In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
CCW INFO LAWSUIT IN PROGRESS!
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
LAWSUIT IN PROGRESS!
Cal-DOJ refuses final demand letter to release CCW
records; pleading in state court prepared, will be filed
ASAP, probably today pending final edits by legal advisors.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD
PLEADING WITH ATTACHMENTS!
It's an Adobe Acrobat file, load free reader if necessary.
7/18/02: LAWSUIT FILED! - see bottom of page!
7/22/02: Donation Update, bottom of page above filing graphic.
What's the suit about?
What's the tactical situation?
Once you have the CCW data off of DOJ, what will you do with it?
Do you need financial help? (yes!)
NEW INFO: for the latest updates practically minute
by minute, see also this discussion forum thread.
What's the suit about?
This is really the fourth of a series of articles on the links between the state attorney general's office, the California DOJ and a systematic coverup of CCW misconduct data. The first three articles:
5/22/02: CCW Abuse: The Cover-up At The California State AG/DOJ's Offices
6/20/02: AG/DOJ Aftermath: Repercussions From The First Report
7/13/02: AG/DOJ Follies: Reply to my DOJ PRAR Denial Letter
The same issues are laid out in the new lawsuit.
The suit is a "writ of mandate" action, in which I'm asking a Judge to force AG Lockyer and his staff to obey the law in two areas:
1) "Conspiracy to violate the Public Records Act": AG Lockyer and his staff engineered a command to local Sheriffs and PD Chiefs to NOT hand out information on CCW issuance that they're required to provide according to the California Supreme Court. Specifically the "good cause" statements of each applicants, and the "occupation" and "birth date". (The latter is a good way to spot "wealth issuance" and "renewal as tenure" by looking for abnormally high age ranges.) The AG/DOJ staff did this at the request of one or more of five "advisors" from law enforcement - I have my suspicions as to which ones asked the AG to break the law, but no smoking gun yet, not that it's critical.
2) "AG/DOJ staff are illegally withholding data": the California Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block ordered the records in question opened, and gave strong reasons as to why. Apparantly, nobody stopped to think that the DOJ held copies of most of it, statewide. They do, I asked, they denied - on pretty flimsy grounds.
In both cases, this is open-and-shut stuff.
What's the tactical situation?
Heh. This is where it gets complex.
The original plan was to file a PRAR suit over Santa Clara County's denial of PRAR data to Nadja Adolf, with her as plaintiff and a real attorney representing her.
That fell apart. According to a good RKBA attorney in that county, whenever a small one-lawyer firm does a suit against that county, their standard practice is a "paperwork flood" - tons of obnoxious motions of questionable legitimacy, piles of discovery questions asking every irrelevant BS question they can think of, all in an effort to make the lawyer run out of cash and give up. The merits don't matter, they just do a "spending war" with county lawyers paid for with endless taxpayer bankrolls. It's their first and often only defense. So this lawyer wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole. Another said the same thing. Basically, these...sorry, *, have learned how to isolate themselves from any lawsuit filed by a solo practicioner, even though the Public Records Act specifies that lawyers can get their costs back on winning...the solo lawyer can't win if he's gone broke. And according to the local lawyers, the Santa Clara County court system lets them get away with it.
The other issue is that what Santa Clara Sheriff Laurie Smith was trying to hide was that she'd gutted the number of permits, after trying to convince the local NRA Member's Council chapter she was pro-self-defense. There were 167 when she took office, there's a hell of a lot less now. While important, it's not the sort of earth-shaking stuff that'll cause changes...two-faced lying scum politicians aren't exactly rare.
What's going on with the state AG/DOJ is potentially more important, and the data haul 100 times more valuable. And proving that the state AG/DOJ is deliberately mixed up in local agency misconduct has implications far beyond CCW, or even gun rights in general.
Best of all, in a PRAR suit of this type, it'll be perfectly proper to show the judge WHY the data needs to be exposed, because of the statements made in CBS vs. Block. In that case, the state Supreme Court "hypothesized" about the potential for CCW misconduct, and even "smelled a rat" where Sheriff Block was concerned. There was no "smoking gun" of corruption or racism evident, but there was enough data to suggest something was wrong.
