SAF, Calguns challenge arbitrary denial of right to bear arms in California

Posted in Press Releases by R Lee Wrights on May 9th, 2009

from SAF staff

BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA - The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and three California residents today filed a lawsuit seeking to vindicate the right to bear arms against arbitrary state infringement.

Nearly all states allow qualified law-abiding citizens to carry guns for self-defense, but a few states allow local officials to arbitrarily decide who may exercise this core Second Amendment right. In the action filed today, Plaintiffs challenge the policies of two California Sheriffs, in Sacramento and Yolo counties, who reject the basic human right of self defense by refusing to issue ordinary people gun carry permits. Of course, violent criminals in the impacted counties continue to carry guns without police permission.

State scientist Deanna Sykes believes her sexual orientation and small stature makes her an appealing target for criminals, particularly as she often transports firearms as a competitive shooter and firearms instructor.

“I am highly qualified to defend myself against the sort of crime that the Sheriff cannot, despite his best efforts, completely eradicate,” Sykes said. “Violent crime is a real risk in our society, but happily, we enjoy the right to defend ourselves from it.”

Andrew Witham has over 15 years experience as a police officer in Britain, and is licensed to carry a firearm while working as a private investigator and campus public safety officer. But despite having been the target of death threats stemming from his work in security, Sheriff John McGinness saw to it that Witham’s license to carry a gun while away from work was revoked upon Witham’s relocation to Sacramento.

“I’m allowed to defend other people,” said Witham, “so why can’t I defend myself, where the Bill of Rights guarantees me that right?”

Adam Richards, a Northern California attorney, would also exercise his right to bear arms in self- defense. But the Yolo County Sheriff’s policy on gun permit applications is: don’t bother. “How can the Sheriff tell whether I am capable of responsibly exercising my Second Amendment rights, when he doesn’t even acknowledge that these rights exist?”

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, said, “It’s a shame that these Sheriffs don’t think that self-defense is a ‘good cause’ to exercise the right to bear arms, but we’re confident the Second Amendment reflects a better policy.”

Added co-counsel Donald Kilmer, “The California carry licensing system is being abused by some officials who are hostile to self-defense rights. The police can regulate the carrying of guns, and that includes preventing dangerous people from being armed. Complete deprivation of the right to bear arms, however, is not an option under our Constitution.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision last year in the Heller case shows that there is both a right to keep arms and a right to bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “In most states, authorities do not deny a license to carry an operable firearm to any law-abiding applicant that completes training and a background check. This is also the practice throughout much of California. These two Sheriffs must respect the constitutional rights of their citizens to bear arms.”

“California is often a leader in so many ways, but our state lags badly in streamlining its firearms laws,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “We need 21st century gun laws that respect our Constitutional rights, and adopt modern, widely accepted practices that work well throughout the United States. Hopefully this action will serve as a wake-up call to our legislators, and to those officials who stubbornly resist accommodating Second Amendment rights. If they don’t reform, reform will come through litigation.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a non-profit legal defense fund for California gun owners. The Calguns foundation works to educate government and the public and protect the rights of individuals to own and lawfully use firearms in California.

 

Copyright © 2009 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
Email: InformationRequest@saf.org

5 Comments

  1. safeguard Blog » Marc Rotenberg: Privacy vs. Security? Privacy. said,

    May 9, 2009 @ 9:15 am

    [...] Liberty For All » Blog Archive » SAF, Calguns challenge arbitrary … [...]

  2. NM DA: Shooting By TX Officer Justified : texas department of public safety Blog said,

    May 9, 2009 @ 10:02 am

    [...] Liberty For All » Blog Archive » SAF, Calguns challenge arbitrary … [...]

  3. fod for thought said,

    May 9, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

    Well, I have to say that Calguns and SAF don’t truly understand the 2nd Amendment in the first place or they would be challenging the Constitutionality of the “licensing requirement” from the beginning. Why would I say such a thing? Well it seems they don’t understand the difference between a right and a privilege! But what about the Heller case? Didn’t these people even read the Heller case? It didn’t even rule specifically on the “licensing requirement” because Heller refused to challenge that aspect of the law (ALTHOUGH HE SHOULD HAVE BECAUSE HE HAD THE CONSTITUTION ON HIS SIDE.) Why didn’t Heller want to challenge the licensing requirement? I think that was because he was involved in law enforcement (warps your mind from all that brainwashing) at one point and he actually believes in the licensing program himself (although I think you might get a different answer from him today. Why? Because I heard his local/state government denied him a license. Greenhorn! LOL) Now you ask why should that be challenged? It relates to the difference between a right and a privilege. You see, the law definition of a privilege “A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, BEYOND THE COMMON ADVANTAGES OF OTHER CITIZENS. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. …” But the Declaration of Independence says that “All men are created EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS…” Can you now begin to see that something is wrong here? To continue, the law definition of a right is “…powers of free action. And the primal rights pertaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law.” You see, our rights come from “God, our creator, etc.”, NOT GOVERNMENT. Government’s job is TO PROTECT/SECURE THOSE RIGHTS ONLY. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE WHEN AND WHERE WE, THE PEOPLE, CAN USE OUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS. This is where I tell the brainwashed masses to COME OUT OF THE MATRIX YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS PLACED IN YOUR MIND (public brainwashing schools, TV, etc.) AND BEGIN THINKING FREELY FOR POSSIBLY YOUR FIRST TIME. Why? Because tyrants always take over governments, media, etc. and then try to impose there will on the populace using their power. These tyrants know they must disarm the public (their future slaves who use the government created ALL CAPITALIZED NAMES, CALL THEMSELVES 14TH AMENDMENT “United States citizens” (which were created for the SLAVES), HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, TAKE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, etc. By the way, slaves don’t have rights. THEY HAVE GOVERNMENT PRIVILEGES THAT HAVE BEEN MISNAMED “CIVIL RIGHTS”. Now, before the elitest can truly rule over the masses, they MUST DISARM THE MASSES USING ANY SCHEME NECESSARY! (or they get another 1776 - they were trying to get the guns then, but our founders gave them the bullets first. AWESOME!)! So, I am saying the SAF and Calguns should do what Heller should have done in the first place. What is that? They should challenge the Constitutionality of the “licensing requirement” to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has basically ruled that the “licensing requirement” isn’t Constitutional by declaring gun ownership a “right,” but the word games are getting in the way! (Don’t you just hate it when people play word games with you like it is a battle field? If so, I know you don’t like most lawyers!)

    P.S. Do you believe in the mottoes “LIVE FREE OR DIE” or “I WOULD RATHER DIE ON MY FEET THAN LIVE ON MY KNEES”? We may have to find out real soon!

  4. Raimonds Staprans » Blog Archive » Seattle Washington Temple said,

    May 10, 2009 @ 6:25 am

    [...] Liberty For All » Blog Archive » SAF, Calguns challenge arbitrary … [...]

  5. SAF, Calguns challenge arbitrary denial of right to bear arms in California « In The Cross Hairs said,

    May 13, 2009 @ 1:59 am

    [...] Release: SAF, Calguns challenge arbitrary denial of right to bear arms in California Posted in Guns, Politics. Tags: 2nd Amendment, Gun-Control. No Comments [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI