff subsequently lifted the moratorium, but has since refused to modify parts of his policy that CGF identified as unlawful.

“This case is definitely important to all Merced County residents who seek a carry license,” added CGF chairman Gene Hoffman. “What Sheriff Pazin has done is further burden a process that’s already costly and complex with unlawful requirements and fees. We are merely requesting the court mandate that the Sheriff’s policy be consistent with existing law.”

In 1999, California enacted Assembly Bill 2022 to enforce standards upon the carry licensing process. "The Legislature, in AB 2022, sought to address the arbitrary and widely-varying abuses in carry license policies between different cities and counties in California,” said Jason Davis. “They made it clear that application requirements, forms, and fees are to be uniform throughout the state."

“When we found out my wife was about to become a new mom," said plaintiff Seth Rossow, "we knew we needed to take steps to protect our family when we weren’t in our home. We’ve had problems with meth users hiding at our ranch, and we watch the news like everybody else. In this day of budget cuts and reduced law enforcement patrols, it is important for us to be able to easily apply for our carry licenses.”

“The Rossow’s concerns for their safety are not unique," added Don Kilmer. "California created a system that was designed so that applicants could focus on important issues, like training, rather than worry about a local form the Sheriff might or might not want them to fill out that day.”

“Ultimately, this case is about making carry license policies consistent with California law,” said Gene Hoffman. “We believe that we can accomplish this without 58 lawsuits, but if that’s what it requires, that’s what we are prepared to do.”

A downloadable copy of the complaint may be found at CGF’s downloads library. More information on Calguns Foundation’s Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative and other Second Amendment-related litigation and educational efforts can be found at www.calgunsfoundation.org.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

CalGuns Forces San Francisco Sheriff To Adopt CCW Policy

The CalGuns Foundation sent out this release this evening regarding their victory in forcing the Sheriff of San Francisco County to comply with California law regarding concealed carry permits. Congratulations to CalGuns for getting San Francisco to obey the law. When I attended the Gun Rights Policy Conference in San Francisco, I was shocked to find out that there were only eight CCW permits issued for all of San Francisco County. While this number may have changed some, it is still ridiculously small for a city and county of the size of San Francisco.

San Carlos, CA (Tuesday, July 5, 2011) – After a litigation threat from the Calguns Foundation, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey has adopted a policy for firearm carry license (“CCW”) applications.

As part of its ongoing Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, The Calguns Foundation sent San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey a letter demanding that he immediately bring the firearm carry license application acceptance, processing, and evaluation policies of his department into compliance with California law.

“As a direct result of our letter, San Franciscans now have a path to apply for a permit to exercise their fundamental right of self defense,” notes Gene Hoffman, Chairman of CGF. “We look forward to assisting San Francisco residents to that end by publishing on our website copies of approved ‘good cause’ statements, the Sheriff’s policy, DOJ standard application, a ‘CCW Application Flowchart’, and other valuable tools and information.”

The new policy is being reviewed for requirements and practices that violate the law. “While we’re pleased that Sheriff Hennessey chose to produce a policy rather than spend taxpayers' money to defend an indefensible position, it’s perplexing that he created such an onerous carry license program that practically begs for further scrutiny and possibly litigation,” said Brandon Combs, a director of CGF and leader of the Sunshine Initiative.

Calguns Foundation provided a copy of their Model Carry License Policy, downloadable here, to San Francisco Sheriff Hennessey and the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. The CGF Model Policy reflects the process and procedures found in state law and comports with constitutional principles. San Francisco, however, chose to largely ignore CGF’s offer of assistance and create its own policy.

“We’re taking a very hard look at policies that burden the carry license application process with unlawful or unconstitutional provisions,” stated Gene Hoffman. “We expect that some sheriffs will dig in their heels and refuse to comply with the law. Those sheriffs should expect to be taken to court.”

A copy of the San Francisco carry license policy is available for download here. More information on Calguns Foundation’s Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative can be found at www.gotcarry.org. For more information on other Second Amendment-related litigation and educational efforts, please visit www.calgunsfoundation.org.

