PDA

View Full Version : Interesting CCW discussion with a SF Detective


Python2
02-03-2008, 3:57 PM
At an IPSC match in the Bay Area today during a casual conversation while waiting for our turn to shoot, I asked a fellow shooter who is an LE in SF, a detective I understand about CCW.
He said that since CCW is a discretionary issue by a chief of police or sheriff of a county, such chief or sheriff can, by simple policy (not even a written law) of declaring "no CCW" in his city or county, can in-validate or better word "trump" a valid CCW issued from another county or city if you are in such "no CCW county or city. He can and will arrest you:eek:
Instead of explaining that he is wrong, I simply said I will post his statement at Calguns and CCW forum and hope that he visit it and read what other gunners will say.
The only thing that came into my mind after his statement was "A LEO POWER TRIP".:rolleyes:
This guy's mentality is similar to an LE in San Mateo County who said to a CCW applicant that she understand his need of a CCW when going to high crime area conducting his business but since the high crime area stated is outside San Mateo County jurisdiction he was denied.:eek:

JALLEN
02-03-2008, 4:05 PM
Yet another reason never to visit San Francisco, as if there weren't enough of them. And, if I may say so, yet another reason to not take legal advice from cops.

The Penal Code is in effect statewide, no matter what some local gumshoe thinks. The permit issued by a sheriff or chief of police permits carry anywhere in the state.

Fjold
02-03-2008, 4:54 PM
Ignorance of the law is no excuse but pure ignorance is always funny!

M. Sage
02-03-2008, 5:04 PM
Ignorance of the law is no excuse but pure ignorance is always funny!

ROFL!

Piper
02-03-2008, 5:23 PM
People, I'm telling you that a majority of cops in California don't want private citizens to CCW, it's as simple as that. It doesn't matter how much training you have, you're stepping on their turf and they are very protective of that. It doesn't matter if LEO's on this forum disagree with me, the vast majority of LEO's consider it one of the percs to being a cop. And for a "mere" private citizen to be "granted" that "power" is outrageous to the LE community. This detectives attitude is typical of that "anti-CCW for citizens" environment in LE. And it is the primary reason that you will be arrested and your firearm confiscated if you CCW without their permission.

GuyW
02-03-2008, 5:36 PM
I wish I had a CA CCW....I'd take a trip to SanFran to see if I could hit the lawsuit jackpot...oh - the pain, suffering, and mental anguish I'd suffer...

Wulf
02-03-2008, 5:42 PM
I got the same thing from a bay area cop once.

Later I asked my CCW instructor about it...who's a cop, but not one from the bay area, and he said that's absolute bunk. Ca. CCW is a state wide permit issued by a local CLEO. What he said is is that SF has several times in the past passed a local anti-ccw ordinance or policy, disseminated that policy to the troops, then had the policy or ordinance overturned by the courts. But they never go back and tell the troops that all that stuff about no CCW in "The Chitty" was illegal. So confusion reigns, which suits them fine.

Knight
02-03-2008, 6:01 PM
I wish I had a CA CCW....I'd take a trip to SanFran to see if I could hit the lawsuit jackpot...oh - the pain, suffering, and mental anguish I'd suffer...

lol, someone brought this up with me once. The trick I suppose is getting into a situation where you aren't really doing anything wrong, but the officer asks you if you are carrying a concealed weapon or something similar.

I doubt I'd ever do it though. Too much risk involved, not to mention you will probably never see your gun again, win or lose.

GuyW
02-03-2008, 6:10 PM
lol, someone brought this up with me once. The trick I suppose is getting into a situation where you aren't really doing anything wrong, but the officer asks you if you are carrying a concealed weapon or something similar.

I doubt I'd ever do it though. Too much risk involved, not to mention you will probably never see your gun again, win or lose.

Well, some jurisdictions, such as Orange County, _require_ permittees to notify any LEO upon contact. Might be the stuff of a comedy, tho, if the first LEO didn't take the bait...

And, plan ahead and have a cheapo gun, so its no loss...besides, the taxpayers' will be buying you a nice engraved, gold-filled custom piece, anyway...

BaronW
02-03-2008, 6:30 PM
Well, some jurisdictions, such as Orange County, _require_ permittees to notify any LEO upon contact.

That's the first I've heard of that, but then I haven't taken a CCW class. Would handing your permit over with your DL suffice?

M. Sage
02-03-2008, 6:35 PM
lol, someone brought this up with me once. The trick I suppose is getting into a situation where you aren't really doing anything wrong, but the officer asks you if you are carrying a concealed weapon or something similar.

I doubt I'd ever do it though. Too much risk involved, not to mention you will probably never see your gun again, win or lose.

Easy. Walk around until you find a cop (not too hard in SF, unless you need one, sadly), then stretch or something so you very obviously "print."

Then again, it's SF... they don't actually want to act on anything, since the review board will tear them apart.

gotgunz
02-03-2008, 6:54 PM
It's not a rule up here but it is common sense; the last thing you want is an officers service pistol screwed into your ear.

I keep mine in the wallet with my DL... so I can hand both over at the same time.

I carry in SFO all the time and would welcome the opportunity to sue the living bejeezes out of them for violating my civil rights, LOL.

GuyW
02-03-2008, 6:59 PM
....then stretch or something so you very obviously "print."

Nah - that puts you and your permit at risk...the plan is contact with no (even minor) wrong doing...

tankerman
02-03-2008, 7:30 PM
He said that since CCW is a discretionary issue by a chief of police or sheriff of a county, such chief or sheriff can, by simple policy (not even a written law) of declaring "no CCW" in his city or county, can in-validate.:eek:
Huge ego, total lack of respect for the citizens of this country. Proves he/they do feel that individuals have a right to defend themselves. Actually makes me think they are pro-criminal.

Rule by edict, I guess we are just supposed to be loyal subjects of our rulers, the SFPD.