I'm not going to go into court with just "odor of large rodent". I'm going to bring "multiple rat carcasses", fully autopsied and documented. The "Expose Project" files are just a start. We're going to get stuff put on the record that will be damned hard to ignore, and could be used in the last and final suit to actually fix this crud by judicial order in Fed court, based largely on racial discrimination.
"But Jim, you ain't got a lawyer!"
A PRAR suit using a "Writ of Mandate" is a much simpler sort of case than a full-blown equal protection suit. That latter will need a lawyer; this thing is as close to a slam-dunk as it comes, heck, read CBS vs. Block.
"But Jim, they'll flood you with crap paper the way the Santa Clara county lawyers would!"
Heh. Even if they get a Judge that'll let 'em, and they're inclined to do so in the first place, they'll rapidly run into two problems:
A), any really wacky stuff that's obviously just a "paper flood tactic", I'll scan and publish right here. Yo Rieger, hear that? You wanna be publicly exposed as beating up on a pro-se? Go for it. because...
...since I'm NOT a lawyer, and I'm suing on my own behalf, I don't have confidentiality issues, nor do I have to worry about billing. I know about 12 pro-gun lawyers throughout the state, any of which can and will advise me by EMail as to how to deal with your crap. For free. You're NOT gonna "spend me into the ground", beyond copying costs. I don't have other clients you can drag me away from. Worst you can do is make me lose sleep. Bring it on...I'm a computer techie, I can go three days on Jolt cola and ramen and come back for more.
Is this the whole situation?
Heck no. Trust me, there's some REALLY wild stuff for the defense to guess at.
Once you have the CCW data off of DOJ, what will you do with it?
Let's be clear here: once I have the list of all CCW holders off of Cal-DOJ, I am NOT gonna publish it!
I will however give copies to key researchers, people like Kopel/Kleck/Lott/Cramer to check my stats on racial breakdown analysis. I may cross-reference the names against campaign contributor logs. If somebody who I know is on our side wants the names for his county so he can go check against campaign logs, I'll give out his/her county's list with a promise that it will NOT show up in a local paper unless the documented percentage of "cronyism" is so high (75% or more), it's not likely there's many non-crony permitholders in there.
Now, that IS the situation in Marin and Contra Costa counties, and the City of Oakland. There's maybe three or four more counties I could name where extreme crony percentages are likely. I did publish the lists for CC and Marin, and of course named the one permitholder in Oakland (mayor Jerry Brown's pet Zen guru/roommate/political consultant/serial sexual harasser) for exactly that reason.
But those are unusual circumstances. The vast majority of permits are out in rural counties, where it's shall-issue or close to it. Current permitholders outside of the worst cronies don't have anything to fear from me.
So what CAN be done with these records?
Demographics analysis: this link will take you to an HTML "spreadsheet" showing black discrimination rates statewide, by comparing issuance rates where blacks are common versus where they're rare - the difference is startling. (Sorry, big file of 230k.) And this is with "old data" (1997) and only giving totals per county - the real dirt happens when you take the higher-issuance counties and look at their Hispanic issuance rates by doing last-name analysis - "Santiago" versus "Jones". When the Fresno Bee did that, they found a 3% Latino issuance rate in a 45% Hispanic county. That has SERIOUS implications in Fed court later.
Corruption analysis: if the average age of the permitholders is very high, it's a clue there's "wealth-based preference" going on, and/or a situation where CCW is a "tenured situation". Both are worth looking into...this alone isn't a smoking gun, but it's a good pointer as to where to dig. From there, or based on other clues, the permitholder names can be run past campaign contributor logs and the names of local "celebs/officials/elite".
Auditing local PRAR responses: without the DOJ records, how do we know that a given Sheriff or Chief is mentioning all the permitholders? Given all the other problems we've seen, would a crook of a Sheriff mention that he issued to his perpetually DUI brother in law?
WWJLD? (What would John Lott do [with this data]?) Dunno. I intend to offer it to him and a few other nationally known researchers and find out
.
Do you need financial help? (yes!)
Guys, the big expense isn't in defending against incoming junk, it's in court reporter fees for depositions. There are key witnesses that may not be able to make it to Sacramento, I need to take their statements for the record. There's also paper/printer cartidges/copying fees, and travel back and forth to Sacto.
