PDA

View Full Version : Rambo's CCW Application - now posted online!


shark92651
08-24-2007, 6:31 PM
I detail the entire experience here, including his CCW application, the letters I wrote, and the responses I received:

http://www.blog.riflegear.com/articles/the-hypocrisy-of-sylvester-stallone.aspx

It took three different letters, careful wording of my requests, ignoring their deceptive responses, and 2 1/2 months of patience but I finally got a copy of it right here in my hands!

They redacted his personal information such as SSN, address, phone numbers, which I can understand - but they redacted his entire good cause statement as well! Oh well, at least I have some very good evidence that points out his hypocrisy.

If you are interested here are the weapons listed for the CCW, which was applied for on Sept 29, 2004 and the permit was issued on Nov 30, 2004:

Walther PPK/S .380 ACP
Browning Hi-Power 9mm
Beretta Model 20 .25 cal
Glock 21 .45

Does anybody have a good source for the following quote - when exactly did he say it and to whom?

"Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic. It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages."
Sylvester Stallone.


Of course you all have probalby seen these pictures of him at a recent Brady Center event in LA:

http://www.bradycenter.org/donate/events/2006/losangeles/

http://www.bradycenter.org/donate/events/2006/losangeles/images/stallone-mac.jpg

http://www.bradycenter.org/donate/events/2006/losangeles/images/stallone-feltheimer.jpg

MadMex
08-24-2007, 6:37 PM
Hypocritical steroid bloated POS. Maybe his arteries will melt down.

CCWFacts
08-24-2007, 6:39 PM
That's beautiful! Thank you for being so persistent in that. Cool! Interesting, I didn't realize that LASD allows four guns on the permit. Ya think they might have special policies for celebrities?

By the way if you have a scanner, you might want to scan and post it.

I wonder if he now has one issued somewhere else.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/03/12/stallone-charged-with-importing-steroids-down-under/

shark92651
08-24-2007, 6:51 PM
Sometime this weekend I am going to scan it, along with all the letters I wrote and the responses I received. I am going to post it on my blog and then I will post a link. This is why I want to find a good source for his quote - anybody got a source?

Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic. It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages."
Sylvester Stallone.

thedrickel
08-24-2007, 7:04 PM
Searched for " Until America, door to door, takes every handgun" on google and the first three links quote him saying that but no hard sources (like a newspaper article).

grammaton76
08-24-2007, 7:12 PM
One potential grounds for why they redacted his good cause statement:

He may have referenced a restraining order or whatnot, referencing personal-life info.

M. Sage
08-24-2007, 7:34 PM
I think it's BS they redacted his entire good cause statement. I'd like to have some idea what's in it...

If he had a restraining order against someone, he didn't need a CCW...

JawBone
08-24-2007, 7:34 PM
Source (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:0SG8JMnRFXYJ:www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/1998/col19980630.asp+access+hollywood+%22Until+America, +door+to+door,+takes+every+handgun,+this+is+what+y ou%27re+gonna+have%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a) (Kinda)

Also Here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n8_v43/ai_21079538)

RRangel
08-24-2007, 8:05 PM
It took three different letters, careful wording of my requests, ignoring their deceptive responses, and 2 1/2 months of patience but I finally got a copy of it right here in my hands!

They redacted his personal information such as SSN, address, phone numbers, which I can understand - but they redacted his entire good cause statement as well! Oh well, at least I have some very good evidence that points out his hypocrisy.

If you are interested here are the weapons listed for the CCW, which was applied for on Sept 29, 2004 and the permit was issued on Nov 30, 2004:

Walther PPK/S .380 ACP
Browning Hi-Power 9mm
Beretta Model 20 .25 cal
Glock 21 .45


Jim March may know a little something about why they are hiding the "good cause". That actor epitomizes the rich elitist who could care less about our own good cause.

virulosity
08-24-2007, 8:10 PM
He already has a concealed weapon every time he puts his hands in his pockets :smilielol5:

CSDGuy
08-24-2007, 8:17 PM
Generally, good cause statements are part of the investigators notes. Most likely, they would be redacted as they often state when/where exactly someone IS a target. Not a good idea to put that kind of information out where someone (a stalker perhaps?) could find it and use that to cause harm.

CSDGuy
08-24-2007, 8:20 PM
One potential grounds for why they redacted his good cause statement:

He may have referenced a restraining order or whatnot, referencing personal-life info.

He probably wouldn't have referenced a restraining order... however he would have cited more specific reasons why he's a target, beyond "I'm a celebrity". THAT is what they'd want to redact.

CCWFacts
08-24-2007, 8:22 PM
Btw the Public Records Act also covers photos and images. Did you request a picture of his CCW mug shot? That would be great to have.

RRangel
08-24-2007, 8:29 PM
Generally, good cause statements are part of the investigators notes. Most likely, they would be redacted as they often state when/where exactly someone IS a target. Not a good idea to put that kind of information out where someone (a stalker perhaps?) could find it and use that to cause harm.

Yes, and it may be helpful to certain issuing authorities when you're trying to make comparisons between those who've obtained a permit, and those who have been refused a permit.

CCWFacts
08-24-2007, 8:29 PM
referencing personal-life info.

Personal life info is not protected, period. Even home addresses are not protected. They had no business redacting that. GC can be redacting only to the extent of not revealing times and locations of vulnerability, ie, "I have to make a cash deposit every ____ at location ___". Their response was not proper. They could be sued using CBS v Block. They are counting on none of us wanting to invest the money in that.

CSDGuy
08-24-2007, 8:33 PM
Good Cause statements quite frequently have information that just ISN'T releasable even with a PRA request. This is also an excellent way to hide differences in someone who was denied and someone who was approved. Those statements would not/could not be redacted from the court though, if they were evidence in a lawsuit.

Essentially, it's a double-edged sword... it's good for keeping sensitive "make me a target" information out of the hands of those who don't need it while also making it easier to hide reasons for approval/denial.

EastBayRidge
08-24-2007, 9:11 PM
The whole thing stinks - kind of like Laurie David, while sanctimoniously lecturing the masses on how they need to cut back on carbon emissions, flies between conferences on "global warming" in private jets.

shark92651
08-24-2007, 9:21 PM
Source (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:0SG8JMnRFXYJ:www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/1998/col19980630.asp+access+hollywood+%22Until+America, +door+to+door,+takes+every+handgun,+this+is+what+y ou%27re+gonna+have%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a) (Kinda)

Also Here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n8_v43/ai_21079538)

Thats a pretty good source. That puts him saying these things in May and June of 1998 - 6 years before he gets his CCW.

shark92651
08-24-2007, 9:26 PM
Btw the Public Records Act also covers photos and images. Did you request a picture of his CCW mug shot? That would be great to have.

I requested the photo but they did not include it. I may write another letter specificially requesting that but I'm not sure if it is worth the effort - I can just post this one instead :D

http://p.vtourist.com/1171199-Rambo-Penticton.jpg

CCWFacts
08-24-2007, 9:28 PM
I requested the photo but they did not include it.

I'm glad you at least requested it. Gee I'm shocked that Sheriff Baca didn't comply with the law.

I may write another letter specificially requesting that but I'm not sure if it is worth the effort - I can just post this one instead :D

Ha ha.

M. Sage
08-24-2007, 9:42 PM
They really easily could have blacked out sensitive portions of his good cause, but leave the gist of it in there.

ccwguy
08-24-2007, 9:51 PM
There may not be a photo, it's not required by most jurisdictions. The ccw is a little piese of rice paper with your thumb print.

.22guy
08-24-2007, 9:52 PM
What is Bernie Mac doing there? I thought I read an article where he said he loves guns.... hmmmm, just another do as I say, not as I do celebrity jag off.

ETA: On his gun collection: “I have Glocks, .45s, Berettas, over-unders, Remingtons. I like the marksmanship and the discipline that it takes to be a gun owner. I like the machinery, breaking it down. Being able to take it out, clean it and put the spring back in is even more fascinating than having the gun.”

JawBone
08-24-2007, 9:57 PM
Bernie Mac Is December's Playboy Interview

On his gun collection: “I have Glocks, .45s, Berettas, over-unders, Remingtons. I like the marksmanship and the discipline that it takes to be a gun owner. I like the machinery, breaking it down. Being able to take it out, clean it and put the spring back in is even more fascinating than having the gun.”

Wow - that photo is a two-fer. (http://www.africasgateway.com/article-864--0-0.html)

Satex
08-24-2007, 10:01 PM
One potential grounds for why they redacted his good cause statement:

He may have referenced a restraining order or whatnot, referencing personal-life info.

Aren't restraining orders public record?

Aside, when you file for a CCW, don't you agree that the information you provide be public record as well? I thought I saw that somewhere on the paperwork.

CCWFacts
08-24-2007, 10:24 PM
Wow - that photo is a two-fer. (http://www.africasgateway.com/article-864--0-0.html)

Gee it would be non-hypocritical if the Brady Campaign were to get celebrity and political endorsements from celebrities and politicians who didn't themselves own and / or carry guns. Including non-sporting guns.

hoffmang
08-24-2007, 11:00 PM
Handing out Stallone's CCW at a Brady event he attends would be priceless...

Excellent work Shark.

Remember that government works for you as Shark clearly understands.

-Gene

Piper
08-24-2007, 11:19 PM
This is the reason I turned a blind eye to otherwise law abiding citizens violating CCW laws when I was a cop. I hate hypocrisy, especially when elitists excercise their rights while infringing on everyone elses. As far as I'm concerned Stallone and Mac are typical liberal socialist elitists just like Bratton, Baca, Villaraigosa, Newsome, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, and every other POS politician in this state that infringes on my right.

