PDA

View Full Version : CCW MOU's between Chiefs and Sheriffs


nicki
10-27-2010, 2:38 PM
Your thoughts guys.

Right now many Chiefs have gone "G", in other words they have delegated their authority to issue CCW permits to the Sheriffs.

Now from an administrative point of view, this may make sense, it keeps things simple in that the chief doesn't have to deal with CCW permits.

In my mind though, when you delegate something to someone, they are acting in your behave, and if they screw up, it is the same as if you screwed up.

Since the police chiefs know that many of the sheriffs won't issue CCW permits, but signing MOU's with sheriffs who they know willfully discriminate in the issuance of CCW permits, I question if going "G" gives them a free pass.

This might open the door sooner for many in the counties that are going to fight "shall issue" tooth and nail.

Many cities that are strapped for cash just might settle rather than fight, particularly if their city council tells them that they will lose.

Thanks to Ed Peruta's case, we can also give city councils copies of the "High Quality" legal work you can expect from the LCAV and the Brady Bunch.

BTW, did the Brady Bunch forget to file a brief in the "Yolo Case" or did they figure they couldn't risk another lose to Alan Gura?

The city unions are not going to give the cities a pass to fund lawsuits against us while at the same time the city is pushing pay and benefit cuts on them.

In fact, the unions would probably be put pressure on the city to accept permits because they represent additional city revenue that people want to pay.

Take Santa Clara county, one of the hard cases.

Here is a county with a large Calguns presence and Don Kilmer happens to live there. Jason Davis isn't too far away either.

The cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and possibly Milpitas may quickly roll over. All 3 of those cities have money issues and the political climate in those cities isn't as hostile to our rights as other parts of the county.

Los Gatos, Campbell, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Sunnyvalle and San Jose all have their own police departments.

The smaller the city, the easier they are to target.

There probably is a similar situation in southern Ca with Los Angeles county.

Nicki

dantodd
10-27-2010, 2:44 PM
signing a (g) letter abdicates the responsibility and right to issue CCWs. The chief will not be held liable in any way for the actions of the sheriff.

How many cities have signed (g) agreements? I wasn't aware there were very many who completely abdicated.

bulgron
10-27-2010, 3:13 PM
As far as I know, no city in Santa Clara county has signed "g". This means we have an additional vector of attack because, as Nicki notes, many cities don't have the budget to fight a losing CCW battle.

I've been thinking about this for a long time.

But what I need before I can go have a friendly chat with the good folks in my city government is a clear win in at least one of the CCW cases that are currently on-going. Without that, they can (and will) shrug me off. With that, they will have to at least take me seriously.

wildhawker
10-27-2010, 3:40 PM
I fully expect that most cities, save for large examples such as Los Angeles, to either formally or (more commonly) informally make arrangements for their respective Sheriff to handle CCWs in the not-too-distant future (within 12 months from a Richards/Peruta win).

Also, the utility of attacking a target which is not compelled to administer a program is fleeting at best. Remain focused on the Sheriffs.

-Brandon

As far as I know, no city in Santa Clara county has signed "g". This means we have an additional vector of attack because, as Nicki notes, many cities don't have the budget to fight a losing CCW battle.

I've been thinking about this for a long time.

But what I need before I can go have a friendly chat with the good folks in my city government is a clear win in at least one of the CCW cases that are currently on-going. Without that, they can (and will) shrug me off. With that, they will have to at least take me seriously.

OleCuss
10-27-2010, 3:42 PM
I'd rather they all deferred to the sheriff. That would mean that we have only 58 governmental entities to fix instead of hundreds of police departments.

wildhawker
10-27-2010, 3:48 PM
I'd rather they all deferred to the sheriff. That would mean that we have only 58 governmental entities to fix instead of hundreds of police departments.

And I want the 58 Sheriffs to defer to the State, because they cannot afford the headaches and cost of mismanaging their CCW program, so we only have 1 agency to sue, er...

Remember, I said "multi-faceted"... :43:

safewaysecurity
10-27-2010, 3:53 PM
Why doesn't someone lobby the legislature to push for the DOJ to handle CCWs to make this all easier. I'm sure th legislature would love the power.

nicki
10-27-2010, 3:56 PM
Signing "G" when you know that the sheriff will violate every residents rights and then willfully going along with it after you have been notified may open chiefs up to Federal lawsuits.

Going "G" is a willful act. If a police chief knows that a sheriff will be violating a person's fundamental rights and goes "G" or they continue to stay "G", they are no different then the old southern sheriffs who willfully looked the other way while the KKK terrorized Blacks in the deep south.

