Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "guns"

Opinion: Guns and alcohol! Merry Christmas!

2011-12-16T20:00:25Z

Whatever your particular creed or faith, most people regard this time of year as a season of peace — a time to reflect, count blessings, maybe offer a little prayer for better days ahead. We suffer the coarseness and indignities of a saturated consumer market to enjoy the time with family and friends, and work for better days in our communities. That is why it was so appalling that a recent trip to an area Sam’s Club for supplies for a holiday party became an occasion for outrage.

Sam’s Club (a division of Walmart) often has vendors set up special displays of merchandise that might not be part of its regular lineup of products. Megawine Inc., a liquor distributor from Van Nuys, had an entire display — front and center in the Sam’s Club on El Camino, and right around the corner from the video games and children’s books — of tequila in various life-sized, gun-shaped bottles. Consumers could buy replicas of AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles, carbines, semi-automatic handguns and pistols, all filled with tequila.

Alcohol and guns — together! How festive! Do we really need to combine two of the more obvious enablers, as criminologists call them, of violence in this country? How mind-numbingly stupid must the marketing department be to think that this would be a smart way to market tequila? Is Sam’s Club so committed to profit that they would market something so inappropriate in a store in which families and children wander around buying Christmas presents?

A recent survey of local Sam’s Clubs indicated that all five of the Sacramento area Sam’s Clubs stocked this line of gun-shaped tequila bottles. After I filed a complaint through the Sam’s Club website, I received a phone call from the El Camino store inquiring about the nature of my concern. When I responded that my concern was that selling products which suggest that combining automatic weapons and alcohol seemed like a terrible idea, the woman informed me (with a huff of indignation) that they had already sold over $50,000 worth of these products, so people must be fine with it. When I indicated that I was going to start a drive to stop these sales, she warned me ominously that I “would be contacted by the legal department.” Excellent! Intimidation and bad judgment all rolled into one! Maybe at Sam’s Club ethical marketing is just another sad oxymoron?

This isn’t a temperance movement, it is not a gun control campaign, and it is not (directly at least) an anti-Walmart crusade. It is a simple plea for a store that brings in thousands of families a day to think twice about how they market products. This is a small plea for common sense at a time when there is already far too much alcohol-fueled violence in our community. Do we really need to have alcohol marketed with this violent imagery? Alcohol clouds judgment and lowers inhibitions. How many thousands of people suffer from alcohol-enabled gun violence across our communities?

In 1989 Stockton suffered through the Cleveland School Massacre in which a drifter armed with a semi-automatic weapon, not unlike Megawine’s tequila bottle, fired off 100 rounds in the school’s playground. Tragically, five children were killed and 30 others, including one teacher, were wounded. Does anyone doubt that had Sam’s Club had attempted to market these products directly after that incident, everyone would have immediately understood how stupid, how misguided and how obviously wrong this would be? The real question is, if it was wrong then, why is it any more acceptable now?

If you would like to sign an online petition asking for the removal of these products, please click www.change.org/petitions/sams-clubwalmart-stop-selling-gun-shaped-alcohol-bottles. If you share this outrage, please forward this link to your friends and family.

Disclosure: The views expressed in this article are entirely my own and do not represent the views of the CSU or of Sacramento State.

Urban Rifle Hike

2011-09-11T14:34:18Z

Sacramento to Rancho Cordova

I decided to take advantage of the lull between the hot, and the soon to arrive stormy weather and go for a hike to the gun range today. I needed to prepare for hunting season, and the best way is to suit up and practice a little. You don't want your first day out in the field to be the testing ground for you and your gear, because it usually costs some dough to go on safari, and these days, that's a big concern. You could end up spending a hundred or two, and come home empty handed and with pulled muscles or who knows what other ailments. Before I went abalone diving for the first time each year, I always took a quick check out dive locally for the same reasons. So I put on my hiking boots, grabbed my 30.06 and 20 rounds in a waistband carrier, along with a bottle of water and a small amount of cash for range fees and emergencies. I slung the .06 across my back and headed out from home shortly after noon. My route was a little less than "as the crow flies" due to school zones, but I guessed the trip was 10 miles one way. The temperature was hot, but not unbearable, and the sun was beating down pretty good, but that's one of the hazards you may have to endure if you hunt in the warmer parts of the north state.

