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 Abuse: The Cover-up At The California State
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
CCW Abuse: The Cover-up
At The California State
AG/DOJ's Offices
By Jim March and Nadja Adolf - May 22nd, 2002
- click here for free reader
This file is also available as an Adobe Acrobat Reader download for cleaner printing.
LARGE file, includes all four pages of the scanned graphics.
Click here
There is a list of web-form feedback pages for the AG's office and DOJ Firearms division contacts at the end of this document, not present in the Acrobat file. If you realize the implications of this element of the scandal, please go there and let key officials know how you feel.
We've spent a lot of time documenting the misdeeds of various local Police Departments and Sheriff's offices regard CCW permit issuance. If you're just joining in, the main web page cataloging the abuses is:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/expose.html
Part of the process in getting a permit is that your fingerprints are run through the state Department Of Justice, which is under the direct oversight of the State Attorney General's office.
One nagging question has always been: "what does the California state DOJ and AG's offices know about the local abuses, and do they support such abuse?"
This report, for the first time ever, will detail deliberate misconduct by State Attorney General Lockyer and various minions inside the DOJ.
We accuse Attorney General Lockyer, Doug Smith, Chief of the DOJ's Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis and an unknown number of others of taking deliberate steps to cover up equal protection misconduct in CCW issuance on the part of local agencies. They did this by deliberately flouting a California Supreme Court decision, having no legislative authority to do so.
This is a long story, so we're going to have to break it into a timeline.
NOTE: there are four key pages of evidence scanned and online at: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/dojevidence.html - the four scanned pages are LARGE, in the neighborhood of 110k each, long load times. Key bits are quoted in this main page - most people won't need to dig into those linked scans.
TIMELINE
1982: In the case of Guillory vs. Gates, 731 F.2d 1379, the 9th Circuit rules that there's an equal protection principle involved in CCW issuance, and that plaintiff Guillory should be allowed to question Sheriff Gates (Orange County) about who else is getting permits, and why. The case was remanded down to district court for a new trial with that principle in mind. Rather than answer those questions, Gates folded and gave Guillory and his co-plaintiffs permits. Full text: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/guillory.html
1986: CBS news sues Sheriff Block of LA for CCW records. The California Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block (230 Cal.Rptr. 362) rules that CCW records are public and should be available under California's "Public Records Act" (our version of the FOIA). The applicant's name, dates of denial or application and/or renewal, city of residence, occupation and their "good cause for issuance statement" are declared public. In reference to the "good cause", the FULL details are to be made available (versus a boilerplate "for protection of life and property"). The court explained why it was doing this:
The interest of society in ensuring accountability is particularly strong where the discretion invested in a government official is unfettered, and only a select few are granted the special privilege. Moreover, the degree of subjectivity involved in exercising the discretion cries out for public scrutiny. For example, the sheriff of Orange County has issued over 400 licenses; in Los Angeles County only 35 licenses have been issued. Ostensibly, both sheriffs are applying the same statutory criteria for granting or denying these licenses. The apparent discrepancy indicates that something may be amiss. If the information on which the decision to grant can be kept from the public and the press, then there is no method by which the people can ever ascertain whether the law is being fairly and impartially applied.
The full text of the case plus a summary is online here:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/cbsvblock.html
1/1/99: AB2022 takes effect, mandating that the office of the Attorney General create a new state-standard CCW application form to replace local agency forms no later than mid-`99. Use of any other forms once the new forms are distributed is banned by the same state law, and the AG was given the ability to form an advisory committee made up of law enforcement officials. The specific law reads:
Penal Code 12051 (a)(3)(A) Applications for amendments to licenses, applications for licenses, amendments to licenses, and licenses shall be uniform throughout the state, upon forms to be prescribed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall convene a committee composed of one representative of the California State Sheriffs' Association, one representative of the California Police Chiefs' Association, and one representative of the Department of Justice to develop a standard application form for licenses. The application shall include a section summarizing the statutory provisions of state law that result in the automatic denial of a license. The Attorney General shall adopt and implement this standard application form for licenses on or before July 1, 1999.
At this time, all local CCW application forms had the applicant write in their "good cause for issuance" statement.
