Another certified letter from Torrance...

[CCWFacts]

If you recall, I sent a letter to Torrance asking for any CCWs issued in 2008. There were none, but I did see the CCW app for David Spears. Apparently his case (http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/cccw/cache/pdffiles/torrance_complaint.pdf) was settled with a confidential settlement. We can never know what was in the settlement but we can look for CCW issuances to see if he did or did not get a CCW out of it.

I sent another letter asking for CCWs from 2009. I guess if Mr. Spears got a CCW as part of a settlement it would show up in 2009.

Today I got back a letter stating that no CCWs have been issued in 2009. I probably should have asked if there have been any applications, but I didn't. I'll do that in my next letter, six months from now.

That doesn't really prove that Mr. Spears didn't get a CCW in his settlement. If the settlement does say that he gets a CCW, it still might not be finished processing. Probably what I should do is do a follow-up request in 6 months. I would have to assume that CCW issuance would be complete within 6 months, or else it's not part of the settlement.

What else could be in the settlement? All kinds of things might be in there:


Covering legal fees; if the defendant (Torrance) "lost" they might have to cover plaintiff's fees; and vice versa, in some cases a defendant could actually go after a plaintiff for fees
Oversight put in place: a court might decide that Torrance needs some extra babysitting of its CCW program
Many other unknown things

[Kid Stanislaus]

On what basis did Spears sue the city?

[ke6guj]

On what basis did Spears sue the city?

did you read the lawsuit?





CCWfacts, have you guys checked to make sure that a CCW wasn't issued through LASO as part of the settlement?

[CCWFacts]

CCWfacts, have you guys checked to make sure that a CCW wasn't issued through LASO as part of the settlement?

I thought about that. No, I didn't check but probably I should. I'm not really sure how that would work; the suit was against Torrance, not the county. But whatever, anything is possible, some of the things that happen in the world of CCW issuance in this state are so bizarre that I wouldn't rule anything out.

I think what I'll do is check on both LASO and Torrance in 6 months. If the settlement happened in early January, it may be too early for a CCW to have been issued, even if it was part of the settlement. Anyway, I would like to get a fresh list of CCWs from LASO so I'll do that around July and see if Mr. Spears is on it.

Btw, I must commend Torrance on its extremely prompt responses to PRARs on this. It looks like they process the PRAR within about a day of receiving it. It comes back certified mail, and they didn't even bill me for it (I guess it would be more expense to process a $3.00 check than it's worth).

This is an interesting situation. Torrance was in outrageous violation of Salute v. Pitchess, so I am curious about if they agreed and gave him a permit. I think it's too early to have a good answer on that though.

[DDT]

Is there any chance that they are withholding information about Mr. Spears CCW permit under the guise of confidentiality of the lawsuit settlement?

Not that it would be legal but they might try something like that.

[Gray Peterson]

Ask if there's a permit still in the process of being issued.

[HowardW56]

Has anyone else seen todays article in the Daily Breeze?

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_12008000
Concealed weapons lawsuit dropped

