PDA

View Full Version : Hypocracy in LAPD.


Glock22Fan
09-07-2007, 4:43 PM
The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) has obtained a copy of the application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) submitted by LAPD Police Chief William Bratton. (click here to view the Application.) Chief Bratton needed a permit because when he became Chief of LAPD he was not a sworn California peace officer legally entitled to carry a firearm. Bratton got a CCW, despite the fact that his "good cause" justification for needing a CCW was completely inadequate under LAPD's current standards as applied to ordinary citizens.

Rest of story:

http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-429.html

This is exactly the sort of discrimination that Team Billy Jack is fighting.

Bratton's CCW application asserts that because he is Chief of Police "he is required to be armed." This is flatly false. No law requires a Chief of Police to be armed, and a Chief of Police, who does not patrol in the field, need not be. Bratton's other justification is that he "is a public figure." The application does not even claim that he has actually been threatened - only that he could be a target. Being a potential target has never been recognized as "good cause" by the LAPD. If that is the criteria for "good cause," then every celebrity in the city has "good cause" to obtain one.

Crazed_SS
09-07-2007, 4:55 PM
The Cheif isnt a sworn LEO?

Hmm.. learn something new everday.

Glock22Fan
09-07-2007, 5:07 PM
The Cheif isnt a sworn LEO?

Hmm.. learn something new everday.

I think that the thing is that he isn't a Cali sworn LEO. I'm guessing he qualified in Boston, or N.Y.

I also heard (IIRC) that he didn't qualify with his firearms because he didn't have enough hours in the day.

CSDGuy
09-07-2007, 5:52 PM
If Chief Bratton does not qualify under the Penal Code to be a California Police Chief, then the LAPD quite likely would be without legal authority to function as a Police Department. Now then, somehow, I suspect that Chief Bratton IS in fact qualified to be a PD Chief under the Penal Code, but he might not necessarily be a California LEO... go figure...

50ae
09-07-2007, 7:31 PM
I would imagine the Chief has taken the required classes and got his POST certificate by now.

CCWFacts
09-07-2007, 7:35 PM
I would imagine the Chief has taken the required classes and got his POST certificate by now.

Not necessarily. POST is a lot of hours!

artherd
09-07-2007, 8:05 PM
Nice!

CSDGuy
09-07-2007, 8:11 PM
POST may have an equivalency process that Chief Bratton had to go through... or he may have had to take a class to bridge to be OK through POST to be a Police Chief here in California. Either way, I'm sure that there is a way to make sure he's legally able to be a PD Chief.

metalhead357
09-07-2007, 8:32 PM
Nice!


LOL! +100. Yeah.... this is a story that'll be fun to watch...... I tend to side with LEO & related stories but does LAPD make the case for selective everythings or what..........:cool:

tyrist
09-07-2007, 9:46 PM
The chief of police is a political position and when he had received the job I do not think he had completed the required california post classes. Why would he take the classes before he had been selected. By now he is a sworn peace officer.

50ae
09-07-2007, 9:57 PM
Yes, but being that he was a certified officer in another state all he would be required to do is take the classes he was missing and challenge a test or take the recert course over at Rio Hondo. It really wouldn't take that long.

Not necessarily. POST is a lot of hours!

HK fan
09-08-2007, 8:15 AM
you mean the test that Willie Williams could never pass? I heard it was a running joke at LAPD that he failed it over and over.

Liberty1
09-08-2007, 6:10 PM
Has anyone seen Bratton carry openly? Any pictures?

Liberty1
09-08-2007, 6:33 PM
Found one, sort of; can's see the gun on the sam brown but there's a mag pouch so lets assume until we have better evidence. The question now is what are the exemptions he's claiming to 171b (no firearm in gov building), 626.9 (no pistol in a school zone [much of LA]) assuming he is 12031 compliant. We know he doesn't have an 830PC (CA Peace Officer) exemption. He could have a letter from the superintendent of schools allowing him to possess in the school zones. But what about an exemption to 171b? Could he be using the exemptions for his LTC concealed (12050 license) which is an exemption to 171b?