Not a lawyer, just think that the so called "G" may have holes in it.

One could argue that "G" was done so that way it could streamline permit applications.

All I know is that if I was a police chief, I wouldn't want to be on a stand under oath explaining how I went "G" even though I knew the sheriff routinely discriminated against all applicants except those who were members of certain clubs or made donations to specific groups or candidates.

A police chief will do whatever it takes to save his own skin, he is a politician first.

Many cities haven't gone "G", otherwise city council members would be at the mercy of the sheriffs for ccw permits.

choprzrul
10-27-2010, 4:01 PM
I fully expect that most cities, save for large examples such as Los Angeles, to either formally or (more commonly) informally make arrangements for their respective Sheriff to handle CCWs in the not-too-distant future (within 12 months from a Richards/Peruta win).

Also, the utility of attacking a target which is not compelled to administer a program is fleeting at best. Remain focused on the Sheriffs.

-Brandon

Fleeting target is correct I do believe.

At this point, would a FOIA request received by a chief be looked at as a precursor to a legal action I wonder? Or even a request followed in a few days by a CCW app? Given Peruta, I also wonder if that would be enough to push a chief into a rapid and formal 'G' with the county?

If the chief readily gives up the CCW info, and denies your app, and your GC closely matches one that has previously been approved, would you have a strong equal protection argument? I have been very tempted to do a FOIA request from my local chief based on an informal conversation I had with him in his office. He has CCWs out there but more/less indicated that he couldn't see any reason why he would ever issue any new ones. He doesn't even allow his reserve officers to CCW.

Just curious, and I know, make a samich, take a nap, and give it 2 weeks...

.

Gray Peterson
10-27-2010, 4:01 PM
Why doesn't someone lobby the legislature to push for the DOJ to handle CCWs to make this all easier. I'm sure th legislature would love the power.

Not until it's shall-issue. We don't need a repeat of what's happening in Maryland.....

Bill_in_SD
10-27-2010, 4:08 PM
My issues with the PD v County Sheriff

- PDs that issue to 'friends' but then push citizens not in the 'circle of trust' to apply at the Sheriff (easy to prove with PRARs)
- MOU in place, but still issuing (prob rare)
- all the little organizations like Port districts, Transit Authorities, Railroad PDs, etc that issue with no regular joe really being able to apply

A state permit should be managed by the STATE so I second the 'run by the DoJ' statement, but would love to see run by DMV to be incorporated with DL/Cal ID.

Money is better spent on the big fish though since you can still always go to the County.

IGOTDIRT4U
10-27-2010, 4:09 PM
Not until it's shall-issue. We don't need a repeat of what's happening in Maryland.....

Exactly. Although I don't foresee the DOj taking on statewide handling of CCW's absent a change in the law to "shall issue", if they were to do such a thing, let's say for purely economic reasons even, it could lead to even greater abuses, and since the current state of the law does not specifically empower the DOJ to handle these issues, abuses would easily be rampant.

nicki
10-27-2010, 4:09 PM
California's CCW permits are less restrictive than many shall issue states, the problem is getting past sheriffs

Our legislature would screw us if they ran a ccw bill.

As aggravating as it is,when we go up the Fed court system we will get more and more counties. If our opponents are dumb enough, they will wind up in front of the SCOTUS.

Of course New York could beat them and get spanked first.

Gray Peterson
10-27-2010, 4:15 PM
Signing "G" when you know that the sheriff will violate every residents rights and then willfully going along with it after you have been notified may open chiefs up to Federal lawsuits.

Going "G" is a willful act. If a police chief knows that a sheriff will be violating a person's fundamental rights and goes "G" or they continue to stay "G", they are no different then the old southern sheriffs who willfully looked the other way while the KKK terrorized Blacks in the deep south.

Not a lawyer, just think that the so called "G" may have holes in it.

One could argue that "G" was done so that way it could streamline permit applications.

All I know is that if I was a police chief, I wouldn't want to be on a stand under oath explaining how I went "G" even though I knew the sheriff routinely discriminated against all applicants except those who were members of certain clubs or made donations to specific groups or candidates.

A police chief will do whatever it takes to save his own skin, he is a politician first.

Many cities haven't gone "G", otherwise city council members would be at the mercy of the sheriffs for ccw permits.

I fundamentally disagree with you. Regardless of the intentions behind it, the chief signing a G memorandum will not result in liability for his department, period. Suing a chief for signing a G memorandum would be DOA in the federal court system. The only sure fire guaranteed way to sue a chief in court is for the chief to deny, not a third party like the sheriff....