I had to cross the freeway almost immediately and then headed for the straight line of Folsom blvd. Folsom was to be the straighest and longest leg of the tour. Traffic was pretty heavy actually, and it wasn't long before I found myself waiting to cross several lights, most on the freeway onramps.I had made it a little past Bradshaw road, and only about a half mile from home when I heard sirens and suddenly saw two different units in the oncoming side of traffic. I swear I thought they were headed elsewhere, because one looked like he was passing the other, but I found out that I was their call. Turns out there were several more behind me, but I am deaf in one side, and was concentrating on the two that were in my immediate front. Those two stopped and took up firing positions from their cars, one a handgun, and the other a rifle. Next, came orders being barked out from several people, both fore and aft. I couldn't tell you how many units were there at that point, but it was more than five, and from several agencies. They began giving me conflicting orders because they weren't at all in sync, but I yelled out that I have a hearing problem and told them that they were not being consistent. You know, one guy is yelling don't move, and another is yelling put your hands out away from your body, etc, etc.

I ended up face down on Folsom Blvd on the hot pavement with probably a hundred cars stopped on both directions watching this. They cuffed me, and started drilling me with a few questions, to which I just answered that I was going to the gun range. they got me up and walked me to the car, put me in and then drove off the street to a business parking lot. There was some discussions to the effect they just needed to check me out and make sure that I was or wasn't something. So there I sat in the back of a unit with several others inspecting my gear, my rifle, my rounds, and a few other personal effects. Every so often one would come and tell me it wasn't going to take long. After a bit someone came and asked where I lived, home address, because I don't have that on anything I had with me. My license has a PO box, and they found that stashed in a side pocket of my little camera case. I don't care that they know where I live, so I gave them my street. They asked if the gun was registered to me at that address, and I doubt that really, having moved once since we bought that twenty years or more back.

One smart ass cop, and I don't remember which one made an off handed comment as to my hearing loss as he shook my hearing protection in front of me. Something to the effect of "If he's deaf, he doesn't need these". I let that one go, because when your half deaf you get people making stupid comments from time to time, but anyone that shoots at a range, even a smart ass, is required to wear hearing protection, even if you're born with no ears. Them's the rules out there. So after a little time someone came and got me out and said that I was going to be freed, but also started questioning me about where I was going, and what I was doing. There was some rhetorical question about me testing them, to which I just told them I was actually testing myself. I reiterated that I was going to the range and gearing up for the season, to which another said the range is like 10 miles from here. He asked if I would like a ride there, to which I flatly refused (who wants a ride in the back of a patrol unit?), and I told them I was well aware of the distance and that exercise was part of the plan. I reminded whomever it was I was standing next to that I was told I was to be freed, and didn't like being lectured while wearing handcuffs. So I was released, and there was some further questioning of my judgement in a veiled sense. One cop said I should at least open the bolt on my rifle as I walked, but I mentioned I had ten miles alongside the road and I wasn't about to get dirt in there. Another pointed out that my route was to take me through a bad part of town, and I reminded him that I have lived in the bad part of town here for quite awhile. Actually, the part he was referring to is somewhat worse alright, but at least it's a busy street and there would be witnesses to call for ambulances or whatever. I was allowed to gather up my stuff, re-sling the rifle, and headed out with a few of them still shaking their heads as if they did not believe I was going to complete my hike. I headed back down Folsom Blvd at a little increase in speed, having lost a half hour or so with that episode. I saw quite a few units pass me from time to time for the next hour or more, but maybe they were keeping an eye on me for safety reasons.

So that was the cop encounter for the tour, but that's also not the end of the discourse for the day. I'll catch you up on that next, because I still had nine miles of city slickers to go. Just to recap though, there were many units that ended up responding, CHP, County sheriff, and City police. I didn't get hurt or anything, but my good pair of glasses were scratched up pretty badly while I was down on the pavement. I am a little more concerned than yesterday about the manner in which gun owners are percieved, and the loss of what I consider our better ways of life. Also, I did make the gun range, and it was more than ten miles. I think I'll be paying a price for that tomorrow.

