Because I had not heard back, I wrote the entire Board. Responses from two (and unverified information I have says three are for a total ban) confirm my worst fears:
From one director:
This year (as part of the contention on the Ranch) one of the members had a 'concealed' automatic weapon (which he did not have a permit to carry). This disturbed some of our employees and they reported it to Management. This member was very vocal and noted that he has always carried a gun on the trail rides. Furthermore, it was his right and privilege to carry his weapon(s) at all times, anywhere on the Ranch and his interpretation of the law is that anyone over 18 has that right as well. You can imagine the can of worms that this opened. We've had people suggest that anyone over 18 should be able to wear holstered guns around the ranch. Heaven forbid!
[I've learned he was wearing a semiauto tucked into his belt because he didn't have his holster with him--the sheriff's deputy told him that was considered legally concealed but declined to make an arrest.]
From the president:
The mission as it started out was to prevent the open and unrestrained carrying of weapons on the ranch especially where children or others are frequently present. I do not believe it will benefit any of us at this point, to jump to any premature conclusions. The main point is everyone that comes to the ranch needs to be secure that they are safe and that no set of people can either intentionally or by accident compromise the safety of others.
Well, it's not my mission. And talk about intentionally compromising the safety of others...
Here's the ownership setup at R-Ranch. It's similar to joint ownership of common areas in a condominium:
This is not a time share. At R-Ranch no one person or family owns an individual lot. By subdividing ownership rather than land, owners enjoy the entire ranch whenever they wish and as often as they wish, without the constraints of timesharing. There are 2,500 shares, with undivided interest, buyers receive a grant deed at close of escrow.
The Ranch is surrounded by millions of acres of Sequoia National Forest, where open carry is legal--basically, the restrictions are you can't discharge a firearm "within 150 yards of a campground, trail, road, recreation area or across a body of water.}
Exempt from CA edicts against carrying loaded weapons in a public place are persons "carrying a firearm while at home or at his place of business, including temporary residences and campsites."
The bottom line: If the Board can enact a ban against carrying on Ranch property--complete with legal penalties, i.e., calling in the law to arrest violaters and/or via legally enforceable fines/property use restrictions, they are in effect implementing gun control backed by the force of law.
If they get away with it, every homeowner's association in the state of California will have a blueprint for enacting Wilmette-style gun bans and ignoring California's state preemption of firearms laws.
3 comments:
It's time for you to gather like-minded individuals, pool resources and hire the meanest junk yard dog lawyer you can find that is good at what he does. Have him iform the board that they will be sued in civil court for conspiracy to deny civil rights and the DA will be lobbied to file criminal charges of usurpation of legislative authority or whatever they call it in Ca. Have him tell them that they personally, jointly and severally are being sued, not the Board. You have no intention of suing yourself, ergo, they must stand as individuals to face charges of conspiracy at the very least in civil court and though unlikey due to the venue, perhaps criminal charges. Make sure you get an attorney that has a reporter or two in his pocket and make them aware of his proclivity for using them.
When they face financial and public strain they may decide that they would rather obey the law than to break it. Show them you are serious, if they don't pay your legal fees, even if they drop their planned action sue them for recovery since their conspiracy caused the need for him.
I know you are probably thinking "Sheesh, who wants to escalate this thing like that?" Well, trust me, when someone has determined to rob you (that's what this is, robber of your legal and natural rights on your own property) you will not reason them out of it. They have already decided your rights are inferior to their desires. Hence, the necessity of making them understand that the price will be steep for the attempt to bring it to fruition. And much steeper should they succeed. They will be spending their kids' college money to defend themselves in court. That's a whole lot different than spending the money of the group.
Do not sue them as the association, you are the association. They are individuals conspiring to subjugate you to satisfy their personal desires in direct conflict with the law.
Just my two cents, my other reaction is not legal, though it should be. Even in Ca. you are allowed to put down a thief in your home. Don't see why this is different, even though I acknowledgs that most erroneously think it so.
I left out an "n" and a "y", in the previous post. Please install the above examples in the appropriate places. thank you. :)
I'm looking into what my options are. I don't want to reveal my hand until I'm sure of what I've got, and the best way to play it.
Post a Comment