Coalition Files Amicus Brief In Colorado Carry Case

The Second Amendment Foundation and a coalition of 17 other gun rights organizations have filed an amicus brief with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Peterson v. Garcia. Gray Peterson's case has been supported in this lawsuit against Denver by the CalGuns Foundations.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has been joined by 17 other firearms rights groups in an amicus brief filed in a case now before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms by law-abiding non-resident U.S. citizens in Denver, Colorado.

The case, Peterson v. Garcia, was filed by Washington state resident Gray Peterson, who cannot exercise his right to bear arms because Colorado statute prohibits the issuance of a concealed carry permit to non-residents, and does not recognize Peterson’s Washington license or his Florida carry permit because he is not a Florida resident. Denver bans the open carry of firearms, leaving Peterson – who visits Colorado frequently – without any legal means of carrying a firearm for his personal protection.

“This is a case that affects citizens in at least 20 states and the District of Columbia,” noted Miko Tempski, SAF legal affairs director. “We’ve been joined by organizations from 16 of those states in this brief, because they all have members who may travel to Colorado and face the same problem if they enter the City of Denver.”

Joining SAF are the Buckeye Firearms Foundation (Ohio), Citizens' Rights Action League (Rhode Island), Commonwealth Second Amendment (Massachusetts), Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Calguns Foundation, Inc. (California), Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (Minnesota), Hawaii Defense Foundation, Illinois Carry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Maine Open Carry Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Wisconsin Carry, Inc., SCOPE, Inc. (New York), Stillwater Firearms Association (Nevada), Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. and West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. All are state-focused non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving, defending and promoting firearms rights.

“The Second Amendment doesn’t only say you have a right to keep arms,” Tempski continued, “it also stipulates that citizens have the right to bear arms. Because of our successful lawsuit in the McDonald case last year, leading to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, the right to bear arms is very much at issue with Mr. Peterson’s challenge. Any law or ordinance that touches on this right must be held to the strictest of scrutiny.”

CalGuns Demands San Franscisco Sheriff Obey Law

The CalGuns Foundation issued this press release yesterday demanding that San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey obey California state law regarding concealed carry.

San Carlos, CA (June 2, 2011) - As part of its ongoing Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative, The Calguns Foundation sent San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey a letter demanding that he immediately bring his firearm carry license application acceptance, processing, and evaluation policies into compliance with the law.

In the letter sent Tuesday, Calguns notes that the Sheriff has failed to comply with state law for nearly thirteen years, even after being notified of the deficiency on a number of prior occasions. Calguns also claims that the policies of the Sheriff in issuing licenses to some, including one of his employees, while refusing to accept all applications from “regular” San Francisco residents violates applicants’ constitutional rights of self-defense and equal protection under the law.

“While the Sheriff may have grown accustomed to following only those laws he chooses, we intend to hold the County’s highest law enforcement officer to the same laws he took an oath to uphold,” notes Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “The rights of San Francisco residents are no less valuable than those of his employees and friends.”

In 1998, then-Assemblymember Rod Wright authored a bill to make firearm carry permit applications consistent across the state due to tremendous variations in local practices by licensing authorities. That bill, AB 2022, established a mandate that all licensing authorities create and publish a written policy on carry license applications by April 1, 1999. It also instituted a specific process that licensing authorities - county sheriffs and city chiefs of police - must use in receiving and processing applications.

“We’ve spent thousands of hours requesting and reviewing the policies and practices of hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the state. Sheriff Hennessey’s, obviously, stood out – it simply didn’t exist,” said Brandon Combs, member of the Board of Directors of Calguns Foundation. “It’s exceedingly frustrating to see the Sheriff turning away so many qualified San Francisco residents who are complying with the law.”

In an effort to avoid litigation, Calguns provided Sheriff Hennessey with a comprehensive model carry license policy. “We would strongly prefer that the Sheriff simply choose to use our model policy, much as San Francisco has done with LCAV policies in the past,” Brandon Combs said. “However, should he choose to go another direction, we’re prepared to litigate as necessary to bring his policies and practices in line with the law.”

A downloadable copy of the model policy is available at this link. CGF's letter to Sheriff Hennessey is located here.

More information on Calguns Foundation’s Carry License Compliance and Sunshine Initiative can be found at www.gotcarry.org. For more information on other Second Amendment-related litigation and educational efforts, please visit www.calgunsfoundation.org.