After my detainment was over, and I gathered up my stuff, I asked the cops whether they were going to ticket me for jaywalking if I crossed the street to pick up my route again. One told me to go back to the crosswalk, but backtracking didn't seem efficient, so I headed east again without the protection of shade trees. After about a half mile I found another light to cross, and headed to the shadier side of the street. As I cross, and being half deaf I've learned the hard way that you have to look all around you because the normal sound warnings are not there, I had plenty of opportunity to look at everyone. Many, many people were astounded by the very sight of a slung rifle in public. You could also see them on cell phones, most likely dialing 911. I resumed my eastward direction and picked up the pace to make up lost time. The heat was becoming more apparent by now, and the trees started getting fewer in between. I passed a homeless looking chap with a pit bull on a leash, but he just smiled. Soon a car rolled up behind me and when I glanced back he was on the cell phone. After a bit he passed me at a good clip. Next I passed a light rail station with numerous people disembarking, Most were younger kids, and had the "what the hell" look on their faces. One guy said "that guys just walkin' around with a rifle". I passed a few more lights and crosswalks, at which many more people gawked, and several more got on their cells. Only got a couple of honks the whole trip, but amazement was probably the most common, with surprise next, and bafflement third. I'll bet the cops got a hundred calls after I left them. I made my way across the freeway again to head up Zinfandel drive and take it to White Rock. On the down side of the overpass I waited for a light, and a car with a mother and her probably eight year old son stopped for the light. The kid's mouth fell open and got all wide-eyed in surprise, and that soon got mom's attention, and they both soon smiled. That was probably the most positive response I had all day!

I made my way up White Rock Road without any real problems, and there being a little less traffic, I saw less aghast people. As I passed a sign waver on the corner of White Rock and Sunrise, many people were staring at me from inside and outside of the Burger King on the corner. I guess those sign wavers do really get people's attention. By now, my shoulder is showing signs of wear from the sling, and I've slowed a little in pace. My one bottle of water is nearing the end, and it's still plenty hot. I was sweating profusely, and my upper shirt was half drenched. It was about here when I started questioning my ability to make the gun range, as my legs were tired, and I was developing some blisters on the feet. I pressed on, and only ran across a road construction crew alongside Sunrise Blvd. One hard hat guy smiled and waved. I could now see the gun range ahead and tried to pick up my pace after downing the last swig of water. The range is set back on Douglas, and I decided to take a shortcut through the open field as opposed to going all the way around. After about ten or so minutes of trudging through dried grass and weeds, I noticed I was suddenly amid broken skeet. A quick look around and I realized I was at the outer end of the shotgun range, and luckily nobody was using it. I tried a course deviation that would take me along the outer edges of the broken skeet pattern, and then walked up behind that part of the range. Somewhere along here a rangemaster met me and asked why I was on the range like that. I told him I had no idea that was the case until I saw the skeet, and also told him there was not fences or even a sign anywhere from that direction. He started telling me that I shouldn't walk on any fields out here because there was no public land, and that it was all private,... yada yadda..(not true either, as there is a huge regional park just up the street).

The interview continued with him asking how I got there, to which I answered "I walked". Then he asked me a rhetorical question in regards to whether I walked with my rifle that way, and didn't the cops meet up with me. I mentioned that I had encountered the police, and that it was not particularly pleasant, but I made the trip anyway. Next, he asked why I was here. I told him I came to use the rifle range, to which he said that they might not let me shoot because I broke the rules and was on the skeet range. I reminded him I was not aware that I was entering the range, and reminded him again that there were no signs or fences, and also asked what happens if some kids get in there that way. As we walked towards the office he asked how was I getting back, and by now, I wasn't sure if I was able to walk, so I told him it depended on how I felt after I shoot. He once again made a comment about maybe I wasn't going to be able to use the range because of the manner in which I arrived. After a minute he said they were going to let me shoot, but handed me a one page document in relation to the rules, and demanded I read the entire thing first. No problem; and nothing on their about open carry, but you could tell that was an issue now. He asked if I had hearing protection, and I pointed to the counter where I had placed my equipment. He said he could rent me some if I didn't have any, and then made a point of telling me he could sell me a case for the rifle, and stood there with this condescending look waiting for me to answer that "with ok, let me see what you got." You could tell that this sort of public display is not something they care for, and certainly don't like. I was a bit taken aback by this flavor at a gun shop. I paid my range fees, bought another bottle of water and headed out. From here it was clear sailing with the exception of too much sweat getting in my eyes for the next 30 minutes or so, and in my tired and weakened condition, the steel buttplate on my rifle quickly took a toll on my shoulder. The light t-shirt was no help either. There was no 1 inch grouping today, but did manage to keep them all on the target and within acceptable game kill standards at 100 yards.