February '99: Attorney Chuck Michel files a Public Records Act Request on CCW "raw data" with all 58 Sheriffs and 150 police departments, as part of a study on CCW practices commissioned by Assemblyman Rod Wright (D-Compton). The PRAR specifically asks for "good cause data", and cites the 1986 California Supreme Court case of CBS vs. Block 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 as precedent for release of the data.
3/15/99: Contra Costa County gun rights activist Jim March files suit against Sheriff Warren Rupf in State Superior Court (first lawsuit), alleging equal protection violations and other misdeeds in the handling of CCW permits. (This case caused a change of procedure requiring Rupf to allow CCW applicants to apply for CCW "on paper" versus being denied verbally as was prior practice in that jurisdiction.)
April of '99: AG Lockyer convenes a CCW advisory committee that includes Sheriff Rupf of Contra Costa, who had a clear conflict of interest due to being sued in this area of law. Other members include PD Chief Larry Todd of Los Gatos, known for anti-self-defense activism (and like Rupf, a recipient of Chuck Michel's PRAR) and the Sheriff of Stanislaus County, also a PRAR recipient.
Late June of '99: the new CCW application form is released, and remains unchanged to present. In a departure from all prior local agency forms that the authors are aware of (and we've seen dozens), applicants are ordered NOT to write in their "good cause for issuance" data. Instead, they fill out sections one through five of the 19 page form packet containing personal identifying information only. Later sections are filled out by a sworn law enforcement officer who "takes the applicant's dictation" on matters such as "good cause", writing that and other data into "Section 7" of the forms, which is subtitled "Investigator's Notes". Instructions to this effect (for the applicant's benefit) are included in the application packet.
The final CCW application packet (still in effect, unchanged since mid-`99) is available for download here:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/appform.html
Pay particular attention to the bottom of page 2 under "Important Instructions" (centered, italicized and underlined):
? Fill out, read, and sign Sections 1 through 5, as directed. Use additional pages if more space is required.
? Sections 6, 7, and 8 must be completed in the presence of an official of the licensing agency.
? Review Section 7 and be prepared to answer these questions orally. Do not write anything in Section 7 unless specifically directed to do so by the licensing agency.
Section 7 is subtitled "Investigator's Notes" - and it contains the "good cause" information as written in by a top cop or his designee as dictated by the applicant.
7/20/99: Unknown persons within the DOJ release an official bulletin (number 99-19-BCIA) to all law enforcement agencies statewide, with instructions on use of the new CCW forms. It contains explicit instructions to put all data NOT to be released to the public via Public Records Act into "Section 7" of the form, which was described as segregated and organized for this purpose, to maintain confidentiality under the PRA (Gov't Code 6250-6270).
Towards the bottom of page one we see this:
Concerns have been raised regarding the potential disclosure of certain applicant information listed on the standard CCW application should a request be made pursuant to the Public Records Act ([California] Government Code section 6250 et. Seq.). To address these concerns, the standardized CCW application has been organized in a manner that segregates confidential, non-disclosable information about the applicant. Confidential information should be entered in Section 7 of the application.
Memo 99-19-BCIA was signed by Doug Smith, Chief of the DOJ's Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis. Below that is "For Bill Lockyer, Attorney General".
It can be viewed in it's original form here: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/dojevidence.html
Government Code 6254 is part of the Public Records Act, and shows what these clowns were up to:
Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following:
...
(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes...
In other words, "police investigator's notes" are exempt from PRAR disclosure. But CCW "good cause data" was artificially rendered such by a tortured change to the CCW application process that was utterly unnecessary - having people write in their "good cause" has always been good enough. The sole point here was an end-run around the California Supreme Court.
Sometime in late `99/2000: Chief Larry Todd of Los Gatos answers Chuck Michel's PRAR request with approximately 900 pages worth of "stuff". We don't know how else to describe it - Todd took everything in his files that was remotely gun-related and "dumped it" on poor Chuck. The file was almost a foot thick. This was all the more remarkable given that Chief Todd had never once issued a single CCW permit, and apparently planned on never doing so. The contents included grabber propaganda of a dozen types, pages showing Todd's lobbying on gun control, and a single gem: preliminary copies of the new state-standard application form and the roster of people involved in the forms creation process.
