PDA

View Full Version : Illegal CCW deniers get SERVED!


artherd
09-19-2007, 11:32 AM
http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2007/09/19/news/centralcoast/news03.txt


The 'liability' claims of the chief are laughable. If he's basing his decision on such a flimsy premise I don't think the case will take long.

City Council, police chief served with lawsuits
By Malia Spencer/Senior Staff Writer
Buy this photo now


Rental program guidelinesapproved

Each member of the Santa Maria City Council, along with Police Chief Danny Macagni, was served Tuesday night with a federal lawsuit filed by a resident who claims his civil rights were violated when he was denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

As the council members assembled for their meeting, private investigator Preston Guillory, on behalf of Santa Maria resident Kurt McCloud, served them with the suit that was filed Sept. 11 in U.S District Court. The package included a 50-page complaint plus hundreds of pages of exhibits.

Advertisement

McCloud claims the council members and Macagni have intentionally denied his constitutional rights to equal treatment by treating McCloud's application to carry a concealed weapon differently than those who have been granted such permits. According to the suit, that is a violation of McCloud's 14th Amendment rights.

City Attorney Gil Trujillo said the city intends to defend Macagni and his actions, and noted that California law provides police chiefs with the responsibility and the discretion when issuing concealed-weapons permits.

Guillory, a licensed private investigator based in Riverside, bills himself as an expert in helping Californians obtain concealed-weapons permits in a state that has a subjective permitting process.

On his Web site, www.

clueseau.com, Guillory says he is permitted to carry a concealed weapon in 29 states, and has a team of lawyers and volunteers committed to helping people with concealed-weapons permit application processes.

None of the council members kept a copy of the suit, and instead left them with Trujillo.

Since the suit was filed in district court in Los Angeles, Trujillo said, the city will have to hire outside counsel in Los Angeles to handle the case.

To carry a concealed weapon in California, a person must receive a permit from a local law enforcement agency.

According to the California Penal Code, a chief of police or a county sheriff can issue a concealed-weapons permit “upon proof the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance and the person applying is a resident of that city and has completed a course of training ...”

In his 2006 application McCloud, 42, states he is employed as a nuclear security officer and armed responder for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County.

Because he lives in Santa Maria, McCloud requested a permit from Macagni to carry a .40-caliber Glock handgun since his job, and the knowledge he has of the nuclear power plant, could put him or his family at risk.

“I know that being able to defend myself against those who would use this information against our community would be an advantage,” McCloud wrote in his application. “As a Delta unit I am well-trained in the use of firearms, levels of force, and justifiable homicide. I take my job seriously in protection [of] our community, and I will not abuse the privilege of a CCW license.”

Macagni denied McCloud's application in August 2006 letter, saying there was “not enough convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or great bodily harm which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources.”

Since California is known as a “may issue” state, the chief or sheriff has discretion over who can receive a permit, and also have liability and can be named in any future lawsuits, Macagni said Monday prior to being served with the suit.

Normally, an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, Macagni said he would grant more concealed weapons permits if the state removed liability from the issuing chief or sheriff.

“I feel strongly about people and their personal protection,” he said, but added that the liability to the city trumps his “pro-Second Amendment” beliefs.

If California was a “shall issue” state, the discretion, and liability, would be removed and anyone who is a qualified applicant would be issued a permit, he said.

“Frankly, the people I have issued (permits) to are well-known,” Macagni said, adding they are people he has known for years and “I feel comfortable that they won't go out and get themselves in trouble.

“The system subjects me to personal liability; if it didn't I would probably be more liberal with it,” he added.

Macagni estimated he has issued about eight permits to people who have shown just cause to carry weapons. In addition to the standard application, people could be subjected to physical or psychological evaluations.

The number of permit requests from Santa Maria residents varies from year to year, Macagni said. Some years there are no applicants, and others can see about a dozen people seeking permits.

In Santa Barbara County, Sheriff Bill Brown has come under fire for the limited number of permits he has issued.

During the first five months of his term, Brown issued 10 concealed-weapons permits and denied 10 others. Current numbers were not available from the sheriff's office by press time.

As of May, there were about 160 active concealed-weapons permits in the county, and the majority were issued to law enforcement and judicial officers.

In a previous interview, Brown said he doesn't believe communities are made safer with large numbers of people carrying weapons.

In order to receive a permit from the sheriff, people must show good reason other than “I want to protect myself,” Brown has said in the past.

In Lompoc, Chief Timothy Dabney hasn't issued a single permit since he took office in January, said Sgt. Deann Clement, department spokeswoman.

She noted that to get a one-year concealed-weapons permit in Lompoc, people must fill out the application, have a physical exam, submit fingerprints for a background check, and show a need for the permit.

Malia Spencer can be reached at 739-2219 or mspencer@santamariatimes.com.

September 19, 2007

Shane916
09-19-2007, 11:36 AM
“As a Delta unit I am well-trained in the use of firearms, levels of force, and justifiable homicide. I take my job seriously in protection [of] our community, and I will not abuse the privilege of a CCW license.”

Which Delta unit are we talking about here?! a Power plant team or true Military Delta Force??

Glock22Fan
09-19-2007, 11:45 AM
I will be posting the cover sheet for the lawsuit on www.CaliforniaConcealedCarry.com as soon as I receive it (by post, then I have to process it, and I am away next week, so this may take a short while - sorry.)

Beyond that, our attorneys have advised me to make no comments, so please excuse me if I do not enter, or respond to this debate any further.

Thanks to those who have expressed (will express) their support.

SemiAutoSam
09-19-2007, 11:46 AM
Not good enough huh ? Their Justice = Just us.

In order to receive a permit from the sheriff, people must show good reason other than “I want to protect myself,” Brown has said in the past

artherd
09-19-2007, 11:46 AM
Which Delta unit are we talking about here?! some Power plant one who train as mall ninjas or true Military Delta Force??
I figure he's one of many ex special forces snatched up by the security industry.

In any event, I can't imagine better cause than working at a friggin DOE facuility!

rkt88edmo
09-19-2007, 11:49 AM
w00t

Shane916
09-19-2007, 11:49 AM
I figure he's one of many ex special forces snatched up by the security industry.



As far as im concerned I would trust them more then anyone with CCW's. Sounds like one crappy Sheriff.

tango-52
09-19-2007, 11:55 AM
The whole liability claim is what is so backwards. They have more liability by being selective than if they just went basically shall-issue. If they issued to anyone who could pass the background check and a class on basic CCW & self-defense laws/rules, etc., then they could shift all the liability to the DOJ's approval of the background!

CCWFacts
09-19-2007, 12:05 PM
Normally, an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, Macagni said he would grant more concealed weapons permits if the state removed liability from the issuing chief or sheriff.