I had the distinct pleasure of getting to know Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGuns Foundation, at the LuckyGunner Blogger Shoot. I'm proud to say that he is a Tar Heel native and bleeds Carolina Blue especially during basketball season.

Gene and the CalGuns Foundation are doing great work in California in their efforts to preserve, protect, and expand our Second Amendment rights in that state. As one-fifth of all Americans live in California, what happens in California eventually will impact the rest of us. Rather than mocking those gun owners who choose (or are forced by economic necessity) to live in California, we ought to be asking how can we help.

Quote Of The Day

From the amicus brief submitted to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Peruta v. County of San Diego by the Second Amendment Foundation and the CalGuns Foundation.

An official's personal views of someone's suitability to enjoy constitutional rights, or of an individual's moral virtue, simply cannot be factors in regulating the exercise of constitutional rights.

This was written by Alan Gura in response to the requirements of California Penal Code Section 12050 which states that an applicant for a concealed carry permit must show "good cause" and be of "good moral character".

SAF And CalGuns Sue California Over "Assault Weapons" Arrest

This was just released by the Second Amendment Foundation and the CalGuns Foundations:

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in California, seeking to have the state’s definition of so-called “assault weapons” declared unconstitutionally vague.

Joining SAF and Calguns in the lawsuit is Brendan John Richards, an Iraq combat veteran who served as a U.S. Marine, and whose arrest and six-day incarceration in the Sonoma County jail – and subsequent dismissal of all charges – was the catalyst for this legal action. Named as defendants are California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, the City of Rohnert Park and police officer Dean Becker.

Richards was jailed in May 2010 after Officer Becker, investigating a disturbance at a motel where Richards was staying, learned that Richards had two pistols and a rifle, all unloaded, in the trunk of his car. Becker, arrested Richards for unlawful possession of an assault weapon. However, in September of last year, the charges were dismissed by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office, based on a report from the state Department of Justice that showed none of the guns met the state’s definition of an assault weapon.

“California’s law allows possession of a variety of firearms that do not meet the state’s assault weapons definition, which we believe is unconstitutionally vague,” noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Mr. Richards was jailed for almost a week, when he had broken no law because a police officer had a conflicting view and the District Attorney’s office believed him.”

“California attempts to make a distinction among firearms where no natural one exists,” noted Calguns Executive Director Gene Hoffman. “The generic definition of so-called ‘assault weapons’ was simply an attempt to prohibit possession of guns that look scary.”

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Don Kilmer of San Jose and Jason A. Davis of Mission Viejo. Kilmer said the case is indicative of the way things have become in California.

“Now that the right to keep arms has correctly been recognized as fundamental and applicable to California,” Kilmer said, “gun owners can’t be faced with the practice of ‘arrest them first and let the courts sort it out’ for exercising constitutional rights. That is just how things are done in our country.”

Some Pictures From CCRKBA Rally In Los Angeles

The CalGuns Foundation, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, CalGuns.net, CCRKBA, and the Second Amendment Foundation sponsored a rally today in Los Angeles to protest Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Illegal Mayor's plans for more gun control. It also featured CCRKBA's Guns Save Lives rolling billboard truck.

Below are some pictures from the event posted by Eugene Tan. I see a lot of great signs with a lot of great Oleg Volk photos in them.

Congratulations are due to Gene Hoffman and all the attendees at this event as well as to the sponsors.

Links to all the pictures from the event can be found here.

CCW Win in Sacramento County, California

Just sent out by the Second Amendment Foundation:

SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS REAFFIRMED AFTER SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CHANGES CARRY LICENSE POLICIES SAY GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS

CASE CONTINUES AGAINST YOLO COUNTY TO SECURE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE


BELLEVUE, WA & SAN CARLOS, CA - The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Calguns Foundation have dismissed their case against Sacramento County, California and its Sheriff, John McGinness, after the Sheriff modified his handgun carry permitting policy. Law-abiding Sacramento County residents may now successfully apply for permits to carry handguns by asserting self-defense as a basis for carry permit issuance. A one-year residency requirement has been eliminated, as has policy language that tied self-defense to arbitrary geographic factors.

