Keep and Bear Arms

KeepAndBearArms.com — This is to be the first in a series of exhaustive looks at the illegal and unscrupulous CCW practices of specific counties in California. Ironically, Marin County is first — compared to many other counties, they're actually pretty good; others are fighting the Public Records Act Requests tooth and nail.

Still, what we have here in Marin County are entrenched patterns of due process violation, abuse of equal protection under the law, and careless disregard for the plain text of California's CCW statutes. Some of the abuses you are about to review clearly violate Federal and state law and are blatant enough to warrant the immediate attention of a Federal Grand Jury.

It is recommended that you read this report from start to finish on your first reading. Thereafter, the bulleted links in this section will take you quickly to the sections below.

In California, access to CCW ("Carry Concealed Weapons") permits are "discretionary" on the part of your county's Sheriff, or your PD Chief as a "second option," if you live inside a town's boundaries. The actual CCW issuance process is contained in Penal Code 12050-12054, linked here.

There have been a number of court cases brought by people who've been illegally denied equal access to CCW. A few key, binding court decisions have resulted, so far.

The first was Salute vs. Pitchess 61 Cal. App. 3d 557 (1976), in which a California appellate court absolutely condemned the practice of restricting CCW to government employees. In the brief, two-page ruling, the court found that

The Federal 9th Circuit found in Guillory vs. Gates 731 F.2d 1379 (1984) that CCW issuance was subject to scrutiny on the basis of Federal equal protection law, and that people underneath the rank of the actual "top cop" who supported their boss's discrimination could be sued for aiding in the problems.

California's CCW system was created in 1923, as part of a larger set of firearms restrictions, the rest of which were primarily aimed at alien residents. In People vs. Rappard, 28 Cal.App.3d 302 (Calif. Appellate Court, 1972), the restrictions on alien resident access to arms was gutted as unconstitutional and racist and in due course, the clause in the CCW penal codes restricting CCW to citizens was stripped.

CCW records are subject to public review per the California Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block 230 Cal. Rptr. 362 (1986) wherein the court noted the extreme level of "unfettered discretion" given to law enforcement and made the records public specifically to allow scrutiny of various forms of abuse, including corruption and equal protection violations. This report is a direct result of that court decision — we are scrutinizing, finding various forms of abuse, and we have confirmed the court's worst fears.

We've established a racist history behind this whole concept of discriminatory issuance of concealed carry permits, yet there's a citizen-only clause in the Marin County Sheriff's policy manual that's illegal. And in Marin County, not only have we discovered that government employees receive preferential treatment in getting a CCW permit, we've also discovered that equal access to CCW by residents is denied for the same "good cause" reasons cited by government employees, as well. As for the "public review" case cited above, the next phase of exposing California's many CCW abuses involves suing the people who are refusing to release the data that will help us correct these problems.

A "Public Records Act Request" was filed in Marin County to collect the data used in this report. Also known as a PRAR, this is California's version of the better-known Federal Freedom Of Information Act. California's PRAR law is patterned after the FOIA, and official requests for information are generally constructed in the same manner.

Various Marin County RKBA activists were interviewed for this report, including Mr. Michael Harper, whose "good cause" for CCW was denied and whose assistance was invaluable. Mr. Harper's highly instructive situation and mistreatment are covered below — with his blessing and his pre-release review of this report.

The first of several documents herein presented as evidence of Marin County, California's abusive and illegal policies regarding CCW permits is Marin County Sheriff's Department's Concealed Weapon Permit Policy. (Click here to view a scanned image of the actual page transcribed below, taken from Chapter 1, Page 1 of the Administrative Policy & Procedure Manual.) Below is a transcription of the exact text of Page 1 of the Marin County Sheriff's CCW Policy:

MARIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY & PROCEDURE MANUAL

CHAPTER - 01 - Administration ADM - 01-01 Page 1 of 4	Date 8/2/00 Rev. 7/6/99

CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT

POLICY

The Sheriff of Marin County may issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to Penal Code section 12050(a)(1). The Sheriff is not required to issue a concealed weapon permit nor does the applicant have a right to such a permit. California law has established criteria to be examined prior to the Sheriff issuing a concealed weapon's permit.