CCWFacts
08-24-2007, 11:40 PM
This is the reason I turned a blind eye to otherwise law abiding citizens violating CCW laws when I was a cop. I hate hypocrisy, especially when elitists excercise their rights while infringing on everyone elses. As far as I'm concerned Stallone and Mac are typical liberal socialist elitists just like Bratton, Baca, Villaraigosa, Newsome, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, and every other POS politician in this state that infringes on my right.

Piper, how do you really feel about those people? Don't hold back on us please.

Hehehe.

Good for you ignoring no-permit CCWing by otherwise law-abiding people.

Gshock
08-25-2007, 12:57 AM
Next thing you know he'll want to ban steroids

[http://www.googleicious.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/gregvalentino7op.jpg

grammaton76
08-25-2007, 1:23 AM
Heh, he's a celebrity. Remember, CA leads the nation in celebrity anti stalking and privacy protection laws and policies...

CALI-gula
08-25-2007, 1:42 AM
It makes me sick to look at Stallone's botox/collagen injected face with his eyeliner done eyebrows - one of the first things I noticed in the last Rocky film, "Rocky Balboa". At first I thought it was just bad film make-up or something to slate the character in how Rocky was always theatrical but now dealing with age, but no, Stallone does the eyeliner in real life too, and his face really does look that bloated. He has undergone so many "youth" enhancing treatments, the effect was the exact opposite he intended to achieve - every cell in his face is probably pulverized from being soaked or injected with foreign agents, emulsifying chemicals, and acid peels. Too bad. If he had left his face alone, he would more than likely still have his basic look from 30 years ago, but with just a slighter gaunt in the cheeks, al la Pacino.

And... I did not see, but assumed; was this CCW from California? He mostly lives and spends his time in Florida last I recall. Any idea what county in CA this was issued, even though they did not provide an address? He's got homes all over CA, so it could prove difficult to determine. Not that it would make a difference, because with Baca's butt-smooching of celebrities, Stallone could very well have a condo on top of one of the down-town LA courthouse buildings, and still get a CCW from Baca. There is probably more than one celebrity in this town that has Baca's personal cell-phone number on speed-dial. I can think of at least one that probably has it on her home phone speed dial (no, not Paris - some old hag).

.

metalhead357
08-25-2007, 5:57 AM
, I didn't realize that LASD allows four guns on the permit. Ya think they might have special policies for celebrities?



No special privilage....several counties allow 4 pistols.

All I can say is CAREFUL FOLKS...........
I remeber the hullabalu about some anti trying to FOIA all the CCW info and posting all that personal info for everyone to see.... So while I do think Names, dates, maybe even reasons might be ok........... I DONT think that any of the other personal info including the gun mdels or address of the permit holder is a good thing to release.............

Dont Tread on Me
08-25-2007, 7:36 AM
Did a newspaper publish all the CCWers home addresses in the a state recently? I forget the state. I do recall it being covered on Gresham's "Gun Talk" show. Apparently, several prison guards/police officers got visits from people the had arrested and a few stalkers found where their victims had moved too.

Bottom line is that your details are only private if you're contributing $$$ to the sheriff's reelection campaign.

shark92651
08-25-2007, 10:12 AM
It was a reporter in Roanake, VA that published a list of all CCW holders in the state of VA. He placed it in an online database but was forced to take it down after the huge uproar it caused.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/108160

Although I would never do this to John Q. Public, it doesn't concern me at all to expose a high-profile anti-gun hypocrit celebrity like Stallone. What's he going to do - sue me? That would probably make the national news and really expose his hypocrasy. Maybe I will send a copy of it to http://www.thesmokinggun.com/ as well.

MedSpec65
08-25-2007, 10:24 AM
Sean Penn still has his Marin County permit after getting busted in Oakland for brandishing a few years ago. I wish there was a way some clever lawyer could find a way to make a buck on this outrageous discrimination.

PressCheck
08-25-2007, 10:30 AM
There may not be a photo, it's not required by most jurisdictions. The ccw is a little piese of rice paper with your thumb print.


That's the way it is in Co Co County.

metalhead357
08-25-2007, 12:04 PM
Sean Penn still has his Marin County permit after getting busted in Oakland for brandishing a few years ago. I wish there was a way some clever lawyer could find a way to make a buck on this outrageous discrimination.


I dont remeber that one. I Do remember the time his car got stolen and he publically stated he was more worried about the gun he left inside it falling into the wrong hands than getting the car back:rolleyes:............

metalhead357
08-25-2007, 12:09 PM
Doesn't matter, that's the law, it's supposed to be public information and if the government refuses to release it they are breaking the law. This is just more double standard BS from our holier-than-thou friends.