While Sacramento County has changed its policies, other counties still fail to recognize that self-defense is a legally sufficient reason for issuance of a handgun carry permit. The litigation will continue against Yolo County and its Sheriff, Ed Prieto, on behalf of SAF, Calguns, and Davis resident Adam Richards. Additionally, this past March, Calguns supporter Brett Stewart unsuccessfully asserted self-defense as a basis for seeking a carrying license from Sheriff Prieto. The Sheriff's written policy states that "self protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence)" are insufficient reasons to exercise Second Amendment rights. Mr. Stewart will seek to join the litigation as a plaintiff in this case, now styled Richards v. Prieto.

"We are very happy to have been able to work with Sheriff McGinness to assist Sacramento County in revising their policies and practices," said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of the Calguns Foundation. "Over the past year, more than 30 of our law abiding members and supporters have received licenses to carry firearms with good cause' statements that are simple variations of self-defense. Even though the Sheriff is retiring at the end of the year, both candidates to replace Sheriff McGinness have publicly stated their support for Second Amendment rights and that they consider self-defense a compelling reason for issuance of gun carry permit."

"The Second Amendment Foundation will continue working with the Calguns Foundation and keep funding attorney Alan Gura's lawsuits in California until everyone's firearms civil rights are fully protected," added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "Together, we will see many more legal victories."

For those who wish to apply for a CCW permit, the Calguns Foundation maintains an informational portal to assist applicants in all 58 California counties as part of its recently announced Carry Licensing Compliance and Sunshine Initiative. The Sacramento County page has details on the actual procedure and successful good cause statements and is available at http://bit.ly/CGFSacCarry .

Congratulations to the CalGuns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Deana Sykes for taking a stand for gun rights in California - and winning.

Given Nikki Stallard's comments at the Gun Rights Policy Conference on this case, I wonder how the California media will play it.

CalGuns Foundation Launches CCW Project

The CalGuns Foundations has launched a new web portal dedicated to providing information about concealed carry in every county of California. They call it their Carry License/CCW Compliance and Sunshine Initiative. The goal is to make CCW-related information available to the law-abiding public in one central location and to prod local governments into compliance with California state law.

"Detailed information about carry licensing, or CCW (Carry a Concealed Weapon), has historically been kept out of reach by the local authorities who issue carry permits," notes Calguns Foundation Director Brandon Combs. "Many Sheriffs don't want citizens to see to the current reality of the right to bear arms in their county. It's time that we hold these officials accountable." As part of the initiative, Calguns Foundation and its network of volunteers requested from each of California's 58 sheriffs carry license-related documents such as their policy, local forms, and application instructions as well as statements of “good cause” that lead to both granted permits and denials. "After reviewing a small sample of the records, we knew we had to make a real effort to clean up policies that violate state or Federal law across the state."

The new web portal will have county-specific information including editable forms, contact information for each sheriff's office, and all carry license-related local materials. There will also be county-specific discussion threads so that applicants and others can share information and experiences. The site will also have as it becomes available copies of each county's accepted "good cause" statements with applicant information redacted.

Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGuns Foundation had this to say about the site:

"We want the public to know how each California sheriff determines 'Good Cause' and 'Good Moral Character,’' their only areas of discretion under existing law. There is a substantial public interest in this information since the right to bear arms hinges squarely on these standards, which currently vary from county to county,"...“We believe that after the McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court case, the Second Amendment right to bear arms requires that “good cause” be interpreted as ‘self defense’ and ‘good moral character’ be interpreted as ‘not prohibited from possessing firearms.’ We have already filed a federal lawsuit entitled Sykes v. McGinness challenging the constitutionality of unfettered discretion in carry licensing in Sacramento and Yolo County.”

Concurrent with the roll-out of the CCW project, CalGuns has sued Ventura County for because Sheriff Bob Brooks decided to withhold certain public records in violation of the California Public Records Act. The complaint can be found here. Their attorney had this to say about the lawsuit:

"I am not sure what they are hiding, but Ventura's suppression of records previously held by the courts to be public should concern all those who expect accountability from public officials," said Mr. Jason Davis, who brought the case on The Calguns Foundation’s behalf. "This is the first in a potential string of lawsuits to be filed against local agencies should they continue to disregard the public's interest in their carry licensing programs. Not only does the Act require these authorities to release the information, the very application Sheriff Brooks refused to produce reminds applicants that the applications are public records which could be disclosed upon request. It makes no sense for counties to fight losing battles in these tough economic times."