By Nick Green Staff Writer
Posted: 03/26/2009 10:42:44 PM PDT

A federal civil rights lawsuit that alleged Torrance police unconstitutionally had a blanket policy of denying all concealed weapons permits has been dismissed.
The suit, filed last June by Huntington Beach attorney Terry A. Nelson on behalf of client David W. Spears, was dismissed in January at the request of both parties in the dispute.
Nelson brought the suit after Spears, a revenue investigator for the city of Lynwood who lives in Torrance, was denied a permit in September 2006.
A Police Department letter denying Spears the permit noted "it has been the long-standing practice of our chiefs of police not to issue such permits to citizens."
In the lawsuit, Nelson claimed that statement proved an unconstitutional blanket policy existed of routinely denying permits without even investigating whether an applicant had a legitimate reason to request one.
Nelson said his client needed to carry a gun because during the course of his job he is often accosted by "would-be criminals" who believe he is carrying money. He included a letter in the suit from one of Spears' supervisors supporting his permit request.
However, the Torrance Police Department apparently had investigated Spears' need for a concealed weapon, although Nelson said he was unaware of that until he had filed suit. "Mr. Spears was under the misapprehension that the city did not investigate his need for the permit and simply had a blanket policy of not issuing concealed-carry weapons permits," said Rob Bower of the Costa Mesa-based firm of Rutan & Tucker. "The city does not have the policy and did check with Mr. Spears' employer. "It turns out the direct supervisor we talked to says, `No, he does not need a permit,"' Bower added. "In fact, the city would not allow him to carry a gun for liability (reasons)." Nelson said that because an investigation occurred, his client lacks legal standing to bring the suit. However, Nelson said the letter his client received suggested the department might indeed have a blanket policy of declining to issue concealed weapons permits. nick.green@dailybreeze.com (nick.green@dailybreeze.com)

[CCWFacts]

Is there any chance that they are withholding information about Mr. Spears CCW permit under the guise of confidentiality of the lawsuit settlement?

Not that it would be legal but they might try something like that.

It would be pretty outrageous to do that. Lots of outrageous things go on in the world of CCW here but I would be surprised if that were one of them.

Re: the article: that article makes it sound like the settlement was more of a "the case is dropped". Unless the city is completely lying in their statements there (which is possible of course) it sounds like they did investigate, which means they didn't fall afoul of Salute v. Pitchess.

My feeling now is that Mr. Spears basically lost the lawsuit. However, I'm going to confirm that by doing another PRAR in 6 months. If he doesn't have a CCW by then, then he didn't get one and I would consider it a loss.

By the way, I really cannot imagine a city staff boss saying "it's ok to carry at work". I would think that most cities here have employee regulations that prohibit all weapons. If he's using "I need to carry at work" as his GC, and his work doesn't allow weapons, then it's not going to work. If Torrance PD called up the guy's boss and found out that Mr. Spears isn't allowed to pack, then of course they will deny his app. Anyone would; you can't put on your app, "I want a CCW and I'll use it in violation of my workplace's / school's / etc policies." Anyone who puts on his app that he wants to carry at work in violation of his employer's policies is going to be denied, even in the "shall-issue" locations.

It does sound like they are operating an illegal blanket denial policy, but they may do enough "investigation" to satisfy "reasonable basis" scrutiny. It's really hard to prove that something is illegal when the standard of review is reasonable basis, and that's the situation with CCW in this state, and that's why so few CCW lawsuits are successful.

[GuyW]

If Spears lost, why would he agree to a muzzle order?
.

[CCWFacts]

If Spears lost, why would he agree to a muzzle order?

Probably someone who is an attorney could answer this question much better than I could, but...

My guess would be, Torrance might have said, "if you'll agree to this confidentiality agreement, we'll agree not to pursue you for legal fees."

If the case was truly hopeless (which, if the city's comments are true, it was), then when Mr. Spears realized that, he would know he has nothing more to gain, and would want to protect himself from the city suing for legal fees, and just move on from the issue.

And if all of these are true:


Mr. Spears used his work as his GC, which is what the lawsuit says
His workplace didn't allow guns (which is probably true of 99.9% of workplaces in California, especially government functions)
Torrance called the supervisor and asked, "can Mr. Spears carry a weapon at work?" this is the key - if they did some investigation, any investigation at all, then they can show they are not in violation of Salute v. Pitchess, which was the basis of the lawsuit
His supervisor said, "are you kidding? we don't allow weapons in the workplace, period, it says so in the employee handbook" (which is what I would assume 99.99% of city supervisors would say)
The investigator noted that conversation in Mr. Spears application file


then the suit was, indeed, ill-conceived and hopeless and Mr. Spears would be right to be worried about having to pay the city's attorney's fees.