Just another reason to never go to San Francisco.

tyrist
02-03-2008, 7:39 PM
Next time ask a robbery/homicide detective. The law is so complex that unless they specialize in a certain area they are going to be fairly ignorant in others. One detective I know of signed an advisement for a 12020 booking for a ballistic knife. The knife was not a ballistic knife at all but a switch blade. It happens all the time.

eta34
02-03-2008, 7:43 PM
People, I'm telling you that a majority of cops in California don't want private citizens to CCW, it's as simple as that. It doesn't matter how much training you have, you're stepping on their turf and they are very protective of that. It doesn't matter if LEO's on this forum disagree with me, the vast majority of LEO's consider it one of the percs to being a cop. And for a "mere" private citizen to be "granted" that "power" is outrageous to the LE community. This detectives attitude is typical of that "anti-CCW for citizens" environment in LE. And it is the primary reason that you will be arrested and your firearm confiscated if you CCW without their permission.

And it doesn't matter what certain people on this forum (Piper) say, most cops are pro-gun and like CCW's.

Crazed_SS
02-03-2008, 7:50 PM
People, I'm telling you that a majority of cops in California don't want private citizens to CCW, it's as simple as that. It doesn't matter how much training you have, you're stepping on their turf and they are very protective of that. It doesn't matter if LEO's on this forum disagree with me, the vast majority of LEO's consider it one of the percs to being a cop. And for a "mere" private citizen to be "granted" that "power" is outrageous to the LE community. This detectives attitude is typical of that "anti-CCW for citizens" environment in LE. And it is the primary reason that you will be arrested and your firearm confiscated if you CCW without their permission.

I actually agree with you for once. It seems like cops view every gun out there as a threat to them.. regardless who owns it. That's why during gun buybacks you always hear cops say, "Well, we know criminals arent turning in their guns, but at least we got these off the streets"

Brass Balls
02-03-2008, 8:00 PM
People, I'm telling you that a majority of cops in California don't want private citizens to CCW, it's as simple as that. It doesn't matter how much training you have, you're stepping on their turf and they are very protective of that.

It would be interesting to see the results of scientific poll on this subject.

Something I've always noticed is that a LEO, who is in favor of citizens having CCWs, is almost always the ones who are more serious about their firearms and training or enthusiasts if you will. They also often have grown up around firearms and know plenty of family, friends and neighbors that own firearms and know that doing so doesn't make someone a threat anymore than someone owning an ax or chainsaw.

Likewise the officers who oppose CCW are often the ones that never had a gun and had little familiarity with them before joining the force. When they got their duty weapon it was special not commonplace. Maybe it is a sense of entitlement they get from feeling that having a firearm is a special occurence and one that they have earned yet others have not.

Heck I don't know. This is just speculation based on my experiences. But as I said earlier, I sure would find the results of a CCW related questionaire posed to LEOs of great interest.

Python2
02-03-2008, 8:07 PM
Folks, let us stick to the purpose of this thread and let us focus in convincing him that CCW is statewide and that local jurisdictions policy, local politicians feel good resolution or ballot proposition cannot simply trumped state law like they did on Prop H. I am hoping this SF Detective visit this forum and educate himself. It would be to our benefit. I will probably see him again, not that I want to, as it will screw up my shooting concentration again.

JALLEN
02-03-2008, 8:09 PM
The officers in Texas that I have spoken to or communicated with, particularly the Sheriff/Chiefs, see citizen concealed carry as an aid to law enforcement, not a threat or detriment in any way.

Of course, with "shall issue" and issuance by state government, there is no political nonsense involved, like only issuing to political cronies and cronies of cronies, etc. Even responsible citizens who are political nobodies can carry. It seems like an awful percentage of the "problems" with CCW holders here in CA comes from those who are buddies of the issuer, or buddies of buddies.

GuyW
02-03-2008, 8:13 PM
And it doesn't matter what certain people on this forum (Piper) say, most cops are pro-gun and like CCW's.

I really wish it were so in CA. In my experience, it's not.

CitaDeL
02-03-2008, 8:13 PM
He said that since CCW is a discretionary issue by a chief of police or sheriff of a county, such chief or sheriff can, by simple policy (not even a written law) of declaring "no CCW" in his city or county, can in-validate or better word "trump" a valid CCW issued from another county or city if you are in such "no CCW county or city. He can and will arrest you.

Hmm- funny. I wonder just how many licenses to carry concealed they have seized under this pretense. How many convictions of 12025 have they obtained by depriving licencees of their property?

Without definitive answers to either of these questions, it is complete bull sh*t.

I suppose if he were to encounter someone lawfully carrying an exposed firearm, they could justify a conviction of 'brandishing'.

glockman19
02-03-2008, 8:21 PM
Just another good reason to take the permit issuance away from local jurisdictions and let the CA DOJ issue them to anyone who applies after the backround check and class.

tyrist
02-03-2008, 8:26 PM
It would be interesting to see the results of scientific poll on this subject.

Something I've always noticed is that a LEO, who is in favor of citizens having CCWs, is almost always the ones who are more serious about their firearms and training or enthusiasts if you will. They also often have grown up around firearms and know plenty of family, friends and neighbors that own firearms and know that doing so doesn't make someone a threat anymore than someone owning an ax or chainsaw.

Likewise the officers who oppose CCW are often the ones that never had a gun and had little familiarity with them before joining the force. When they got their duty weapon it was special not commonplace. Maybe it is a sense of entitlement they get from feeling that having a firearm is a special occurence and one that they have earned yet others have not.

Heck I don't know. This is just speculation based on my experiences. But as I said earlier, I sure would find the results of a CCW related questionaire posed to LEOs of great interest.


Very true. The ones I know who are pro gun control are the ones who never shot a firearm until they did training in the academy. The ones who have owned and grown up around firearms are very pro second amendment.

It has more to do with how you were raised than the job you do. Honestly I don't necessarily like the idea of CCW for everyone but I am in favor of loaded and open carry for law abiding people. This has more to do with the safety of citizens than anything. In my experiance there are less misunderstandings but I am sure plenty of you will disagree with me and that is fine.

chris
02-03-2008, 8:28 PM
People, I'm telling you that a majority of cops in California don't want private citizens to CCW, it's as simple as that. It doesn't matter how much training you have, you're stepping on their turf and they are very protective of that. It doesn't matter if LEO's on this forum disagree with me, the vast majority of LEO's consider it one of the percs to being a cop. And for a "mere" private citizen to be "granted" that "power" is outrageous to the LE community. This detectives attitude is typical of that "anti-CCW for citizens" environment in LE. And it is the primary reason that you will be arrested and your firearm confiscated if you CCW without their permission.

ahhh the arrgance of LE never ceases to amaze me. it seems to be growing more and more prevalent. disgusting in my eyes. i don't trust police with firearms off duty. that's my analogy. they should be unarmed serfs like us after work. they are no different than joe shmoe on the street.

tyrist
02-03-2008, 8:30 PM
Chris must we go into all the cases of a Officer being followed home by suspects and shot.