I called for a ride home, and my wife came shortly after. The walk was over ten miles, and I'd place it closer to eleven with all the zig-zagging. I'm definately out of shape and requiring some rest today, but planning to make the trip again soon, although I am going to give the dispatchers a courtesy call next time.

Disclosure: Davi Rodrigues is current chief officer of Save Our State, and a proponent of native born citizen rights and opportunities

2nd Amendment Day

2011-09-11T05:49:03Z

“We have to fight to protect the Second Amendment” said Sam Parades, member of the Board of Directors of Gun Owners of America, to a group of gun enthusiasts who gathered to express their second amendment rights at a “2nd Amendment Day” event, sponsored by TDS Guns of Rocklin.

Craig, co-owner of TDS Guns, said they put on this event “to show our support for the Tea Party and the Second Amendment.” “People don’t take responsibility”, said Craig, when asked about the purchase of firearms for unlawful reasons. “It’s not the gun’s fault, it is the individual.”

Several guest speakers spoke at the event, including Eric Hogue, VP of Advancement at William Jessup University, Sacramento area talk show host, and radio commentator. Hogue reflected on his upbringing being exposed to guns and how his Great Grandfather taught him everything he needed to know about the use, danger, and proper way to use guns, “so why on God’s green earth, do I need a government to tell me more than that”.

Nearby, two protesters used their First Amendment rights to peacefully express their views on the subject of gun control. “We have been able to point out our beliefs about how accidental deaths from guns are unacceptable and there are too many in a modern society” said one protester.

Also on hand today was Miss Capitol City, Rachel Walter, who is vying for the Crown of Miss California in 2012. TDS Guns is one of her sponsors for the pageant. When asked about her goals for the competition, “my goal as the future crown holder is to help promote education in the state that she loves; after all, education is the process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills, and values from one generation to the next.

Mark Meckler, Co-Founder and National Coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots inspired the crowd with his thoughts, “It is critically important that we come out on days like today and support the Second Amendment. It’s critically important that we read the Second Amendment, that we read the entire constitution, and that we understand the rights given to us by the founders”.

In America, we have been given the right to express our opinions openly and honestly. We can march, we can protest, we can even criticize our leaders as well as hold events like today’s, as long as we stay in the boundaries of the law. There are issues we may not agree with that are neighbors see differently and for the most part, we agree to disagree. Some issues such as the 2nd Amendment can polarize people in a way, which is very hard to find common ground, but the majority of us seem to be proud, we have that right to do just that.

City program targets problem buildings, slumlords

2011-04-27T00:45:45Z

When buildings become slums and havens for gangs, prostitution and drug use, a little-known city program can force landowners to clean them up or – in extreme cases – be evicted.

The Justice for Neighbors program began in 2006 and allows multiple departments – including police, code enforcement, the city attorney’s office and park rangers – to focus their efforts on some of the worst slumlords and dangerous properties in the city, resolving an average of 17 cases per year.

“Essentially, it’s a public and social nuisance (enforcement) team,” said Gustavo Martinez, supervising deputy city attorney. “We meet every month and evaluate the worst security issues.”

Property owners are required to bring their buildings into compliance and stop criminal activity on the sites, or else they can face prosecution and jail time.

Safety issues are also tackled by the program when property owners refuse to comply with city codes and ordinances.

The program went into effect in 2006 to streamline city services and cut down on the time it was taking to solve the problems, Martinez said. Many times, police and code enforcement officers were working on the same property for different reasons, and the Justice for Neighbors program ensures there are no duplicate efforts – and similarly, no duplicate expenses.

Police Sgt. Matt Young, who is a leader of the south area’s Problem Oriented Policing (POP) unit, said that involving the city attorney’s office when a situation requires it now takes less time than it did previously.

“It used to take six to eight months, and now it only takes two or three,” he said, adding that officers no longer have to repeatedly go to some of the worst places in the city before the problems are addressed.

“It’s been a very effective program,” he said.

One of the program’s success stories is the property at 3132 Third Ave. – a 16-unit apartment complex.

The Justice For Neighbors program started work on it in 2007 due to numerous problems including prostitution, drug sales, sexual assaults and a large number of neighborhood complaints, according to a presentation given to the City Council April 12.

Police were called to the property 90 times in two years, and the property continued to deteriorate, with many of the units lacking running water and electricity.