He's not ignorant, he's lying. He has real liability for denying, which he is about to experience, and in fact the city is about to spend a big chunk of money on outside attorneys in Los Angeles.

There is no liability for issuing properly. Issuing is the safest thing they can do.

kantstudien
09-19-2007, 12:15 PM
If his employer (Diablo) won't supply him with a letter stating that they trust him with a firearm at all times, then his "good cause" is moot. Employment cannot be used as good cause for CCW unless he can get a letter from his employer.

tango-52
09-19-2007, 12:20 PM
If his employer (Diablo) won't supply him with a letter stating that they trust him with a firearm at all times, then his "good cause" is moot. Employment cannot be used as good cause for CCW unless he can get a letter from his employer.

As I read it, he was saying that his good cause was that because of his knowledge of the security, etc. at the power plant, someone might kidnap him for the info. It wasn't that he needed it to carry for his work or on the job. But that is just from the article. I have no idea what he actually put down on his application.

CCWFacts
09-19-2007, 12:21 PM
If his employer (Diablo) won't supply him with a letter stating that they trust him with a firearm at all times, then his "good cause" is moot. Employment cannot be used as good cause for CCW unless he can get a letter from his employer.

Many authorities operate that way but it doesn't say that anywhere in the PC. Perhaps this chief has issued to other people who have used their employment as a reason, and they didn't get letters from their employers. In that case there would be unfairness and a dual standard.

Btw, the guy's app and GC statement are public records so if someone really wants to see them...

Megan
09-19-2007, 12:32 PM
If his employer (Diablo) won't supply him with a letter stating that they trust him with a firearm at all times, then his "good cause" is moot. Employment cannot be used as good cause for CCW unless he can get a letter from his employer.


There is nothing in p.c. 12050 that says that the Good Cause needs to be employment-related, and nothing to say that (if it is) an employer's letter is required.

Just because someone in authority says "Bend over," doesn't mean that you should reply "How far?"

Python2
09-19-2007, 1:10 PM
If his employer (Diablo) won't supply him with a letter stating that they trust him with a firearm at all times, then his "good cause" is moot. Employment cannot be used as good cause for CCW unless he can get a letter from his employer.

I do not think you understand the reason for his CCW, I would guess he is armed within the Diablo's confine.
What the CCW for was to be able to legally armed concealed outside his work, as he has knowledge of sensitive materials in his work, he want to be sure he has some kind of protection if someone try to kidnap and squeeze some info from him. Terrorist for example.
As a private practitioner, I have the same issue, I conduct my profession in high crime areas and do consulting work involving sensitive information. Why should I not be allowed CCW when judges and lawyers easily can? I call this 14th Amendment violation of due process and equal protection.
Anybody in the Bay Area want to join the fun?

383green
09-19-2007, 1:41 PM
“Frankly, the people I have issued (permits) to are well-known,” Macagni said, adding they are people he has known for yearsIt seems to me that this quote will only help support the case, by providing evidence that the issuance is based on personal influence rather than good cause.

CCWFacts
09-19-2007, 2:26 PM
It seems to me that this quote will only help support the case, by providing evidence that the issuance is based on personal influence rather than good cause.

Right. "The people won't cause problems" is a good character statement, and yet the denial was a good cause denial. The chief has already shot himself in the foot. If he only issues to well-known people, because he's worried about not-well-known people having bad character, that needs to be in his policy: "You must be a high-profile person to have good character." Ha ha ha.

To put it another way, just from this short article, the chief is telling the reporter he denied for lack of good character, but in his denial he said it's because of lack of good cause, and the chief told the reporter that only well-known people have good enough character.

Off to a great start there chief!

MrLogan
09-19-2007, 2:27 PM
Hell yeah, bring on the lawsuits.

CCWFacts
09-19-2007, 2:42 PM
My biggest question here is, is there something in this that lets them go after punitive damages? If they spend tens of thousands on legal fees so one guy can get his CCW and that's it, that isn't much of a victory. If they spank the city with a $1mil penalty, then the city will have to change what it does (total city budget is $118mil last year).

MrLogan
09-19-2007, 2:54 PM
Seriously, I hope the city gets hit hard with fines. :mad:

tango-52
09-19-2007, 3:22 PM
Seriously, I hope the city gets hit hard with fines. :mad:

And how about making the Chief personally liable for depriving someone of their civil rights? Prison time and losing all of his personal possessions would get a lot of attention. :43:

hoffmang
09-19-2007, 3:36 PM
Generally one can not get punitive damages in a case like this. However 1983/1988 will allow one who wins these sorts of claims to get costs and attorney's fees back. Note that the folks who have filed this are going to have to go out of pocket up to about $25K to see this through and that's probably before they get to appeals.

-Gene

WallyGeorge
09-19-2007, 3:44 PM
Which Delta unit are we talking about here?! some Power plant one who train as mall ninjas or true Military Delta Force??

I have worked in the nuclear security industry and can verify that nuclear officers have a great deal of specialized training and are quite proficient in their field. Many in this industry are ex Military and LE, and continuously undergo a greater deal of training and qualifications than most LE officers. Thes facilities are continuously measured and must prove their ability to defend against assault. You wouldn't believe the amount of collaboration it takes between .gov agencies and nuke plants to do all of this.

Its sad to see someone like you attack them by using the term "mall ninja", and would like to know what your background is before making such a blanket statement. If you have a reason for this opinion, please share it.

hoffmang
09-19-2007, 3:54 PM
Just want to second that the DOE guys are not to be laughed at. I have in my possession waivers requests to the CA DOJ for them to acquire select fire M4s as part of their standard gear.

-Gene

Paladin
09-19-2007, 4:20 PM
Hot Dang! I'm glad to hear. :jump:

While the case hasn't been won yet, I'm confident that "Team Billy Jack" took the time to get their ducks in a row before filing.

Re the article:

Hmmm? Where do I recognize that hat and blue jean jacket from? Lemme guess, Preston was wearing blue jeans and a black t-shirt too. Was he also: (a) bare footed, (b) wearing moccasins, or (c) wearing cowboy boots?

"None of the council members kept a copy of the suit, and instead left them with Trujillo."

If that councilwoman didn't take her copy of the suit, she's old enough to realize she might have gotten a hapkido kick to the head (see the first clip at: http://www.billyjack.com/index.php?menuID=Page&pid=181).

"As the council members assembled for their meeting, private investigator Preston Guillory, on behalf of Santa Maria resident Kurt McCloud, served them with the suit that was filed Sept. 11 in U.S District Court."

Sept 11th? That BJ -- he's too funny! ;)

"In Lompoc, Chief Timothy Dabney hasn't issued a single permit since he took office in January, said Sgt. Deann Clement, department spokeswoman."