Worse, my '82 Honda 650 ratbike just blew up. Sigh. Doesn't look fixable so far. $700 or so would get me used functional wheels, and I'm gonna need 'em. See update 7/22/02 below on the wheels front.
I've got money coming in soon from published articles. I've even got some speaking gigs coming in October/September, one paying a bit (more details to follow). I'm working on a custom kydex holster foundry based on on-site custom work, fitting holsters to any gun you have at weekend appearances at gun shows, gun shops, etc...I have a really good IWB design in development - if this works out, I can do 10 - 20 holsters a weekend as a "travelling show" and have plenty of basic survival cash. But as of this moment, I'm cash-grim.
I'm set up to take Paypal, at a DIFFERENT EMail account: equalccw@hotmail.com - I know, Paypal's politics are questionable but y'know, look at it this way: they'd HATE what we're doing with it and there's no good alternative out there (yet! - if there is and I've missed it, let me know). If you really can't cope, no sweat, send me EMail and I'll send my snailmail addy.
Basically, every dime that comes in is going to go to RKBA purposes, although I may need to borrow out of the initial pool to operate. I'll keep track of what goes in and out, and anything I don't spend directly on the PRAR suit will go towards a lawyer for the fourth case, a genuine race-based equal protection suit to finally end the abuse.
Regular EMail communication: jmarch@prodigy.net
Paypal transfers: equalccw@hotmail.com
Fax #: 707-221-7152 (E-Fax gateway to EMail)
7/22/02:Donation Update: As mentioned above, my '82 Honda 650 ratbike blew up just before I filed this case.
A couple days ago, a Bay Area gunnie who wishes to remain nameless dropped me EMail explaining that he had an '83 Honda 650 that ran good, had high miles but a top end rebuild not too long ago, and needed minor work. He had better wheels, registration was coming up, he was considering selling it and, on seeing my page on the PRAR suit and having followed my exploits for a while...he gave it to me - and paid $175 for a year's insurance!
I am humbled and thankful. I'd name him, but he values his privacy. I just drove it the 75 miles home tonight, it needs a day's worth of wrenching (which I can handle) and maybe $50 tops in minor parts, other than that it's great. The '83 Nighthawk was far better than the '82, in '83 they went to twin cams, 4valve heads, shaft drive, hydraulic valves, all kinds of neat stuff. I'm having to adjust to the "shaft effect" on cornering but it's no big deal.
This'll speed up everything.
The cash front is still dire, but not as bad as it'd be having to commute to Sacramento and elsewhere on public transit!
Yes, Virginia, there IS A LAWSUIT!
Tentative hearing date: Sept. 13th, 9:00am,
Sacramento County main courthouse, dept. 33
(Yes, I know who Connelly is, I can deal with that.) http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/prarsuit.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Cal-DOJ refuses final demand letter to release CCW
records; pleading in state court prepared, will be filed
ASAP, probably today pending final edits by legal advisors.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD
PLEADING WITH ATTACHMENTS!
It's an Adobe Acrobat file, load free reader if necessary.
7/18/02: LAWSUIT FILED! - see bottom of page!
7/22/02: Donation Update, bottom of page above filing graphic.
What's the suit about?
What's the tactical situation?
Once you have the CCW data off of DOJ, what will you do with it?
Do you need financial help? (yes!)
NEW INFO: for the latest updates practically minute
by minute, see also this discussion forum thread.
What's the suit about?
This is really the fourth of a series of articles on the links between the state attorney general's office, the California DOJ and a systematic coverup of CCW misconduct data. The first three articles:
5/22/02: CCW Abuse: The Cover-up At The California State AG/DOJ's Offices
6/20/02: AG/DOJ Aftermath: Repercussions From The First Report
7/13/02: AG/DOJ Follies: Reply to my DOJ PRAR Denial Letter
The same issues are laid out in the new lawsuit.