The property owner was jailed for 30 days, but when problems persisted, the court ordered a receiver to take over the property, and it was sold last June. With its sale, the city was able to recoup $66,000 in attorney’s fees and enforcement costs, according to the presentation.

By February, it was refurbished.

“Now, developers are renting out beautiful units,” Martinez said.

Approximately $500,000 has been awarded to the city through the courts, of which about $120,000 has been collected, Martinez said, adding that some properties, like the on at 3132 Third Ave., have fees attached to them that the city will recoup if they are sold.

A more recent aspect of the program is the ability to order evictions based on certain felony crimes involving guns or drugs.

According to Martinez, Sacramento joins four other cities – Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland and San Diego – in being able to evict tenants for felony gun violations, and five other cities – the same as gun crimes, but with the addition of Palmdale – in being able to evict for felony drug activity.

That authority was granted by the California Legislature as a pilot program in 2009 for guns and 2010 for drugs, and it will expire in 2014 unless extended, Martinez said.

Only a small number of gun evictions have been served, and it is designed to combat gang activity, Young said.

“We recently had one where a gang member had a sawed-off shotgun and was living across from a school,” he said.

Last year, 33 evictions were served for drug violations, and four for gun violations, he added.

Martinez pointed out that the evictions are used sparingly and typically only when landlords or property owners have “had their heads in the sand” and not responded to previous requests to stop illegal activity.

The evictions are in line with a city ordinance that says property owners are responsible for controlling criminal activity on their property, be it a residence they live in or one they rent out, Martinez added.

No special funding is set aside for the program, as it is included in the daily activities of each of the departments involved in it.

Money collected through court orders is slated exclusively for enforcement and is used for things such as purchasing new equipment for police, Martinez said.

“I think it’s a great program,” Young said. “It really streamlines the process.”

Residents aren’t able to call in complaints to the program itself, Young and Martinez said. If there are complaints, they should still call the applicable department – including police and code enforcement – and the monthly meetings held by the program participants determine which properties are the worst based on number of complaints and calls for service.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @brandon_darnell.

Travelers' thoughts about firearms on Amtrak

2010-12-03T01:07:13Z

With news of Amtrak’s new firearm policy to take effect Dec. 15, The Sacramento Press wanted to get an idea of what travelers think about the decision.

First-time Amtrak traveler Tina Stephens simply doesn’t see the need for such a policy.

“I don’t see any reason why anybody would need a firearm on the train anyway,” Stephens said. “I see no need for people to carry one if the people who work for Amtrak don’t have to carry them. That just opens yourself up for a lot of problems.”

Christina Miller of Redding also has mixed feelings about the policy.

“I don’t see a problem with it, but then again the terrorist thing is kind of scary,” Miller said. “If I were a hunter and I was traveling, I would want to be able to travel with what I need to hunt. But I’m not sure how I feel about that.”

Mike Goedert of Iowa sees no problem with it.

“I guess I don’t have any problem with it as long as they separate it from the individual who brings it aboard, I guess that would be fine,” Goedert said. “It’s just like any other apparel you would bring like a knife or something that you can stick in your luggage and they let you bring that aboard, so I guess it’s allright.”

Sharon, a frequent Amtrak traveler, isn’t comfortable with the idea.

“I think it’s really unusual. I think that it will cause everyone to be searched more, and I’m not comfortable with it,” she said. “As a frequent traveler, I have wondered why we haven’t had more awareness of baggage, and I think that this could cause a big problem.”

On the other hand, Spencer Schilling, 23, is just starting to travel on Amtrak a lot and approves of the policy as long as it’s done right.

“It sounds fine to me as long as they’re authorized to have the gun in the first place,” Schilling said. “As long as they’re legally allowed to and it’s locked on-board, then it’s fine with me.”

Sacramentan Annie Lee said she thinks it sounds OK in theory, but could be dangerous in practice.

“I just think that if they’re going to be vigilant about checking it, and they’re going to make sure that the arms are going to be locked, then that should be OK,” Lee said. “My only concern is then other people may try to abuse this law and take it further. Once you open the door to allow firearms, people may start to allow firearms on that are not locked or unloaded. There’s always going to be loopholes people are going to try to get in between.”

Margarita Garcia, however, said she doesn’t think the new policy is a good idea under any circumstance.

“I don’t think its a good idea because there’s a lot of kids, and even if they’re locked away and stuff, you never know. There’s a lot of crazy people out there, and you just never know.”