[N6ATF]

Investigating the need for a permit can also mean persuading the employer, colleagues, friends, family, and neighbors that guns are evil and the value of the applicant's life isn't worth a damn.

Or something to that effect.

The arrogance of the traitors by putting their evil, criminal-supporting policies in writing is not surprising. They know they will NEVER suffer nearly as bad as their disarmed victims will, and the Constitution is printed on their toilet paper.

[CCWFacts]

Investigating the need for a permit can also mean persuading the employer, colleagues, friends, family, and neighbors that guns are evil and the value of the applicant's life isn't worth a damn.

Well, in this case the employer was (IIRC) the city of Los Angeles so I wouldn't think any effort would be needed to persuade them of that.

The "off the rack" employee handbooks that most companies use include "no weapons allowed" policies. You can be sure that the City of LA has a policy like that as well.

[N6ATF]

Even if such an employment policy existed, which it clearly didn't in this case, even specifically contradicted by the employer, the Toilet Paper Department clearly stated their policy: you have the right to shut up and die. They can and will do anything to ensure you are a powerless victim because there aren't massive repercussions for them. They have no responsibility to protect you and they extend that to "you shouldn't have the ability to protect you", too.

[DDT]

Probably someone who is an attorney could answer this question much better than I could, but...

My guess would be, Torrance might have said, "if you'll agree to this confidentiality agreement, we'll agree not to pursue you for legal fees."

If the case was truly hopeless (which, if the city's comments are true, it was), then when Mr. Spears realized that, he would know he has nothing more to gain, and would want to protect himself from the city suing for legal fees, and just move on from the issue.

And if all of these are true:


Mr. Spears used his work as his GC, which is what the lawsuit says
His workplace didn't allow guns (which is probably true of 99.9% of workplaces in California, especially government functions)
Torrance called the supervisor and asked, "can Mr. Spears carry a weapon at work?" this is the key - if they did some investigation, any investigation at all, then they can show they are not in violation of Salute v. Pitchess, which was the basis of the lawsuit
His supervisor said, "are you kidding? we don't allow weapons in the workplace, period, it says so in the employee handbook" (which is what I would assume 99.99% of city supervisors would say)
The investigator noted that conversation in Mr. Spears application file


then the suit was, indeed, ill-conceived and hopeless and Mr. Spears would be right to be worried about having to pay the city's attorney's fees.

The problem is that your assumptions are completely wrong. The facts are very clearly in the complaint, a copy of which was available via link in the OP. Had you read the complaint you would have known that his employer is/was the City of Lynwood, not LA. You would also have known that his employer had no problem with him carrying while working.

Here is the quote for you:
17) Plaintiff discussed with his employer, the City of Lynwood, any objection they might have to him obtaining a Concealed Carry Weapon permit and carrying a concealed weapon while on duty. Plaintiff received consent to do so, as evidenced by a letter dated October 25, 2007, from his department supervisor stating, "I am writing in support of Mr. David Spears' request to carry a concealed weapon when he is off duty as a business license specialist with the City of Lynwood, or when carrying large sums of money as an agent of the City...." [emphasis added], a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.

[GuyW]

Yes, that was troubling me - I remembered the purported facts differently than presented by the latest "news report".

You may be SHOCKED to learn that I don't believe anything that Torrance says...I sure don't believe that they conducted any sort of unbiased "investigation". Damage kontrol forays, yes.
.

[CCWFacts]

The problem is that your assumptions are completely wrong. The facts are very clearly in the complaint, a copy of which was available via link in the OP. Had you read the complaint you would have known that his employer is/was the City of Lynwood, not LA. You would also have known that his employer had no problem with him carrying while working.

Oh I did read the complaint, thoroughly. And I read Salute v. Pitchess and a lot of other relevant cases.

I read it when it first came out so I didn't remember which city. Ok, I was wrong, it's Lynwood not LA.

