PDA

View Full Version : Torrance. Urgent Request.


Glock22Fan
07-30-2008, 5:21 PM
Further to my last post, it appears that there may have been major misconduct within Torrance PD with regard to our current case.

It is very important that we talk with anyone who has had any contact with Torrance regarding CCW applications. Not just people who had the denial letter, anyone at all.

Please pass the word around. Ask anyone you know who might not read this board, but please get anyone relevant to contact Billy Jack at clueseau@dslextreme.com.

CCWFacts
07-30-2008, 6:37 PM
Further to my last post, it appears that there may have been major misconduct within Torrance PD with regard to our current case.

Let me take a totally wild guess here: despite their claims of "we don't issue" and their claims of having no permits outstanding, they did in fact issue some permits which they pretended didn't exist?

Our whole system, where permits are issued on paper that has no serial number (after printing, there is no way to track control of the papers), lends itself to off-the-books permits. I've long suspected that there are genuine permits in this state which are not recorded in the chief's files. There's no way to do an audit of how many permits a chief has issued, creating a situation that almost guarantees there will be terrible misconduct.

I don't know any of the facts of this case beyond what I read in the complaint, so I'm purely speculating here.

Python2
07-30-2008, 9:24 PM
Our whole system, where permits are issued on paper that has no serial number (after printing, there is no way to track control of the papers), lends itself to off-the-books permits. I've long suspected that there are genuine permits in this state which are not recorded in the chief's files. There's no way to do an audit of how many permits a chief has issued, creating a situation that almost guarantees there will be terrible misconduct.

.

Have you actually seen what is on this rice paper you are talking about? If not, then let me tell you, there is an ORI number that starts with CA and seven digit number. There is also CII eight digit number and Agency number. Surely those number means something I would think.

CCWFacts
07-30-2008, 9:38 PM
Have you actually seen what is on this rice paper you are talking about? If not, then let me tell you, there is an ORI number that starts with CA and seven digit number. There is also CII eight digit number and Agency number. Surely those number means something I would think.

My understanding is that the paper isn't serialized as it comes from the printer. Sheriff / chief calls up and says, "send me some forms", and a bunch of non-serialized papers show up. Is that correct? What is the ORI number and the CII number?

Here's an image of a California CCW (http://la.metblogs.com/archives/images/2007/02/california_ccw.gif).

The way it should work is every blank CCW should be serialized at the print shop, and then its custody can be traced from the printer, to the DoJ, to the issuing authority. If the papers are non-serialized when they show up to the sheriff / chief (even if they are labeled with something that identifies which department they were sent to) that's where the risk is. If the paper is not serialized at the printer, there is a risk of "not in our files" CCWs.

Edit: CII = Criminal Investigation and Identification Number. This would be linked to the individual who has the CCW. It's not a serialization of the paper, and so doesn't do anything to prevent "not in our files" CCWs from floating around. The ORI number is the number for the originating agency on the fingerprint check. It's basically a number that identifies the issuing agency, like a code for "Torrance PD" or whatever. Again, does nothing to prevent "not in our files" CCWs from being issued. If the rice paper isn't serialized at the printer, there's no clear way to audit and detect off-the-books CCWs. One way would be to audit the number of CII (DoJ BG checks) done and compare that with the number of CCWs, but that's imprecise at best.

So, CII links to the person. ORI identifies the agency. Nothing serializes the paper, the permit itself.

To make a comparison: there's some company that prints blank passports, and all these blank passports are serialized as they are printed. These blanks get delivered to the State Department or whatever, where they are filled in with the name, picture, etc as the passport is issued. By having them serialized at the printer it's easy to track them to make sure no "off the books" passports are floating around, because one entity creates the serial numbers and another entity issues the passports.

injun
07-30-2008, 10:28 PM
All I can tell you is that they are dirrrrrty!!!

CCWFacts
07-31-2008, 12:00 AM
To better explain what I'm getting at and why serialization is so important:

I'm concerned about "not in our books" CCWs floating around. For example, let's say Torrance PD says, "we have no outstanding permits", or some other PD says, "we have 25 outstanding permits". How can anyone prove that such claims are true? How can that be audited?

