CCRKBA Slams Plea Deal For San Francisco Sheriff

Anti-gun San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi was given a sweetheart plea deal today that allows him to retain his gun rights and doesn't charge him with a crime of domestic violence. Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms correctly points out that an ordinary person wouldn't have been given such consideration.

CCRKBA SAYS SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S PLEA DEAL SMACKS OF HYPOCRISY
Monday, March 12th, 2012

BELLEVUE, WA – The plea deal announced this morning that allows anti-gun San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi keep his guns in what began as a domestic violence case “smacks of hypocrisy at the highest order,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Mirkarimi pleaded guilty in San Francisco court this morning to what the San Francisco Chronicle described as “a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment in connection with an incident in which he allegedly inflicted a bruise on his wife.”

“As a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Ross Mirkarimi supported all manner of gun control schemes,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “He had to surrender his guns when the charges were originally filed, and if similar charges had been filed against some gun rights activist or an average gun owner, you can bet Mirkarimi would be looking to pillory that person, and strip away their gun rights permanently.”

Under federal law, domestic violence convictions can cost people their Second Amendment rights permanently. As part of the plea deal, prosecutors reportedly dropped the domestic violence charge and two other misdemeanor counts.

“Why should Mirkarimi enjoy a double standard,” Gottlieb questioned. “Based on reports of what he allegedly did, any private citizen who did the same thing might be facing jail time. You can bet San Francisco prosecutors would not be cutting a deal that would allow that person to get his firearms back.

“Instead of getting his guns back under a sweet plea deal and retaining his job as sheriff,” he observed, “Mirkarimi ought to remain disarmed, and lose his job. Otherwise, from this date forward, San Francisco prosecutors need to apply the ‘Mirkarimi standard’ to every domestic violence case that hits their desk.

“Mirkarimi’s reputation as a double-standard elitist is now solidified,” Gottlieb said. “For a person who has advocated gun control for everyone else, he should be ashamed. Ross Mirkarimi can now be known as the High Sheriff of Low Behavior.”

How Is This Possible?

On Saturday, both during and after the traditional pre-season exhibition game between the San Francisco Forty-Niners and the Oakland Raiders, violence broke out. In addition to a brawl in the stands shown in the video below, two people were shot in the parking lot. One of the victims was shot multiple times in the stomach and is in the hospital in serious condition. It is reported by police that he was wearing a T-shirt that said "F*** the Niners".




There is some dispute over the police report about the man's T-shirt. According to story today in the San Francisco Chronicle:

The father of the victim shot in the abdomen said his son had described an out-of-control scene at the stadium.

"It was crazy out there," said the father, who was not at the game. He declined to be named and asked that his son not be identified.

He said his son is a 49ers fan, denying police reports over the weekend that the man had been wearing a "F- the 49ers" T-shirt. The son was driving in a pickup truck after the game, following a friend to make sure he got to his car safely, his father said.

People wearing Raiders garb attacked the friend before he got to the car and kicked him on the ground, the father said. When his son got out of the pickup to help, he said, someone shot him four times in the abdomen.

"My son got out, took two steps and heard boom, boom, boom," the father said. "He said he didn't realize it until it hurt. He stumbled back to his truck and drove to the front gate. He opened the door and told them, 'I think I'm dying.' "

He said his son, born and raised in San Francisco, is married and has a 10-month-old son.

If one listens to the drivel from the Violence Policy Center, concealed carry permit holders are prone to acts of violence.

In addition, the gun lobby has been successful at hiding the truth about crimes committed by concealed handgun permit holders by forcing most states to keep secret the identities of permit holders. As a result, until recently, the false claims made by pro-gun advocates regarding these "upstanding community leaders" have been left unchallenged.

In 2009, the Violence Policy Center began an ongoing research project to identify killings from May 2007 to the present involving citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns. Because detailed information on such killings is not readily available, the VPC is forced to rely primarily on news accounts for reports of such killings and subsequent legal proceedings.

If one makes the assumption that the shooters in the incidents are from the counties surrounding San Francisco Bay so as to take in fans of both the Niners and Raiders, just how many permit holders are we talking about?

Thanks to Brandon Combs of the CalGuns Foundation I have those numbers for 2010. If we look to the south of Candlestick, you have 101 permit holders in San Mateo County and 53 in Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley). If you look to the East Bay area, you have 11 permit holders in Contra Costa County and 75 in Alameda County (Oakland). Immediately to the north of San Francisco is Marin County with its 35 permit holders. Finally, in San Francisco itself you have one permit holder. That is correct - in a city and county of approximately 800,000 people you have one permit holder.