Whatever, the key question is: was he authorized (by his employer, the City of Lynwood) to carry on the job?

The complaint says "yes, we have it in writing". The news article says, "Torrance called them up and they said 'no'".

They are saying precisely opposite things, and the case turns entirely on the question of who is telling the truth: Torrance or Mr. Spears' complaint. If Torrance did in fact call up Lynwood, and Lynwood said, "no way, employees are not allowed to have weapons on the job", then Mr. Spears' GC is worthless and it was reasonable to deny him. If Mr. Spears actually was authorized by his boss to carry, then Torrance is lying in the article and his GC was reasonable.

The facts are very clearly in the complaint

That's the plaintiff's version of the facts, in 180 degree contradiction to Torrance's view as expressed in the news article.

So, we have a situation of two parties where one of the two parties is lying (actually a third possibility: Torrance is being misquoted in the news article, but anyway). In a situation like that, how does an outsider (me) know what to believe? The answer is, there is no definitive answer without more evidence, but I do have some general knowledge which is relevant:


I realize that issuing authorities are highly prone to lying or deceiving about all kinds of things when they are discussing CCW. Don't know what it is, but it seems like issuing authorities think this is one of those things that "the little people would prefer not to know the truth about it". I realize that.
However... reality check here: 99% of employers have employee handbooks that have "no weapons" policies. Every employee handbook I've ever seen says "no weapons", and the employee handbook template software I've seen also comes with a "no weapons" policy included by default. Workplaces are not gun-friendly, especially in a state like California. My impression is that the city government employee handbooks are even more likely to have "no weapons" policies. It's for good reason; if an employee uses a weapon while at work, the city has a big liability risk from that. Further, city governments in this area are run by extreme liberal types who hate guns and believe that carrying a gun can convert a normal person into a mass murderer.
The fact that the suit was settled indicates that the plaintiff decided not to go on. Could be many different reasons for that, but the most likely is because it was a hopeless case, which fits with #2 above.


So, I don't have enough evidence to know definitively who is telling the truth here, but I did remember when I read the complaint, "seems strange to me that the guy's boss would say it's ok for him to carry on the job."

I will do another PRAR in 6 months to see if Mr. Spears ended up with a permit or not. If he doesn't have one at that point, I'll conclude that he effectively lost the suit. The goal of the suit was to get a permit, and if he's going to get one from the suit it would happen in 6 months, and therefore if he doesn't have one at that time, the suit didn't achieve its goal.

[GuyW]

My money says - if the Plaintiff said he had a City of Lynwood approval letter, he did. Nobody lies about a document that they will have to produce. Torrance, on the other hand, merely made public statements, and their lips were moving...
.

[510dat]

Have you done a PRAR to find out how many applications the city has received in the last 5/10 years? That could be just as damning as a single case. If they receive three or a dozen apps a year, and they haven't issued any in ten years, that would indicate a pattern in violation of the court case that says they must use discretion in issuing.

[N6ATF]

Exactly, it's perjury, false impersonation, and fraud, if he fabricated the City of Lynwood approval letter. They should have arrested him if they were telling the truth. But they didn't, and they won't, because they are arrogant liars who know they will get away with anything and everything it takes to deny people the right to live.

[CCWFacts]

Exactly, it's perjury, false impersonation, and fraud, if he fabricated the City of Lynwood approval letter.

I dunno. Maybe he had a letter from someone at Lynwood who wasn't actually authorized to write such a letter, and then Torrance called someone higher up and that person said, "what? hell no, our handbook explicitly forbids all weapons". That's something that I could see happening and it would fit both the complaint and what Torrance said in the news article.

I can't get past the idea of a SoCal city government having a policy of allowing employees to have weapons. I can well imagine an unauthorized person "going off the reservation" and writing a letter he shouldn't have written, but seriously, no written corporate employee policy I've ever seen has allowed weapons and I would have to think that SoCal city governments are even more liberal and PC.