If the permit blanks were serialized, it would be easy. The DoJ would look in its files and say, "we shipped you permit blanks # 4450, # 4451, # 4452, # 4453, # 4454, # 4455, and # 4456. Tell us what is the status of those blanks?" Then the PD would say, "# 4450 is issued to Mr. R. # 4451 is issued to Ms. K. # 4452 - # 4456 are still in our safe; come over and look at them if you would like to." This is exactly how the BATF handles FFL audits: "We know you received firearms with these serial numbers. Tell us the disposition of them. You either have them in your custody, or else you can tell us who you transfered them to."

But without serial numbers on the permits, it's impossible, just like it would be impossible to do a real audit on an FFL if the guns are non-serialized and non-unique. At most the DoJ would be able to say, "we shipped you a pad of blanks. What happened to them?" "Um, well, we used some of them and we still have some of them". That not an audit. The current system is non-auditable and a chief certainly has the possibility of issuing permits that are valid, but are not documented in his files. I speculate that this type of thing happens to some degree in California. When you have a system that is built to be non-auditable, you get all the problems that arise in a system which is non-auditable.

Python2
07-31-2008, 7:55 AM
OK, I see your point. Verry good point I must say. What about the other 40 shall issue state, are their CCW serialized do you know? At least theirs are not rice paper LOL.

Glock22Fan
07-31-2008, 7:59 AM
Finding that there are permits out there issued by TPD "off the books" would be nice indeed and we would like to hear of any.

However, we'd like to talk with anyone with any contact whatsoever with TPD regarding CCW's over the last two years.

Maybe there isn't anyone, but still hopeful.

Glock22Fan
07-31-2008, 8:00 AM
"we shipped you a pad of blanks. What happened to them?" "Um, well, we used some of them and we still have some of them".

"Oh yes, and we spilled coffee on some of them and had to shred them."

glockman19
07-31-2008, 8:12 AM
Sounds like an easy doucment to forge. If questioned, the burden would fall to the departmetn to prove it was issued.

For those who have been pulled over...did the LEO call in to verify your CCW or just look at it and hand it back? IMHO, they most likely call in the gun to see it is registered to you, NOT to verify the permit.

tiki
07-31-2008, 8:17 AM
The way it should work is every blank CCW should be serialized at the print shop, and then its custody can be traced from the printer, to the DoJ, to the issuing authority. If the papers are non-serialized when they show up to the sheriff / chief (even if they are labeled with something that identifies which department they were sent to) that's where the risk is. If the paper is not serialized at the printer, there is a risk of "not in our files" CCWs.


Exactly. It should be done like the Handgun Safety Certificates. Serialized at the time of printing, shipped to DOJ. PD requests 10 forms from DOJ, DOJ records serial numbers and ships to PD. Easy to do an audit.

OK, I see your point. Verry good point I must say. What about the other 40 shall issue state, are their CCW serialized do you know? At least theirs are not rice paper LOL.

Florida's permit is not issued by the PD, but by the Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services. It's a state agency with uniform rules for everyone. The problem in California is that the rules change based on where you live and who you know. You essentially have hundreds of agencies that can issue them to pretty much whoever they want to issue them to. All it takes is someone filling out the form for a buddy and handing it over the dinner table.

If I want to issue someone a HSC here in Kali, I have to buy 10 at a time from the DOJ and I have to account for every one of them.

CCWFacts
07-31-2008, 9:52 AM
OK, I see your point. Verry good point I must say. What about the other 40 shall issue state, are their CCW serialized do you know? At least theirs are not rice paper LOL.

I don't know all the details on the other states, but my impression is they are like ID cards. I know that my FL and UT CCWs are like DLs.

DLs are different from passports. I don't think DL blanks are serialized. I think instead they have a tamper-resistant printer / computer setup that can only print what is in the database. With a setup like that, the blanks themselves have no value, because they're just blank plastic, so they don't need to be serialized. But I'm making assumptions on that.

The big point here is, with our current non-serialized rice-paper system, there's no way to audit what chiefs are doing with it, and I would not be surprised if there is some terrible misconduct going on somewhere.

hill billy
07-31-2008, 10:01 AM
All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Expecting things like logic and sound tracking principles to govern something a government agency. I mean, really.:rolleyes:




































:cool2::cool2:

geeknow
07-31-2008, 10:06 AM
I thought TBJ was done with calguns:rolleyes:

CCWFacts
07-31-2008, 10:08 AM
"Oh yes, and we spilled coffee on some of them and had to shred them."