Open Carry Win in California

UOC or unloaded open carry may seem like an alien concept to those of us who live outside of California. We understand concealed carry and we understand open carry. But unloaded open carry? However, in California, due to a quirk in the law, it is legal to carry an unloaded firearm openly and to have a loaded magazine or speed-loader elsewhere on your body.

To answer the question of why one would even bother all you have to do is look at the California Department of Justice concealed carry permit statistics. While in some of the more rural counties concealed carry permits are issued regularly, in the largest urban counties you can forget about it unless you are rich or famous or both. In San Diego County for the year 2007, there were only 1,479 permits issued out of a population of 2.8 million. That is about a .05% rate. Los Angeles County is even bigger in population (approximately 10.3 million) and even stingier with their permits (1,237). However, the dubious prize winner is San Francisco with just 6 permits issued in 2007.

To protest this disparity in granting concealed carry permits, there is a burgeoning Unloaded Open Carry movement in California. Activists will carry their firearms openly and unloaded in public. One such activist is Samuel Wolanyk of San Diego. In urban areas this can cause a bit of a stir. Here is how Gene Hoffman of the CalGuns Foundation describes Mr. Wolanyk's encounter with police in San Diego:

Nearly two years ago, “open carry” activist Wolanyk wound up looking down the barrels of two police handguns when San Diego Police officers Jody Kinsley and Troy White responded to a call of a man wearing a kilt, with a holstered gun, in San Diego’s Mission Beach area. The officers immediately exited their vehicles on arrival at the location, drew their firearms, and ordered Mr. Wolanyk to the ground.

The officers quickly determined the firearm was unloaded, had no magazine in it, with no round in the chamber, and was thus in full compliance with California law. The firearm was unloaded even though Mr. Wolanyk did separately possess loaded magazines carried in an additional pouch attached to his belt (a completely lawful activity).

Until that day, these officers had never heard of the burgeoning Unloaded Open Carry movement, in which persons entitled to possess firearms exercise their right to lawfully carry unloaded, holstered handguns (though some onerous geographic limitations do apply). One other key legal restriction on open carry in California law also exists: people must give up their Fourth Amendment rights and submit to law enforcement examination of the firearm to determine if it’s loaded. In Wolanyk’s case, however, the officers weren’t performing a loaded firearm examination; in the officers’ minds, they were responding to a “man with a gun” call and acting accordingly.

After San Diego Police Sergeant David Kries arrived at the scene, Mr. Wolanyk had hoped the officers’ errors would be competently rectified and he would then be free to go. But Sgt. Kries showed he too didn’t understand California’s complex gun laws, and arrested Mr. Wolanyk for carrying a “loaded” firearm – in direct conflict with both prior case law (People v. Clark) and common sense, which requires ammunition to be in a position from which it can be fired in order for a firearm to be considered loaded. Mr. Wolanyk was taken to San Diego Police headquarters, where it was determined that he violated no law. Two hours later, Wolanyk was back at Mission Beach with Officer Kinsley handing him back his firearm and ammunition. Neither an apology nor an explanation of why the Department hadn’t properly trained their officers was provided.

This incident led to a CalGuns Foundation funded and supported lawsuit against the City of San Diego. One goal of Wolanyk v. San Diego was to ensure that the police officers of the San Diego Police Department were properly trained regarding UOC. The other, as one might well expect, was to clear Mr. Wolanyk's name.

On Wednesday, September 29th, the City of San Diego settled the lawsuit rather than to go to trial with it. Mr. Wolanyk received $35,000 for his improper arrest and the SDPD granted his petition for a Finding of Factual Innocence which acknowledges that they had no reasonable cause for his arrest. Along with the settlement, the SDPD will enhance their training of their police officers to prevent such improper arrests in the future. This is definitely a win for civil and gun rights in California.

Now that the lawsuit has been settled, Mr. Wolanyk has posted the details of the incident on the CalGuns forum here. If the details are accurate, and I presume that they are, it is obvious that he knew the law on unloaded open carry more than the officers and police sergeant in question.