And they know very well that they have liability for their employees' actions when those actions are not part of the job duties. Just today I saw that California is going to have to pay $8mil for the actions of wild animals on its property (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/28/state/n125049D87.DTL&tsp=1). (Yes that reward will probably be reduced on appeal.) Even if it weren't for the general anti-gun liberal views of most city staffers, the liability concern would be enough of a reason.

That's what I thought when I first read the complaint: I was pretty surprised about getting that authorization from his employer.

That said, I do realize that "no issuance" chiefs / sheriffs lie as a routine thing when discussing anything to do with CCW.

[GuyW]

The b$%^& is, the Plaintiff apparently feels bound by the gag order (for good reason), but Torrance doesn't.

Or maybe the City's version of a gag order is, "don't disclose any truth or facts from the case"?

Funny how that works...
.

[Doheny]

The issue is moot because:

"It turns out the direct supervisor we talked to says, `No, he does not need a permit,"' Bower added. "In fact, the city would not allow him to carry a gun for liability (reasons)."

As I was reading the complaint, the first thing I thought of was the City probably would not let him carry. If they really felt he needed to carry, they likely would have sent him to the Sheriff Office who I believe contacts for police services w/ the city.

[N6ATF]

The b$%^& is, the Plaintiff apparently feels bound by the gag order (for good reason), but Torrance doesn't.

Or maybe the City's version of a gag order is, "don't disclose any truth or facts from the case"?

Funny how that works...

Double standards, hypocrisy, little to no probability of prosecution, arrogance befitting monarchy...

What more can we expect from evil who doesn't believe you have the right to have a chance to live?

As I was reading the complaint, the first thing I thought of was the City probably would not let him carry. If they really felt he needed to carry, they likely would have sent him to the Sheriff Office who I believe contacts for police services w/ the city.

I thought you could only apply for a CCW in the jurisdiction where you live, not where you work? Even if LASO contracts for Lynwood, he lives in Torrance and Torrance has a 100% denial, no-referral-up-to-LASO policy.

[DDT]

My money says - if the Plaintiff said he had a City of Lynwood approval letter, he did. Nobody lies about a document that they will have to produce. Torrance, on the other hand, merely made public statements, and their lips were moving...
.

I doubt that the city would be just jawing too. My guess is that once the suit was filed the city of Torrence started climbing the political ladder until they found somone directly above Mr. Spears to make the statement reported.

Anti-Gun Cop: Hello, I'm from the Torrence P.D.; One of your employees has applied for a CCW and has a letter from Mr. XXX stating that he will be using the weapon while working for the city, do you know anything about this?

Lynwood city employee: Yes, I do know all about it. He's a good guy and has had issues with people confronting him before while carrying cash.

Anti-Gun Cop: Thank you for your help. Can you please give me your bosses name and phone number?

repeat as nesessary....

[N6ATF]

Why wouldn't Torrance be? There is no penalty for them to lie like there is for the applicant! They don't have all day to climb the ladder for every CCW that they have arrogantly admitted they will deny every single time anyway.

All they have to do is lie, save the time, deny yet another person the chance to survive a criminal attack, and never get in trouble. Safe and easy!

[DDT]

[QUOTE=N6ATF;2238385]Why wouldn't Torrance be? There is no penalty for them to lie like there is for the applicant! They don't have all day to climb the ladder for every CCW that they have arrogantly admitted they will deny every single time anyway.
QUOTE]

Because this statement is just as easy to verify as the letter the complainant mentioned in the initial filing.

[N6ATF]

No, it isn't. :nono: Verbal statements are damn near impossible to prove ever having been made without audio recordings, which is why written records are key. They, of course, need neither because they are the ruler and we are the subjects, and we have no punitive recourse against their evil BS.

[Doheny]

I thought you could only apply for a CCW in the jurisdiction where you live, not where you work? Even if LASO contracts for Lynwood, he lives in Torrance and Torrance has a 100% denial, no-referral-up-to-LASO policy.