Gottta politely disagree; CCW'ers are not "in the public eye" and there should be a 'good cause' reason why any of that info should be released. I see it much the same as releasing the personal info of cops & feds.....just 'cause its there doesn't mean it should be available for all to see-- we've got tooooooooooooo many wierdos that would love info like that.

It maybe the law...but it may be a law that needs changing; we all spend days here at a time whinning about the stoooopid irrelevant gun laws of this state...and yet this is one that I see in somewhat of a similar light. So while Penn & Stalone personally disgust me I would/will still defend thier right to privacy (no matter even if some say there is no such right). It just aint right to release too personal of info......

Piper
08-25-2007, 2:43 PM
How many ways can I say violation of the 14th amendment. First, the POS politicians abridge our "privileges and Immunities" aka our GUARANTEED constitutional rights by making unconstitutional gun laws. And then they violate the equal protection clause by using unlawful discriminating criteria to determine who does and doesn't get a CCW. And the 9th circus plays stupid wordgames to justify socialistic interpretations of a plainly worded constitution so that politicians can continue the assault. So it's like what else will they think up? People like Stallone, Penn and Blake are symtoms of a bigger problem. We really need a positive outcome with D.C. v. Heller. Let's hope that Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia will actually champion the original second amendment and make things right.

Pvt. Cowboy
08-25-2007, 3:08 PM
Any Californian reading this thread who isn't angry ought to be.

If you're content to sit there and think 'Yeah, well that's the way it is in California. The privileged get the privileges', you're part of the problem.

What a fun thread. Well done. Just hilarious.

I also like how Stallone makes sure that the cameraman takes his shots from a kneeling position to make Stallone look like he's the size of a grown man rather than the stumpy aging squirt he is in real life. Too bad that the illusion is busted by a young woman standing eight feet away in the background who is obviously taller than he is.

CalNRA
08-25-2007, 3:08 PM
trying to politely disagree.

when someone openly displays anti-2nd sentiments yet get treat treatment on the very issue because of their celebrity status, they lose the moral basis for privacy because their positions affects the public who are not as well off. their celebrity status already exposes them to public scrutiny and when their appearance at Brady Bunch events can shape public opinions that would affect the non-celebrities, they have forfeited the right to their privacy.:mad:

What goes around comes around. If someone's is openly racist then he should not be given the Nobel Peace prize. similar concept as far as I'm concerned. If someone of public recognition openly says things that Stalone and Rosie have said, they should be dropped off in middle of Oakland and San Leandro border with nothing but a cell phone like the rest of us are required to do.


Gottta politely disagree; CCW'ers are not "in the public eye" and there should be a 'good cause' reason why any of that info should be released. I see it much the same as releasing the personal info of cops & feds.....just 'cause its there doesn't mean it should be available for all to see-- we've got tooooooooooooo many wierdos that would love info like that.

It maybe the law...but it may be a law that needs changing; we all spend days here at a time whinning about the stoooopid irrelevant gun laws of this state...and yet this is one that I see in somewhat of a similar light. So while Penn & Stalone personally disgust me I would/will still defend thier right to privacy (no matter even if some say there is no such right). It just aint right to release too personal of info......

Pvt. Cowboy
08-25-2007, 3:14 PM
Did a newspaper publish all the CCWers home addresses in the a state recently? I forget the state. I do recall it being covered on Gresham's "Gun Talk" show. Apparently, several prison guards/police officers got visits from people the had arrested and a few stalkers found where their victims had moved too.


If some journalist in Reno ever decided to publish the names of all CCW holders here in Washoe County, people would just say 'No thanks, I already have a copy of the phone book.'.

M. Sage
08-25-2007, 3:56 PM
No special privilage....several counties allow 4 pistols.

All I can say is CAREFUL FOLKS...........
I remeber the hullabalu about some anti trying to FOIA all the CCW info and posting all that personal info for everyone to see.... So while I do think Names, dates, maybe even reasons might be ok........... I DONT think that any of the other personal info including the gun mdels or address of the permit holder is a good thing to release.............

