News

Mehl v. Blanas: An Important Decision In A Now-Irrelevant Handgun Carry Case

[caption id="attachment_1506" align="alignleft" width="300"] Ninth Circuit - Pasadena Courthouse[/caption]
We at CGF are working hard to have the right to carry a firearm recognized in California through various legal actions and other efforts, not the least of which is our Second Amendment lawsuit on carry outside the home [now] entitled Richards v. Prieto. That case is particularly notable not only because it was the first of its kind, filed in 2009 (pre-McDonald v. Chicago, thanks to the Second Amendment’s incorporation [for a time] in the Ninth Circuit through an April 2009 decision in the Nordyke v. King case and, previously, 2008′s landmark victory in D.C. v. Heller), but also because it has the unique characteristic of challenging both the “good cause” and “good moral character” components of the California statutes on carry licensing and Yolo Sheriff Ed Prieto’s policy “as applied”. Alan Gura, the lead attorney on Richards, argued the case before a panel of Ninth Circuit judges on December 6, 2012, after which it was submitted for decision (which, we hope, comes soon – more on this below).
However, as some of you are aware, there are those who don’t have the full breadth of resources and capabilities to bring well-considered Second Amendment litigation. Unfortunately [for all of us], those deficits do not dissuade them from bringing their lawsuits anyway.
One such instance was the case of Mehl v. Blanas, brought by attorney Gary Gorski against a much earlier sheriff of Sacramento County (Lou Blanas). Mr. Gorski is somewhat notorious for being on the wrong end of the Dunning–Kruger effect regarding firearms litigation. (On a related note, Second Amendment scholar Dave Kopel published his email interview with Mr. Gorski here.) We’ll refrain from throwing too many stones as some people have accused us of the same from time to time; we think CGF’s totality of wins and advancements for the actual, practical ability of Californians to own firearms (and, in many jurisdictions where it was previously impossible — like Sacramento County — carry them) speak to our success. Mr. Gorski’s “gun rights claim to fame” to date has been that he effectively disarmed retired law enforcement officers of their semi-automatic rifles (like AR-15s) while otherwise losing an assault weapons case at the Ninth Circuit. Going back to the long-running and voluminous Mehl case, Mr. Gorski’s earlier lawsuit that challenged Sheriff Blanas’ carry license policies and practices in Sacramento County, we should contrast the results there against the clearly positive outcome that was secured by us in just months when CGF and our litigation partners (and individual plaintiffs) sued then-Sacramento Sheriff John McGinness and came to a mutually-acceptable settlement which changed Sacramento County from effectively “no issue” to one that is not just a virtually-shall issue jurisdiction, but one that has seen record and newsworthy growth of handgun carry licensees since (see this July 2011 CBS Sacramento report and this February 2012 ABC News 10 report, just two of many such news items on this subject).
Many have worried, perhaps justifiably, that Mr. Gorski’s continuing case against a now virtually-”shall issue” agency would block (or worse) decisions in the superior Richards v. Prieto and Peruta v. Gore cases. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit panel in Mehl issued a non-published and non-precedential opinion dismissing Mr. Gorski’s case on standing grounds. The court found that because plaintiff Mehl didn’t file a complete application after being asked to re-apply he didn’t have standing to sue over the alleged policy issues. Of course, should Mr. Mehl apply today, he stands a very good chance of being issued his license to carry absent the Sacramento sheriff’s office finding some articulable reason to the contrary in their background check investigation.
There does remain one more case against Sacramento helmed by Mr. Gorski, a Racketeering Act/RICO lawsuit named Rothery v. Blanas centering on handgun carry license issuance. However, that case is stayed by the Court until the very end of Mehl or September 3, 2013. Additionally, it has not been fully briefed, argued, or submitted for decision — unlike Richards and Peruta. As such, we think Rothery is unlikely to affect how or when the Ninth Circuit will rule in Richards and Peruta.
We are certainly not guaranteed a positive result in Richards and Peruta but we are very encouraged that Mehl was disposed of on grounds that do not injure those critical cases or, most importantly, the precious civil rights and millions of law-abiding people they represent. As we live to watch the Seventh Circuit force handgun carry by non-prohibited people upon Illinois and anti-gun rights municipalities like Chicago, we believe that the ultimate outcome — up to, and potentially including, a United States Supreme Court decision — will respect and protect our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside the thresholds of our homes as the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights intended.
We now look forward to a decision from the Richards panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and whatever judicial “next steps” are required to vindicate Californians’ fundamental individual right to effective self defense in public.

---

Cities of San Francisco, Oakland Settle CGF Federal Lawsuit on Return of Firearms

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 6, 2013

Cities of San Francisco, Oakland Settle CGF Federal Lawsuit on Return of Firearms