Yes, but he lives in the Sheriff's jurisdicition, so he could apply to them if he wanted to.

My point was that if the city really felt he needed a permit, they could have supported him in getting one w/ the sheriff dept. Turns out he was just a liar (plus, of course, Torrance doesn't issue.)

[GuyW]

Turns out he was just a liar

What evidence do you have that the Plaintiff was a liar?

.

[N6ATF]

Don't use liar too lightly. What proof is there that he forged his supervisor's letter?

I also don't see anything saying that he tried and failed at getting one with LASO due to his employer putting NO in writing. At this point, all we have is hearsay by TPD's mouthpiece (attorney?) Rob Bower:
It turns out the direct supervisor we talked to says, 'No, he does not need a permit'

Where's the proof that this was exactly what was said? There is none, and needs to be none, because there is no penalty for completely fabricating it.

Spears would have been better off nailing them directly on their own stated policy which doesn't involve investigation AT ALL!,

it has been the long-standing practice of our chiefs of police not to issue such permits to citizens.

rather than opening the door for them to fabricate an investigation they would never conduct in the first place, when there is no penalty for doing so.

At this point, he has burned the bridge with TPD. They will claim they were told NO even if he gets notarized letters from the Mayor of Lynwood on down the ranks saying CCW OK, there is not a single prohibition on non-sworn employees carrying guns concealed or otherwise in any government paper whatsoever. These will be useful when escalating to LASO.

[CCWFacts]

I doubt that the city would be just jawing too. My guess is that once the suit was filed the city of Torrence started climbing the political ladder until they found somone directly above Mr. Spears to make the statement reported.

I think your guess is basically right, but here's my version of your guess:


As soon as he did his appeal of the denial, somehow Torrance figured out he was planning a lawsuit. Somehow Mr. Spears' side telegraphed it, or somehow Torrance just knew it, or they got alerted about the fact that CCW suits are starting to happen now. In fact, if someone was doing PRARs before Mr. Spears' application, and that someone is well-known or draws attention to himself, it would have very clearly telegraphed this whole thing, and so Torrance would have started thinking, "wait, before we send our second and final denial letter, we better make sure we're not leaving ourselves vulnerable."
Anyone who has even the most minimal knowledge of CCW case law knows about Salute v. Pitchess. I assume that basically all chiefs here have to have some awareness of it.
They looked at whatever letter Mr. Spears had, realized that that couldn't possibly be an accurate statement of Lynwood's employee policies, and called Mr. Spears' manager (guessing one level above the supervisor who wrote the letter) and the manager said, "Are you high? Of course he can't, weapons are not allowed in the workplace here." I doubt they would need to go very far up the hierarchy to find someone to say that. I have a feeling that whatever letter Mr. Spears had was written by someone who wasn't in a position to write that kind of thing.
Torrance noted that in his application file, and sent the denial, and they had enough to cover themselves against Salute.


That would fit with both the statements in the complaint, and Torrance's public statements, and the outcome of Mr. Spears losing. It would also fit with the whole approach being bungled from the beginning, by picking a GC that was not viable (you can't use your work as GC if you aren't allowed to carry at work, and I'm sure SoCal city governments don't allow weapons), and then by telegraphing the whole thing. If it was that bungled, I can see why Mr. Spears would sign an agreement to protect himself from being sued for legal fees.

Postulating that the above is correct, what would have helped would be some plaintiff from an employer that actually did have a "weapons are ok if you have a CCW" policy. Someone like an independent taxi driver might be perfect.

But now it's too late to try to "catch" Torrance operating a blanket denial policy, because they're going to make sure they evaluate every application to enough extent that they can protect themselves (before denying it of course).

[SirGlockALott]

Good Luck.

[CCWFacts]

There's one way to get to the bottom of all this. I'm sending one more PRAR on Monday.