The Sheriff of Marin County may issue a concealed weapon's permit to residents of Marin County and with some restriction, business owners in Marin County. Upon proof from the person applying for a concealed weapon that he/she is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a resident of the Marin County, the Sheriff may issue a license to that person to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. Not withstanding this provision and by agreement with the Marin County Police Chiefs' Association, it is preferred that each Chief of Police be the issuing entity for his/her jurisdiction.

The Sheriff's Department's responsibility to the public's safety dictates that good cause and compelling criteria be established prior to the Sheriff considering the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Personal convenience, personal protection, position or job classification alone will not constitute good cause for the issuance of a permit. Upon the issuance of a permit there may be any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the Sheriff deems warranted, including restrictions as to time, place, manner and circumstances under which a person may carry a concealed weapon.

CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL

The Sheriff may consider issuing a CCW permit to retired local or Federal law enforcement personnel or to U.S. citizens who can articulate a specific, compelling, and overwhelming need which can be verified.

The Sheriff will not issue CCW permits to any individual falling under Penal Code sections 12021, 12021.1, or Welfare and Institution Code section 8103. The following factors shall be considered as to why CCW permits would not be issued to an individual:

the applicant does not reside in the County of Marin (see business exception below)
the applicant is not a citizen of the United States
the applicant has a criminal history such as substance or alcohol abuse
the applicant has dishonorable discharge from military service
the applicant has a history of mental illness
the applicant was previously denied a license to carry a concealed weapon
the applicant has had a concealed weapon's permit revoked
the applicant has a history of violence or unstable personality
the applicant is physically unable to handle or qualify in handling the weapon or
if the applicant lies in any portion of the background.

01-01

First paragraph, note that California has already gone on record — Gov. Davis and AG Lockyer — as saying there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. Now the Sheriff is telling us that even if we jump through their hoops, we do not have a right to a permit. He is telling us it's a privilege, and that he is the Lord of Privileges. Who he deems worthy of this "privilege" indicates a pattern within Marin County Sheriff's Office that deserves legal reprimand.

Second paragraph, starting with the sentence "Notwithstanding this provision...", what we have is collusion between the Police Chiefs in the county against residents of incorporated towns. First, this is conspiracy to violate equal protection. Second, it's a case of "legislation by cop", which they have no right to even contemplate — as the Sheriff freely admits, this is not a type of discrimination specified in the permit laws. Third, it's NOT applied equally, as you'll see.

Third paragraph, we learn that "personal protection, personal convenience, position or job classification alone" will not ensure CCW. What that really means is that the Sheriff refuses to see equal protection as a factor in how he applies his power. Despite how anybody else has been treated, he reserves the right to issue to anybody regardless of their circumstances — because every single CCW application is going to fall into one of those categories.

Pages 2 through 4 of the policy manual contain no significant problems, at least not where the Sheriff's handling of CCW is concerned. Those interested can view all four pages of the policy manual linked here: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4. The biggest shock is that he actually got the fee structure right — that's highly unusual among urban California counties.

We're going to do something controversial here. We're going to show you a database printout of all permit holders, including (in some cases) a summary of their "good cause", accurate as of June 25th, 2001. We take this fairly extreme step because as the Michael Harper case and other evidence show, it's highly unlikely that any of this Sheriff's permit holders are "regular folks."

Roster of Approved & Denied Permits in Marin County, California (1996-2001):

As you go through the printout, notice also how lots of people DO score permits from the incorporated towns of San Rafael, Mill Valley and even San Anselmo — even though the Sheriff stated that his agreement with the Police Chiefs was that they be the ones to issue permits in the incorporated areas. The Sheriff can send a "let's refuse this guy" applicant to the Chief to create a "previous refusal" once the Chief turns him down — but he can hand out permits to his buddies and fellow government employees, even in the Chiefs' jurisdictions, too.

Then compare the case of Richard Keith (Page 3) with that of Michael Harper (Page 2). Both lived in San Anselmo. Richard Keith was issued a permit, but Mr. Harper's application was denied. The reason given: "Did not reside in Sheriff's jurisdiction." (Is San Anselmo in San Anselmo?) At that time, permits were issued yearly (it's now every two years), so when Michael Harper's San Anselmo application was denied on 5/6/99 — based on being "outside the Sheriff's jurisdiction" — Mr. Keith of San Anselmo was happily packing heat on a Sheriff-issued CCW, and had been for five months.