According to the gun prohibitionists, controlling permits and controlling firearms will reduce this sort of violence. So how is it possible to have two shootings at a stadium in a region with only 276 combined concealed carry permit? Using their logic, it is unpossible! Try telling that to the young father who is lying in San Francisco General with multiple gunshot wounds to the abdomen.

Do You Think They Are Trying To Discourage Carry Permits?

Yesterday evening I posted about the CalGuns Foundation's win in forcing San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey to obey the law and adopt a formal policy on the issuance of carry permits. Having read through the policy two things become glaringly obvious. First, it is expensive. The cost for the permit, the fingerprinting, the psychological test, and the firearms testing and qualification test is $2,607 for first time applicants and there is no refund of any of it if they deny you anywhere in the process.

The second thing is that it is incredibly restrictive as to handgun and caliber. It goes well beyond the California Roster of Handguns. You are restricted to four calibers and to pistols and revolvers from certain manufacturers. If you want to use a Colt 1911, forget it. 1911's and all single-action semiautomatic pistols are prohibited. If you think you might like a pocket pistol like the Ruger LCP in .380, forget it as you are limited to pistols in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

If you think you might want to use the S&W Model 29 made famous by the fictional SFPD Inspector Harry Callahan in the Dirty Harry movies, you can forget that as well. Only revolvers in .38 Special are allowed. Moreover, you are only allowed to carry the weapon with which you qualified.

As to the qualification test, it appears to be a standard 50-shot qualification test as used by many law enforcement agencies. It probably isn't the most relevant test for a concealed carry holder but at least it is an objective test that seems to be fairly standard. I do wonder how many of the SF Sheriff's Deputies pass the test on their first try in their annual re-qualifications.

The policy as adopted is below.


San Francisco Carry License Policy

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.

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.

SF Chronicle's Non-Endorsement

This past Sunday the San Francisco Chronicle decided not to endorse either Barbara Boxer or Carly Fiorina. Given that newspaper's reliably liberal leanings, that was quite a surprise. And from subsequent letters to the editor, it has angered their liberal readers.

The reason given for not endorsing Boxer is that she:

has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation.

Her voting record isn't a problem for them as she is a reliable liberal and they agree with her voting record.

The Chronicle thinks Fiorina would be much more effective and work well in the Senate. However, they don't like her positions on the issues. One of the one's that they don't like is gun control. They say:

her unwillingness to support even the most commonsense gun-control measures to keep assault weapons off the street or to deny guns to suspected terrorists on the federal "no fly list."

Repealing ObamaCare and no immigration reform until the border is secure also make their list. In other words, Carly Fiorina represents mainstream positions on the issues according to most Americans but not the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board. One could only hope more Californians decide that Boxer is a hack and needs to be replaced than not.

San Francisco's High Bridge Arms Can Reopen

Despite hundreds of e-mails and letters opposing the re-opening of San Francisco's only gun store, High Bridge Arms, the Police Department granted them a conditional permit to reopen. The 3-member panel that heard High Bridge's request said that the opponents "had failed to offer evidence backing their assertion that the store brought crime to the neighborhood."

In a post I did on this in August, I noted one of the suggestions for the space was a wine and cheese store or a laundry. In virtually any other city in the world, I'd have said the person making that suggestion was being sarcastic. In San Francisco, they mean it.

The permit does impose some conditions upon High Bridge Arms. They must update their security including increased video surveillance and waist-high crash barriers outside to prevent cars from smashing throught the store's front. High Bridge is also being required to lock up all firearms in a safe outside of business hours as well as require a parent or guardian to accompany those under 18 entering the store. In a bone tossed to the neighborhood on appearance, they can't have any advertising on their display windows.

The owners had no problem with the requirement to update their security. Steve Alcairo, the store's manager, said "It's a fair request. It's about following the letter of the law, and that's what we do."

Despite all the e-mails and letters opposing the re-opening, only 4 people bothered to speak against it at the hearing while 10 spoke for it.

This is pretty typical in my opinion given how easy it is to pop out an email opposing something. However, when it comes down to actually going to a hearing and testifying, it becomes too much trouble. Fortunately, the good guys won this round.

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.