Do these idiots actually know what they're doing by letting this be known? Why don't they just say, "Hey, BJ, watch me, I'm going to break the law by violating Salute v. Pitchess (CalApp3d, p. 560, para. 21). I'm abusing discretion by not exercising discretion. Please sue me next!" Dooh. I guess he's bucking for the Darwin award.

Time to break out the popcorn and beer. Between Team Billy Jack's lawsuits and Heller/Parker, good things could be coming our way! :party:

CCWFacts
09-19-2007, 4:21 PM
Generally one can not get punitive damages in a case like this. However 1983/1988 will allow one who wins these sorts of claims to get costs and attorney's fees back. Note that the folks who have filed this are going to have to go out of pocket up to about $25K to see this through and that's probably before they get to appeals.

That's what I thought. For all the news reports, punitive damages are rare, and usually not huge. Oh well, if they get their lawyer fees back that will be fine. The city will be out $100k or whatever, and some lawyers will start figuring out that they can make a steady practice in suing chiefs / sheriffs.

rkt88edmo
09-19-2007, 4:26 PM
Just want to second that the DOE guys are not to be laughed at. I have in my possession waivers requests to the CA DOJ for them to acquire select fire M4s as part of their standard gear.

-Gene

Hey, if Livermore got miniguns, actual nuke plants should at least get M4s :batman:

wilit
09-19-2007, 4:31 PM
Hmmm... I wonder if my extensive knowledge of the Verizon infrastructure and the numerous government (including FAA) communications systems would be a valid "good cause" reason. Al-Qaeda could capture me and torture me into telling them how to take down the FAA network, or worse yet, how to get a free RAZR phone. :D

M. Sage
09-19-2007, 4:36 PM
Wow. He didn't just serve them with papers, he served them with an encyclopedia!!!

pnkssbtz
09-19-2007, 4:44 PM
Hmmm... I wonder if my extensive knowledge of the Verizon infrastructure and the numerous government (including FAA) communications systems would be a valid "good cause" reason. Al-Qaeda could capture me and torture me into telling them how to take down the FAA network, or worse yet, how to get a free RAZR phone. :D

What about an *gasp* unlocked RAZR phone!??!?! *shudder*.


If you mention this to the CEO he may lobby congress to get a bill passed against terrorist unlocked phones. (i.e. phones that you can take from network to network, thus confusing the NSA's phone tapping software. Of which only terrorists would ever need to use to bypass Homeland Security...)

WokMaster1
09-19-2007, 5:05 PM
Wow! It would be hilarious if the city tries to hire TM.........:D

Bishop
09-19-2007, 6:01 PM
“I feel strongly about people and their personal protection,” he said, but added that the liability to the city trumps his “pro-Second Amendment” beliefs.

“I feel strongly about people and their personal protection,” he said, but added that the liability to the city trumps his constitutional rights.

Fixed. :mad:

hoffmang
09-19-2007, 6:09 PM
Time to break out the popcorn and beer. Between Team Billy Jack's lawsuits and Heller/Parker, good things could be coming our way! :party:

Paladin,

There are even more fun surprises coming over the next couple of weeks :43:

-Gene

Liberty1
09-19-2007, 6:35 PM
Paladin,

There are even more fun surprises coming over the next couple of weeks :43:

-Gene

Ya we know.........




















TWO WEEKS RIGHT?

Rob P.
09-19-2007, 6:38 PM
This sort of case can be used as a double attack on our current CCW system. As is and also by way of changing the system. If someone/buncha someones were to gather all the data on what is being spent to defend against suit over wrongful denials then present them to our legislators we might be able to convince them that having the DOJ be the issuing dept instead of unequal treatment by county sheriffs. (BTW, HOW THE HECK can a 'county' sheriff issue a permit valid in other counties or even state-wide? Wouldn't they need authority beyond their local county to issue state wide beyond the statute? IDK but it smells funny to me.)

Once we get the DOJ to be the issuing dept based on fair and reasonable guidelines we can then push for 'shall issue' instead of 'may issue'. 2-step process but it could be done if we organize and get active.

artherd
09-19-2007, 7:48 PM
Sherrif issues under a STATE law, not a county law. The authority to issue is infact limited to the counry the sherrif oversees. The authority of the issued person to carry statewide is then under a state statute.

artherd
09-19-2007, 7:49 PM
Hey, if Livermore got miniguns, actual nuke plants should at least get M4s :batman:

Kinda makes you wonder what's at Livermore eh? ;)

artherd
09-19-2007, 7:50 PM
Hmmm... I wonder if my extensive knowledge of the Verizon infrastructure and the numerous government (including FAA) communications systems would be a valid "good cause" reason. Al-Qaeda could capture me and torture me into telling them how to take down the FAA network, or worse yet, how to get a free RAZR phone. :D

Damn yes it would, have you applied?

hoffmang
09-19-2007, 7:59 PM
Kinda makes you wonder what's at Livermore eh? ;)

Fissile material? I think most everyone knows that part... Oh and a computer that can model the first 60 seconds of an explosion...

-Gene

ryang
09-19-2007, 9:08 PM
The 'liability' claims of the chief are laughable. If he's basing his decision on such a flimsy premise I don't think the case will take long.

From the California Department of Justice, standard application for license to carry a concealed weapon:
Section 6 – Agreement to Restrictions and to Hold Harmless
I accept and assume all responsibility and liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any property which may result through any act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued the license. In the event any claim, suit or action is brought against the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission, the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.

ryang
09-19-2007, 9:11 PM
My biggest question here is, is there something in this that lets them go after punitive damages? If they spend tens of thousands on legal fees so one guy can get his CCW and that's it, that isn't much of a victory. If they spank the city with a $1mil penalty, then the city will have to change what it does (total city budget is $118mil last year).I don't recall where I read it, but I remember Guillory once posted getting a sizable punitive award after winning his case.

Regardless, few cities can shrug off the prospect of spending tens of thousands on legal fees each and every time they deny a ccw application.

swhatb
09-19-2007, 9:23 PM
I smell :lurk5: brewing...

thedrickel
09-19-2007, 9:59 PM
The city attorney sounds clueless . . . they are going to get their asses handed to them.

Knauga
09-20-2007, 5:41 AM
Most cities aren't so much clueless as arrogant. This is their feifdom and they can do as they please, besides why should they give a rip as ultimately it isn't their money that is being wasted.

I have a relative suing a city in So Cal, the city Attorney and the outside legal counsel advising the city have all told them they need to settle this, if it gets to court it will cost A LOT more. They refused to settle, they are going to get their asses handed to them in court.

zok
09-20-2007, 7:05 AM
I have heard there are many violations to the law and policy. It is not just the denile and the good old boy club. There is a lot more to it. Did you see how thick that complaint is. There is more than what is being said in the media.