SAN CARLOS, CA – The Calguns Foundation announced today that it has reached a settlement with the City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Police Department in its case Churchill v. Harris, a federal lawsuit arising from law enforcement firearm return policies. The Foundation previously reached a negotiated settlement with the City of Oakland, which was also named in the suit. The controversy arose after the California Department of Justice changed the language it uses in its Law Enforcement Gun Release letters that are required when gun owners seek the return of their firearms after a law enforcement seizure.
The lawsuit had named Attorney General Kamala Harris as a defendant, who was dismissed from the case on 11th Amendment immunity grounds. “During the hearing where the Attorney General was dismissed,” noted Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman, who attended the hearing, “the court remarked that the Attorney General is doing local law enforcement no favors with their misleading policy."
“While our continued position is that the confusing language used by the California Department of Justice in their Law Enforcement Gun Release letter is unfair to gun owners, local law enforcement agencies, counties and cities,” continued Hoffman, “our successful resolution of this lawsuit is a step forward in clarifying the duties of local authorities in the return of firearms to their lawful owners.”
With the settlement, San Francisco has implemented an updated policy on the return of unregistered firearms that are legally owned by someone who has presented a Law Enforcement Gun Release letter from the California DOJ. In addition, San Francisco agreed to reimburse the Foundation a portion of the legal fees and expenses of bringing this case to protect the rights of gun owners.
“With this case now positively concluded, we will be sending California law enforcement agencies a memorandum containing a copy of the updated San Francisco policy,” said Brandon Combs, executive director of the Foundation. ”Through these efforts, we hope that their responsibilities to gun owners when presented with a LEGR will be made clear and that their future returns of firearms avoid the legal pitfalls we addressed in this case.”
The updated San Francisco policy is available to view or download at http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/churchill/SFPD-db-13-080-2013-05-09.pdf.
The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which serves its members and the public by providing Second Amendment-related education, strategic litigation, and the defense of innocent California gun owners from improper or malicious prosecution. The Calguns Foundation seeks to inform government and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own, and lawfully use firearms in California. Supporters may visit http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate to join or donate to CGF.

SUPPORT EFFORTS LIKE THIS ONE - DONATE TODAY!

SHOP AT AMAZON & SUPPORT YOUR GUN RIGHTS!

Up to 25% of every order at Amazon through Shop42A.com goes to support The Calguns Foundation's gun rights programs!

Merced County, CA Sheriff Pays CGF $9,250 in Handgun Carry Case Settlement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, June 3, 2013

Merced County, CA Sheriff Pays CGF $9,250 in Handgun Carry Case Settlement

SAN CARLOS, CA – As part of a settlement reached in the handgun carry case of Michelle Rossow, et al. v. County of Merced and Merced Sheriff Mark Pazin, the Merced County Sheriff’s Department has agreed to pay The Calguns Foundation $9,250.47 for attorney fees in the matter.
[caption id="attachment_1452" align="aligncenter" width="300"]

County of Merced’s check to CGF for $9,250.47 in the Rossow v. Merced lawsuit.[/caption]
The lawsuit, filed in July 2011, sought to correct problems in the Sheriff’s policy for applications for and licenses to carry concealed handguns as part of the Foundation’s ongoing Carry License Sunshine and Compliance Initiative.
In addition to the fee recovery, The Calguns Foundation’s action against the Sheriff resulted in a number of changes to the Sheriff’s carry license policies, which was based on a boilerplate document produced by Lexipol, a law enforcement policy management outsourcer, and modified with local rules.
The Foundation first contacted Merced in October of 2010, when it discovered that the Sheriff had established an unlawful moratorium on the acceptance of new carry license applications. The Sheriff subsequently lifted the moratorium but refused to modify parts of his policy that CGF identified as unlawful. When talks broke down, the Foundation filed the lawsuit in Merced County Superior Court.
“It’s great to see a successful outcome in this case, as Merced’s policy on licenses to carry handguns was substantially revised to address the most grievous concerns, and the Court retained jurisdiction to address future compliance issues,” said attorney for plaintiffs Jason Davis of Mission Viejo.
“This case is an important next step in our Carry Initiative,” explained Brandon Combs, executive director for The Calguns Foundation. “The County chose to address our concerns rather than face a possible court order, and we applaud them for that. Now it’s up to the other California sheriffs to follow suit or be sued themselves.”
“Ultimately, this case is about making carry license policies consistent with California law,” said Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman. “We hope that we can accomplish this without suing every California county, but if that’s what it requires, that’s what we are prepared to do.”
The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which serves its members and the public by providing Second Amendment-related education, strategic litigation, and the defense of innocent California gun owners from improper or malicious prosecution. The Calguns Foundation seeks to inform government and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own, and lawfully use firearms in California. Supporters may visit http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate to join or donate to CGF.
CONTACT: Brandon Combs
(650) 275-1015

Cal-FFL Legislative Update 6-1-13

Friday, May 31st was the deadline for California bills to have made it out of their house of origin; meaning that if they didn't pass out of their first house (Senate or Assembly) they are dead for the year. The following recent activity represents action taken on bills during the last week, leading up to the House of Origin deadline.

For more detailed information, follow the links provided.

RECENT ACTIVITY

AB 187 (Bonta) – (10% Ammo Tax)- Died in Assembly Appropriations
NEXT HEARING: NONE
POSITION: OPPOSE
AB 760 (Dickinson) – ($0.50 per Bullet Tax) - Died in Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee
NEXT HEARING: NONE
POSITION: OPPOSE

AB 1296 (Skinner) – (Increase in Prohibition Periods) - Died in Assembly Appropriations
NEXT HEARING: NONE
POSITION: OPPOSE

AB 761 (Dickinson) – (PERS Divestment From Firearms Companies) Died in Assembly Appropriations

NEXT HEARING: NONE
POSITION: OPPOSE
AB 48 (Skinner) – Passed Assembly Floor.
NEXT HEARING: Senate Public Safety Committee DATE: TBA
AB 180 (Bonta) – (Allows The City of Oakland to Pass Stricter Gun Laws) - Passed Assembly Floor.
NEXT HEARING: Senate Public Safety Committee DATE: TBA
AB 500 (Ammiano) – (Extension of 10 Day Background Check) - Passed Assembly Floor.
NEXT HEARING: Senate Public Safety Committee DATE: TBA

SB 299 (DeSaulnier) - (Lost or stolen firearm reporting requirement) - Passed Senate Floor