Well, since he's no longer a permit-holder (for this one, anyway. Might have a new permit in FL or something), and this is a request for an application for a permit that's since expired, there's no problem.

metalhead357
08-25-2007, 5:43 PM
While I think there should be a right to privacy, the only way to fix this situation is to change the law. Instead, they've made a bad situation worse by allowing people like us to have their information published, but they give special rights to the priveledged by not publishing their information. And that's BS. Perhaps if these double standard Hollywood types actually had to deal with the same laws that they impose on everyone else, some of these insane laws would be repealed. But so long as Hollywood's elite enjoy privacy we don't have, so long as they can own things we can't, the situation is unacceptable.


on That We cartainly CAN agree:D
trying to politely disagree.

when someone openly displays anti-2nd sentiments yet get treat treatment on the very issue because of their celebrity status, they lose the moral basis for privacy because their positions affects the public who are not as well off. their celebrity status already exposes them to public scrutiny and when their appearance at Brady Bunch events can shape public opinions that would affect the non-celebrities, they have forfeited the right to their privacy.:mad:

I Cerainly agree in part...certainly in theory...but in practice I'm just not seeing it entirely that way. Thoguh he's in the public EYE, he is not an ELECTED public official who has chosen to make his life public....not quite the same as the shaddy paparazzi (sp?). I mean I certainly under NO circumstances want my private info aired on the 'net. Just because Stalone's a douche.... NO double standard for him.


What goes around comes around. If someone's is openly racist then he should not be given the Nobel Peace prize. similar concept as far as I'm concerned. If someone of public recognition openly says things that Stalone and Rosie have said, they should be dropped off in middle of Oakland and San Leandro border with nothing but a cell phone like the rest of us are required to do.
Now THAT I can agree with:D


Any Californian reading this thread who isn't angry ought to be.

If you're content to sit there and think 'Yeah, well that's the way it is in California. The privileged get the privileges', you're part of the problem.

What a fun thread. Well done. Just hilarious.


Yep. I am mad (Some say Madd;)) and do agree there is the double standard and it certainly needs to be done away with.....but not at the sake of risking people's lives! There are nutts out there already stalking politicians and celebs.... I want NO PART in relasing any otherwise private info on how to find them just for the sake of it being out there 'cause it can be. So while I DO agree it certainly a shame and a sham that public NON elected officials get all the airtime.....it just aint right to go releasing private info public.

(maybe not with you...) But didn't we ALREADY have this same-type of discussion about a year or so ago about posting DOJ personal info? It twern't right then...and celebrity-ism aint no forfeit of any right of privacy-- Most use alias to begin with trying to protect thier real lives. So again, while I certainly can agree this is a farce......and that its "cool" that he got the info....under NO circumstances should that crap be released........

Just GOTTA give my $0.02...even if I dont get change back;) No harm no foul folks... I'll still luvs' ya'...so dont be hating the messenger......

shark92651
08-25-2007, 6:00 PM
I have updated the original post to include a link to the blog entry I just completed that details everything and includes the scans of his CCW application. Here is the link:

http://www.blog.riflegear.com/articles/the-hypocrisy-of-sylvester-stallone.aspx

tango-52
08-25-2007, 6:09 PM
Good job on your success. If the Good Cause was not written down on the application, they could be hiding it by saying it is the investigator's notes. However, the LASO CCW policy seems to indicate that it is required that the applicant fill in the Good Cause section. If it was filled in, they shouldn't be able to redact it except for specific times and locations (should they be listed) that would be especially vulnerable (deposit money on Fridays at 10 at a certain bank type of thing).

Here is an exact portion of the LA County CCW rejection letter that a CCW applicant recieved from Baca's office:

Our stated policy as to what constitutes good cause for the issuance of a permit is stated below for your information:
".....specifically state under the section entitled "Qualifications for a CCW License" those circumstances which present convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life, or of great bodily harm to the applicant, his/her spouse, or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources and which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and which danger would be significantly mitigated by applicant's carrying of a concealed firearm."
Typically, the verbiage "convincing evidence of a clear and present danger...." refers to a current situation which involves a specific person(s) who has threatened an individual and who has displayed a pattern of behavior which would suggest that the threat(s) could be carried out. Situations which would suggest only a potential danger to one's safety, ( e.g. carrying large amounts of money to the bank, profession/job, working late hours in a high crime rate area, etc.) are not consistent with the criteria for issuance of a concealed weapon license.
Sincerely,

LEROY D BACA, SHERIFF

See how it says "refers to a current situation"? Will applications of the jewelers, plastic surgeons, attorneys, judges and other political contributors on Baca's CCW list show documentation that fits this criteria? If not, then Baca is issuing CCWs under an illegal dual policy. Courts have held that Sheriff's MUST operate under a single policy that is fair and equitable to all applicants. Celebrities can easily show that there are stalkers out there. The really damning evidence would be from non-celebrities that are political donors.

M. Sage
08-25-2007, 6:12 PM
Ooooo, we should get his info from Culver City, too. I just saw that he had a CCW from them prior to the LA issue.

hoffmang
08-25-2007, 6:13 PM
blackrazor,

If you have a strong preference, I can edit some of your PI on your letters. Its just a real PIA and this is the way it comes from CA DOJ. Oddly they do usually make a pass of quick black marker to phone numbers but your letter seems to have slipped through the screen.