Chuck Michel's office heard rumors that other agencies he'd hit with PRARs were being urged to also try this "paper overload tactic" to raise Chuck's copying fees. None of the agencies took it quite to the height of madness Larry Todd hit.
Various times since: on at least two occasions, Sheriff Laurie Smith of Santa Clara County has refused to release "good cause data" to investigators using the Public Records Act, including Chuck Michel, on the grounds that "the DOJ no longer deems these records releasable to the public".
RKBA activist Nadja Adolf tried to obtain the CCW records from Santa Clara County, and obtained an interesting memo.
The key is their answer to "Category Five, "complete good cause data":
This information is documented within that part of the individual's files which is not subject to disclosure. The California Department of Justice, which received a legislative mandate in 1999 to standardize the various CCW forms and application processes, has determined this information to be confidential.
First, this isn't entirely correct: it was the AG's office that received the mandate to standardize the forms, but nothing was said of "processes".
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/dojevidence.html#SC
Regardless: Nadja's digging has exposed what is really going on here. If it wasn't for the memos she recieved, this entire issue would be theoretical.
The memo to Nadja from the Santa Clara Sheriff's office continues later:
The Sheriff's cost under the PRA is 35 cents per copy. We estimate that there are approximately 2,084 pages of documents which contain the information you have requested in #2 [names of applicants], #3 [dates of application/renewal/issuance/denial] and #6 [city of residence]. Therefore, we request that you provide a check, payable to the County of Santa Clara, in the amount of $729.40. If you desire to narrow the timeframe, the corresponding number of pages to be copied, and the copy charge will decrease.
Does this look familiar? Note that as of early '99, Sheriff Smith partially answered Chuck Michel's PRAR with a database printout of 167 names, on about 12 pages or so, with no "good cause data" (same excuse as here). So there's no way in HECK the info Nadja is requesting will run over 2,000 pages.
Maybe this will help: Los Gatos is within Santa Clara County. PD Chief Larry Todd of "Lost Gatos" is a good friend of Sheriff Laurie Smith.
In other words, Larry showed Laurie both of his favorite games to dodge a PRAR request: the "paperwork flood" game and the rigging of the PRAR forms Todd himself had a hand in.
Conclusions:
So what does it all mean?
Knowing that gross CCW misconduct exists in California's CCW system, a group of people within law enforcement and the DOJ "rigged" the new state-standard CCW application forms to specifically sidestep the California Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block. They had no legislative authority to do what they did. They dangsure didn't have the right to sidestep the California Supreme Court in secret.
This is BAD, folks. When the entire law enforcement community, right up to the top cop in the entire state (Lockyer) engages in a criminal conspiracy, it's about as bad as it gets.
Jim March was able to speak briefly with Randy Rossi on this subject. Rossi is the head of the DOJ's firearms division. But he wasn't involved in the CCW forms creation process, and had no knowledge of any of this. In part, he's one of the key people this report is written for. According to NRA staff in Sacramento, Rossi is one of the more reasonable people at the DOJ, which is probably why this process was run completely separate from his office: fear that Rossi might not play along? It's Rossi's department that handles the DOJ's role in the background check part of the process, so Rossi's being cut out is highly unusual.
In any case: game over. Bad show, chaps. Every time some crappy piece of gun control that DOJ administers comes along, people like Rossi visit gun clubs and NRA meetings explaining that they only enforce the law, and what's happening isn't their fault. Not this time! This is criminal conspiracy to screw over gun owners, run right out of the DOJ's office in a process that the AG was supposed to have oversight over, per state law!
Oh yes, one other thing: this is going public because we've figured out exactly which forum to use it in, and in that forum it won't matter that we went public first.
Jim March
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/agaccuse.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
At The California State
AG/DOJ's Offices
By Jim March and Nadja Adolf - May 22nd, 2002
- click here for free reader
This file is also available as an Adobe Acrobat Reader download for cleaner printing.
LARGE file, includes all four pages of the scanned graphics.
Click here
There is a list of web-form feedback pages for the AG's office and DOJ Firearms division contacts at the end of this document, not present in the Acrobat file. If you realize the implications of this element of the scandal, please go there and let key officials know how you feel.