Or he could be claiming exemption to all those laws with his LTC concealed and carrying loaded exposed as there is no clear requirement to conceal even with a LTCC that I can find in the law.

I'll have to look for some better pictures.

CSDGuy
09-08-2007, 7:33 PM
Chief Bratton IS carrying... it's outline is visible under his left forearm, by his service stripes. Oh, and I found where Chief Bratton may have gotten the OK to be a PD Chief... even if he has never been in a California POST academy. Turns out there IS a process for this...

Just follow this link: http://www.post.ca.gov/training/btw_intro.asp

50ae
09-08-2007, 8:34 PM
Actually he is POST certified so ya'll can quit worrying about this.

tyrist
09-08-2007, 8:50 PM
He carries a glock on his sam brown when he is in uniform.

Liberty1
09-08-2007, 8:54 PM
Actually he is POST certified so ya'll can quit worrying about this.

Oh well, I wanted to write a crime report on him. :chris:

gn3hz3ku1*
09-09-2007, 1:11 PM
Hypocracy in LAPD = captain obvious :) ahah jk i just had to post that

Paladin
02-04-2008, 11:06 PM
Rest of story:

http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-429.html

This is exactly the sort of discrimination that Team Billy Jack is fighting.The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) has obtained a copy of the application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) submitted by LAPD Police Chief William Bratton. (click here to view the Application.) Chief Bratton needed a permit because when he became Chief of LAPD he was not a sworn California peace officer legally entitled to carry a firearm. Bratton got a CCW, despite the fact that his "good cause" justification for needing a CCW was completely inadequate under LAPD's current standards as applied to ordinary citizens.

Bratton's CCW application asserts that because he is Chief of Police "he is required to be armed." This is flatly false. No law requires a Chief of Police to be armed, and a Chief of Police, who does not patrol in the field, need not be. Bratton's other justification is that he "is a public figure." The application does not even claim that he has actually been threatened - only that he could be a target. Being a potential target has never been recognized as "good cause" by the LAPD.

I was reading this article again at: http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-429.html and remembered that SF Sheriff Hennessey also is not a LEO, but rather a lawyer. Does he have a CCW? If so, what was his Good Cause statement and how does it compare to others' who were turned down at whatever agency he applied? If Hennessey's GC isn't any better than Bratton's, that agency might be vulnerable to a Team Billy Jack federal lawsuit. $$$ :D

*****

As a part of its efforts to combat corrupt CCW policies, CRPA is launching a pro-CCW local ordinance campaign in many California citites, urging local officials to introduce and pass pro-CCW laws in their home towns, and to support statewide reform. Model ordinances have been prepared by CRPA attorneys and will soon be distributed across the state.

Does anyone know if anything came of this CRPA pro-CCW local ordinance campaign? Were those copies of "model ordinances" ever distributed across the state?

M. Sage
02-04-2008, 11:09 PM
Hypocracy in LAPD = captain obvious :) ahah jk i just had to post that

Why, what did LAPD Cpt. Obvious do? :p

Does anyone know if anything came of this CRPA pro-CCW local ordinance campaign? Were those copies of "model ordinances" ever distributed across the state?

Umm, it's a CRPA campaign... I'm surprised they didn't cause the state to go from "may issue" to "no way in hell."

eviioiive
02-05-2008, 1:05 AM
when i met him he was carrying...

Glock22Fan
02-05-2008, 8:41 AM
Sheriffs and Chiefs can break the law in this regard as much as they want. Without a challenger "with standing," there's nothing Team Billy Jack (or anyone else) can do to challenge them in court.

Needs a resident with cast-iron good cause prepared to apply, be denied, appeal, be denied again and then go to court. The applicant will need willpower to challenge the sheriff and to follow through, and some money to pay legal fees. The "up front" money might be less than you might imagine, but each case would be considered on its merits.