Gray Peterson
10-27-2010, 4:18 PM
- PDs that issue to 'friends' but then push citizens not in the 'circle of trust' to apply at the Sheriff (easy to prove with PRARs)

Common

- MOU in place, but still issuing (prob rare)

Illegal.

- all the little organizations like Port districts, Transit Authorities, Railroad PDs, etc that issue with no regular joe really being able to apply

These are not police departments for the purpose of PC12050. It must be incorporated cities, not police protection districts or transit PD's.

wildhawker
10-27-2010, 4:19 PM
To be clear, I don't want CCWs run by DOJ. That's all I can say on this topic.

If you have examples of non-PD or Sheriff agencies issuing CCWs *please email me*.

As part of our Initiative, we're sniffing out the real "g" agreements as a tactical application of pressure. However, PDs are *not* the target - we need to make carry licenses accessible to all - then PDs will be irrelevant.

-Brandon


My issues with the PD v County Sheriff

- PDs that issue to 'friends' but then push citizens not in the 'circle of trust' to apply at the Sheriff (easy to prove with PRARs)
- MOU in place, but still issuing (prob rare)
- all the little organizations like Port districts, Transit Authorities, Railroad PDs, etc that issue with no regular joe really being able to apply

A state permit should be managed by the STATE so I second the 'run by the DoJ' statement, but would love to see run by DMV to be incorporated with DL/Cal ID.

Money is better spent on the big fish though since you can still always go to the County.

bulgron
10-27-2010, 4:34 PM
I fully expect that most cities, save for large examples such as Los Angeles, to either formally or (more commonly) informally make arrangements for their respective Sheriff to handle CCWs in the not-too-distant future (within 12 months from a Richards/Peruta win).

Also, the utility of attacking a target which is not compelled to administer a program is fleeting at best. Remain focused on the Sheriffs.

-Brandon

"attacking"? That's the wrong word for what I have in mind.

If my local city is willing to be reasonable about things, then why not work with them? That way, I don't have to deal with the rush at the sheriff's office (as well as any bad attitude that might be going on there), and the city gets to build some kind of a relationship with the people who want CCWs.

Of course, if the city has the same bad attitude as the sheriff, then there's no point in pushing the subject. But at the least, I intend to go talk to them about CCWs when the time is right. Right now, political pressures in the bay area will almost certainly cause them to shrug me off. But once the courts give them some cover, maybe they'll want to play ball.

Time will tell.

Gray Peterson
10-27-2010, 4:35 PM
"attacking"? That's the wrong word for what I have in mind.

If my local city is willing to be reasonable about things, then why not work with them? That way, I don't have to deal with the rush at the sheriff's office (as well as any bad attitude that might be going on there), and the city gets to build some kind of a relationship with the people who want CCWs.

Of course, if the city has the same bad attitude as the sheriff, then there's no point in pushing the subject. But at the least, I intend to go talk to them about CCWs when the time is right. Right now, political pressures in the bay area will almost certainly cause them to shrug me off. But once the courts give them some cover, maybe they'll want to play ball.

Time will tell.

Perhaps, if the City PD follows state law and they issue for self defense, it won't get our attention.

Fjold
10-27-2010, 4:38 PM
Signing "G" when you know that the sheriff will violate every residents rights and then willfully going along with it after you have been notified may open chiefs up to Federal lawsuits.

Going "G" is a willful act. If a police chief knows that a sheriff will be violating a person's fundamental rights and goes "G" or they continue to stay "G", they are no different then the old southern sheriffs who willfully looked the other way while the KKK terrorized Blacks in the deep south.

Not a lawyer, just think that the so called "G" may have holes in it.

One could argue that "G" was done so that way it could streamline permit applications.

All I know is that if I was a police chief, I wouldn't want to be on a stand under oath explaining how I went "G" even though I knew the sheriff routinely discriminated against all applicants except those who were members of certain clubs or made donations to specific groups or candidates.

A police chief will do whatever it takes to save his own skin, he is a politician first.

Many cities haven't gone "G", otherwise city council members would be at the mercy of the sheriffs for ccw permits.

A police chief is not a politician. They are not elected, they are hired police officers

bulgron
10-27-2010, 4:47 PM
Perhaps, if the City PD follows state law and they issue for self defense, it won't get our attention.

Given my situation, the only way anyone is going to issue me a CCW is purely for "The core lawful purpose of self defense." I really have no threats in my life, so that's the only way it's going to go down.

Certainly I wouldn't accept a CCW from anyone unless the GC was pure self defense.