Python2
09-20-2007, 8:37 AM
Wow! BJ finally did it. He picked the right candidate and made it similar to his previous case that won him big bucks. With the encylopedia looking documents, I bet those are discoveries from PRA they have been working on.
I hope they dont have to wait ten years or so.

Rob P.
09-20-2007, 10:34 AM
Sherrif issues under a STATE law, not a county law. The authority to issue is infact limited to the counry the sherrif oversees. The authority of the issued person to carry statewide is then under a state statute.

You misunderstand me. The cert you get says "State of California" on it. Not 'county of'.

ONLY official State personnel can issue official State documents. A county sheriff is NOT 'official State personnel'. He has no authority to sign/seal/deliver State documents even if the Statute says he can. The signature is NOT valid.

To prove my point, the WCAB cannot use county sheriffs as bailiffs in thier courtrooms. Why? Because they have no authority in any official State capacity. If sheriff's cannot act officially in a courtroom within the physical boundaries of their county, then how can they exert authority over other people outside of the boundary of the county? Answer, they cannot. No county sheriff has the authority to tell another state entity outside his county what is allowed.

Unless you want to try to say that the sheriff is an 'agent' of the State when he issues the permit therefore the permit is really being issued by the State and not the sheriff. But there's nothing in the Statute to authorize the Sheriff to act as an 'agent' on the State's behalf. Without SPECIFIC language giving him that status, he is not an 'agent' of the State.

And, if the permit IS being issued by a State 'agent' (the sheriff) then the guidelines for issuance need to be standardized and uniform instead of the unequal process being used now. Uniformity cannot be achieved so long as the decision is discretionary on the part of the issuer no matter what the guidelines say is or isn't sufficient for issuance.

What we have now is akin to having local DMV control in the hands of the county cops where some are requiring certification of NASCAR training AND 5 yrs experience driving over 250 mph before they'll even think about giving you a learner's permit while others don't care if you can or can't drive at all before they give you an unrestricted license.

The discretion part of the issuance is being abused and resulting in equal protection of the law violations. Having the permits issued by the DOJ would solve a lot of the problems in the current law and system.

tango-52
09-20-2007, 11:00 AM
To prove my point, the WCAB cannot use county sheriffs as bailiffs in thier courtrooms. Why? Because they have no authority in any official State capacity. If sheriff's cannot act officially in a courtroom within the physical boundaries of their county, then how can they exert authority over other people outside of the boundary of the county? Answer, they cannot. No county sheriff has the authority to tell another state entity outside his county what is allowed.
In San Diego County, the Sheriff's Department personnel serve as bailiffs in the courts. There is no longer a separate Marshall's office. Are you saying that this is illegal?

hoffmang
09-20-2007, 11:08 AM
Rob,

The Penal Code specifies that the County Sheriff is acting in a capacity under the Penal Code. You can claim that doesn't create Agency but it looks to me like it does.

-Gene

odesskiy
09-20-2007, 11:13 AM
In San Diego County, the Sheriff's Department personnel serve as bailiffs in the courts. There is no longer a separate Marshall's office. Are you saying that this is illegal?

Same in LA County.

dustoff31
09-20-2007, 11:30 AM
Rob,

The Penal Code specifies that the County Sheriff is acting in a capacity under the Penal Code. You can claim that doesn't create Agency but it looks to me like it does.

-Gene

I see what Rob P. is getting at, but I agree with you that the PC does create agency.

That being said, shouldn't the various CCW suits name the state as defendants, as the CLEO's are acting as their agents?

Paladin
09-20-2007, 11:43 AM
Another article re the Team Billy Jack lawsuit:
http://www.santamariasun.com/index.php?p=showarticle&id=2982

Lawsuit charges that city unfairly gave out gun permits
BY AMY ASMAN

Date: 09/19/2007

Who gets gun permits in Santa Maria, and who doesn't, is the focus of a federal lawsuit filed against Santa Maria's police chief, mayor, and City Council members.

Copies of a hefty stack of papers that make up the lawsuit and attached exhibits were served to council members, the mayor, and police chief at the Santa Maria City Council's regular meeting Sept. 19.

The civil rights lawsuit was filed Sept. 11 in federal court in Los Angeles on behalf of Kurt M. McCloud of Santa Maria, claiming that Police Chief Danny Macagni was biased in granting gun permits to six other city residents but not to McCloud.

According to the lawsuit, McCloud is employed by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Diablo nuclear power plant as a nuclear security officer, and that because of his job, he is concerned for his personal safety, as well.

The lawsuit cites six other instances of Santa Maria residents being granted a license to carry a concealed weapon, and alleges his civil rights were violated when his application was rejected.

City Attorney Gil Trujillo said that California state law grants police chiefs the sole responsibility of issuing concealed-weapons permits at their own discretion.

"The police chief takes his responsibility very seriously and he obviously had his reasons for not granting the permit," Trujillo said. "[The city] stands behind Chief Macagni and plans to defend him."

Because the lawsuit was filed in federal court in Los Angeles, Trujillo said outside counsel likely would be employed to assist in answering the lawsuit.

CALI-gula
09-20-2007, 11:45 AM
Kinda makes you wonder what's at Livermore eh? ;)


I bet SemiAutoSam knows!!

Isn't that where the barbed wire faces inward??? :D

.

SemiAutoSam
09-20-2007, 2:30 PM
CALI-gula
You only mentioned my name once but I appeared anyway.

I never said I knew everything But in answer to the question of the barbed wire at the top of a fence in general when there is only one strand of barbed wire if it points out the owner or management of the facility would most likely want to keep something OUT of a fenced area and if it points in it makes common sense to me that one would want to keep something or someone IN.

But as to the thread topic maybe this is the reason the County Sheriff does not want to issue a CCW to the nuclear guard.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20821938/
Gun accident at Seabrook Station injures security guard
SEABROOK, NH - A nuclear power plant security guard accidentally shot himself in the leg this morning during a shift change.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/Jay_G/homer_doh.jpg
Pic below from the NRC of what a nuclear power plant security guard may carry.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/images/secguard.jpg



I bet SemiAutoSam knows!!

Isn't that where the barbed wire faces inward??? :D

.

CALI-gula
09-20-2007, 3:20 PM
.... But as to the thread topic maybe this is the reason the County Sheriff does not want to issue a CCW to the nuclear guard.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20821938/
Gun accident at Seabrook Station injures security guard
SEABROOK, NH - A nuclear power plant security guard accidentally shot himself in the leg this morning during a shift change.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/Jay_G/homer_doh.jpg



DOH is right!

.

artherd
09-20-2007, 3:46 PM
Rob, there are many ways to create Agency, and I belive in my layperson, non-lawyer opinion, that the PC does.

I see your points otherwise, and for the most part, agree there are large holes in this system.