-Gene

metalhead357
08-25-2007, 6:15 PM
The thing is, I'm not even in the public eye (at least, not as much as 'Rocky'), and my "private info" is still available to the public, and was posted right here on this website. So why should my information, including my address, be posted on this website when obtained under the guise of "freedom of information" (thanks DOJ!), but Sly's info is kept secret? BTW, this "private info" of yours also ain't so private, anyone who knows your name could easily get your address and post it on this website for everyone to see. It *really* pisses me off that the only people who don't have to deal with their information being thrown out in public and the people who've made being in the public eye their career.

P.S. Oh yeah, you know what else pisses me off? How dare people like AM at the DOJ get pissed when someone posts all of their "private" information on the web (i.e. here), even though they will turn around and supply you or anyone else with your private info without a second thought. What's that all about?

Hey BR....I'm sorry to hear about the incident....I DIDNT KNOW about the incident:confused: Hate to ask for a re-hash.....is there a link to the story if ya' dont wanna re-live it. I'm sorry bro.....

thedrickel
08-25-2007, 6:24 PM
The Culver City CCW is from '84, would they still have the records? Also it's funny how Sly's signatures are dated 9/27 and the "Witness" is dated 9/29.

MrTenX
08-25-2007, 7:04 PM
I also like how Stallone makes sure that the cameraman takes his shots from a kneeling position to make Stallone look like he's the size of a grown man rather than the stumpy aging squirt he is in real life.

Quite right.
Through most of the 80's I worked for Sherwood International (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1987/02/16/68671/index.htm) (I'm sure many of you remember). Anyway, Sherwood had a nice collection of class 3 weapons.
I was licensed to possess machineguns and destructive devices at the time and on two occassions Sly showed up and I was tasked with showing him what we had.
What I remember most about him was that he indeed was very small and nicely dressed but, he was wearing shoes with very thick soles. They must've been 2-3 inches thick.
He showed up (parked in the owners marked parking space btw) with 2 or 3 very large body guards and I can remember thinking that he talked like a dumb Italian.
Needless to say, I wasn't impressed.
Also, I believe he had tried to get a state machinegun license during this time period but was rejected for some reason.
EDIT: I'm wondering now if he may have some criminal history.

hoffmang
08-25-2007, 7:06 PM
black,

I googled before I posted FYI. What I was saying is that I can tell from the various PRAR responses I've seen that their policy is to generally blank out email and phone numbers - which I can support pretty whole heartedly. Sometimes they black out street address.

Shark: I think you may want to go back to LA and state that the lack of the good cause statement is not reasonable and that you'd accept some editing of that section - but that the public has a right to know on what general basis Mr. Stallone was getting issuance of his permit. If you go read CBS you can probably get some supporting quote on the PI balance.

-Gene

-Gene

1911su16b870
08-25-2007, 7:23 PM
Sometime this weekend I am going to scan it, along with all the letters I wrote and the responses I received. I am going to post it on my blog and then I will post a link. This is why I want to find a good source for his quote - anybody got a source?

Thanks shark92651 for your diligence and for posting, it amazes me that it was hand written and LA Co Council redacted the good cause.

gn3hz3ku1*
08-25-2007, 8:03 PM
cant we get this posted on some gossip site?

dfletcher
08-25-2007, 8:44 PM
Did anyone notice? He's starting to look more & more like his Mom.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavrila/338690135/

Diablo
08-25-2007, 8:47 PM
That is great shark. Thanks for all this info....:hurray:

Paladin
08-25-2007, 10:58 PM
Handing out Stallone's CCW at a Brady event he attends would be priceless...Oh, too funny! I LOVE that idea! :D

porkchop
08-25-2007, 11:13 PM
lol he spelled copyright incorrectly

http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/stallone/ccw_page04.jpg

Paladin
08-25-2007, 11:14 PM
Sean Penn still has his Marin County permit after getting busted in Oakland for brandishing a few years ago. I wish there was a way some clever lawyer could find a way to make a buck on this outrageous discrimination.Well, Team Billy Jack (www.californiaconcealedcarry.com) has been saying for months that they are just about to file the first of, hopefully, several federal lawsuits dealing w/illegal CCW policies/practices by sheriffs/chiefs in CA.

See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=51244
and to understand the applicable law, see:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58468

Hopefully, when the first lawsuit gets filed, the news will get posted here immediately afterwards. Then, sheriffs and chiefs w/illegal practices will start dirtying their pants.

The clock is ticking. Their days of considering themselves above the law are numbered. I look forward to hearing about this early Christmas present for CA gun owners.

artherd
08-25-2007, 11:23 PM
Black, I can say that in 4+ years of dealing with DOJ, yours is the ONLY full name and address of an non-attorney I have *ever* seen released by DOJ, in any form. I've also seen it repeatedly and habitually disclosed.

I'm going to let that sink in...