Yeah exactly.

And anyway, if they are not serialized, you can assume that there is sloppy handling of them at every step of the chain. When items are non-serialized and not made of gold, people don't track them very much (oh and btw, even gold bars are serialized, also for auditing reasons). Does the DoJ even keep records of how many blanks it sent out to whom and when? Could the DoJ even answer the question, "how many blanks did you send to Torrance PD in the past 5 years"? Maybe they can but maybe they can't. And note, the ORI number (agency identifier) is not printed on them by the DoJ. They arrive blank. So let's say Torrance really never received any. They could still "borrow" some from their friends at some other PD and issue valid Torrance CCWs on them, and never have them in their books, and no one would be able to audit what happened.

This non-serialized rice-paper situation is a real shame on this state. If carrying a gun is such an awesome privilege and risk and all that, surely they would want to track the circulation of their blanks?

And for the print shop, it's easy to do. They have serializing stampers that they can use in the printing process to do this automatically. It's done routinely. It's a no-brainer to do it in a case like this.

Why do we have serialized HSC cards, cards which no one would even cares about, but the rice paper is conspicuously non-serialized? Is it because someone at the DoJ and the various issuing authorities really doesn't want it to be possible to ever do a top-down audit of this system?

hill billy
07-31-2008, 10:08 AM
I thought TBJ was done with calguns:rolleyes:
Thanks for that insight. I looked and didn't see anywhere where it said TBJ was done, I think BJ made his own statement that he was done. How bout, help if you can and if not keep the disparaging remarks to yourself?

tgriffin
07-31-2008, 10:15 AM
I thought TBJ was done with calguns:rolleyes:

Oh he is FAR from done with Calguns. ;) Some big things in the works. :D He is way more than he seems. :cool2:

geeknow
07-31-2008, 10:27 AM
Oh he is FAR from done with Calguns. ;) Some big things in the works. :D He is way more than he seems. :cool2:

elaborate please.

CCWFacts
07-31-2008, 10:51 AM
All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Expecting things like logic and sound tracking principles to govern something a government agency. I mean, really.:rolleyes:

Hill billy,

Unfortunately, my whole point here is, someone in the DoJ is being logical and made this decision based on logic. Someone wanted and audit-proof system and that's what they got.

It's an absolute no-brainer to serialize paper like that. It's done for all kinds of documents which are far less important than CCWs. It's been done for over 100 years with everything from birth certificates to stock certificates to ID cards, permits, licenses. But, somehow, CCWs don't have it?

hill billy
07-31-2008, 10:53 AM
Hill billy,

Unfortunately, my whole point here is, someone in the DoJ is being logical and made this decision based on logic. Someone wanted and audit-proof system and that's what they got.

It's an absolute no-brainer to serialize paper like that. It's done for all kinds of documents which are far less important than CCWs. It's been done for over 100 years with everything from birth certificates to stock certificates to ID cards, permits, licenses. But, somehow, CCWs don't have it?
I knew what you meant, it's pretty amazing the difference between a Ca ccw and say, a Utah one.
It's like they've planned to fail all along.

Glock22Fan
07-31-2008, 11:33 AM
elaborate please.

One member of TBJ, admittedly a key member(:)) is no longer posting. However, TBJ's presence is still here on this board, particularly with me (who you may regard as a primary contact point).

We are still interested in working towards fairness and legality of CCW issue, demanding that chiefs and sheriffs who abuse their discretion stop so doing.

We have, as many know, two existing lawsuits. We have a number of others in the early stages. Some of these should result in lawsuits, some of them won't (we reject a large number of people who want us to work with them because we cannot accept the possibilility of failure at this point). Some of the areas that are likely to get targetted include a city in, and possibly the county of, San Diego, San Jose and two more Los Angeles cities, including the biggie.

We are averaging three to four serious enquiries a day at present. Plus, of course, several other queries of great, or lesser, import, many of which can be answered by simply sending a link to our FAQ page (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html).