Wulf
02-03-2008, 8:38 PM
Chris must we go into all the cases of a Officer being followed home by suspects and shot.

I dont underestimate the amount of off-hour grief that an officer could attract by their on-hours duty.

But at the same time, the BGs that might go after an officer off duty are trolling the streets every day looking for victims, and we of the victim class don't have the advantage that the officer has of recognizing the BGs on site, and all the verbal judo and actual judo skills and recent practice that an officer has off duty....armed or not.

DesertGunner
02-03-2008, 8:57 PM
they should be unarmed serfs like us after work. they are no different than joe shmoe on the street.

While you are at it, are there any other topics about which you are completely ignorant you would like to share your opinions on?

tyrist
02-03-2008, 8:58 PM
I know of too many Officers who made the mistake of carrying their ID/Badge off duty without their weapon and were killed because of it.

There are a number of Officers who don't carry anything off duty even though they could. That is okay as long as they don't carry anything that identifies them because unfortunately once you are identified the "bad guy" has often times chosen to kill the Officer for no other reason than their status.

tyrist
02-03-2008, 9:11 PM
Cavtrooper adjusted for their respective populations of course right?

Also should we include suicides and the deaths of convicted felons?

Are we just going to use incidents involving guns or do any weapons count?

M. Sage
02-03-2008, 9:52 PM
Woah woah woah. This thread isn't an LE bashing thread, but it's turning into one.

Points we need to focus on:

Can we help educate LE on the law?

How can we accomplish that?

Also: be aware that not all LE have a clue about some pretty basic firearms law, but then you guys probably already knew that.

Put it back on topic, and let's not go with the bashing. Next person who takes a cheap shot gets recommended for some time off.

Paladin
02-04-2008, 12:55 AM
At an IPSC match in the Bay Area today during a casual conversation while waiting for our turn to shoot, I asked a fellow shooter who is an LE in SF, a detective I understand about CCW.
He said that since CCW is a discretionary issue by a chief of police or sheriff of a county, such chief or sheriff can, by simple policy (not even a written law) of declaring "no CCW" in his city or county, can in-validate or better word "trump" a valid CCW issued from another county or city if you are in such "no CCW county or city. He can and will arrest you:eek:I'm sure Team Billy Jack (www.californiaconcealedcarry.com) loves to hear stories like this the way a great white shark loves to smell blood in the water. :D

You can tell that so-called LEO he should learn the law he is charged with upholding and enforcing over at: http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal.html , specifically, the Salute v. Pitchess case law where a CA court of appeal said that a policy of not issuing CCW to mere serfs (i.e., non-connected citizens) is "an abuse of, not an exercise of, discretion" (CalApp3d, p. 560, para. 21).

Oh, never mind. BJ would be just as happy (maybe even happier ;)), to haul Hennessey and/or Fong into court to win big $$$. :D If anyone in SF has a need, not just a want, for a CCW, they should get in touch w/Team Billy Jack before applying.

USMC_2651_E5
02-04-2008, 2:17 AM
For the record, I'm LE and pro CCW for those able to pass a proficiency test of somesort and background. And I appologize for my brother/sister cops that are too dumb to realize the good that would come of it.



I know of too many Officers who made the mistake of carrying their ID/Badge off duty without their weapon and were killed because of it.

There are a number of Officers who don't carry anything off duty even though they could. That is okay as long as they don't carry anything that identifies them because unfortunately once you are identified the "bad guy" has often times chosen to kill the Officer for no other reason than their status.

Shayne York
March 21, 1971 - August 16, 1997

On 08-14-1997, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Shayne York was off duty and unarmed at the De’Cut Hair Salon in Buena Park when two armed suspects entered. The suspects proceeded to rob the salon and its patrons. Along with the others, Deputy York was ordered to lie facedown on the floor. The suspects went through Deputy York’s wallet and discovered his Sheriff’s badge. Once they found out York was a Deputy Sheriff, one of the gunmen shot him in the back of the head.

RIP

1911_sfca
02-04-2008, 5:04 AM
Don't draw generalizations from one person. When I applied for a CCW in SF, the inspector who interviewed me (an older gent) told me if it was up to him, he would hand them out to everyone who applied (and cleared the BG, obviously).

Everyone has different views, and obviously this guy wasn't up on the CCW law. But take it with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, does the Chief have a policy of not issuing CCWs? For sure. Want to challenge it? The Courts will be your route, and godspeed.

1911_sfca
02-04-2008, 5:06 AM
No, pro-gun and CCW for all.

In my experience, that's true.

The chief executives of many LE organizations are not as pro-gun and/or pro-CCW as officers, for political reasons.

If you want to be bitter about something, be bitter that the residents of CA want it that way. If it were politically expedient (i.e. the general population wanted it), those chiefs would hand out CCWs like candy. Now whose fault is it that the masses don't want concealed carry? Hmmmm..

FreedomIsNotFree
02-04-2008, 6:27 AM
I happen to have a Chief of Police in the family. I wont name the location, but it is in Monterey County, CA. I recently asked him about CCW, his policy..etc..etc.

From his point of view, however misplaced it may be, the issue was liability. He said if a person could show a real threat existed, as well as get bonded/insurance to remove any liability from the city, he would consider it....but in the many years he has been Chief....nobody has done so.

Granted, this is not a large city, I would imagine he could count on one hand, the number of occasions the issue has even been brought up, let alone actual applications.

Now, we know the issue of liability is really a red herring, but I'm not convinced he knows its a BS excuse. He actually believes there is a liability issue. I'm not sure who informed him as such, but I can tell you, he attends many "conferences" throughout the State and Country for Police Chiefs and I would not be surprised if this type of information is spread at such events.

I should ask him a few more questions...

emc002
02-04-2008, 8:20 AM
For the record, I'm LE and pro CCW for those able to pass a proficiency test of somesort and background.


Both of those items are already required in all Counties.
Training varies from 6 to 18 hours, includes a shooting proficiency test and all applicants must pass a Fed background check.
So by your statement, you are therefore pro CCW everyplace in CA. Welcome aboard.