I am not an enthusiastic proponent of open carry as I think carrying concealed helps preserve your "gray man" status and preserves your element of surprise when dealing with the criminal element. That said, I do realize that open carry works to legitimize the carrying of firearms and desensitize the general public to the sight of a gun. As some have observed, it is akin to the gay rights movement in some of their protests. You may not always agree with them but you have to admit that they have been very effective in securing gay rights. In time, I hope the same will be said for the open carry activists.

San Francisco MTA Punked (bumped)

The San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority has rather rigid guidelines for the ads they will accept. For example, they won't take any advertising that “appears to promote the use of firearms.” They even forced the new Will Farrell/Mark Wahlberg movie "The Other Guys" to change their ads so that it featured a can of Mace instead of a pistol.

Poster for GRPC on MTA bus stop (Calguns.net/forums)

However, the MTA was no match for the fearless duo of the CalGuns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation. According to Alan Gottlieb, he believes that MTA violated its own ad guidelines because "they believed we were prepared to file a lawsuit on First and Second Amendment grounds if, for any reason, the city didn’t take them."

Gene Hoffman posted a crytic note on the CalGuns.net forum last night that said:

If anyone lives or works in the City, please stop by the following locations and report back (photos would be awesome) on what, if anything, you see there

Townsend St SS 86ft E/O 4th St F/E - 2
Masonic Ave WS 44ft N/O Hayes St F/N - 1
Geary Blvd NS 61ft E/O Divisadero St F/W - 2
Fulton St NS 94ft W/O 8th Ave F/W - 2
Mission St NS 86ft W/O 8th St F/W - 2
Polk St WS 23ft N/O Sutter St F/N - 1
North Point St NS 44ft W/O Polk St F/E - 1
Jackson St NS 38ft E/O Van Ness Ave F/W - 2
Columbus Ave WS 61ft S/O North Point St F/S - 2
Van Ness Ave WS 34ft S/O Greenwich St F/N - 1
McAllister St NS 28ft W/O Webster St F/E - 1
Lincoln Way SS 30ft W/O 21st Ave F/W - 1
Stockton St WS 181ft S/O Clay St F/N - 1
Haight St SS 39ft W/O Pierce St F/W - 1
Geary Blvd NS 24ft E/O 3rd Ave F/E - 1
Main St ES 269ft S/O Howard St F/N - 2

-Gene

Speculation ran rampant that this was going to be another LCAV non-event or other guerrilla action against the anti-gunners. The result is what you see above - an in-your-face poster (with a shotgun) that promotes the Gun Rights Policy Conference in San Francisco. These posters appear on 15 bus stops scattered around San Francisco.

Way to go CGF and SAF! There is nothing like taking a guerrilla war to the heart of the enemies's territory.

UPDATE: If you go to the link above to Calguns.net, you can see more of the GRPC posters around San Francisco.

UPDATE II: According to a report from CBS News, the San Francisco MTA is investigating whether the GRPC posters violate their policy on ads promoting the use of firearms. It looks like they are getting pressure from the SF Board of Supervisors to take them down. All of this publicity is making Alan Gottlieb happy. If they take down the ads, he'd be even more happy saying " "All I can do is pray that all the publicity will make them want to decide to take down the ads -- so we can sue!"

UPDATE III: Thanks to a reader of Snowflakesinhell.com, I see that the New York Times is now covering the story.

On Friday, riders waiting at a bus stop displaying the pro-gun poster seemed unaware that they had previously been shielded from such images. “I don’t want to see guns,” said Zsuzsanna Legradi, a 42-year-old gardener. “No one should have guns. It is bad enough that people have knives.”

Imagine her horror at seeing the Toyota Prius in this post.

A Trifecta in California

As reported in a release from the California Rifle and Pistol Association, three anti-gun bills in the California Assembly were voted down late last night. There was intense pressure on a few members to change their vote but they didn't switch.

•AB 1810(Feuer) – Registration of Rifles and Shotguns
•AB 1934 (Saldana) – Handgun Open Carry Prohibition
•AB 2358 (De Leon) – Ammunition Registration

AB 1810 would have registered ALL rifles and shotguns in the same manner that handguns are currently registered in California.

AB 1934 would have prohibited the open carry of handguns whether loaded or unloaded. There is currently a growing movment among California gunowners to participate in unloaded open carry or UOC. The goal is to normalize perceptions of firearms and those who carry them.