The suit is a "writ of mandate" action, in which I'm asking a Judge to force AG Lockyer and his staff to obey the law in two areas:
1) "Conspiracy to violate the Public Records Act": AG Lockyer and his staff engineered a command to local Sheriffs and PD Chiefs to NOT hand out information on CCW issuance that they're required to provide according to the California Supreme Court. Specifically the "good cause" statements of each applicants, and the "occupation" and "birth date". (The latter is a good way to spot "wealth issuance" and "renewal as tenure" by looking for abnormally high age ranges.) The AG/DOJ staff did this at the request of one or more of five "advisors" from law enforcement - I have my suspicions as to which ones asked the AG to break the law, but no smoking gun yet, not that it's critical.
2) "AG/DOJ staff are illegally withholding data": the California Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block ordered the records in question opened, and gave strong reasons as to why. Apparantly, nobody stopped to think that the DOJ held copies of most of it, statewide. They do, I asked, they denied - on pretty flimsy grounds.
In both cases, this is open-and-shut stuff.
What's the tactical situation?
Heh. This is where it gets complex.
The original plan was to file a PRAR suit over Santa Clara County's denial of PRAR data to Nadja Adolf, with her as plaintiff and a real attorney representing her.
That fell apart. According to a good RKBA attorney in that county, whenever a small one-lawyer firm does a suit against that county, their standard practice is a "paperwork flood" - tons of obnoxious motions of questionable legitimacy, piles of discovery questions asking every irrelevant BS question they can think of, all in an effort to make the lawyer run out of cash and give up. The merits don't matter, they just do a "spending war" with county lawyers paid for with endless taxpayer bankrolls. It's their first and often only defense. So this lawyer wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole. Another said the same thing. Basically, these...sorry, *, have learned how to isolate themselves from any lawsuit filed by a solo practicioner, even though the Public Records Act specifies that lawyers can get their costs back on winning...the solo lawyer can't win if he's gone broke. And according to the local lawyers, the Santa Clara County court system lets them get away with it.
The other issue is that what Santa Clara Sheriff Laurie Smith was trying to hide was that she'd gutted the number of permits, after trying to convince the local NRA Member's Council chapter she was pro-self-defense. There were 167 when she took office, there's a hell of a lot less now. While important, it's not the sort of earth-shaking stuff that'll cause changes...two-faced lying scum politicians aren't exactly rare.
What's going on with the state AG/DOJ is potentially more important, and the data haul 100 times more valuable. And proving that the state AG/DOJ is deliberately mixed up in local agency misconduct has implications far beyond CCW, or even gun rights in general.
Best of all, in a PRAR suit of this type, it'll be perfectly proper to show the judge WHY the data needs to be exposed, because of the statements made in CBS vs. Block. In that case, the state Supreme Court "hypothesized" about the potential for CCW misconduct, and even "smelled a rat" where Sheriff Block was concerned. There was no "smoking gun" of corruption or racism evident, but there was enough data to suggest something was wrong.
I'm not going to go into court with just "odor of large rodent". I'm going to bring "multiple rat carcasses", fully autopsied and documented. The "Expose Project" files are just a start. We're going to get stuff put on the record that will be damned hard to ignore, and could be used in the last and final suit to actually fix this crud by judicial order in Fed court, based largely on racial discrimination.
"But Jim, you ain't got a lawyer!"
A PRAR suit using a "Writ of Mandate" is a much simpler sort of case than a full-blown equal protection suit. That latter will need a lawyer; this thing is as close to a slam-dunk as it comes, heck, read CBS vs. Block.
"But Jim, they'll flood you with crap paper the way the Santa Clara county lawyers would!"
Heh. Even if they get a Judge that'll let 'em, and they're inclined to do so in the first place, they'll rapidly run into two problems:
A), any really wacky stuff that's obviously just a "paper flood tactic", I'll scan and publish right here. Yo Rieger, hear that? You wanna be publicly exposed as beating up on a pro-se? Go for it. because...
...since I'm NOT a lawyer, and I'm suing on my own behalf, I don't have confidentiality issues, nor do I have to worry about billing. I know about 12 pro-gun lawyers throughout the state, any of which can and will advise me by EMail as to how to deal with your crap. For free. You're NOT gonna "spend me into the ground", beyond copying costs. I don't have other clients you can drag me away from. Worst you can do is make me lose sleep. Bring it on...I'm a computer techie, I can go three days on Jolt cola and ramen and come back for more.Is this the whole situation?