Brass Balls
02-04-2008, 9:11 AM
Folks, let us stick to the purpose of this thread and let us focus in convincing him that CCW is statewide

I don't mean this to come off as a slam on LE, of which I'm a big supporter in action and words. However a thread on an internet forum is not the place for a sworn officer to get legal advice or convincing.

If you're an engineer you should know physics, if you are a carpenter you should know building codes and if you are an officer of the law you should know the law.

CCWFacts
02-04-2008, 9:36 AM
From his point of view, however misplaced it may be, the issue was liability.

HE IS LYING. California Government Code 820.2 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/820-823.html):

Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.

Every LEO in California knows this. They would not be able to function (make an arrest, pursue a vehicle, keep someone in custody, defend themselves) if they didn't have broad immunity for exercise of their discretion. Note that they have protection from liability whether or not such discretion be abused.

Now, we know the issue of liability is really a red herring, but I'm not convinced he knows its a BS excuse.

He can't not know. Again, there's absolutely no way he could function as a cop if he had liability for his discretion. Cops do things that cause injury and harm, as a normal and expected part of their jobs. They don't have liability for these things.

A public employee is not liable for his act or omission, exercising due care, in the execution or enforcement of any law.

How much more clear can it be? Answer: why, they could make it more clear by addressing the issue of permits in particular. That would make it even more clear. Ok then, here we go, a bit further down:

A public employee is not liable for an injury caused by his issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by his failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization where he is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended or revoked.

He actually believes there is a liability issue.

He's BSing you. There is no way. They know about all these liability protections because they couldn't lift a finger (and also couldn't not lift a finger) without them.

I should ask him a few more questions...

You should ask him why he's claiming that he has liability for this one tiny thing while he knows that his whole police force couldn't even exist if they didn't have "wall to wall" liability protection for any lawful action.

Btw, their liability protection does have limits. It doesn't protect them if they are doing things outside their official duties, are committing crimes, or violating the Federal civil rights act. But 12050 spells out that issuing permits is a duty of the chief (unless he declares G), and 821.2. above clearly spells out that they have no liability for exercising their discretion in issuing permits and licenses, which is exactly what a CCW (under 12050) is. So they can't have liability for proper issuance. But they can have liability at a federal level for not issuing.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-04-2008, 9:42 AM
HE IS LYING. California Government Code 820.2 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/820-823.html):



Every LEO in California knows this. They would not be able to function (make an arrest, pursue a vehicle, keep someone in custody, defend themselves) if they didn't have broad immunity for exercise of their discretion. Note that they have protection from liability whether or not such discretion be abused.



He can't not know. Again, there's absolutely no way he could function as a cop if he had liability for his discretion. Cops do things that cause injury and harm, as a normal and expected part of their jobs. They don't have liability for these things.



How much more clear can it be? Answer: why, they could make it more clear by addressing the issue of permits in particular. That would make it even more clear. Ok then, here we go, a bit further down:





He's BSing you. There is no way. They know about all these liability protections because they couldn't lift a finger (and also couldn't not lift a finger) without them.



You should ask him why he's claiming that he has liability for this one tiny thing while he knows that his whole police force couldn't even exist if they didn't have "wall to wall" liability protection for any lawful action.

I will ignore your antagonism. He is not lying to me...he is not BSing me. I said before his position is not on a stable legal ground, but for you to throw around your accusations about lying and such is uncalled for. You speak as though you know what is in peoples head/minds...you simply dont and for you to act as such is the height of arrogance.

Police Chiefs dont often issue CCW's. More often than not, they defer to the County, so, I am not at all surprised that he is not current on the legal ramifications of CCW one way or the other.

You might want to tone down your vitriol is you want people to take you seriously.

CCWFacts
02-04-2008, 9:50 AM
If he has "declared G" (entered a MOU with the sheriff), he no longer has the duty to issue CCWs, and must have the sheriff handle processing.

As for my vitriol and accusation: The fact is, they have wall-to-wall liability protection for doing their duty, and they know that, or else they couldn't do a single thing. How can they know that well enough to make arrests, issue various types of discretionary permits, etc, but somehow not know that about issuance of CCWs? Have they really been so misguided in their conferences and in POST training? Is that possible?

Piper
02-04-2008, 9:56 AM
I will ignore your antagonism. He is not lying to me...he is not BSing me. I said before his position is not on a stable legal ground, but for you to throw around your accusations about lying and such is uncalled for. You speak as though you know what is in peoples head/minds...you simply dont and for you to act as such is the height of arrogance.

Police Chiefs dont often issue CCW's. More often than not, they defer to the County, so, I am not at all surprised that he is not current on the legal ramifications of CCW one way or the other.

You might want to tone down your vitriol is you want people to take you seriously.

Okay, let me try something. He's ommiting certain facts. The bottom line is everytime a public employee, like a chief of police doesn't want to do something or doesn't want to reveal certain information unless they are forced, they throw down the "liability" card. And in my LE world, that was always the justification when setting policies. 820.2 removes that excuse, but how many citizens actually stop and do research on things like that ? Generally, we accept what they say as truth. I don't think CCWfacts was being antagonistic at all. Maybe a little more direct than you would like, but not antagonistic.

Knauga
02-04-2008, 9:57 AM
I will ignore your antagonism. He is not lying to me...he is not BSing me. I said before his position is not on a stable legal ground, but for you to throw around your accusations about lying and such is uncalled for. You speak as though you know what is in peoples head/minds...you simply dont and for you to act as such is the height of arrogance.

Police Chiefs dont often issue CCW's. More often than not, they defer to the County, so, I am not at all surprised that he is not current on the legal ramifications of CCW one way or the other.

You might want to tone down your vitriol is you want people to take you seriously.

CCWFacts wording aside, I'd ask him how he sqaures the liability issue with the black letter law absolving him from liability for doing his job including the issuance of permits/licenses.

CCWFacts may be a bit caustic for you, but his points were spot on. Police Chiefs (even those who defer to the county) still issue a large number of CCW's for their own departments reserves. They know the law and liabilities of these things. It is difficult to believe that a CLEO does not know this. That being said, you know your relative. Ask him about the laws cited by CCWFacts and see what he has to say.

xrMike
02-04-2008, 10:08 AM
From his point of view, however misplaced it may be, the issue was liability. He said if a person could show a real threat existed, as well as get bonded/insurance to remove any liability from the city, he would consider it....but in the many years he has been Chief....nobody has done so.Hey Freedom, there's a guy in our shooting club who claims to have a CCW through Monterey County. We talked about it briefly once, and he said it was very difficult for him to get.