I frankly think it stinks. I will happily personaly redicate all copies of your letters I currently have. (several)

Gene,

Don't worry about it, my name and address are already published in scientific journals anyway; it's not the fact that my name/address is available so easily from the DOJ, it's that they complain when people turn the tables on them and publish their information, and they pull special favors for celebrities by withholding their information. I don't see how that can be legal. Unless you're saying that my address was supposed to be blacked out, in which case I very much doubt they left it visible by mistake... just more illegal activity on the part of the DOJ. This is really going beyond the pale.

formerTexan
08-26-2007, 3:43 AM
did some notice on the "good cause" page (http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/stallone/ccw_page13.jpg), the DOJ mis-spelled "life" as "fife"?! That was good for a laugh.

tiki
08-26-2007, 5:27 AM
Did anyone notice? He's starting to look more & more like his Mom.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavrila/338690135/

That's his mom? I thought that was the new singer for KISS?

Rumpology? Haa haa haa haa. I think I'm going to become a mamologist. :)

socalguns
08-26-2007, 7:26 AM
How do we turn that into an advantage? Is it lying if you're talking about "fife"

shark92651
08-26-2007, 8:58 AM
Barney Fife had to keep his round in his shirt pocket.

http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/barney_fife.jpg

lazyworm
08-26-2007, 9:23 AM
The first reply says he doesn't have a CCW. Isn't that lying?

triggerhappy
08-26-2007, 11:27 AM
Thank you very much for posting this. It goes to show just what kind of people they are. "Good for me, but not for you" types. What nerve!

tango-52
08-26-2007, 4:56 PM
The first reply says he doesn't have a CCW. Isn't that lying?
He had a CCW from LASO. He doesn't currently have a license.

Glock22Fan
08-27-2007, 12:59 PM
My emphasis.

[44] Furthermore, there is a clear and legislatively articulated justification for disclosure -- the right of the public and the press to review the government's conduct of its business. Public inspection of the names of license holders and the reasons the licenses were requested enables the press and the public to ensure that public officials are acting properly in issuing licenses for legitimate reasons. Defendants' conclusion that White v. Davis precluded disclosure would obliterate the fundamental right of the press and the people to have access to "information concerning the conduct of the people's business." ( 6250.)


[45] It is possible, of course, that certain information supplied by individual applicants may under certain circumstances entail a substantial privacy interest. For example, the records may contain intimate information concerning an applicant's own or his family's medical or psychological history. In such special cases, the confidential information may be deleted.

[53] Disclosure statutes such as the PRA and the federal Freedom of Information Act were passed to ensure public access to vital information about the government's conduct of its business. If the press and the public are precluded from learning the names of concealed weapons' licensees and the reasons claimed in support of the licenses, there will be no method by which the public can ascertain whether the law is being properly applied or carried out in an evenhanded manner.

[54] The trial court granted injunctive relief permitting access to most of the licenses. This relief is inadequate in light of the purpose for which the


[55] information was sought. Without the applications which accompany the licenses and which set forth the reasons why a license is necessary, the public cannot judge whether the sheriff has properly exercised his discretion in issuing the licenses.



CBS Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal. 3d 646, 725 P.2d 470, 230 Cal. Rptr. 362 (Cal. 10/09/1986)


Earlier, in para [18], there is a referral to the department inserting their own summary of "Good Cause." The appeal court judges later say that this is unacceptable.

[18] All of the applications made were for a renewal. For the majority of these, no reason for issuance was given or a one sentence explanation -- "Needed for protection of life and property" -- was used.

When it boils down to it, it may be necessary to get a "Writ of Mandamus" to release more data. The judge that deals with that will examine the original information and the deletions and decide if the deletions met the spirit of the law or went over the top. You should get costs awarded to you if your assessment is supported.

Interesting that the LASD once used the phrase "protection of life and property."

Saurus
08-27-2007, 1:00 PM
Permission to link to this in my blog, Shark?

shark92651
08-27-2007, 7:16 PM
Sure, have at it.

Permission to link to this in my blog, Shark?

hoffmang
08-27-2007, 7:56 PM
Glock,

Thanks for doing the legwork on CBS.

-Gene

HK fan
08-27-2007, 8:04 PM
just beautiful, expose them all

ldivinag
08-27-2007, 8:36 PM
Interesting, I didn't realize that LASD allows four guns on the permit. Ya think they might have special policies for celebrities?



not just four...

read the thing again... it says "USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY"....

http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/stallone/ccw_page05.jpg

Glock22Fan
08-27-2007, 8:49 PM
Glock,

Thanks for doing the legwork on CBS.

-Gene

Thanks; It is all up on the Team Billy Jack site, so all I had to do was skim for relevant sections.

http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/cbs.html

hoffmang
08-27-2007, 8:55 PM
John,

I know... Its just usually that I have to do that and I'm really happy to not have to :D

Shark: Quote that section of CBS in one more letter and see if they'll give you a less redacted version of the good cause page.