Best!
Ben.

You misunderstand me. The cert you get says "State of California" on it. Not 'county of'.

ONLY official State personnel can issue official State documents. A county sheriff is NOT 'official State personnel'. He has no authority to sign/seal/deliver State documents even if the Statute says he can. The signature is NOT valid.

To prove my point, the WCAB cannot use county sheriffs as bailiffs in thier courtrooms. Why? Because they have no authority in any official State capacity. If sheriff's cannot act officially in a courtroom within the physical boundaries of their county, then how can they exert authority over other people outside of the boundary of the county? Answer, they cannot. No county sheriff has the authority to tell another state entity outside his county what is allowed.

Unless you want to try to say that the sheriff is an 'agent' of the State when he issues the permit therefore the permit is really being issued by the State and not the sheriff. But there's nothing in the Statute to authorize the Sheriff to act as an 'agent' on the State's behalf. Without SPECIFIC language giving him that status, he is not an 'agent' of the State.

And, if the permit IS being issued by a State 'agent' (the sheriff) then the guidelines for issuance need to be standardized and uniform instead of the unequal process being used now. Uniformity cannot be achieved so long as the decision is discretionary on the part of the issuer no matter what the guidelines say is or isn't sufficient for issuance.

What we have now is akin to having local DMV control in the hands of the county cops where some are requiring certification of NASCAR training AND 5 yrs experience driving over 250 mph before they'll even think about giving you a learner's permit while others don't care if you can or can't drive at all before they give you an unrestricted license.

The discretion part of the issuance is being abused and resulting in equal protection of the law violations. Having the permits issued by the DOJ would solve a lot of the problems in the current law and system.

team06
10-15-2007, 7:17 PM
Another article re the Team Billy Jack lawsuit:
http://www.santamariasun.com/index.php?p=showarticle&id=2982

Lawsuit charges that city unfairly gave out gun permits
BY AMY ASMAN

Date: 09/19/2007

Who gets gun permits in Santa Maria, and who doesn't, is the focus of a federal lawsuit filed against Santa Maria's police chief, mayor, and City Council members.

Copies of a hefty stack of papers that make up the lawsuit and attached exhibits were served to council members, the mayor, and police chief at the Santa Maria City Council's regular meeting Sept. 19.

The civil rights lawsuit was filed Sept. 11 in federal court in Los Angeles on behalf of Kurt M. McCloud of Santa Maria, claiming that Police Chief Danny Macagni was biased in granting gun permits to six other city residents but not to McCloud.

According to the lawsuit, McCloud is employed by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Diablo nuclear power plant as a nuclear security officer, and that because of his job, he is concerned for his personal safety, as well.

The lawsuit cites six other instances of Santa Maria residents being granted a license to carry a concealed weapon, and alleges his civil rights were violated when his application was rejected.

City Attorney Gil Trujillo said that California state law grants police chiefs the sole responsibility of issuing concealed-weapons permits at their own discretion.

"The police chief takes his responsibility very seriously and he obviously had his reasons for not granting the permit," Trujillo said. "[The city] stands behind Chief Macagni and plans to defend him."

Because the lawsuit was filed in federal court in Los Angeles, Trujillo said outside counsel likely would be employed to assist in answering the lawsuit.

Well, I have heard a lot of banter regarding the chief only giving permits to cronies... BS!
I have no affiliation with the man and yet I ended up with one. I am not LE, a city official, lawyer, or any of the good ol' boy network. I filed the paperwork, did the training, had the background check, and qualified with the firearms I wanted on my permit.
This guy happens to be very pro-gun, an active shooter, and pro-carry. Maybe there was other reasons this guy didn't get one, other than the fact that he wasn't a buddy of the chief.
I don't agree with a may issue state, but it is what we are stuck with for now. I still need to read the verbage surrounding the liability for the issuing agent. I have heard that it is merely interpretation... and I will look into that as well.


team06

pnkssbtz
10-15-2007, 7:56 PM
This guy happens to be very pro-gun, an active shooter, and pro-carry. Maybe there was other reasons this guy didn't get one, other than the fact that he wasn't a buddy of the chief.

Then why was the CCW denied?

If a "Good Cause Statement" for Mr. Well-Connected is sufficient for a CCW, then "Good Cause Statement" is sufficient for Joe Nobody. To do otherwise is EXACTLY why this case was filed.

I, for one, judge people by their actions, not what they say.

team06
10-15-2007, 8:09 PM
Then why was the CCW denied?

If a "Good Cause Statement" for Mr. Well-Connected is sufficient for a CCW, then "Good Cause Statement" is sufficient for Joe Nobody. To do otherwise is EXACTLY why this case was filed.

I, for one, judge people by their actions, not what they say.

Well, for starters, he gave one to me based on my good cause statement. I haven't seen the other guys cause statement, but would really like to (as well as the rest of his form). I don't know why his was not accepted, except for the hearsay that is circulating in the rumor mill. All I was trying to get across was that I have no affiliation to the chief, so my acceptance was due to my good cause and associated paperwork.

team06

Solidmch
10-15-2007, 8:32 PM
He's not ignorant, he's lying. He has real liability for denying, which he is about to experience, and in fact the city is about to spend a big chunk of money on outside attorneys in Los Angeles.

There is no liability for issuing properly. Issuing is the safest thing they can do.

your right but they do not care. It is not their money. Thats how these city.

Paladin
10-15-2007, 8:36 PM
At: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=71946 I posted info on how to follow the progress of the case.

Public Records Act (PRA) requests are what are used to find out the Good Cause statements of those who have been granted CCWs to compare them to those who have been denied (e.g., the plaintiff in this case).

Go over to www.californiaconcealedcarry.com and look around for more info.

Paladin
10-15-2007, 8:59 PM
Well, I have heard a lot of banter regarding the chief only giving permits to cronies... BS!
I have no affiliation with the man and yet I ended up with one. I am not LE, a city official, lawyer, or any of the good ol' boy network. I filed the paperwork, did the training, had the background check, and qualified with the firearms I wanted on my permit.Just because your 14th A rights were not violated doesn't mean Mr. McCloud's weren't.

Let the justice system do its work. The truth should come out in the end (or beginning ;)).

Stormfeather
10-15-2007, 9:05 PM
I figure he's one of many ex special forces snatched up by the security industry.