I'll have to ask him more about the process he went through next time I see him. He's a helluva shot with a pistol.

CCWFacts
02-04-2008, 10:30 AM
Okay, let me try something. He's ommiting certain facts. The bottom line is everytime a public employee, like a chief of police doesn't want to do something or doesn't want to reveal certain information unless they are forced, they throw down the "liability" card. And in my LE world, that was always the justification when setting policies. 820.2 removes that excuse, but how many citizens actually stop and do research on things like that ? Generally, we accept what they say as truth. I don't think CCWfacts was being antagonistic at all. Maybe a little more direct than you would like, but not antagonistic.

Thanks Piper, and Knauga. That's really what it sounds like: "I don't want to do this. I don't want to talk about my real reasons. I'll just tell them 'I'm worried about liability' and they'll buy that." I'm not talking about this particular chief, or even the CCW issue in particular. Liability is a catch-all "I don't want to do it and I don't want to talk about" it excuse.

StukaJr
02-04-2008, 10:39 AM
I suppose he could arrest you and hold you until your lawyer shows up and tells them to release you, with your property...

just4fun63
02-04-2008, 10:50 AM
I carry in SFO all the time and would welcome the opportunity to sue the living bejeezes out of them for violating my civil rights, LOL.

+ 1 and that's why Trutanich & Michel's phone # is in my cell phone.

GuyW
02-04-2008, 11:05 AM
Really? I know it? I guess only YOU are able to speak for the entire LEO profession. I stand by my statement. I base mine on the cops I know and have worked with. I suppose somehow your personal anecdotes take precedence over mine. The point is, I don't think it is possible to accurately gauge the correct opinion on this based on anecdotes, yours or mine.

Good - let's see the unions speak out loudly and often for what's right for PUBLIC SAFETY then.

Until then, their well-wishes don't do us much good...and their loud-mouthed anti-gun collegues just piss us off...

CCWFacts
02-04-2008, 11:41 AM
Regarding my accusation that he's lying:

When Billy asks a girl, "Sally, do you want to go with me to the movies next Friday night", and she says, "No, I can't, I have to wash my hair that night", a smart boy will understand that that means "I don't want to go anywhere with you, but I'm not mature or confident enough to say it in some more direct way". If Billy is less smart, he'll assume, "Sally is an honest girl so that must be true. I'll ask her for Saturday then!"

"I'm worried about liability" is a lot like "I have to wash my hair that night". But there's a difference. Sally has a perfectly legitimate reason for not wanting to go to the movies with Billy: she doesn't want to, end of story. She has no duty or obligation to go on a date with anyone. With public servants, it's different. They are being paid to do their jobs, and they have the public trust in their jobs. Excuses like "I'm worried about liability" are a lot less acceptable, especially when we (through out legislators) have given them such sweeping black-and-white liability protections for almost everything they do!

And in this case, the reasons for issuing are a lot less savory than Sally's reasons for rejecting Billy. The reasons are things like personal power by rewarding city VIPs with CCWs, keeping law enforcement as a club by issuing to reserves only, old-fashioned racism, and favor-for-favor swaps.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-04-2008, 11:48 AM
Okay, let me try something. He's ommiting certain facts. The bottom line is everytime a public employee, like a chief of police doesn't want to do something or doesn't want to reveal certain information unless they are forced, they throw down the "liability" card. And in my LE world, that was always the justification when setting policies. 820.2 removes that excuse, but how many citizens actually stop and do research on things like that ? Generally, we accept what they say as truth. I don't think CCWfacts was being antagonistic at all. Maybe a little more direct than you would like, but not antagonistic.

I dont disagree that politicians, and police chiefs are politicians, will often cite "liability" as a reason to either be for or against a given issue. This does not mean the police chief KNOWS the issue of liability, in relation to CCW's, is not applicable. I think CCWfacts throwing around the terms "BSing me" and "lying to me" is highly antagonistic.

As I said before, I'm sure this issue has rarely come up, so I am not surprised that he hasn't had the city attorney research it for a more complete understanding of the liabilities or lack there of.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-04-2008, 12:00 PM
Regarding my accusation that he's lying:

When Billy asks a girl, "Sally, do you want to go with me to the movies next Friday night", and she says, "No, I can't, I have to wash my hair that night", a smart boy will understand that that means "I don't want to go anywhere with you, but I'm not mature or confident enough to say it in some more direct way". If Billy is less smart, he'll assume, "Sally is an honest girl so that must be true. I'll ask her for Saturday then!"

"I'm worried about liability" is a lot like "I have to wash my hair that night". But there's a difference. Sally has a perfectly legitimate reason for not wanting to go to the movies with Billy: she doesn't want to, end of story. She has no duty or obligation to go on a date with anyone. With public servants, it's different. They are being paid to do their jobs, and they have the public trust in their jobs. Excuses like "I'm worried about liability" are a lot less acceptable, especially when we (through out legislators) have given them such sweeping black-and-white liability protections for almost everything they do!

And in this case, the reasons for issuing are a lot less savory than Sally's reasons for rejecting Billy. The reasons are things like personal power by rewarding city VIPs with CCWs, keeping law enforcement as a club by issuing to reserves only, old-fashioned racism, and favor-for-favor swaps.

See what you are missing from your analysis is some Chiefs issue none...and not because they deny them, but because NOBODY applies. To follow your story line...how is Billy supposed to know if he doesn't ask?

I understand you're quite involved with the state of CCW's in CA. Unfortunately, you probably know more than most LEO's, even Chiefs, on the subject. My point is this is a family member I'm talking about....not some random LEO that I ran into at the range or somebody I'm deposing under oath. There is no reason for him to lie to me and for you insinuate otherwise shows a lack of consideration on your part. There is no need to make this personal so I'll just leave it at that...

FreedomIsNotFree
02-04-2008, 12:02 PM
Hey Freedom, there's a guy in our shooting club who claims to have a CCW through Monterey County. We talked about it briefly once, and he said it was very difficult for him to get.

I'll have to ask him more about the process he went through next time I see him. He's a helluva shot with a pistol.

