PDA

View Full Version : Revoking CCW's


dad
03-07-2012, 7:00 PM
The City Manage of a certain city has revoked some of the CCW's issued by the Chief of Police three months ago. He is mad that the Chief waived some of the fees due to the persons being department personnel (not sworn). Does he have the power to do this?

socalblue
03-07-2012, 7:08 PM
Not under CA law. ONLY the issuing authority (Chief LEO or his designee) have that authority (And only for cause per CPC 26170).

wildhawker
03-07-2012, 7:33 PM
The City Manage of a certain city has revoked some of the CCW's issued by the Chief of Police three months ago. He is mad that the Chief waived some of the fees due to the persons being department personnel (not sworn). Does he have the power to do this?

Licensing authorities are granted statutory authority to waive fees for some applicants.

Cal. Penal Code Section 26170:

(a) Upon proof of all of the following, the sheriff of a
county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police department
of any city or city and county, may issue to an applicant a license
to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of
being concealed upon the person:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
(3) The applicant has been deputized or appointed as a peace
officer pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 830.6 by that
sheriff or that chief of police or other head of a municipal police
department.
(b) Direct or indirect fees for the issuance of a license pursuant
to this section may be waived.
(c) The fact that an applicant for a license to carry a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person
has been deputized or appointed as a peace officer pursuant to
subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 830.6 shall be considered only for
the purpose of issuing a license pursuant to this section, and shall
not be considered for the purpose of issuing a license pursuant to
Section 26150 or 26155. (Emphasis added.)

-Brandon

glockman19
03-07-2012, 7:36 PM
City Manager has NO AUTHOITY to revoke a CWP

Librarian
03-07-2012, 7:37 PM
For that matter, the only reason a LTC can be revoked is if the person becomes ineligible (or, perhaps, was never eligible and that disability was not 'discovered' at the time of issue).

PC 26195 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26195.html) (a) A license under this article shall not be issued if the
Department of Justice determines that the person is prohibited by
state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or
purchasing a firearm.
(b) (1) A license under this article shall be revoked by the local
licensing authority if at any time either the local licensing
authority is notified by the Department of Justice that a licensee is
prohibited by state or federal law from owning or purchasing
firearms, or the local licensing authority determines that the person
is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving,
owning, or purchasing a firearm.
(2) If at any time the Department of Justice determines that a
licensee is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing,
receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm, the department shall
immediately notify the local licensing authority of the
determination.
(3) If the local licensing authority revokes the license, the
Department of Justice shall be notified of the revocation pursuant to
Section 26225. The licensee shall also be immediately notified of
the revocation in writing.
Yes, in the recent past it seems some LTC have been revoked (as distinct from not being renewed when the existing license expired) without the holder becoming a 'prohibited person'. I am unable to explain that; it seems to me that those revocations were outside the power of the issuing agency.

resident-shooter
03-07-2012, 7:39 PM
Its a privilege and a need. Not a right. So of course they can be revoked.

wildhawker
03-07-2012, 7:45 PM
Its a privilege and a need. Not a right. So of course they can be revoked.

My sarcasm-o-meter isn't working today. I'm asking for clarification before I make an actual reply, if one is required at all.

-Brandon

voiceofreason
03-07-2012, 7:46 PM
(I finally get to use this smiley! Been waiting for a long time for the chance.)

:popcorn:

Jeepergeo
03-07-2012, 8:25 PM
Sounds like the chief was running a good old boys racket (insiders get permits with fees waived, everyday Joes pay fees and probably get the run around) and the City manager is clamping down.

While the CM maybe can't recall permits issued, I'd bet he can fire the Chief, maybe even without the Council's approval.

That chief needs to understand he is a taxtaker employee and not a God, and there is no agency in the state that can afford to give anything away. That chief probably does not give diddly of his pay away, so why waive fees that end up costing us taxpayers?

wildhawker
03-07-2012, 8:41 PM
Sounds like the chief was running a good old boys racket (insiders get permits with fees waived, everyday Joes pay fees and probably get the run around) and the City manager is clamping down.