In any event, I can't imagine better cause than working at a friggin DOE facuility!


he must be a "merc"

:rolleyes:

Stormfeather
10-15-2007, 9:09 PM
And how about making the Chief personally liable for depriving someone of their civil rights? Prison time and losing all of his personal possessions would get a lot of attention. :43:

I am wondering if this is a civil issue, and not a criminal issue, so prison time wouldnt be involved.

artherd
10-15-2007, 10:23 PM
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html

Looks like civil under § 1983. shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

Glock22Fan
10-16-2007, 8:20 AM
Well, for starters, he gave one to me based on my good cause statement. I haven't seen the other guys cause statement, but would really like to (as well as the rest of his form). I don't know why his was not accepted, except for the hearsay that is circulating in the rumor mill. All I was trying to get across was that I have no affiliation to the chief, so my acceptance was due to my good cause and associated paperwork.

team06

The chief has six outstanding permits. You must be one of these. TBJ has examined all six applications in detail and every single one of these has flaws. This must include your application.

The chief himself has admitted in press interviews that he only issues to people he knows. There are 150,000 people in his jurisdiction. Given a typical issue of 1% in areas that are fairly liberal in issuing, and we get a potential 1,500 CCW holders. Six as opposed to fifteen hundred, and you appear to be saying that the chief issues fairly? Come off it!

(Note: the facts in this email are public record and the paperwork filed (including copies of CCW applications and an analysis of why each is flawed) is available through the district court in Los Angeles. This isn't hearsay.)

team06
10-16-2007, 8:58 AM
The chief has six outstanding permits. You must be one of these. TBJ has examined all six applications in detail and every single one of these has flaws. This must include your application.

The chief himself has admitted in press interviews that he only issues to people he knows. There are 150,000 people in his jurisdiction. Given a typical issue of 1% in areas that are fairly liberal in issuing, and we get a potential 1,500 CCW holders. Six as opposed to fifteen hundred, and you appear to be saying that the chief issues fairly? Come off it!

(Note: the facts in this email are public record and the paperwork filed (including copies of CCW applications and an analysis of why each is flawed) is available through the district court in Los Angeles. This isn't hearsay.)
Ok, point by point...
I was not aware that the chief knew me before I got my permit. Since you seem to have more data surrounding this than I do, just how many were denied in the same span that 6 were approved? So are you saying that 1500 were denied or that the numbers should support at least 1500 possible in the city? I did not and have not asked for the public record of all permits applied for, and don't have the numbers.
IN MY OPINION, IN MY CASE, I still believe I was issued due to my good cause statement and clear record. Until I know the complete story, I will continue to believe so and until I learn facts to the contrary I can't "Come off it". I would be the second person to jump on the band wagon though, if I had facts that were proving that the 1500 were denied due to merely not knowing the chief.
I firmly believe that this should be a SHALL issue state and not one that has to leave it in the hands of an official to decide whether the reason justifies the ccw.

team06

Exiledviking
10-16-2007, 9:20 AM
There are 150,000 people in his jurisdiction.

(Note: the facts in this email are public record and the paperwork filed (including copies of CCW applications and an analysis of why each is flawed) is available through the district court in Los Angeles. This isn't hearsay.)

FWIW,
"As of January 1, 2006, the City's population was estimated at 90,204 by the State Department of Finance,"

http://www.ci.santa-maria.ca.us/AboutSantaMaria.html

ar15barrels
10-16-2007, 10:10 AM
IN MY OPINION, IN MY CASE, I still believe I was issued due to my good cause statement and clear record.

So please give us a summary of YOUR good cause statement.

RAD-CDPII
10-16-2007, 10:32 AM
So please give us a summary of YOUR good cause statement.

I don't think that giving a GC statement on a public forum is a good idea.

Exiledviking
10-16-2007, 10:55 AM
Why don't you guys let up on Team06? He's one of us.

I think there is more to the story of Mr McCloud.

Instead of bashing on each other and the Santa Maria Police Chief, let's see where this suit takes it. I am hoping that it will make it easier for others to get a CCW.

IF you guys are bent on berating someone regarding the CCW permits take a look the NRA endorsed:eek: turn-coat Bill Brown, Sheriff of Santa Barbara County.

Glock22Fan
10-16-2007, 12:28 PM
FWIW,
"As of January 1, 2006, the City's population was estimated at 90,204 by the State Department of Finance,"

OK then, 900 permits. And that wasn't one of the facts in the lawsuit.

And no, I don't suppose he's denied 900 people. What happens is that, like in L.A., people don't bother to waste several hundred dollars applying for permits that they know they aren't going to get. That figure is based on an average of those departments and counties that operate a pretty much "Shall Issue" practice. It's typically around 1% of the population on these areas, and in those states that are "Shall Issue."

Why don't you guys let up on Team06? He's one of us

Hey, I have no problem all working together. Maybe he's lucky, and the only person in Santa Maria to legitimately have a permit. However, he shouldn't assume that that means that anyone with a good cause can get one, and therefore if you don't get one there must be something that you're not revealing. Six permits says it all, as far as I'm concerned.

And also yes, Santa Barbara is also on TBJ's radar screen. They also use LEXIPOL to deter applicants.

rkt88edmo
10-16-2007, 1:01 PM
Why don't you guys let up on Team06? He's one of us.

I'd certainly agree with that sentiment. Although, if there isn't anyone else coming out of the woodwork (or via numbers analysis) it would seem that the issuance policy stink, like it does for much of urban/suburban CA.

Guys, if Team06 wants to share more he will, but if those are all public docs they have a way of making you identifiable pretty quick, so if he doesn't want to say anything and remain harder to peg down that is fine. I'm sure he doesn't expect his story to be accepted without scrutiny either.

team06
10-16-2007, 1:10 PM
OK then, 900 permits. And that wasn't one of the facts in the lawsuit.

And no, I don't suppose he's denied 900 people. What happens is that, like in L.A., people don't bother to waste several hundred dollars applying for permits that they know they aren't going to get. That figure is based on an average of those departments and counties that operate a pretty much "Shall Issue" practice. It's typically around 1% of the population on these areas, and in those states that are "Shall Issue."

I was only posting with the facts of my case, I know nothing of the other for sure. Most of us have read the articles that are reposted here, I personally don't know exactly what , other than my case, is fact or fiction. We definitely need to watch how this one pans out and what the facts of the case actually are.
Imho would however think that to slam on the chief for not approving permits of those who didn't apply because they didn't think they would get one, is not the right way to go. I would still like to know how many he denied vs. approved, that might give us more information to go on.

team06

Glock22Fan
10-16-2007, 1:24 PM
Because there is apparently no legal requirements for them so to do, and because many of them feel that this evidence would incriminate them, it is the somewhat hard to believe fact that so far every sheriff or chief that we have requested this information from has told us that they do not retain, and do not know, the denials figure! I have a (snail mail) letter from the Los Angeles Counsel, for Sheriff Baca, telling me that denied applications are destroyed and no records of them are kept!