If he'd share the reasoning that he used I'd be very interested in hearing it. Also, if it was from the County or a specific department. If you ask him, he doesn't need to name the department...just curious if it was from the city or county...thanks.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-04-2008, 12:06 PM
CCWFacts wording aside, I'd ask him how he sqaures the liability issue with the black letter law absolving him from liability for doing his job including the issuance of permits/licenses.

CCWFacts may be a bit caustic for you, but his points were spot on. Police Chiefs (even those who defer to the county) still issue a large number of CCW's for their own departments reserves. They know the law and liabilities of these things. It is difficult to believe that a CLEO does not know this. That being said, you know your relative. Ask him about the laws cited by CCWFacts and see what he has to say.

I understand what you are saying, but again, not all Cities issue CCW's...either out of practice or a lack of applicants.

Again, this is my family member we are talking about...not someone I'm going to get confrontational with and ask him..."how he squares the liability issue with the black letter law absolving him from liability for doing his job including the issuance of permits/licenses"....I'm sure you can understand that.

If I was to press the issue, I would need to use tact and make it like a regular conversation...maybe in reference to something I've researched myself...etc..etc...not as if he is being interrogated.

Piper
02-04-2008, 12:16 PM
See what you are missing from your analysis is some Chiefs issue none...and not because they deny them, but because NOBODY applies. To follow your story line...how is Billy supposed to know if he doesn't ask?

I understand you're quite involved with the state of CCW's in CA. Unfortunately, you probably know more than most LEO's, even Chiefs, on the subject. My point is this is a family member I'm talking about....not some random LEO that I ran into at the range or somebody I'm deposing under oath. There is no reason for him to lie to me and for you insinuate otherwise shows a lack of consideration on your part. There is no need to make this personal so I'll just leave it at that...

The Chief of Police of the agency that I worked for issued one CCW and that was to his wife. It didn't matter that she was a librarian, and it didn't matter that someone else might have a more legit reason for a CCW. His issuance was purely personal and he wasn't going to issue to anyone else regardless of their training and qualifications.

As for a Chief not knowing the law, if they don't talk to the City Attorney, then they can claim ignorance and that's not unusual for LE to do also.

Python2
02-04-2008, 12:44 PM
..........and if you are an officer of the law you should know the law.

The problem is the SF Detective does not know the law, and I am hoping that he visit this forum.

CCWFacts
02-04-2008, 12:48 PM
I understand you're quite involved with the state of CCW's in CA. Unfortunately, you probably know more than most LEO's, even Chiefs, on the subject.

No question about that! As former Sheriff Blanas said in his deposition, contrary to popular belief, CLEOs don't spend a lot of time or mental focus on this issue. It's true. It's both a source of power and contributions, and a minor annoyance for them, not something they think about very much. And they're cops, not lawyers. They don't spend time reading government code. I do.

I understand what you are saying, but again, not all Cities issue CCW's...either out of practice or a lack of applicants.

Lack of applicants is a very common factor. Usually it is caused by telling people, "we don't issue" or not giving out applications. It's also caused by very few people in this state even knowing that CCWs exist here, or that you can get one from the city.

Again, this is my family member we are talking about...

Yes, and I didn't mean to insult. But let me continue my example.

His real reasons could include:

* He wants to keep CCWs as a perk (the main perk) of his reserves program

* He wants to reward friends and supporters. He is a politician to some degree, after all

* He thinks only LEOs should carry guns

* I hate to say this, but he could have some amount of racism or other prejudices

* Reality is, VIPs get treated differently by "the system"

* The sheriff has asked him not to issue permits to non-LEO-affiliated people in his city, and he's going along with the sheriff's wishes as a courtesy

* He has filed an MOU, which he shows to "regular folk" applicants, but he continues issuing to a few special people

NONE of those are legitimate reasons. NONE of them have any legal basis in PC 12050, or in case law. NONE of them are tolerable to our court system. NONE of them have any connection to public safety or his duties. MOST of those excuses would be offensive to a lot of people. And those are not things he would ever reveal to a family member, because deep down inside, he knows that the public doesn't want to know such things, and if you're not a cop, you're part of the public.

However, this chief thinks that his excuse(s) from that list are legitimate reasons, because they fit his personal views: "I should have power", "I should be chief", "only LEOs should carry guns", "I want a good relationship with the sheriff". He feels that what he's doing is correct, so he tells what he thinks is a white lie: "I'm worried about liability."

But it isn't a white lie. It's covering up conduct that is wrong and corrupt. When Sally tells Billy, "I can't go out with you, I have to wash my hair", that's a perfectly fine white lie because, obviously, she has no duty to go on a date with Billy. But when a chief says something he knows isn't true, so he can avoid giving one of his excuses, that's not a white lie. "Government official" and "telling white lies" are not things that should go together.

He tells himself he's telling a white lie, but deep down inside he knows that it's a lie and it isn't so white... or else he wouldn't need to be telling it.

not someone I'm going to get confrontational with and ask him..."how he squares the liability issue with the black letter law absolving him from liability for doing his job including the issuance of permits/licenses"....I'm sure you can understand that.

Of course. He's a family member. Your relationship with him is a lot more important than "straightening him out" on this. And confronting him on it ("look, bud, here's black-letter law that says you have no liability for issuing permits and licenses") would be unlikely to change anything, because he really believes that his reasons for not issuing are good reasons, even though they are legally intolerable and incompatible with public safety.

Unfortunately, the right way to confront someone like him on this is through the courts, where he will learn that he does have liability every time he denies a permit and tells a "white lie" about it.

If I was to press the issue, I would need to use tact and make it like a regular conversation...maybe in reference to something I've researched myself...etc..etc...not as if he is being interrogated.

If you do ask him about it, how you handle it is up to you of course. One way to do it is to be totally blunt but in a light tone. I've found that gets people to open up. Like this: "Of course you don't have liability! The government code gives you immunity for anything lawful that you do. Come on, uncle, I know how things work. You're a politician. Tell me the secrets of police politics in this city." If my dad were BSing me that's how I would handle it, in a blunt statements in a light tone, with some statement of, "you don't need to BS me, I know how things work." Say, "I know how things really work", and then you'll get him to reveal how things really work.

