CGF Sues Santa Clara Sheriff for 14th Amendment Violation of Carry Rights

yellowfin · Mar 25, 2011

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/news.html

SAN JOSE, CA – Tom Scocca, The Calguns Foundation, and The Madison Society have filed a lawsuit seeking to compel Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith to respect the equal protection rights of carry license applicants and conform her carry license policies to state law.

Tom Scocca is a Director of Security Risk Management at a large Silicon Valley semiconductor business. Mr. Scocca has "good cause" that is directly comparable to many of the 70 applicants who have successfully received carry permits in Santa Clara County. Further, Mr. Scocca experienced first hand the effect of unlawful policies that members of Calguns Foundation and The Madison Society experience when attempting to apply for a carry permit from Sheriff Smith.

Tom Scocca faces real threats in performing his job. His work requires him to investigate intellectual property compromise and the theft of valuable company property. Though he is licensed by the state of California to openly carry a firearm, he needs to be able to investigate without raising suspicion. “I've been in law enforcement in the past and am trusted by California to carry a loaded firearm,” Scocca said. “However, even though my good cause is equal to or more worthy than many other applicants who have had their licenses issued, Sheriff Smith arbitrarily denied my application.”

Attorney Don Kilmer, representing the plaintiffs in this case, said, “It’s a shame that Sheriff Smith doesn't take the Constitution seriously. This case really isn't about guns, it is about treating citizens fairly and equally while following California Law.”

“Sheriff Smith has to implement a carry license application process that follows California law and treats similarly situated applicants equally,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “It is especially troubling that a Sheriff would operate a license process in ignorance of state law and binding court precedent.”

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.

The Madison Society (www.madison-society.org) promotes and preserves the Constitution of the United states through education and litigation. The Madison Society specifically focuses it's litigation efforts challenging laws, ordinances, regulations, and any other restrictions and infringements on the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms."

A copy of the complaint is available:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.238467/gov.uscourts.cand.238467.1.0.pdf

Mr. Scocca, CGF, Madison, and Don Kilmer would like to thank Preston Guillory for his assistance in developing this case.

This case takes on the blatantly ugly side of May [When Hell Freezes Over Unless You're Rich and/or I Like You] Issue: VIP selective treatment and willful withholding of carry rights purely based on political whim and ego stroking with political power. The "L'etat c'est moi" complex of sheriffs, judges, mayors, etc. is now being officially put on trial with the 14th Amendment's equal protection provisions applied to the 2nd Amendment. It's pretty obvious that denial of carry rights isn't about fear or concerns for public safety--for whatever stupid reason we've entertained that as a plausible argument previously--so now we have a suit that lets the cat out of the bag, bringing to light the obvious truth that it's all about political favoritism and elitism. This suit demands that it stop and that an elected official is personally accountable for it, not able to hide behind a badge or robe.

Naturally we need this to happen everywhere we have carry rights lawsuits in progress as a followup to put "THIS MEANS YOU, JUDGE/SHERIFF/SUPERINTENDENT" on them and to stop any further gaming of the law once we get right to carry officially set in stone.

Al Norris · Mar 25, 2011

I believe I see a green light on this one.

MDFF2008 · Mar 25, 2011

This could have serious implications in one other state in the 9th circuit as well.

Patrick · Mar 30, 2011

Anytime you argue over a subjective, you lose. But maybe that is the intent. It does prove certain points to higher courts about the arbitrary nature of the process. That no matter how much the government claims "People can get them when they need them", the simple truth is that that will never happen under a subjective system.

press1280 · Mar 31, 2011

Patrick said:
Anytime you argue over a subjective, you lose. But maybe that is the intent. It does prove certain points to higher courts about the arbitrary nature of the process. That no matter how much the government claims "People can get them when they need them", the simple truth is that that will never happen under a subjective system.

It more or less exposes the system for what it is-modern day Jim Crow. Not being used against a minority, but now against those not politically connected. I'm pretty sure in every may-issue state or locality, you'll find a CCW permit holder whose good cause statement is no better than any average Joe whose never been attacked or threatened. It'll be fun to have the sheriff try to explain why one gets it, and another with the same GC statement doesn't.
We'll see where this goes. My belief is some of these sheriffs may buckle pretty fast if they have to start explaining their policies.

Minuteman · Mar 31, 2011

Hoping for the best outcome for us.

Patrick · Mar 31, 2011

press1280 said:
It more or less exposes the system for what it is-modern day Jim Crow. Not being used against a minority, but now against those not politically connected. I'm pretty sure in every may-issue state or locality, you'll find a CCW permit holder whose good cause statement is no better than any average Joe whose never been attacked or threatened. It'll be fun to have the sheriff try to explain why one gets it, and another with the same GC statement doesn't.
We'll see where this goes. My belief is some of these sheriffs may buckle pretty fast if they have to start explaining their policies.