We've spent a lot of time documenting the misdeeds of various local Police Departments and Sheriff's offices regard CCW permit issuance. If you're just joining in, the main web page cataloging the abuses is:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/expose.html
Part of the process in getting a permit is that your fingerprints are run through the state Department Of Justice, which is under the direct oversight of the State Attorney General's office.
One nagging question has always been: "what does the California state DOJ and AG's offices know about the local abuses, and do they support such abuse?"
This report, for the first time ever, will detail deliberate misconduct by State Attorney General Lockyer and various minions inside the DOJ.
We accuse Attorney General Lockyer, Doug Smith, Chief of the DOJ's Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis and an unknown number of others of taking deliberate steps to cover up equal protection misconduct in CCW issuance on the part of local agencies. They did this by deliberately flouting a California Supreme Court decision, having no legislative authority to do so.
This is a long story, so we're going to have to break it into a timeline.
NOTE: there are four key pages of evidence scanned and online at: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/dojevidence.html - the four scanned pages are LARGE, in the neighborhood of 110k each, long load times. Key bits are quoted in this main page - most people won't need to dig into those linked scans.
TIMELINE
1982: In the case of Guillory vs. Gates, 731 F.2d 1379, the 9th Circuit rules that there's an equal protection principle involved in CCW issuance, and that plaintiff Guillory should be allowed to question Sheriff Gates (Orange County) about who else is getting permits, and why. The case was remanded down to district court for a new trial with that principle in mind. Rather than answer those questions, Gates folded and gave Guillory and his co-plaintiffs permits. Full text: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/guillory.html
1986: CBS news sues Sheriff Block of LA for CCW records. The California Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block (230 Cal.Rptr. 362) rules that CCW records are public and should be available under California's "Public Records Act" (our version of the FOIA). The applicant's name, dates of denial or application and/or renewal, city of residence, occupation and their "good cause for issuance statement" are declared public. In reference to the "good cause", the FULL details are to be made available (versus a boilerplate "for protection of life and property"). The court explained why it was doing this:
The interest of society in ensuring accountability is particularly strong where the discretion invested in a government official is unfettered, and only a select few are granted the special privilege. Moreover, the degree of subjectivity involved in exercising the discretion cries out for public scrutiny. For example, the sheriff of Orange County has issued over 400 licenses; in Los Angeles County only 35 licenses have been issued. Ostensibly, both sheriffs are applying the same statutory criteria for granting or denying these licenses. The apparent discrepancy indicates that something may be amiss. If the information on which the decision to grant can be kept from the public and the press, then there is no method by which the people can ever ascertain whether the law is being fairly and impartially applied.
The full text of the case plus a summary is online here:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/cbsvblock.html
1/1/99: AB2022 takes effect, mandating that the office of the Attorney General create a new state-standard CCW application form to replace local agency forms no later than mid-`99. Use of any other forms once the new forms are distributed is banned by the same state law, and the AG was given the ability to form an advisory committee made up of law enforcement officials. The specific law reads:
Penal Code 12051 (a)(3)(A) Applications for amendments to licenses, applications for licenses, amendments to licenses, and licenses shall be uniform throughout the state, upon forms to be prescribed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall convene a committee composed of one representative of the California State Sheriffs' Association, one representative of the California Police Chiefs' Association, and one representative of the Department of Justice to develop a standard application form for licenses. The application shall include a section summarizing the statutory provisions of state law that result in the automatic denial of a license. The Attorney General shall adopt and implement this standard application form for licenses on or before July 1, 1999.
At this time, all local CCW application forms had the applicant write in their "good cause for issuance" statement.
February '99: Attorney Chuck Michel files a Public Records Act Request on CCW "raw data" with all 58 Sheriffs and 150 police departments, as part of a study on CCW practices commissioned by Assemblyman Rod Wright (D-Compton). The PRAR specifically asks for "good cause data", and cites the 1986 California Supreme Court case of CBS vs. Block 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 as precedent for release of the data.
3/15/99: Contra Costa County gun rights activist Jim March files suit against Sheriff Warren Rupf in State Superior Court (first lawsuit), alleging equal protection violations and other misdeeds in the handling of CCW permits. (This case caused a change of procedure requiring Rupf to allow CCW applicants to apply for CCW "on paper" versus being denied verbally as was prior practice in that jurisdiction.)