Heck no. Trust me, there's some REALLY wild stuff for the defense to guess at.
Once you have the CCW data off of DOJ, what will you do with it?
Let's be clear here: once I have the list of all CCW holders off of Cal-DOJ, I am NOT gonna publish it!
I will however give copies to key researchers, people like Kopel/Kleck/Lott/Cramer to check my stats on racial breakdown analysis. I may cross-reference the names against campaign contributor logs. If somebody who I know is on our side wants the names for his county so he can go check against campaign logs, I'll give out his/her county's list with a promise that it will NOT show up in a local paper unless the documented percentage of "cronyism" is so high (75% or more), it's not likely there's many non-crony permitholders in there.
Now, that IS the situation in Marin and Contra Costa counties, and the City of Oakland. There's maybe three or four more counties I could name where extreme crony percentages are likely. I did publish the lists for CC and Marin, and of course named the one permitholder in Oakland (mayor Jerry Brown's pet Zen guru/roommate/political consultant/serial sexual harasser) for exactly that reason.
But those are unusual circumstances. The vast majority of permits are out in rural counties, where it's shall-issue or close to it. Current permitholders outside of the worst cronies don't have anything to fear from me.
So what CAN be done with these records?
Demographics analysis: this link will take you to an HTML "spreadsheet" showing black discrimination rates statewide, by comparing issuance rates where blacks are common versus where they're rare - the difference is startling. (Sorry, big file of 230k.) And this is with "old data" (1997) and only giving totals per county - the real dirt happens when you take the higher-issuance counties and look at their Hispanic issuance rates by doing last-name analysis - "Santiago" versus "Jones". When the Fresno Bee did that, they found a 3% Latino issuance rate in a 45% Hispanic county. That has SERIOUS implications in Fed court later.
Corruption analysis: if the average age of the permitholders is very high, it's a clue there's "wealth-based preference" going on, and/or a situation where CCW is a "tenured situation". Both are worth looking into...this alone isn't a smoking gun, but it's a good pointer as to where to dig. From there, or based on other clues, the permitholder names can be run past campaign contributor logs and the names of local "celebs/officials/elite".
Auditing local PRAR responses: without the DOJ records, how do we know that a given Sheriff or Chief is mentioning all the permitholders? Given all the other problems we've seen, would a crook of a Sheriff mention that he issued to his perpetually DUI brother in law?
WWJLD? (What would John Lott do [with this data]?) Dunno. I intend to offer it to him and a few other nationally known researchers and find out
.Do you need financial help? (yes!)
Guys, the big expense isn't in defending against incoming junk, it's in court reporter fees for depositions. There are key witnesses that may not be able to make it to Sacramento, I need to take their statements for the record. There's also paper/printer cartidges/copying fees, and travel back and forth to Sacto.
Worse, my '82 Honda 650 ratbike just blew up. Sigh. Doesn't look fixable so far. $700 or so would get me used functional wheels, and I'm gonna need 'em. See update 7/22/02 below on the wheels front
.I've got money coming in soon from published articles. I've even got some speaking gigs coming in October/September, one paying a bit (more details to follow). I'm working on a custom kydex holster foundry based on on-site custom work, fitting holsters to any gun you have at weekend appearances at gun shows, gun shops, etc...I have a really good IWB design in development - if this works out, I can do 10 - 20 holsters a weekend as a "travelling show" and have plenty of basic survival cash. But as of this moment, I'm cash-grim.
I'm set up to take Paypal, at a DIFFERENT EMail account: equalccw@hotmail.com - I know, Paypal's politics are questionable but y'know, look at it this way: they'd HATE what we're doing with it
and there's no good alternative out there (yet! - if there is and I've missed it, let me know). If you really can't cope, no sweat, send me EMail and I'll send my snailmail addy.Basically, every dime that comes in is going to go to RKBA purposes, although I may need to borrow out of the initial pool to operate. I'll keep track of what goes in and out, and anything I don't spend directly on the PRAR suit will go towards a lawyer for the fourth case, a genuine race-based equal protection suit to finally end the abuse.