San Francisco - Neighbors Object to Lone Gun Store Reopening

In a surprisingly positive column in the San Francisco Chronicle, Phil Bronstein describes the fight that High Bridge Arms is having to endure in order to reopen their store. The store was closed temporarily and the North Bernal Alliance and three other neighborhood groups are fighting their reopening.

The neighborhood groups are asking the city authorities to deny the store the license it needs to operate. They say their members don't want a gun store "near our homes and/or schools." And, officially, they say they don't object to people owning guns. However, as one member said:

They'd just "rather have something the neighborhood could enjoy - a laundry or wine and cheese shop."

According to Yahoo Local, San Francisco has 131 specialty food stores and another 64 specializing in natural and organic foods. This is in addition to 675 grocery stores. Do they really need one more wine and cheese store?

High Bridge Arms has been in business for over 50 years and serves a good bit of the law enforcement community. The local police captain said they have never had any trouble due to the store. That said, he is getting 10-1 negative to positive e-mails about the store.

Fortunately, the local branch of the Pink Pistols is rooting for the store. Tom, the local chapter president said:

"California now has a law that you can't receive ammunition through the mail. And many people in San Francisco don't have cars." Therefore, a city gun store is helpful and encourages the use of mass transit.

As Bronstein noted, Tom was trying to put a "green" spin on it. Tom did make the point that High Bridge is "a lawful business conducted in a lawful way for people who want to lawfully participate in the shooting sports."
 
Bronstein concludes by urging everyone just to be a little sensible about it.
 
The article generated a lot of comments as one might expect. However, they weren't as bad (for the most part) as one might expect. Here is a sample:

OMG... I've read a page or two of thoughts from the readers, I can't believe these are chron readers? My second thought was, I didn't know there was a gun store in SF.

This store, when it was open, always had the most insipid, tasteless posters in its windows advertising their brand name weapons for sale (Glock for example). The last one I noticed was an oversize glossy poster of a scantily clad blond white nurse in white pumps and white mini skirt being "saved" by white steroid junkies in kevlar from dark skinned perps. This owner may be mild mannered when the press calls but the fantasies he perpetuates with his adolescent window displays are everything but(t).

Guns are evil.

Are you kidding, a local "Gun Store" in San Francisco? We've even tried to close down a popular sandwich shop in the Castro simply because neighbors are complaining about the smell of bacon. "I love the smell of bacon in the morning... Smells like, Victory!" What next?

I am a happy card-carrying progressive on just about every issue out there. However, I am also a happy card-carrying member of the NRA. So, if these whiny Volvo-driving Montessori types think that guns are somehow "evil," I'd like to remind them that so are criminals. Get out of 1968, kids. Our state needs a concealed carry law.

If the majority of comments are any indication, there may be hope for San Francisco after all.

City of San Francisco Must Have a Big Legal Budget

From the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

SAN FRANCISCO EYES AMMUNITION
REGISTRY - CCRKBA VOWS LAWSUIT


BELLEVUE, WA – Today’s revelation that the City of San Francisco might consider an ammunition registry scheme brought a promise from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that a lawsuit would quickly follow.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said in a report in the San Francisco Examiner that Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier is working with the City Attorney’s Office to “craft legislation” regarding an ammunition registry shows the city has learned nothing from its defeat in court over a 2005 gun ban proposition. CCRKBA joined the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and other plaintiffs in the lawsuit that nullified the ban because it violates state statute. Now that the Second Amendment has been incorporated to the states by the U.S. Supreme Court, proposals like this one are even more dubious, he observed.

“It appears that Alioto-Pier is trying to be too clever by half,” Gottlieb said. “It’s a de facto registration scheme hiding behind a make-believe effort to crack down on violent crime, and she knows it. We will fight it.”

He noted that it is ironic for the city to be considering such an idea on the eve of the annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, scheduled for the weekend of Sept. 24-26 at the San Francisco Airport Hyatt Regency hotel. Gun rights activists and experts from across the nation will gather at the hotel to discuss recent court cases, current legal actions and anti-gun proposals like the one now reportedly being formulated by Alioto-Pier.

“It would seem to me that with the state’s economy in tatters, cutbacks in public safety budgets and federal courts mandating that more criminals must be released from prisons that the city would not make it harder for citizens to defend themselves,” Gottlieb stated. “But in San Francisco, it is politically fashionable to penalize honest people for the misbehavior of the criminal element. It makes you wonder whose side the government is on.

“You can bet we’ll be discussing this at our conference in September,” he concluded. “Ms. Alioto-Pier has an open invitation to attend and explain her scheme to a room full of experts.”

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.