In my research on CCW abuse, I've become convinced that two specific policies are being used to shaft people more than any others.  They're illegal, but there's no direct formal published court opinions on the subject.  In many cases they're used in combination.

They are:

1) "Blanket Zero Issuance": most common in towns, "no permits at all" is very difficult to deal with.  Since nobody gets a permit, there's no equal protection "handle" you can lever them with.  San Francisco (PD and Sheriff) are the worst, with the LAPD not far behind.

2) Sheriffs that refuse to issue to residents of towns with their own PD Chiefs (most of which are doing illegal blanket zero issue).  This is even worse.  In many cases, the Sheriff is issuing to his "good buddies", political supporters, campaign contributors and the like.  It's then easy to make an equal protection case - except you can't get that far, because you're dumped back on your Chief.

If we can prove and professionally document that this is illegal, it leaves them with "no cover".  At that point, equal protection becomes more obviously a factor...and since an applicant armed with such evidence clearly is getting legal help, a Sheriff in particular would have to think twice before "shafting" such a person.  In the case of Sacramento County or LA County where the respective Sheriffs are linked to gross CCW mistakes and corruption, the last thing they'll want is a fight with a determined applicant who has legal advice readily at hand.

They're liable to cave in and issue fairly.  It's sure as hell worth trying.

UPDATE 4/21/00: The sponsoring organization of record is JPFO.

Something like this "looks better" if it comes from a "name brand organization" like the NRA, California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) or even JPFO.  The final document will say "written for [orgname]", basically.  The org in question won't have to handle fundraising issues, but they WILL get input into the structure of the questions if desired, and will get any donations above the actual cost of the opinion.  It's a good deal, as far as I'm aware this whole thing is a bit radical but not too controversial.  I'm talking to them now.

Bob Beauchamp of Orange County and his wife Mynette will be writing the opinion.  Bob first contacted me because he was interested in expanding further into RKBA activism.  He has experience in civil rights law (which is exactly what CCW law really is) and had already been studying CCW issues.  He was able to point out something I'd previously missed regarding reserve deputy issuance: a Sheriff or PD Chief can issue to a reservist regardless of residence in another town or county.  He's also aware of an older case in SoCal where a Judge firmly told a Sheriff that he cannot discriminate against town residents and will be quoting that case in the opinion.  In other words, he's knowledgeable and experienced in this area - we aren't going to find a better choice.

ROBERT B. BEAUCHAMP.  Born Los Angeles, California, 1955.  Deputy Sheriff - Coroner, Madera, California 1979-1981, Police Officer, City of Madera, 1981-1984.  Admitted to bar, 1987, California and U.S. District Court, Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Education: California State University at Fresno (B.A., Economics, 1984); University of Southern California (J.D., 1987).  Law school graduation rank: Top ten percent.  Order of the Coif. Legion Lex Scholar. Publications Editor (1986-1987) and Member (1985-1986), Southern California Law Review. Author: Shed Thou No Blood, The Forcible Removal Of Blood Evidence From Drunk Driving Suspects, 60 Southern California Law Review 1115, 1987, cited by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, State of Wisconsin v. Bohling, 173 Wis.2d 529 (1993); U.S. Ninth Circuit, Hammer v. Gross, 884 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir.1989).  Reported Cases: Roth v. Rhodes, 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 706 (1994) (successful defense against claim that Unruh Civil Rights Act protected individuals based on their profession and against anti-trust claims). Practice Areas: litigation of corporate and partnership dissolution issues and related disputes, general corporate and business law; commercial, real estate and business transactions, as well as real estate, commercial litigation.
Email: rbb@stepp-beauchamp.com.

MYNETTE D. BEAUCHAMP.  Born Downey, California, March 2, 1965; admitted to bar, 1991, California: 1992, U.S. District Court, Southern, Central & Eastern Districts of California.  Education: Mount Vernon College (B.A., 1986); Loyola Law School (J.D., 1991). Editor and Member, Loyola Law Review (1990-91). Former press aide in Reagan White House, former press aide to the Senate Republican Caucus.  Formerly lead bankruptcy attorney in the Orange County office of Bryan Cave LLP.  Member: State Bar of California. Practice Areas: Employment Law and litigation, Commercial Litigation; Real Estate Litigation Bankruptcy and Insolvency.  Ms. Beauchamp represents creditors in Chapter 11, Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy matters. Email: mdb@stepp-beauchamp.com.