Imho would however think that to slam on the chief for not approving permits of those who didn't apply because they didn't think they would get one, is not the right way to go

I think that this is a convoluted way of putting it. How many L.A. residents don't bother to apply? Me, for one. We hear nearly daily from Los Angeles residents who think it isn't worth applying. We have to advise them that, at this point of time, they should save their money unless their Good Cause is cast-iron and they are prepared to fight in Federal Court, if necessary. Has Baca denied them? No. Should we blame Baca's policy? Absolutely. How about the sheriffs who blatently announce that they have a "No Issue" policy? Should we leave them alone because nobody applies to them, thereby proving that there's no demand in their county?

Glock22Fan
10-18-2007, 9:23 AM
This case comes up in the District Court in Los Angeles on November 19th. It should be interesting.

The defendant's lawyer is the co-president of LEXIPOL PLC, who wrote the challenged policy. One might imagine that he might have a conflict of interest concerning whether his main aim is to defend the LEXIPOL policy at all costs, or whether he should advise his client on the most effective way out of this situation - which might include revoking the policy for which Santa Maria PD has paid a sum believed to be thousands of dollars.

The reasons laid out for dismissing this case are interesting and ingenious (all of this is public record). Amongst other claims, the most laughable is the statement that if McCloud's employers wanted him to have a CCW, they should have authorized one for him. Can anyone find that provision in p.c. 12050? And these are the guys who wrote the CCW policy being used by many of the California departments?

Keep watching for further exciting revelations.

Fate
10-18-2007, 12:02 PM
I have a (snail mail) letter from the Los Angeles Counsel, for Sheriff Baca, telling me that denied applications are destroyed and no records of them are kept!


Interesting. Then if one were to apply, was denied and later reapplied, the answer to the "have you ever been denied a CCW permit?" question would be pretty hard for them to verify. The system in CA is beyond a joke.

Mute
10-18-2007, 2:32 PM
Here's what I think is a real double standard. Fear for one's safety is not considered a good cause unless documented with a threat and very likely a restraining order against the threat maker, yet judges and attorneys are often issued permits because of possible threats to their safety. I'd like to know how many of those judges and attorneys are held to the same level of scrutiny as far as documentation is concerned.

Glock22Fan
10-18-2007, 4:34 PM
Here's what I think is a real double standard. Fear for one's safety is not considered a good cause unless documented with a threat and very likely a restraining order against the threat maker, yet judges and attorneys are often issued permits because of possible threats to their safety. I'd like to know how many of those judges and attorneys are held to the same level of scrutiny as far as documentation is concerned.

"The Sheriff's policy is not to issue any concealed weapons permit to any person, except for judges who express concern for their personal safety. In special circumstances, the request of a public office holder who expresses concern for his personal safety would be considered. . . ." and "the outstanding permits issued by the Sheriff are only 24 in number."
.
.
To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.

It is now over thirty years since the courts ruled that the above policy was not acceptable and directed Sheriff Pitchess (Los Angeles County) to broaden his issue. (Salute v. Pitchess, 1976 (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/salute.html)) Thirty years down the road and Baca, with just over 300 permits is still operating a watered down policy of the same type; refusing to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally. Go TBJ!

artherd
10-18-2007, 10:52 PM
This case comes up in the District Court in Los Angeles on November 19th. It should be interesting.

The defendant's lawyer is the co-president of LEXIPOL PLC, who wrote the challenged policy.

Wow, if that's not an Ethics & Professional Responsibility violation I don't know what is. This clown should have his bar card hanging from bwieses' rear-view mirror.

Paladin
10-20-2007, 1:51 PM
This case comes up in the District Court in Los Angeles on November 19th. It should be interesting.

The defendant's lawyer is the co-president of LEXIPOL PLC, who wrote the challenged policy. One might imagine that he might have a conflict of interest concerning whether his main aim is to defend the LEXIPOL policy at all costs, or whether he should advise his client on the most effective way out of this situation - which might include revoking the policy for which Santa Maria PD has paid a sum believed to be thousands of dollars.Why did Santa Maria choose the co-president of LEXIPOL to defend them? :confused: Does the LEXIPOL contract say that they will provide free/discounted legal defense should an agency/city/county ever get sued over their policies? Or a mere coincidence and he's the best to represent them before that court re that issue?

I've marked Nov 19th on my day planner. I look forward to hearing the latest news from Team Billy Jack. :D

duenor
10-20-2007, 4:39 PM
good grief, M4s! what if a stray 5.56 manages to pierce the reactor core and cause the reactor to go critical? we could have a meltdown all because of one ND!

no, no, much better for our DOE guards to be armed with glueguns and minidiscs with the sound of shotguns being racked playing continuously on them.

=)

383green
10-20-2007, 6:53 PM
no, no, much better for our DOE guards to be armed with glueguns and minidiscs with the sound of shotguns being racked playing continuously on them.

=)


Hey, if I slip in my own poo and fall after that shotgun-racking sound makes me lose bowel control, I'm totally suing!

:D

damontmiller
11-30-2007, 7:41 PM
I live in LA county, is there any way I can get a ccw? From what I here it is impossible to get one. So why do they have applications? I am in the Coast Guard (Federal Law enforcement Officer) if that helps. Some one please help. Honestly, I don't even own a gun but I want a CCW just because they say it's impossible to get one!

dustoff31
11-30-2007, 8:00 PM
If you have Federal LEO credentials, you should come under the LEOSA provisions and not need a CCW.

Fjold
11-30-2007, 8:02 PM
good grief, M4s! what if a stray 5.56 manages to pierce the reactor core and cause the reactor to go critical? we could have a meltdown all because of one ND!

=)

A reactor has to go critical to produce heat. "Critical" is the term used when the reactor is self sustaining (it liberates enough neutrons to support a continuous chain reaction).

1911_sfca
11-30-2007, 8:31 PM
Welcome to Calguns, damontmiller.

I live in LA county, is there any way I can get a ccw?

No.

Have a nice weekend. :D

M. Sage
11-30-2007, 9:23 PM
I live in LA county, is there any way I can get a ccw? From what I here it is impossible to get one. So why do they have applications? I am in the Coast Guard (Federal Law enforcement Officer) if that helps. Some one please help. Honestly, I don't even own a gun but I want a CCW just because they say it's impossible to get one!

You have to have guns to get a CCW anyway. Your gun(s) that you've qualified to carry (training and testing) gets listed on your CCW - make, model and serial.

GuyW
02-05-2008, 1:11 PM
...Imho would however think that to slam on the chief for not approving permits of those who didn't apply because they didn't think they would get one, is not the right way to go....
team06

“Frankly, the people I have issued (permits) to are well-known,” Macagni said, adding they are people he has known for years...."

Why would any sane person (non-insider) waste their time and money applying when the obvious climate is the good ol' boy club?

Fair and impartial wielders of discretion, have an open door policy.

This Sheriff is an arrogant, elitist, good ol' boy who deserves to be slammed all day long...