AB 2358 would have "required that ammunition vendors transmit records of sale, information on the quantity and type of ammunition purchased, and the personal information of purchasers collected at the time of sale to local law enforcement if required by city or county ordinance." The sponsor of this bill was the same Assemblyman who was the prime sponsor of AB 962 which requires face-to-face sales of handgun ammunition. The dangerous component of this bill is the last clause - if required by city or county ordinance. This would have allowed politicians in areas such as Oakland, LA, and San Francisco to make life even harder for lawful firearms owners.

Congratulations to our friends in California and to all who worked so hard to defeat these bills including CRPA and CalGuns.

UPDATE: Dirtcrashr at Anthroblogory has more including info on SB250 which mandated spay or neutering of (most) dogs.

Spoofing the Anti's

Oh, those crazy kids at CalGuns.net. They planned a pro-gun demonstration at the annual fund-raising dinner for the Legal Community Against Violence in San Francisco. Only they didn't show. It was a spoof from the beginning as they knew LCAV monitored their message board. They wanted to get LCAV all hot and bothered and worried. It worked.

From the last post explaining their actions:

Maskirovka: "The means of securing combat operations and the daily activities of forces; a complexity of measures, directed to mislead the enemy regarding the presence and disposition of forces, various military objectives, their condition, combat readiness and operations, and also the plans of the commander... maskirovka contributes to the achievement of surprise for the actions of forces, the preservation of combat readiness and the increased survivability of objectives." - source: Jon Latimer, Deception in War, The Overlook Press, Woodstock & New York 2001

I’m sure that many of you are curious about the results of the LCAV protest. Well, they hired extra security, alerted the hotel to the potential for protests and apparently called in the SFPD to intimidate us.

But we never planned to show in the first place.

As much fun as it would have been to organize a great big ruckus, it was much more fun watching them scramble about in fear that the gun nuts were going to heap insult upon the injury of McDonald at their pyrrhic victory dinner.

And we didn’t have to expend an ounce of energy.

What was the point?

Well, we learned a bunch.

1) That past actions have convinced them to take us seriously. Calgunner attendance at City Council meetings, legislative hearings and court cases has demonstrated that we’re able to mobilize a motivated group of activists on short notice. We’ve proven to them that we show up. We’ve shown that we’re effective, too. Emeryville’s revision of their proposed ammunition ordinance proved that.

2) That they’re paying attention to us. We long suspected that LCAV was monitoring our communications. It’s one of the reasons that CGF boardmembers are circumspect when discussing legal strategies. So, please be patient when folks are using cryptic language to discuss options for regaining our rights.

3) That now they don’t know when we’re bluffing. We’ve spoofed them twice so far. Who knows what other kinds of wild goose chases we can send them on? It will be fun to learn.

4) That they’re afraid of us. Despite my assertions (and requirements) that this “action” not allow any physical contact, trespassing, etc., LCAV felt it necessary to mobilize the police and additional security.

5) That they’re irrational. In every interaction that we’ve had with the antis, we’ve been polite. We’ve been well dressed, well spoken, chivalrous and respectful. We’ve been met with profanities, threats and incivility. I wouldn’t be surprised if local officials are starting to take notice the difference in style.

Make no mistake, folks. We’re winning this fight.

Sometimes it's not what you do, but what the other side thinks that you're willing to do that causes the most disruption.

I’d like to offer up a special thanks to all the folks who came together to make this happen. This was a fun little exercise.

Calgunners rock!

Read the whole thread to see the anticipated demonstration. It really starts to move along at page 3.

Were the Calgunners taken seriously? Yes they were. Ezra Denney was the LCAV staffer in charge of the event. On his Facebook page he put that they "might be meeting some wacky folks tonight. Protesters are fun!"

The San Francisco PD showed up in full force with extra motorcycle and bicycle cops assigned to the dinner and anticipated protest. And as they said on the CalGuns.net board, "on this date in San Francisco: nothing happened." You can see the pictures of the additional cops here.

I started to read their preparations last night and they had me totally fooled. From the discussions, I was expecting some sort of Code Pink demo with pictures of protesters being led away in handcuffs.Checking back this morning I found out that nothing had happened.

It was brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.