Minor update 6/26/99: I now have the exact text and date this message went out thanks to mailing list regular Gary Schwede.

(Ed. Notes from Jim March: This is an EMail message I sent to the public mailing list BA-FIREARMS@LISTS.BEST.COM on Oct 11th 1997.  Mr. Gary Schwede archived it and sent me back a copy, and can personally testify as to it's original distribution back then.  "PAK" refers to an attorney by the name of Peter Alan Kasler, "SVNRA" refers to the Silicon Valley NRA member's council. With this I can clearly prove that I was verbally denied the ability to apply for CCW by the Richmond PD and the CC County Sheriff's office sometime in October of '97 or a bit before.  Errr...the language is a bit..."raw" at times, this was an informal message to other local gun rights activists...and I wasn't a happy camper.  Still ain't, for that matter <grin!>.  Because this document may constitute the sole proof I have that I've been fighting illegal CCW policies in Richmond and Contra Costa since prior to '98 I have NOT edited this document except to add three clearly-identified notes plus this intro.)

>From: "jmarch" <jmarch@rgate.ricochet.net>
>Subject: CCW Disasters in Contra Costa, San Mateo
>Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:36:06 -0700
>BestServHost: lists.best.com
>Sender: ba-firearms-errors@lists.best.com
>To: ba-firearms@lists.best.com
>
>This is actually about the screwed-up and illegal policies in two counties.
> I'll start with Contra Costa...this was two separate posts at one point.
>
>Does anybody know of a friendly source in the media?  I've got an oddball
>situation in Contra Costa county wherein the Sheriff has a tendency to
>issue to those "needy" (and that seems to include self-defense against a
>specific threat as in my case) but will NOT issue to Richmond residents.
>Or Pittsburgh, the other large-minority-population town with "inner city"
>type problems.  He *claims* it's because the PD Chiefs there don't want
>permits and he's respecting that...or it could be a sneaky way of doing
>race-based discrimination.  Probably the former...but I'd love the see him
>answer questions regarding racial bias by blocking permit access by city,
>because as nasty as that sounds, it's NOT illegal and per PAK, conspiring
>with the PD Chiefs to deny permits *is* illegal.
(Ed. note: at this time I had NOT yet studied CA's "equal protection" laws, specifically CA Const. Art.1 Sec. 7B.  It is NOW my opinion that "racial redlining" in permit issuance most definately IS illegal on it's face.)
>
>I'd love to see him use an activity he doesn't seem to realize is criminal
>as an answer to a possible racism charge - IN THE MEDIA, no less, it sure
>would make suing the bastard easier, no?  His deputies are being quite open
>on the subject of "no Richmond/Pittsburgh permits 'cause the Chiefs don't
>want it", at least over the phone.
>
>Would it be legal to tape such stated policies as evidence, either in
>person or on the phone?  PAK mentioned that such policies are common as
>hell yet generally secret...but San Leandro PD (my last address) and Contra
>Contra County Sheriff's office are being VERY open about it.  If I didn't
>trust PAK, I'd think these guys were Lilly-white innocent.
(Ed. Note: I now believe PAK was referring at least in part to Salute vs. Pitchess when he judged zero-issue and cross-jurisdictional agreements illegal.  On 11/14/97 I hadn't seen or heard of that case.)
>
>Side note: Richmond and Pittsburgh were two of the old shipping centers
>where one of the few jobs blacks were *allowed* to work flourished -
>longshoremen.  The old shipping areas therefore attracted African-American
>families moving in, and when shipping dried up, their economies collapsed
>and today read like a list of disaster areas: Richmond, East Palo Alto,
>Hunter's Point district of SF, Pittsburgh, West Oakland.  These areas were
>hit first with joblessness and by the late 80's crack finished the process
>of turning these places into the most violent spots in the Bay Area.  In
>every case these places were cause by past white racism in hiring and home
>buying/renting, and we're all still paying the price for Jim Crow.
>
>Now, if you think that's bad, check out San Mateo county:
>
>I just started work in Foster City, and I'm planning on moving out of
>Contra Costa soon, so I decided to check on CCW policies close to work.