Regular EMail communication: jmarch@prodigy.net
Paypal transfers: equalccw@hotmail.com
Fax #: 707-221-7152 (E-Fax gateway to EMail)
7/22/02:Donation Update: As mentioned above, my '82 Honda 650 ratbike blew up just before I filed this case.
A couple days ago, a Bay Area gunnie who wishes to remain nameless dropped me EMail explaining that he had an '83 Honda 650 that ran good, had high miles but a top end rebuild not too long ago, and needed minor work. He had better wheels, registration was coming up, he was considering selling it and, on seeing my page on the PRAR suit and having followed my exploits for a while...he gave it to me - and paid $175 for a year's insurance!
I am humbled and thankful. I'd name him, but he values his privacy. I just drove it the 75 miles home tonight, it needs a day's worth of wrenching (which I can handle) and maybe $50 tops in minor parts, other than that it's great. The '83 Nighthawk was far better than the '82, in '83 they went to twin cams, 4valve heads, shaft drive, hydraulic valves, all kinds of neat stuff. I'm having to adjust to the "shaft effect" on cornering but it's no big deal.
This'll speed up everything.
The cash front is still dire, but not as bad as it'd be having to commute to Sacramento and elsewhere on public transit!
Yes, Virginia, there IS A LAWSUIT!
Tentative hearing date: Sept. 13th, 9:00am,
Sacramento County main courthouse, dept. 33
(Yes, I know who Connelly is, I can deal with that.) http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/prarsuit.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
By Jim Hannah, jhannah@enquirer.com
The Cincinnati Enquirer
NEWPORT - Peter Garrett lost in court on Friday, but the Newport man says he'll take his fight to the Kentucky Supreme Court for what he says is his right to open a gun shop anywhere in the Commonwealth.
Peter Garrett works on a handgun in his Newport shop in this 1999 photo.
(Enquirer file photo)
| ZOOM |
In a ruling released Friday, the state Court of Appeals ruled that despite a state law prohibiting municipalities from limiting gun sales or transport, local governments can use planning and zoning rules to dictate where a gun shop may locate. That decision affirms an earlier decision made by Campbell County Circuit Court on behalf of Bellevue and Dayton, Ky.
Mr. Garrett wants to expand his successful Monmouth Street gunsmith business to locations in Bellevue and Dayton.
In Bellevue, he was denied permission to locate in a historic preservation zone. And in Dayton, he was not allowed to open a shop in the central business district.
"We expected he would request the Supreme Court to hear this case," said Jack Fischer, Dayton city solicitor. "But Judge (David) Buckingham made a good decision in upholding the lower court's ruling."
The city is prepared to fight the to the end, Mr. Fischer said.
After denying Mr. Garrett's permits in 2000, the cities said Mr. Garrett would be allowed to open stores in other areas. In Bellevue, it was the town's only strip center. . In Dayton, it was on the riverbank in front of the floodwall.
Mr. Garrett said he wants his business to remain in the central business district of a river town, someplace with lower rent and with character, not in a strip center.
He said his gun shop dates back to 1874 when it was in downtown Cincinnati. He said the business moved to Newport around the turn of the 20th century.
Mr. Garrett first took the two cities to Campbell County Circuit Court in 2000. His suit argues that a 1984 law passed by the General Assembly outlawed any local regulation of the gun business.
The law, passed in Frankfort with the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, prohibits local governments from any regulation "of the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying or transportation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms .
Reacting to the ruling by the appeals court, Mr. Garrett said, "I think it is judicial activism at its worst." "I think these guys had their minds made up before they ever heard our case. That is how they operate."
Judge Buckingham said in the unanimous ruling of the three-judge panel that the legislation covered a wide range of firearms-related activities that local governments could not regulate, but did not include land use planning or zoning of firearms sellers.
"Without the power to control the location of gun shops and firearms dealers, a city could find itself at the mercy of the firearms business that could begin operating wherever they choose, for example in the heart of a community surrounded by single-family homes," Judge Buckingham wrote.
Bellevue City Manager Don Martin was out of town Friday and couldn't be reached for comment.
The Associated Press contributed.
http://enquirer.com/editions/2002/07/27/loc_gun_shop_owner_will.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878