Python2
02-04-2008, 1:09 PM
........One way to do it is to be totally blunt but in a light tone. I've found that gets people to open up. Like this: "Of course you don't have liability! The government code gives you immunity for anything lawful that you do. Come on, uncle, I know how things work. You're a politician. Tell me the secrets of police politics in this city." If my dad were BSing me that's how I would handle it, in a blunt statements in a light tone, with some statement of, "you don't need to BS me, I know how things work." Say, "I know how things really work", and then you'll get him to reveal how things really work.

That is exactly what I am going to do if a chief or sheriff happens to be related to me.

1911_sfca
02-04-2008, 1:11 PM
I will ignore your antagonism. He is not lying to me...he is not BSing me. I said before his position is not on a stable legal ground, but for you to throw around your accusations about lying and such is uncalled for. You speak as though you know what is in peoples head/minds...you simply dont and for you to act as such is the height of arrogance.

Ha ha ha....

Welcome to Calguns.

Kestryll
02-04-2008, 1:17 PM
Okay, lot's of vitriol and lots of accusations of lying and other crap.

You were warned once already to keep it civil in this thread so now let's move on to the LAST warning.

The next rude, accusative or uncivil post made gets a week off, no surprises, no 'I didn't get a warning.

You can have as strong an opinion as you want but you have to discuss and express it in a civil fashion. And just as a hint, you tend to be more persuasive to those just reading by NOT jumping on each other.

CCWFacts
02-04-2008, 3:23 PM
Sorry, everyone, for spazzing out like that. I'm normally a tactful type of person. As you can see from this thread, this one particular issue ("we don't issue because of liability") is a particular hot-button for me. I've heard it directly from my city's PD, and I've heard many other people say that that's what they were told by their PDs. It's a claim which I would like to see thoroughly dispelled, to the extent that no one dare claim it anymore. To that end, it would be great to at some point get a real legal analysis of this.

One other point on this "we don't issue because of liability" subject: There are millions of CCW holders across the country today. There are tens of thousands in California. I have asked before, but no one has ever found me a case where an issuing authority was sued over the actions of a CCW holder. Surely if issuing authorities (in CA or other states) had liability for issuing, there would be some court case that happened somewhere sometime. Again, if I had extra money I would pay a lawyer or paralegal to do real research on this and prepare a report. Conversely, there have been numerous cases in California of issuing authorities being sued for not issuing, and the issuing authorities have lost in some of those cases.

It's not just CCWs. What about a case where the DMV lawfully issued a DL to someone, and that person then caused a horrible accident, and the victim of the accident sued the DMV? The legal situation would be the same as with a CCW. I would love to see some research on that type of question also. The fact is, the government code provides sweeping and nearly-invulnerable immunity for public officials carrying out their duties.

This all makes sense. If public officials could be sued for doing their jobs, they would be unable to function. Looking back at the government code, it says they can't be sued for exercising their discretion, even if they abuse it! That sounds like over-broad protection, but it's based on two ideas: First, public officials are a carefully-selected, trusted group of people. Second, if courts had the option of second-guessing and demanding explanation of all their decisions, it would be impossible to function. So this sweeping immunity is logical and necessary. It's especially necessary for things like police work, where injuries and harm are an inevitable part of the job.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-04-2008, 3:29 PM
No hard feelings. We are all on the same side here and I believe we have mutual goals. My point wasn't to argue that the liability angle was a credible response to CCW applicants...more so to simply share what one CLEO said in relation to a small town in Monterey County.

Paladin
02-04-2008, 3:32 PM
HE IS LYING. California Government Code 820.2 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/820-823.html):



Every LEO in California knows this. They would not be able to function (make an arrest, pursue a vehicle, keep someone in custody, defend themselves) if they didn't have broad immunity for exercise of their discretion. Note that they have protection from liability whether or not such discretion be abused.



He can't not know. Again, there's absolutely no way he could function as a cop if he had liability for his discretion. Cops do things that cause injury and harm, as a normal and expected part of their jobs. They don't have liability for these things.



How much more clear can it be? Answer: why, they could make it more clear by addressing the issue of permits in particular. That would make it even more clear. Ok then, here we go, a bit further down:





He's BSing you. There is no way. They know about all these liability protections because they couldn't lift a finger (and also couldn't not lift a finger) without them.



You should ask him why he's claiming that he has liability for this one tiny thing while he knows that his whole police force couldn't even exist if they didn't have "wall to wall" liability protection for any lawful action.

Btw, their liability protection does have limits. It doesn't protect them if they are doing things outside their official duties, are committing crimes, or violating the Federal civil rights act. But 12050 spells out that issuing permits is a duty of the chief (unless he declares G), and 821.2. above clearly spells out that they have no liability for exercising their discretion in issuing permits and licenses, which is exactly what a CCW (under 12050) is. So they can't have liability for proper issuance. But they can have liability at a federal level for not issuing.Note well: I haven't done any legal research into the liability issue, I'm just trying to clarify the issues and make sure all our CGN statements about lack of liability are correct.

821.2 above seems to protect the issuing authority (chief/sheriff) from personal liability for acts that are part of his duty while in office. Could these CLEOs be afraid that their PDs/SOs and/or cities/counties could be held liable?

(1) Is there a CA code section (or case law) granting PDs/SOs and/or cities/counties immunity from liability for the criminal/tortious acts of a discretionary permit holder? If not, these CLEOs' liability concerns may have merit.

(2) In CA, has a PD/SO and/or city/county ever been held liable for the criminal/tortious acts of a holder of a discretionary permit?

If anyone here has a contact w/in TM, they might want to ask them these two questions (and post the responses either here or over at www.calgunlaws.com).

1911_sfca
02-04-2008, 3:34 PM
One other point on this "we don't issue because of liability" subject: There are millions of CCW holders across the country today. There are tens of thousands in California. I have asked before, but no one has ever found me a case where an issuing authority was sued over the actions of a CCW holder. Surely if issuing authorities (in CA or other states) had liability for issuing, there would be some court case that happened somewhere sometime. Again, if I had extra money I would pay a lawyer or paralegal to do real research on this and prepare a report. Conversely, there have been numerous cases in California of issuing authorities being sued for not issuing, and the issuing authorities have lost in some of those cases.

Ummm, with all due respect (and I don't intend it to be mean), "So what?"

Just because your analysis of the legal landscape leads you to believe there is no liability, doesn't mean that someone else, such as a small town police chief, is going to take on what he perceives to be increased liability.