What do you think about Amtrak’s new policy?

Ask Officer Michelle - Carrying A Concealed Weapon Takes A Lot of Consideration

2009-11-08T15:07:36Z

Posted by Sorren
Hello officer Michelle, thanks for always answering my potentially pesky questions ;)

I have another issue that has been bothering me a lot. As you of course know, some unfortunate kid got killed on campus a couple weeks ago. Three days before that, there were gunshots fired on my block in what I used to think was an upper-middleclass safe neighborhood.

I don’t really feel safe anymore, and decided that I’m going to purchase a handgun immediately as soon as I can afford the one that I want. The issue is, that it’s not useful, if I can’t have access to it on a whim.

I had my dad’s gun a few years ago when I lived in chicago. No CCW. So I had an unloaded, locked up pistol in the back seat of my vehicle, when I got held up and had to give up my (thankfully lo-jacked) vehicle. I had the means to defend myself in arms reach, and there was nothing that could be done.

I’d really rather not relive that experience, and invest in a 500 dollar firearm that I can’t use because I can’t carry it. I think it’s really unfortunate that I’d get charged with a felony for trying to defend myself against, you know… ACTUAL criminals.

How does one go about successfully getting a CCW permit? I heard it’s extremely difficult here (and impossible for those who’ve lived here under a year like me.)

Thanks as always for your time!

-Sorren

Dear Sorren,

That’s just it! If you don’t have access to your gun when you need it, it is a moot point. I have written on the topic of California Concealed Weapons (CCW) permits in the past. It is a very passionate topic which has been more in the forefront than ever before because of economics, some agencies laying off officers, prisoners getting reduced prison sentences, and increased violence. I want to play devil’s advocate with you if I may.

If you were to obtain a CCW, I would suggest you take a class to learn how to use a gun as well. Not just firing one, but learning how to take it apart, clean in, proper storage and transporting issues, and most importantly, the legal aspects and use of deadly force policies. You certainly have the constitutional right to protect yourself and your family; however, I always add as a caveat that more people are injured and/or killed by accident with their own handguns. The fact of the matter is that most violent gun crimes are committed by a relatively small segment of the total population.

I am a retired army officer and have been with the Sacramento Police Department for nearly 19 years. I understand the right to bear arms. I just caution citizens against possible civil liability that can result from their use of a gun. I reiterate that if you point a gun at someone, you may have to pull the trigger. If you are going to pull the trigger, are you justified in doing so?

Others may not be as responsible as you in storing a handgun. I’ve heard of people keeping their guns under their pillows or next to their beds locked and loaded. What if this same handgun gets into the hands of a child who is showing his or her dad’s gun to a friend, or picks it up out of curiosity? Then there is also the danger that a suspect gets the gun from you and uses it on you.

The way to obtain a CCW is to contact your county’s Sheriff’s Office, or if you are a resident of an incorporated city, your city’s Police Department, for information on obtaining a CCW license. They can answer your questions and provide you with copies of their CCW policy statement and the State’s Standardized CCW Application. If you live within a jurisdiction of a city police department, you may apply to the county Sheriff’s Office for a CCW license. However, only residents of a city may apply to a city’s Police Department for a CCW license. One point to remember is that California law does not recognize CCW licenses issued in other states.

The Office of the Attorney General (www.ag.ca.gov/firarms) has all the answers you need to any of your CCW questions. In regards to issuing these permits, the Sacramento Police follows the standards of the CA Department of Justice. I certainly gave you a long answer, but it wasn’t only intended for you, but other readers who are considering obtaining a CCW permit. Thank you for your post.

Officer Michelle

DELAY IN WEAPONS PERMIT SUIT AGAINST SACRAMENTO SHERIFF

2009-09-02T06:08:59Z

Summary resolution of the Federal suit filed last May 5 against Sacramento Sheriff John McGinness and others, Sykes v. McGinness, was delayed by a September 1 written order from Judge Morrison C. England Jr. His decision gives time to the defendants to determine whether the plaintiffs are qualified to bring the suit, and also waits for a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, rehearing the case of Nordyke v. King.

In the Nordyke case, a gun show operator challenged an Alameda County decision to ban gun shows from using the county fairgrounds to hold shows. The appeals court said that the Second Amendment applied to states, just as most of the other provisions in the Bill of Rights do, but that the county's interest in security at its facilities was a legitimate reason to prohibit gun shows.