While the CM maybe can't recall permits issued, I'd bet he can fire the Chief, maybe even without the Council's approval.

That chief needs to understand he is a taxtaker employee and not a God, and there is no agency in the state that can afford to give anything away. That chief probably does not give diddly of his pay away, so why waive fees that end up costing us taxpayers?

And here we have person #1 or #2 in this thread who needs to post less and read more about what the law says and how it works.

-Brandon

CitaDeL
03-07-2012, 9:00 PM
For that matter, the only reason a LTC can be revoked is if the person becomes ineligible (or, perhaps, was never eligible and that disability was not 'discovered' at the time of issue).

PC 26195 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26195.html)
Yes, in the recent past it seems some LTC have been revoked (as distinct from not being renewed when the existing license expired) without the holder becoming a 'prohibited person'. I am unable to explain that; it seems to me that those revocations were outside the power of the issuing agency.

I can explain it in four words. Abuse of unlimited discretion.

And you are (as usual) completely correct- an issuing agency revoking for anything other than residency, good cause, or good moral character has exceeded their statutory discretion. (Never mind the 2nd amendment and due process obligations.)

I open carry
03-07-2012, 9:23 PM
what city?

HowardW56
03-08-2012, 7:19 AM
The City Manage of a certain city has revoked some of the CCW's issued by the Chief of Police three months ago. He is mad that the Chief waived some of the fees due to the persons being department personnel (not sworn). Does he have the power to do this?

What city is this?

Untamed1972
03-08-2012, 8:11 AM
Sounds like the chief was running a good old boys racket (insiders get permits with fees waived, everyday Joes pay fees and probably get the run around) and the City manager is clamping down.

While the CM maybe can't recall permits issued, I'd bet he can fire the Chief, maybe even without the Council's approval.

That chief needs to understand he is a taxtaker employee and not a God, and there is no agency in the state that can afford to give anything away. That chief probably does not give diddly of his pay away, so why waive fees that end up costing us taxpayers?


The OP stated they were issued to non-sworn Dept. personnel. Non-sworn PD personnel go thru a pretty extensive background check, almost or equal to that of sowrn LEOs. So it could be argued the Chief waived the fees because the amount of time required to process the permit was minimal since the applicants already had an extensive background done and on file.

Just playing devils advocate.

M. D. Van Norman
03-08-2012, 8:14 AM
Per the Orange County experience, licenses can be expired early. :rolleyes:

Jeepergeo
03-08-2012, 2:20 PM
The OP stated they were issued to non-sworn Dept. personnel. Non-sworn PD personnel go thru a pretty extensive background check, almost or equal to that of sowrn LEOs. So it could be argued the Chief waived the fees because the amount of time required to process the permit was minimal since the applicants already had an extensive background done and on file.

Just playing devils advocate.

I see your point, but I disagree. When "insiders" get special favors or fee breaks, it leads to abuse and loss of "transparency" to use a popular term these days. Was this case abuse? We'll probably never know. But why take a chance? Furthermore, if these folks are on a taxpayer paid salary, they can easily afford to pay just like anyone else.

wildhawker
03-08-2012, 3:19 PM
I'll take this opportunity to state that if we're going to successfully attack the laws which burden or outright infringe our fundamental rights, we need to make prudent arguments.

I'd spend more time on this but I'm a bit busy working on a few upcoming lawsuits to get "beyond the cloud of secrecy associated with concealed weapons permits" and challenge "outright elimination of concealed carry permits for private citizens."

-Brandon

Deleted quote of deleted post.

Geez, go out for the afternoon and the kids get into everything.

// Librarian

Kid Stanislaus
03-08-2012, 7:01 PM
(I finally get to use this smiley! Been waiting for a long time for the chance.)

:popcorn:

You should've waited longer!:p