Understand, this wasn't about Keith having better "good cause" than Harper. Mr. Harper shared his "good cause" reason for seeking a permit, and it was extremely compelling. So the Sheriff needed to come up with "some other excuse" to deny Mr. Harper, a "peon" — he just picked a rather incriminating "reason" now that we've got the database of CCW issuance and renewal in our hands.

Remember, this isn't about different standards for "good cause." This is a difference in application procedure — known in legal circles as a "due process violation," when a government agency doesn't follow the law in handling somebody's situation. By turning Michael down the way they did, they prevented anybody comparing his "good cause" details with the various elite and cronies who were successful. And by their own policy, Michael absolutely cannot be approved for a CCW permit in this county hereafter — no matter how misguided the original denial.

Also, notice that government-connected people DO NOT need a "good cause," or that their "good cause" is apparently better than non-government applicants with the same "good cause" reason for applying. Notice, as well, that their applications are judged totally independently of their town of residence — every single former and current government employee issued a permit or given a renewal shows their official title in the column entitled "City of Residence." (This is in violation of Salute vs. Pitchess.) While "regular" citizens' permit applications are denied based on their location "outside Sheriff's jurisdiction," we are left wondering where all of these government employees (successful applicants, all) reside. A question begs asking: How are we to determine which of them might live and work "outside the Sheriff's jurisdiction"?

The level of preference being shown to government employees, at least to a degree they're willing to admit to on paper, is unusual enough that clarification was needed and sought. Read the letter that came back if you'd like to see it. What you'll hear UnderSheriff Dennis M. Finnegan say is:

What he didn't tell you but you can see as you read through their database printout is this:

Marin County isn't the only jurisdiction abusing equal protection in CCW permit handling. The abuses are widespread, which is one reason Marin's stated policy of "no issuance to anybody previously denied" is an evil joke.

For example, in 1994, a drunk in Sacramento County was arrested after threatening somebody with a gun. He turned out to have a CCW permit, and upon being questioned by deputies, freely admitted having purchased the permit through bribery, and named then Sheriff Glen Craig, UnderSheriff (and now Sheriff of that county) Lou Blanas and #3 man in the department Moe Bailey as being in on the scandal. (See Page 1, Page 2, Page 3 and Page 4 of the resulting police report.)

It is Sheriff Doyle's current written policy that anyone abused in CCW application processing by an outright corrupt Sheriff such as Blanas should also be automatically abused by Sheriff Doyle's department — "denied because of a previous denial." At present, we have no evidence Doyle is actually selling the permits for cold cash, which is why we said at the beginning that he's not actually the worst we know of in this area — but his strong support of corruption in other jurisdictions suggests it's possible.

Also noteworthy in considering the Sheriff's failure to provide "equal access under the law" for the CCW application process is the fact that the application form isn't on his website -- but many other forms are there for the taking. In fact, if you search for the terms "CCW," "conceal," or "weapon" on his website's search engine, here is what you will get back:

The newest PD Chief in San Anselmo gained an appreciation of how insane a snakepit this entire issue is. After replacing his predecessor and realizing the mess, he "declared G" — which means he backed completely out of the CCW processing system. (Click here to read Chief Charles L. Maynard's letter "declaring G.")

Penal Code 12050(G) allows a PD Chief to "exit the CCW business" and dump the whole process on the Sheriff:

Now, this wasn't a legal problem on San Anselmo's part. On the contrary, the Chief just ensured that the Sheriff would have a more difficult time discriminating against his town's residents. This also had the effect of insulating the city of San Anselmo from any possible lawsuit on the CCW malpractice at the Sheriff's office, or Federal scrutiny of equal protection problems countywide.

Sheriff Doyle didn't like that one bit. Check out his response by clicking here. Spot it yet? The problem is in the paragraph starting with "Additionally...". The Sheriff doesn't want to hand out the application forms to San Anselmo residents without doing a check with the Chief first.

But that's not how PC12050(G) (quoted previously) works. Note the use of the word "all" — once the PD Chief dumps it, that's the last decision on CCW he makes.

But the Sheriff wants to use the San Anselmo Chief as one additional barrier between a citizen and a CCW permit, which is how most of the other towns' elitist law enforcement officers misbehave.

The Sheriff has the authority to completely take over, but his letter indicates an unwillingness to bear sole responsibility. With all of the documented violations of law, this comes as no surprise.

A Federal Grand Jury must take a closer look at this disaster. They can do so purely on the basis of equal protection, due process and "rule of law" issues that aren't in the least bit controversial. We could see reforms without even getting into controversial areas of Second Amendment law that would be contrary to current incorrect holdings on that subject in the 9th Circuit court.