We need as many agencies issuing as possible. This not only reduces wait time on CCWs, but it also helps to normalize the issue with local PD. If people only ever deal with the SO on the subject, then PDs might look at that little piece of rice paper kind of funny when they run into it on a traffic stop.

I'd rather make friends with my local PD on this subject, if possible. After all, they're the ones I'm most likely to have some kind of contact with in the normal course of my day.

dantodd
10-27-2010, 4:51 PM
Signing "G" when you know that the sheriff will violate every residents rights and then willfully going along with it after you have been notified may open chiefs up to Federal lawsuits.


I don't think this is accurate.

Bill_in_SD
10-27-2010, 5:05 PM
"- all the little organizations like Port districts, Transit Authorities, Railroad PDs, etc that issue with no regular joe really being able to apply "

My apologies, I was confused with the San Gabriel Transit Authority - they actually called their special people 'Officers' until they got busted. (Wrecked a Ferrari Enzo that clown)

*If* any of the above issued then that would be really illegal.

curtisfong
10-27-2010, 5:33 PM
There probably is a similar situation in southern Ca with Los Angeles county.


SoCal is nothing like that. LA county is LA city. Period. The smattering of incorporated cities within LA county that aren't LA city is almost irrelevant...

USAFTS
10-27-2010, 7:48 PM
I live in the city but spend most of my time at work in the county. I went through the process and was denied by my sheriff BECAUSE I did not live in the county. He sent me to my police department which is known NOT to issue. Shall issue is the only answer.

wildhawker
10-27-2010, 8:11 PM
I live in the city but spend most of my time at work in the county. I went through the process and was denied by my sheriff BECAUSE I did not live in the county. He sent me to my police department which is known NOT to issue. Shall issue is the only answer.

You should post that info in the county thread here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=116) or email ccw@calgunsfoundation.org.

I would *love* to write a letter to your Sheriff.

mej16489
10-27-2010, 8:27 PM
SoCal is nothing like that. LA county is LA city. Period. The smattering of incorporated cities within LA county that aren't LA city is almost irrelevant...

The population of LA County is approx 9.8 million people.
The population of LA City is approx 3.8 million people.

That's a difference of 6 million. I would estimate that 90% of that 6 million live in incorporated cities.

dantodd
10-27-2010, 8:47 PM
The problem is that if a police chief feels any heat he can just go (g) at any time and avoid the pain which means any work done to start the process was wasted. Sheriffs have no place to hide.

command_liner
10-27-2010, 9:20 PM
Where to start on this issue?

If subventions of the state can conspire to deny citizens a fundamental, enumerated
right, no matter how they do it, they are denying a fundamental right. There can
be no constitutional situation where various elected officials play "pass the buck" so
as to prohibit law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights.

The whole issue of "g" as a way to obfuscate, delay, and deny is, in plain fact,
deprivation of rights under the color of authority.

We have this exact situation here in my city of Fountain Valley. The city is
fully aware of the nature of the 2nd Amendment, the recent Heller case, the
McDonald case, and the various chains of litigation underway. But the current
council instructs the police chief specifically to "go g", so as to pass the buck to
Sandy Sue No Issue. The current council is intentionally denying exercise of
an enumerated fundamental right by administrative fiat. That is their plan
and they are sticking to it.

The police chief knows the policy of the city is most likely in violation of the
US Constitution, but also knows he will be fired if he ignores the policy put
forth by the city council, and thus follows the law of the land. He would
like to retire with his pension.

The current city council knows that by specifically adopting a policy for the
specific purpose of denying a enumerated, fundamental, civil right runs afoul
of US 1983, but the majority really does not care. The majority is comprised
of strict hopolophobes that would rather tell the firemen to chop up the
kindergardeners with their Pulaski axes than to tell the police chief to follow
the US Constitution.

No, I am not kidding. Heck, I know all the people involved. Yes, I really
do have it all in writing. Thus my run for Fountain Valley City Council.
Vote for me on Tuesday. http://frankperdicaro4fvcc2010.wordpress.com.

N6ATF
10-28-2010, 5:37 PM
And I want the 58 Sheriffs to defer to the State, because they cannot afford the headaches and cost of mismanaging their CCW program, so we only have 1 agency to sue, er...

Remember, I said "multi-faceted"... :43:

I want the 58 Sheriffs to simultaneously defer to the Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and say "if you have the right to keep arms, you have the right to bear them, and we will arrest anyone who tries to infringe upon that... even if they wear a PD badge."

Dr.Lou
10-28-2010, 9:04 PM
I always issued my own permits. The different sheriffs always wanted me to sign a G letter because they felt that a CCW was good for a vote or two.