This thing is going to cost between $300 and $500 total.  That's with the Beauchamps working at a discount, folks.  The basic idea is, you make pledges to myself (jmarch@ricochet.net) and Bob (rbb@stepp-beauchamp.com) with the same post, then snailmail check or money order straight to Bob at:

Robert B. Beauchamp, Stepp & Beauchamp LLP
1301 Dove Street Suite 950
Newport Beach, CA 92660.

The moment we've got enough loot to do this, I'll put up a big notice at the top of this page in red saying "We've got enough cash!" :).

As readers of this site know, I've never before asked for donations.  I paid for my own pro-bono lawsuit last year completely out of pocket.  I feel OK "begging" on this project because it'll benefit everyone who has enough guts to use the final product :).  I'm kicking loose $100 myself, more if needed.  Just a few people with $50 to spare, we'll be fine.  Anything extra will go to the "sponsoring organization".

I've put together four questions to be answered, plus my best initial thoughts on answering them.  Bob and his wife will do a lot of cleanup, add case law references, add in more research and in general make it more formal.  He was impressed with my initial arguments, as was another attorney who's reviewed this so far (Peter Mancus of Sebastapol).  Here's what I've got so far:

QUESTION #1: Can a Sheriff legally pass people off to their town’s PD Chief, refusing to issue to them due to their town residency?

NO.

Argument #1: Penal Codes 12050-54 grant no such authority.  Applicants are allowed to choose between their Sheriff and their PD Chief if they’re in an incorporated town.  A Sheriff has no legislative authority; even if he got around that by asking the County Board of Supervisors to craft him an enabling ordinance, it would run afoul of state preemption in gun law.

Argument #2: Per Salute vs. Pitchess 61Cal.app.3rd 557, agencies must make an “individual determination and investigation into every applicant’s case”.  Blanket-blocking a town violates this principle.

Argument #3: Depending on the county’s demographics, this could create a racial imbalance or preference in permit issuance.

Argument #4: The Sheriff ends up voluntarily supporting the issuance policies of the various PD Chiefs.  If such policies are illegal or unconstitutional in any fashion, the Sheriff takes upon himself an enormous legal liability.

Bogus counter-argument: “If a Sheriff issued within towns, people in towns would gain an unfair advantage, having a choice of agencies to deal with.”

Reply: First, when towns incorporate they generally gain any of several advantages, this being one of them.  Not without cost; such town residents gain a new taxing authority to go with the advantages.  Second, as a practical matter Sheriffs in California issue far more permits than PD Chiefs despite there being far fewer Sheriffs; a prospective permitholder would do better to re-locate to unincorporated territory to increase his odds of scoring a permit in the current environment.

QUESTION #2: Can the Sheriff pass people off to their town’s PD Chief if he’s willing to issue to town residents that meet a far harsher standard than others he regularly issues to (such as requiring the applicant to get a cop plus said cop’s boss to sign off on the application)?

NO.

This is really just a variation on the policy in question #1.  All arguments in question #1 apply.

QUESTION #3: Can PD Chiefs pass selected people (of any type) off to the Sheriff on an individual basis?

NO.

Argument #1: Penal Code 12050 subsection “G” allows PD Chiefs to transfer applicants to the Sheriff.  The structure is very specific: he must transfer ALL “applications, renewals, investigations and issuance” to the Sheriff.  The legislature thereby allows PD Chiefs to “get out of the CCW business”.  The use of “all” precludes passing people to the Sheriff on a selected or individual basis.  Because neither PD Chiefs or Sheriffs have any legislative ability, creating a “handoff situation” outside the structure of PC12050(G) is illegal.

Argument #2: Doing so creates an equal protection violation; different people get treated to different application procedures separate from any perceived difference in the evaluation of their application.

Possible exception: If the town resident applicant is a reserve deputy, declaring that he or she is “the Sheriff’s business” is possibly reasonable as a practical manner – the Sheriff can better judge his personnel.

QUESTION #4: Can any issuing authority blanket-deny all applicants regardless of “good cause” or other factors?

NO.

Argument #1: The legislature created PC12050-54 based on the idea that SOME people should be armed.  They gave PD Chiefs and Sheriffs the ability to judge people’s “good cause” and “good character”, AND NO OTHER JUDGMENTAL AUTHORITY.

Argument #2: Per PC12050-54, people “have the right to apply”.  Such a right is meaningless if it’s impossible to get a permit.

Argument #3: The aforementioned Salute vs. Pitchess decision requires issuing authorities to “make an individual determination and investigation into every case”.  Blanket-denial makes a mockery of this required standard of practice.

HOME