April of '99: AG Lockyer convenes a CCW advisory committee that includes Sheriff Rupf of Contra Costa, who had a clear conflict of interest due to being sued in this area of law. Other members include PD Chief Larry Todd of Los Gatos, known for anti-self-defense activism (and like Rupf, a recipient of Chuck Michel's PRAR) and the Sheriff of Stanislaus County, also a PRAR recipient.
Late June of '99: the new CCW application form is released, and remains unchanged to present. In a departure from all prior local agency forms that the authors are aware of (and we've seen dozens), applicants are ordered NOT to write in their "good cause for issuance" data. Instead, they fill out sections one through five of the 19 page form packet containing personal identifying information only. Later sections are filled out by a sworn law enforcement officer who "takes the applicant's dictation" on matters such as "good cause", writing that and other data into "Section 7" of the forms, which is subtitled "Investigator's Notes". Instructions to this effect (for the applicant's benefit) are included in the application packet.
The final CCW application packet (still in effect, unchanged since mid-`99) is available for download here:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/appform.html
Pay particular attention to the bottom of page 2 under "Important Instructions" (centered, italicized and underlined):
? Fill out, read, and sign Sections 1 through 5, as directed. Use additional pages if more space is required.
? Sections 6, 7, and 8 must be completed in the presence of an official of the licensing agency.
? Review Section 7 and be prepared to answer these questions orally. Do not write anything in Section 7 unless specifically directed to do so by the licensing agency.
Section 7 is subtitled "Investigator's Notes" - and it contains the "good cause" information as written in by a top cop or his designee as dictated by the applicant.
7/20/99: Unknown persons within the DOJ release an official bulletin (number 99-19-BCIA) to all law enforcement agencies statewide, with instructions on use of the new CCW forms. It contains explicit instructions to put all data NOT to be released to the public via Public Records Act into "Section 7" of the form, which was described as segregated and organized for this purpose, to maintain confidentiality under the PRA (Gov't Code 6250-6270).
Towards the bottom of page one we see this:
Concerns have been raised regarding the potential disclosure of certain applicant information listed on the standard CCW application should a request be made pursuant to the Public Records Act ([California] Government Code section 6250 et. Seq.). To address these concerns, the standardized CCW application has been organized in a manner that segregates confidential, non-disclosable information about the applicant. Confidential information should be entered in Section 7 of the application.
Memo 99-19-BCIA was signed by Doug Smith, Chief of the DOJ's Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis. Below that is "For Bill Lockyer, Attorney General".
It can be viewed in it's original form here: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/dojevidence.html
Government Code 6254 is part of the Public Records Act, and shows what these clowns were up to:
Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following:
...
(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes...
In other words, "police investigator's notes" are exempt from PRAR disclosure. But CCW "good cause data" was artificially rendered such by a tortured change to the CCW application process that was utterly unnecessary - having people write in their "good cause" has always been good enough. The sole point here was an end-run around the California Supreme Court.
Sometime in late `99/2000: Chief Larry Todd of Los Gatos answers Chuck Michel's PRAR request with approximately 900 pages worth of "stuff". We don't know how else to describe it - Todd took everything in his files that was remotely gun-related and "dumped it" on poor Chuck. The file was almost a foot thick. This was all the more remarkable given that Chief Todd had never once issued a single CCW permit, and apparently planned on never doing so. The contents included grabber propaganda of a dozen types, pages showing Todd's lobbying on gun control, and a single gem: preliminary copies of the new state-standard application form and the roster of people involved in the forms creation process.
Chuck Michel's office heard rumors that other agencies he'd hit with PRARs were being urged to also try this "paper overload tactic" to raise Chuck's copying fees. None of the agencies took it quite to the height of madness Larry Todd hit.
Various times since: on at least two occasions, Sheriff Laurie Smith of Santa Clara County has refused to release "good cause data" to investigators using the Public Records Act, including Chuck Michel, on the grounds that "the DOJ no longer deems these records releasable to the public".
RKBA activist Nadja Adolf tried to obtain the CCW records from Santa Clara County, and obtained an interesting memo.
The key is their answer to "Category Five, "complete good cause data":
This information is documented within that part of the individual's files which is not subject to disclosure. The California Department of Justice, which received a legislative mandate in 1999 to standardize the various CCW forms and application processes, has determined this information to be confidential.