>
>Some digging led me to the policies for San Mateo City PD at:
> http://www.ci.sanmateo.ca.us/dept/police/faqs.html#Weapon
(Ed. Note: remarkably, it's unchanged from '97, as far as I can see as of this writing on 6/26/99.  I've set the URL so it's a direct click-link.  Any San Mateo County residents wanna take a legal poke at these fools?  It is, after all, highly unusual for law enforcement to tack on additional requirements to a state-regulated program...one would hope the courts will take a VERY dim view.)
>
>Quoted in it's entirety from their FAQ, it says:
>>>The San Mateo Police Department's policy and guidelines regarding the
>issuance of Concealed Weapons Permits comply with California Penal Code
>Sections 12050 through 12054 governing the issuance of such permits, and
>reflect the policy established within San Mateo County regarding the
>processing of applications.
>
>Who may apply:
>Any citizen residing within the City of San Mateo, over the age of 18
>years, having a valid reason for obtaining a CCW permit may make
>application to the San Mateo Police Department. Only residents of this City
>will be considered.
>
>Fees for service:
>For each new application there is a non-refundable fee charged to process
>the background investigation, fingerprint cards, and other involved
>procedures. This fee is determined by the City of San Mateo to defray the
>personnel cost of processing an application, and is not returned if the
>applicant is denied a CCW permit. An additional state fee is charged to
>issue the permit.
>
>Application process:
>San Mateo County has developed a uniform application form for use
>throughout the various policing jurisdictions within the county. This
>application must be filled out and submitted, along with the fee for
>service. The application must include a written explanation regarding the
>need to carry a concealed weapon.
>
>The application will be reviewed during a personal interview with the
>Services Lieutenant at the time of submittal. Following the interview, an
>appointment for fingerprint submission will be obtained. An additional fee
>will be collected by the technician to pay for the processing of the print
>cards by the State of California, as part of the background investigation.
>This may take 6 to 8 weeks to process.
>
>Upon determination that the issuance of a CCW permit is in order, the
>Police Chief will forward a recommendation to issue the permit to the San
>Mateo Sheriff's Office, along with copies of the application and background
>investigation. The Sheriff's Office will continue the processing of the
>permit for issuance, and impose any clearly stated (if any) restrictions
>and/or condition the Chief has determined regarding the carrying of a
>concealed weapon. Reasonable limitations and restrictions imposed on an
>individual's CCW permit affect the time, place and other restrictions under
>which the permittee may carry a concealed weapon.
>
>For further information, please contact the San Mateo Police Department at
>377-4612.<<
>
>Jim again.  First problem is that they (SM City PD) only issue to residents
>of their own city.  I'm gonna ignore that, since per a bill just signed but
>not yet in force this will be the case anyways.
>
>BUT!  Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the law concerning
>issuance say that the permit shall be issued by EITHER the PD Chief -=OR=-
>the Sheriff?!?!  In this system outlined above -=BOTH=- have to approve
>every single fucking permit!  And this is the standard plan ratified by
>every police agency in San Mateo County, according to a phone conversation
>with SMPD a few minutes ago.  Penal code section 12050 starts out "The
>sheriff of a county -=OR=- the chief or other head of a municipal police
>department..." [emphasis added.]
>
>I'm going to dig through the penal codes listed in the quote and try to
>sort out just how blatantly illegal this mess is.  If it's as bad as I
>think, the only question is how fast do I move to San Mateo and file suit
>or join in one if somebody gets to it first.  The evidence of criminal
>conspiracy and illegal acts is all over their fucking website!
>
>Mr. Kasler, are you listening?  You told the SVNRA that weird shit like
>this exists (illegal cross-jurisdictional agreements) but is damn near
>impossible to prove...but these fools have broadcast it on their own
>website.  Compare this to the Santa Clara County Sheriff's website
>describing the CCW process...while it mentions permits being hard to get,
>it doesn't describe anything PAK says is illegal, such as cross-agreements
>limiting permit access or total denial of all permits.
>
>These are the assholes who'd bust me for carrying without a permit?
>
>Fuck 'em.  They don't wanna obey the law regarding permits, neither should
>I or anyone else and I'd love to show a jury what's really happening.
>
>Or better yet the media, before that's necessary.
>
>Excuse my language...the more I study this, the more seriously pissed-off I
>get.  If anyone wants to know why I feel the need to pack, see my website,
>URL in tagline.
>
>Jim March
>
>-------------------
>For a wild true story of crooked cops, stolen guns, perjury, fraud
>and false criminal charges, see http://www.infinex.com/~jmarch