-Gene

shark92651
08-28-2007, 7:30 AM
John,

I know... Its just usually that I have to do that and I'm really happy to not have to :D

Shark: Quote that section of CBS in one more letter and see if they'll give you a less redacted version of the good cause page.

-Gene

I will definitely give that a try.

David

dustoff31
08-28-2007, 8:50 AM
I read this thread a few days ago and something just registered with me.

Stallone lists his address as Beverly Hills. I do believe thay have their own PD. He says he has never been denied a CCW. Should he not have applied to BHPD and been denied before going to the sherrif?

KDOFisch
08-28-2007, 9:05 AM
did some notice on the "good cause" page (http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/stallone/ccw_page13.jpg), the DOJ mis-spelled "life" as "fife"?! That was good for a laugh.

Interesting. I guess the LASD uses the application so infrequently that they ALSO miss the typo on a legal government document asking the applicant if he's been involved in a lawsuit in the last RIVE years.

Or is it a bad copy I'm reading?

Glock22Fan
08-28-2007, 9:19 AM
I read this thread a few days ago and something just registered with me.

Stallone lists his address as Beverly Hills. I do believe thay have their own PD. He says he has never been denied a CCW. Should he not have applied to BHPD and been denied before going to the sherrif?

This isn't required by the penal code. Some sheriffs require it as part of their policy, some don't, some have an agreement with the chiefs of some of the cities in their county. As Baca only issues to those who are "connected," it is safe to assume that his policies may be flexible. Another possible area for exploration for misconduct.

tango-52
08-28-2007, 9:31 AM
I read this thread a few days ago and something just registered with me.

Stallone lists his address as Beverly Hills. I do believe thay have their own PD. He says he has never been denied a CCW. Should he not have applied to BHPD and been denied before going to the sherrif?
Cities in a County can defer all CCW licensing to the sheriff. This process is called "declaring g" since it is spelled out in Penal Code Section 12050 (g) as follows:
12050 (g) Nothing in this article shall preclude the chief or other head
of a municipal police department of any city from entering an
agreement with the sheriff of the county in which the city is located
for the sheriff to process all applications for licenses, renewals
of licenses, and amendments to licenses, pursuant to this article.

Notice, however, that it says "sheriff to process all applications". If a city has issued a few licenses, but states or implies that it has "declared g" and refers others directly to the Sheriff, it is an illegal dual-issue policy that could be challenged in court.

dustoff31
08-28-2007, 9:47 AM
OK, thanks Glock22 and Tango 52. One of my driver's has a son that is a Beverly Hills cop. (really) I'll see if he knows or can find out what their policy is in regard to CCW. Unless someone already knows?

tyrist
08-28-2007, 9:51 AM
There are a fair amount of people with CCW permits in Los Angeles. Alot of people in the diamond industry in down town have them because they literally walk around with a million dollars in diamonds in a backpack. Also if you are a level 2 reserve officer you get issued one upon completing the LAPD reserve academy. I believe you have to volunteer 15 hours a month or so.

tango-52
08-28-2007, 10:04 AM
Beverly Hills PD issued three 2-year permits in 2005. Here is a link to listings for the entire state for 2005:
http://www.calccw.com/Forums/county-faq/810-all-cities-issued-two-year-ccws-2005-a.html
Scroll down to the second posting and it is in alphabetical order.
I checked the Beverly Hills PD web site and there was no listing of information or a policy on CCW.

Glock22Fan
08-28-2007, 10:24 AM
. . . Also if you are a level 2 reserve officer you get issued one upon completing the LAPD reserve academy. I believe you have to volunteer 15 hours a month or so.

If you want to become a L2 reserve in order to be a reserve, then more power to your elbow. If, OTOH, you are doing it to get a CCW, don't waste your time. It is a long and gruelling time at the Academy. There have to be easier ways to get permits.

And don't think it applies across the board. LASO doesn't generally issue CCW permits to reserves. Make sure, by talking with a few reserves, that you will get one from whichever department it is. Believe it or not, some departments imply you will, when you won't.

I know someone who invested a lot of time and money into the XXSD reserve program because the recruiting sergeant promised him a CCW. He was mighty upset when it turned out that the only time he'd be allowed to wear his weapon was inside the station.

tyrist
08-28-2007, 10:29 AM
LAPD issues level 2 reserves a CCW...Level 1 reserve have full time police powers and so do not require a CCW. Level 3 has only on duty police powers and no off duty carry.

shark92651
08-28-2007, 1:46 PM
Wow guys, the response to this blog is much more than I anticipated. According to my blog stats there are 276 external links back to my entry and my unique visitors went from next to nothing to over 1,200 just for yesterday. If you do a google search for "stallone ccw" or "stallone hypocrisy" it is the top search result :D