First, this isn't entirely correct: it was the AG's office that received the mandate to standardize the forms, but nothing was said of "processes".
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/dojevidence.html#SC
Regardless: Nadja's digging has exposed what is really going on here. If it wasn't for the memos she recieved, this entire issue would be theoretical.
The memo to Nadja from the Santa Clara Sheriff's office continues later:
The Sheriff's cost under the PRA is 35 cents per copy. We estimate that there are approximately 2,084 pages of documents which contain the information you have requested in #2 [names of applicants], #3 [dates of application/renewal/issuance/denial] and #6 [city of residence]. Therefore, we request that you provide a check, payable to the County of Santa Clara, in the amount of $729.40. If you desire to narrow the timeframe, the corresponding number of pages to be copied, and the copy charge will decrease.
Does this look familiar? Note that as of early '99, Sheriff Smith partially answered Chuck Michel's PRAR with a database printout of 167 names, on about 12 pages or so, with no "good cause data" (same excuse as here). So there's no way in HECK the info Nadja is requesting will run over 2,000 pages.
Maybe this will help: Los Gatos is within Santa Clara County. PD Chief Larry Todd of "Lost Gatos" is a good friend of Sheriff Laurie Smith.
In other words, Larry showed Laurie both of his favorite games to dodge a PRAR request: the "paperwork flood" game and the rigging of the PRAR forms Todd himself had a hand in.
Conclusions:
So what does it all mean?
Knowing that gross CCW misconduct exists in California's CCW system, a group of people within law enforcement and the DOJ "rigged" the new state-standard CCW application forms to specifically sidestep the California Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block. They had no legislative authority to do what they did. They dangsure didn't have the right to sidestep the California Supreme Court in secret.
This is BAD, folks. When the entire law enforcement community, right up to the top cop in the entire state (Lockyer) engages in a criminal conspiracy, it's about as bad as it gets.
Jim March was able to speak briefly with Randy Rossi on this subject. Rossi is the head of the DOJ's firearms division. But he wasn't involved in the CCW forms creation process, and had no knowledge of any of this. In part, he's one of the key people this report is written for. According to NRA staff in Sacramento, Rossi is one of the more reasonable people at the DOJ, which is probably why this process was run completely separate from his office: fear that Rossi might not play along? It's Rossi's department that handles the DOJ's role in the background check part of the process, so Rossi's being cut out is highly unusual.
In any case: game over. Bad show, chaps. Every time some crappy piece of gun control that DOJ administers comes along, people like Rossi visit gun clubs and NRA meetings explaining that they only enforce the law, and what's happening isn't their fault. Not this time! This is criminal conspiracy to screw over gun owners, run right out of the DOJ's office in a process that the AG was supposed to have oversight over, per state law!
Oh yes, one other thing: this is going public because we've figured out exactly which forum to use it in, and in that forum it won't matter that we went public first.
Jim March
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/agaccuse.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
The CCW Expose Project
NEW CASE 5/15/02: The Strange Case Of Howard Pearl: Discretionary Abuse In Florida Before 1987
NEW SECTION 5/17/02: NEW YORK NEW YORK: As crazy as California?
NEW CASE 5/22/02: I left my sanity, in SAN FRANCISCO!
IMPORTANT NEW EXPOSE 5/22/02:
CCW Abuse: The Cover-up
At The California State
AG/DOJ's Offices
- click here for free reader
There are many competing paths active right now to reform the CCW process1. No matter which process is used or finally works, we must expose the depths of hypocrisy, corruption, bias, racism and elitism in the current CCW system, or all reform efforts are doomed to failure.
Hence the "Expose Project". We are doing a series of in-depth reports on CCW abuse and malpractice statewide, and compiling the reports we know of from other sources.
Acrobat is used extensively due to it's "clean printing" - these files do far more good ON PAPER and in use by the mainstream media, legislators, activists, lawyers, etc. Preaching to the choir only goes so far!
====> GOT DIRT? EMail me! jmarch@prodigy.net
PS -- Saxon, I used to visit Fresno a lot when I lived in CA and my grandparents were alive. They were "Fresno Indians" if you know the term. The city certainly has changed a lot in the last 40 years.