Law-abiding gun owners in Marin County are expected to disarm when denied access to CCW permits, yet we now have solid evidence that the entire criminal justice system in the county (Law Enforcement, D.A.s, Judges, etc.) is engaged in an illegal conspiracy against local residents, discriminating against the people they are paid to serve, to a degree unimaginable if carried out against any other population. Such discrimination based on race, gender or other hot social buttons would not fly, and it's time to clip these people's wings by stopping their concerted effort to discriminate against lawful, decent gun owners who simply desire the ability and means of defending their own precious lives.

If law-abiding gun owners who could otherwise qualify for CCW were actually the sort of violent threat that corrupt politicians masquerading as law enforcement describe us as, it would be dangerous to abuse us to this degree.

However, we are absolutely determined to see the rule of law restored in the area of self defense, and we are peacefully operating within the law and within our rights to do just that.

If you are like us, you would like to say a thing or two to the Sheriff. And it's probably a good idea that he hear from people who support law enforcement but oppose elitists within law enforcement who violate laws and abuse their positions. Have fun, and feel free to let him know how you found out about his ways.

This request for assistance is solely from Angel Shamaya, Founder/Executive Director of KeepAndBearArms.com.

The next major step in exposing the dark underbelly of California's corrupt CCW practices is a Public Records Act lawsuit against Santa Clara County. As you can imagine, corrupt politicians who fear being exposed will go to great lengths to steer clear of the spotlight — even if they have to violate laws to keep from getting busted. Santa Clara County's officials are in violation of California's Public Records Act — they've absolutely stymied Nadja Adolf's PRAR request for CCW data, including the "good cause details" they're trying desperately to hide. That and several other clues lead us to believe it's one of the worst CCW misconduct cases in the state — ripe for a victory.

It's going to take $3,000 to litigate the PRAR lawsuit — Nadja is ready and waiting, the attorney is on board, and all of the evidence needed for victory has been gathered. Personally, I'd like to see Santa Clara County get a bloody nose over violating the Public Records Act — and even more exciting will be the exposure of what they are trying to hide. We'd fund this lawsuit ourselves, but we're looking to raise money just to pay December's bills. So I'm asking you to contribute to this worthwhile effort. Stay with me to hear why I believe it's important that you do so.

First, understand this: We have over 10,000 individuals coming to KeepAndBearArms.com on a slow day. If averages from the past tell us anything, this report will be read by at least 20,000 individuals the first few days it's on this website. One dollar from each would put this lawsuit over the top and give Jim and Nadja financial ammunition to direct toward another couple of California counties, and then some. Now, some people never give a dime to support us, or any other gun rights group, but they keep on coming back for more, and that'll never change. But others, our core family of liberty advocates who've been with us since the beginning, know that when we ask for cash, we mean it — and we're asking you to pony up to tackle these elitist jerks and lay them low. Here's why:

When we win in Santa Clara and publish the data we extract from them per the Public Record Act — forced compliance, with a judge's signature — we'll get all attorney's fees and costs back. The next target after that will probably be Sacramento County, where investigation is already underway.

There are 58 counties in the state of California, a socialistic state from which much of our nation's unconstitutional gun control originates. At least 40 of these counties handle CCW in a bigoted, biased, illegal and/or corrupt manner. We'll hit them one by one with reports at least as detailed as the above, recycling the PRAR lawsuit money with the winnings each time for the next target, until U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft finally takes notice. And that needs to happen well before the next Presidential election comes up, just in case Bush loses and Ashcroft gets replaced by the next version of Janet Reno. We all know that Mr. Ashcroft has taken a strong public stand —verbally— for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Along with the Petition we've been working on for some time (with our partners at Citizens of America), these county-by-county exposures of the crimes being committed by California's elitist law enforcement agents will eventually wake Mr. Ashcroft up to the fact that he is not doing his job when it comes to our Second Amendment rights. And, quite frankly, we need to know if Mr. Ashcroft is all talk or not. He may be able to ignore one County — but can he ignore five, ten or twenty?

So please drop Jim March a line in EMail and make arrangements to send him a few bucks — make an email pledge you will keep. He will gather pledges and arrange funds to be sent directly to the attorney involved, the law office of David Beauvais in Berkeley.