If the ruling that the Second Amendment restricts what states can do stands, then in the western states under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, individuals have a personal Constitutional right to bear arms. That principle was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case of District of Colombia v. Heller, but the court limited its application to the case before it, since the District of Colombia is a federal district, not a state.

If courts determine that individuals have a Constitutional right to bear arms, then any action by a state (or any lesser government subdivision, such as county or municipal agencies) that infringes on that right must pass a "strict scrutiny" test, requiring the agency to establish a compelling reason to justify any restriction. While the immediate impact of such a ruling in this suit would be to place a nearly impossible burden on the sheriff should he try to restrict permits based on his definition of "good cause" for a permit, many California laws restricting firearms would be subject to challenge as well.

For example, California bans many weapons based purely on cosmetic features or caliber, neither of which have been shown to have any bearing on criminal use. Further, California may soon require that guns incorporate a "microstamping" technique that purports to make empty cartridges traceable to a particular gun, but there is no evidence showing that this will reduce crime in any way, since it is untested and speculative. Also, such a feature could be easily disabled. However, it would make guns prohibitively expensive, creating an extreme burden on the individual. A court challenge to such a requirement would require the state to show evidence to justify it.

Judge England wrote in his order that the Ninth Circuit's decison in the Nordyke case will directly affect the issues in Sykes v. McGinness. Even if the court strikes the initial decision, it is unlikely to rule that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. In that event, Judge England would have to make a decision as to whether it does apply, and no matter what the ruling on that issue, the losing side would no doubt bring the matter back to the Ninth Circuit for a further ruling. A number of such cases are being brought in various places in the country, based on the Heller decision, so ultimately, the matter will no doubt be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

El Dorado Sheriff race: 4 of 7 promise "Shall Issue" concealed weapon permit policy

2009-08-30T19:19:48Z

At a August 28, 2009 public forum in Placerville, four of the seven candidates promised to institute a policy of issuing concealed weapon permits to any residents who take the training and pass a background check, vowing that "self-protection" will be considered adequate "good cause" for requesting a permit. Those candidates are John D'Agostini, an investigator with the Amador County District Attorney's Office and a former Amador County sheriff's deputy, Larry Hennick, who served 32 years with the El Dorado County Sheriff's Department, Craig Therkildsen, a captain with the Sheriff's Department, and Stan Perez, retired chief of the California Highway Patrol's Valley Division.

Three other candidates gave answers that were non-committal. Ernest Hillman, retired El Dorado County undersheriff, would only drop the requirement to submit three letters of reference. George Nielsen, Placerville police chief, would help applicants articulate "good cause," not eliminate the requirement. Bob Luca, retired chief of the California Bureau of Investigation, said he favors a "shall issue" policy, but the sheriff must abide by state law.

All seven are declared candidates for Sheriff Jeff Neves's seat, as he said he will not run in 2010

El Dorado County Supes Favor Liberal Concealed Weapons Permits

2009-08-28T23:07:54Z

At their meeting August 25, 2009, all members of the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a resolution asking "that the duly elected or appointed El Dorado County Sheriff adopt and maintain a fair and equitable “Shall Issue” policy for the issuance of CCW licenses." The resolution does not have the force of law, but essentially criticizes the Sheriff's recent policy of not recognizing "self protection" as "good cause" to issue a concealed weapons permit to persons otherwise qualified.

The resolution focuses attention on the Sheriff's discretion to issue or deny concealed weapons permits, an issue that begins to loom large in the current race for El Dorado County Sheriff. At least two of the current seven candidates have expressed strong support for granting permits upon request to individual citizens who wish to carry a concealed weapon and can meet the qualifications for training, experience, and background. Such a policy is referred to as "Shall Issue," and is in effect in 38 other states in the United States and in many counties in California. Two states require no permit whatsoever.

The concealed weapon permit controversy is driven by two considerations. First is self-protection; in many El Dorado County areas, the Sheriff's response time is very long, and so has a limited deterrent effect on crime. Also, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which determines Federal law questions in California, recently decided that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right, as is the right to free speech or to assemble, and should not be infringed without a compelling government interest. As the experience in jurisdictions which adopt a "Shall Issue" policy is that crime diminishes when citizens can more readily obtain concealed weapons permits, the argument is that restrictive issuance policies do not serve any legitimate purpose.