« Interesting thoughts on Supremes | Main | VPC and a Joyce clone attacking Justice Alito »
Suit against Torrance CA over CCW refusal
Pdf of the complaint here. Plaintiff is a city employee whose job requires carrying large sums of cash, and whose employing agency endorsed his application for a CCW permit. The Torrance chief of police turned it down, stating it was his policy not to issue permits, period. The suit also challenges city policies that, if it ever did issue permits, requires the applicant to have a million dollar insurance policy, and pass psychological testing.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Here is the thread at Calguns.net.
I hope the chief of Torrance PD is someday caught unarmed by bad guys.
Then he'll know how we feel--I hope he rots in Hell after they catch him.
The State Supreme Court of California is hostile to the Second Amendment of United States Constitution and has ruled in Kasler v. Lockyer (seventh line of page 6) that the Second Amendment of United States Constitution is not recognized by the California State Constitution:
"If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitution's declaration of rights, they are simply wrong. No mention is made in it of a right to bear arms. (See In re Ramirez (1924) 193 Cal.633, 651 ["The constitution of this state contains no provision on the subject."].) Moreover, "[i]t is long since settled in this state that regulation of firearms is a proper police function." (Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 866.) We reject any suggestion that the regulations at issue here impermissibly infringe upon the right to defend life or protect property guaranteed by the California Constitution."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s069522.pdf
Sounds like just another reasonable regulation, to me. (GAG! GAK!! BARF!!!)
This case is one of a larger group of related cases. None
directly mention the 2nd or the Lockyer issues.
NRA members in SoCal are invited to come to a meeting tonight,
Tuesday June 17, at Old World in Huntington Beach where this,
and other issues, will be discussed. 7PM. The attorney in this
case is the head of our local Members Council.
Forty states have realized that the decent law abiding American CITIZEN is generally not a threat if he/she is allowed to be armed for self protection. Our elected REPRESENTATIVES are supposed to do just that, represent us. Of course we want them to use their good judgment and not come to us for every decision, however. When their personal feelings go against the collective will of the people then they have a duty to do our will or step down. We need to remember that when we vote.
Interesting complaint. I'm anxious to see the reply and the briefs.