...'course, I'm in San Diego, so I don't haveta kiss his @#$...so maybe that colors my opinions...

mymonkeyman
02-05-2008, 2:27 PM
Why should I not be allowed CCW when judges and lawyers easily can?

Please tell me how lawyers can easily get CCWs? Is it the secret handshake they teach you after you pass the bar? Or are you just talking about DAs and others that deal with criminals?

mymonkeyman
02-05-2008, 2:35 PM
I am wondering if this is a civil issue, and not a criminal issue, so prison time wouldnt be involved.

Also, since the sheriff is following the state law that hasn't been struck down as unconstitutional (nor a similar law struck down), nor has there been a previous, binding case directly on point, that provides a clear statement of federal law, the officer is likely to get qualified immunity. This means no damages and only injunctive or declaratory relief (still good).

CCWFacts
02-05-2008, 2:43 PM
Yes, this is a civil case; jail time is not anywhere on the table.

My prediction is this won't go to trial. It will probably be a confidential settlement agreement, involving the guy getting his CCW, and perhaps recovering his legal fees, but no damages. That's not some earth-shattering victory, but it's good and it's progress. Incremental progress is the best kind of progress to aim for in this state.

Glock22Fan
02-05-2008, 2:51 PM
Also, since the sheriff is following the state law that hasn't been struck down as unconstitutional (nor a similar law struck down), nor has there been a previous, binding case directly on point, that provides a clear statement of federal law, the officer is likely to get qualified immunity. This means no damages and only injunctive or declaratory relief (still good).

Why do you think that the chief (not sheriff) is following state law? He isn't.

And, apparently you don't see the 14th as having any teeth, and have never read the ruling (quoted below) from the Cal Appeal Court?

Salute v. Pitchess (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/salute.html)

[19] The petitioners allege, and the sheriff admits, that the sheriff has a fixed policy of not granting applications under section 12050 except in a limited number of cases. The policy was stated by Undersheriff Block as follows:


[20] "The Sheriff's policy is not to issue any concealed weapons permit to any person, except for judges who express concern for their personal safety. In special circumstances, the request of a public office holder who expresses concern for his personal safety would be considered. . . ." and "the outstanding permits issued by the Sheriff are only 24 in number."


[21] While a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion. We regard the case at bench as involving a refusal of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given him by the statute. Section 12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.

I'm not a lawyer, but TBJ attorneys don't see any of the problems you see.
.

GuyW
02-05-2008, 3:00 PM
...My prediction is this won't go to trial. It will probably be a confidential settlement agreement, involving the guy getting his CCW, and perhaps recovering his legal fees, but no damages. That's not some earth-shattering victory, but it's good and it's progress. Incremental progress is the best kind of progress to aim for in this state.

Well, TBJ _could_ settle for secret decoder rings, but I'm guessing that they will push for more than you've outlined....say, maybe a published, fair, and impartial application process, maybe private oversight and public reporting....also, the LEXIPOL group feels pain...

Since apparently the LEXIPOL policy's lawfulness is in question, a victory for the good guys (us) means that the LEXIPOL policy that is used state-wide, gets revised to comply with the law.

mymonkeyman
02-05-2008, 3:03 PM
Why do you think that the chief (not sheriff) is following state law? He isn't.

And, apparently you don't see the 14th as having any teeth, and have never read the ruling (quoted below) from the Cal Appeal Court?

Salute v. Pitchess (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/salute.html)



I'm not a lawyer, but TBJ attorneys don't see any of the problems you see.


You're right. He's probably not following state law correctly. I should have said: he reasonably thinks he is following state law correctly given the absence of controlling judicial authority. Of course, that question is somewhat irrelevant. For the federal claims, whether the Sheriff is or isn't following the state law isn't necessarily dispositive.

Also, qualified immunity has nothing to do with the 14th amendment, just money suits against individual officers under the federal statutory civil rights causes of action (e.g. 42 USC 1983). You can't sue for money damages directly under the due process or equal protection clauses except for Bivens actions (money suits where there would be no other way to vindicate the right, e.g. against federal officials violating constitutional rights). Of course, if the federal claims survive a motion to dismiss or summary judgment, it is possible there may be supplemental state claims that would allow better recovery than the federal claims (e.g. without the qualified immunity limitations).

The quote you gave did not mention money damages.

Of course this isn't legal advice, I'm not an attorney (yet), I'm not your (or anyone's) attorney, and individuals should consult an attorney rather than the internet. This is just commentary about the case.

Glock22Fan
02-05-2008, 3:12 PM
The quote you gave did not mention money damages.

Never said it did. Just showing that there were precedent cases directly related to this one. If you want damages, how about the 1.3 million (in 1986) for Guillory v. Gates? Not quite the same basis, but a similar and related case.

And Palladin is also correct. Indeed, we already hear of one authority that has modified its written policy as a direct response to the Santa Maria case and a couple of others who have quickly revoked some of their "FotS" (Friends of the Sheriff) CCW's in the misguided hope that this will get them off the hook (misguided because "no issue" is as much an abuse as "Friends Only" issue).

GuyW
02-05-2008, 3:18 PM
...I should have said: he reasonably thinks he is following state law correctly....

Neither of us knows what he "thinks".

My experience is, that many public bureaucrats _knowingly_ engage in suspect behavior because they know that the likelyhood of being held responsible is low.

Trial Judges know, for example, that most of their decisions won't be appealed....or even made known to the general (voting) public...

mymonkeyman
02-05-2008, 3:24 PM
Neither of us knows what he "thinks".

My experience is, that many public bureaucrats _knowingly_ engage in suspect behavior because they know that the likelyhood of being held responsible is low.

Trial Judges know, for example, that most of their decisions won't be appealed....or even made known to the general (voting) public...

I know that, you know that, but that doesn't mean the law follows reality. It presumes public officials aren't as corrupt and as incompetent as they are.

SDJim
02-05-2008, 4:35 PM
Kinda makes you wonder what's at Livermore eh? ;)
I know they have some really wineries in the valley. This one of my favorites http://www.wentevineyards.com/ a nice little family owned operation. I think the Livermore Valley is a lot more intimate than Napa.

I used to go out there when visiting up at Concord when it was still a Navy facility.

zok
02-09-2008, 11:54 AM
In the many threads on this post there is one error. The Chief had 7 permits out. One was revoked when Team BJ did a PRA and found that one of the permits was not living in the city limits. He lives in the county. The Chief was making an attempt to fix it. If the Chief did his back ground check properly he would have noticed this. Also Team O6 received his permit shorty after this investigation was going on and the Chief new he was in hot water. I believe he was trying to rectify his issuance.

On another note... The courts has denied the motion to dismiss on both counts. The City has 20 days to file an answer.