They won't have to explain anything. Under a subjective system they can apply any rationale they want, provided it does not break existing EP rules (race, etc.). The one time I can think of this type of challenge working recently was a local who the sheriff declined for "being wierd and making the locals feel funny about his [religious] views". That was a direct EP violation that was overturned by a state court out west. There may be others, but not many.

Let me be clear: if Gene Hoffman and Don Kilmer are running this, I have extreme confidence that whatever they are up to is a good thing and part of a larger strategy. Anyone else and I would be worried. And in this case, I think a loss is actually a win. And so is a win.

Patrick · Mar 31, 2011

A few points:

The case is carefully chosen. The Sheriff's arguments are going to be weak and my guess is that we will see some rather obvious comparisons made in the context of permit issues. These plaintiffs are no dummies.
This suit does not directly challenge the may-issue law as facially invalid. It is playing within the system, assuming that the current system will withstand Appellate and maybe even SCOTUS scrutiny. This suit actually argues that the lead Plaintiff's 'good cause' is greater than that of the general population.
This suit seeks compensatory damages from the County and the Sheriff in her individual capacity - above and beyond attorney's fees - as a result of the EP violation. That means damages also come out of her bank account.
Anyone else and I would be saying that the plaintiffs are chasing windmills. But not these guys.

Hopalong · Mar 31, 2011

Patrick said:
This suit seeks compensatory damages from the County and the Sheriff in her individual capacity - above and beyond attorney's fees - as a result of the EP violation. That means damages also come out of her bank account.

This is the point that really grabbed my eye. This is one step closer towards seeking damages for civil rights violations based on 2A rights. If the defendants end up paying, even a pitiance, it'll be a huge win for us.

yellowfin · Mar 31, 2011

press1280 said:
It more or less exposes the system for what it is-modern day Jim Crow. Not being used against a minority, but now against those not politically connected.

It is against a politically disfavored minority: gun owners (with the exception of politically connected) in California. Same with New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland. Gun owners have replaced ethnic minorities as the conveniently abusable class to score political points by attributing the ills of society and need to maintain social order against. The 60's did two things that made it happen: taking away racial minorities from being legally and politically acceptable to abuse, and making gun owners an accepted substitute target as a means of exerting liberal antipathy against traditional, male Anglo-American caucasian (perceived as such) social role, culture, and values (i.e. using it as a catchall issue for the leftist constituencies including feminism, reverse racism, militant atheism, counterculture/de-Westernization, etc.)

Patrick · Mar 31, 2011

Hopalong said:
This is the point that really grabbed my eye. This is one step closer towards seeking damages for civil rights violations based on 2A rights. If the defendants end up paying, even a pitiance, it'll be a huge win for us.

I over-reached with that line. Technically it is correct, but under the Civil Rights law section 1983 you need to identify the "individual" as well as the position. Officially her costs will be covered by the Sheriff's Office, but it does set a precedent in guns cases for individual responsibility for civil rights violations. If the Sheriff's Office didn't pay, she would be liable. But they will, so she won't.

Eventually I think the tide will turn, and most departments will stop covering those who violate 2A rights, just as they do others. Ask a LEO about civil rights awards and they will probably tell you of the training they get to avoid becoming personally liable. I was never a sworn officer but got the same training for some work I used to do.

I am afraid that in some not-too-distant future a few LEOs who were following the orders of the boss are going to get tossed under a bus and made to pay large legal fees as a result. The only upshot: they will stop listening to their boss.

When 2A becomes a well-worn civil right, things will change. Departments will not cover frequent abuses. People will pay individually. Then large-scale issues will end. It won't happen in this case (just setting the precedent), but I am pretty sure it will happen.

Inigoes · May 31, 2021

An appeals court in California upheld the denial of a sheriff’s department captain’s motion to disqualify the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting him on charges alleging he was a co-conspirator in a scheme in which members of the department issued concealed firearms permits in exchange for donations to a committee supporting the sheriff’s reelection campaign.

https://www.courthousenews.com/firearms-permits/?amp

delaware_export · May 31, 2021

Interesting this is a 2011’case here.

I may be mixing up my Cali counties, but wasn’t it also Santa Clara county that had a new rash of pay 2 play permits in the last 2-3 years. With suits filed against the sheriffs and/or ?his?her? minions.

Campaign money in exchange for permits guarding for people like ?zuckerburg? And other Silicon Valley big wigs?

CGF Sues Santa Clara Sheriff for 14th Amendment Violation of Carry Rights

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

yellowfin

Pro 2A Gastronome

Al Norris

Spud Head

MDFF2008

Ultimate Member

Patrick

MSI Executive Member

press1280

Ultimate Member

Minuteman

Member

Patrick

MSI Executive Member

Patrick

MSI Executive Member

Hopalong

Man of Many Nicknames

yellowfin

Pro 2A Gastronome

Patrick

MSI Executive Member

Inigoes

Head'n for the hills

delaware_export

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page