Why don't you try another tact to convince those people that they should be issuing CCWs? I mean, you are preaching to the choir here.. like I said, if the general population were actually clamoring for CCWs and there was broad political support (as has happened in other states), I firmly believe CA would get those CCWs. But it ain't so.

1911_sfca
02-04-2008, 3:36 PM
(2) Has a PD/SO and/or city/county ever been held liable for the criminal/tortious acts of a holder of a discretionary permit?

Keep in mind, just because 830.2 or other sections might grant qualified immunity, doesn't mean the city or department can't get sued. Depending on all the variables, the city attorney, county DA, and/or chief might not feel comfortable with the potential liability.

I am not arguing that there is liability. I am just pointing out there may be perceived liability, and if you, as a proponent, ignore it, it is to your argument's detriment.

Paladin
02-04-2008, 3:45 PM
Keep in mind, just because 830.2 or other sections might grant qualified immunity, doesn't mean the city or department can't get sued. Depending on all the variables, the city attorney, county DA, and/or chief might not feel comfortable with the potential liability.

I am not arguing that there is liability. I am just pointing out there may be perceived liability, and if you, as a proponent, ignore it, it is to your argument's detriment.Did you not read what I wrote before that? (emphasis below in original)

821.2 above seems to protect the issuing authority (chief/sheriff) from personal liability for acts that are part of his duty while in office. Could these CLEOs be afraid that their PDs/SOs and/or cities/counties could be held liable?

(1) Is there a CA code section (or case law) granting PDs/SOs and/or cities/counties immunity from liability for the criminal/tortious acts of a discretionary permit holder? If not, these CLEOs' liability concerns may have merit.

You're saying nothing I didn't already admit. Why did you chose to ignore it? :confused:

Piper
02-04-2008, 4:16 PM
...if the general population were actually clamoring for CCWs and there was broad political support (as has happened in other states), I firmly believe CA would get those CCWs. But it ain't so.

As I understand it, the shall issue laws in other states were successful as a result of state representatives being persistant in other states and finally getting the laws passed. An example is Marion Hammer in Florida. It took her 7 consecutive years to finally get shall issue passed in Florida. Our last attempt was in 1998 and it was presented once and then people gave up. Wisconsin is another state that is avidly pursuing shall issue. And what about Kansas ? The governor vetoed the bill but it still passed. The point is people didn't give up. As for the percentage of population that actually have CCW's, I believe the average is about 10%, plus or minus. And LE in shall issue states have admitted over and over again that the were wrong to try and block legislation. But there are still those in government that would like nothing more than to repeal those laws because controlling who can and can't CCW is power over the citizens to defend themselves.

It may sound ridiculous and even childish to non-LEO's but half the fun of LE is catching the bad guys. And there is a statement in LE "if you catch'em, you clean'em. In other words, if we as citizens are defending ourselves and catching and turning the BG's over to LE, where's the fun in it for LE? They have to do the paperwork without the adrenaline rush, and believe me I always got a rush when I got to chase BG's.

The bottom line is this, the more private citizens are able to defend themselves, the less private citizens are dependent on police for their safety. LE's jobs will be secure because other work needs to be done and there will still be victim's of crime that will not take the initiative to protect themselves, but there might be less sheep to protect and more sheepdogs to clean up after. Of course, after awhile the wolves will get the hint and move off to places with more sheep and less sheepdogs, but 80% of the U.S. is shall issue while we sit here in the last 20% with our hands tied and our sources of self defense restricted to our homes.

Glock22Fan
02-04-2008, 4:18 PM
. . . and the issuing authorities have lost in some of those cases.

.

If TBJ has its way, there will be more of these. As you mostly know, we have the Santa Maria case going through Federal Court. I can't release any other place names quite just yet, but TBJ is working on others. And yes, we have "We do not ever issue" people in there, despite 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.

ViPER395
02-04-2008, 6:07 PM
It may sound ridiculous and even childish to non-LEO's but half the fun of LE is catching the bad guys. And there is a statement in LE "if you catch'em, you clean'em. In other words, if we as citizens are defending ourselves and catching and turning the BG's over to LE, where's the fun in it for LE? They have to do the paperwork without the adrenaline rush, and believe me I always got a rush when I got to chase BG's.


Wow. Every other thread usually ends with how LEOs have it so hard and how common folk don't understand.

I understand now.

just4fun63
02-04-2008, 6:58 PM
It may sound ridiculous and even childish to non-LEO's but half the fun of LE is catching the bad guys. And there is a statement in LE "if you catch'em, youclean'em. In other words, if we as citizens are defending ourselves and catching and turning the BG's over to LE, where's the fun in it for LE? They have to do the paperwork without the adrenaline rush, and believe me I always got a rush when I got to chase BG's.



"you catch'em you Clean'em" Means if you make the arrest you do the report and subsequent paperwork. Citizens with CCW should not be catching and turning over criminals to LE. You should be defending yourself and your family if necessary.

Fjold
02-04-2008, 7:37 PM
If TBJ has its way, there will be more of these. As you mostly know, we have the Santa Maria case going through Federal Court. I can't release any other place names quite just yet, but TBJ is working on others. And yes, we have "We do not ever issue" people in there, despite Salute v. Pitchess (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/legal/salute.html):


In regards to TBJ's Santa Maria case, wasn't the Defendant's motion to dismiss hearing today?

tyrist
02-04-2008, 7:52 PM
The you catch em you clean em remark has more to do with somebody responding to the scene of "your" incident and basically doing a piss poor job and handing you a cluster to deal with.

If somebody is not responsible for the entire sequence of events when something happens, it can get really difficult to finish the paper work.

Piper
02-04-2008, 7:59 PM
"you catch'em you Clean'em" Means if you make the arrest you do the report and subsequent paperwork. Citizens with CCW should not be catching and turning over criminals to LE. You should be defending yourself and your family if necessary.

You are absolutely correct, for the most part. But there may be a time when it's prudent to do exactly that.

I would hope that no one is ever placed into that situation, but if you listen to NRA news and the hero of the day part of the show, there are several incidents of citizens like you and I catching the BG who tried to commit a crime. And there are a number of ways of catching the BG without physically restraining them. One is the obvious shooting to stop the BG from killing or inflicting great bodily injury on an innocent person. The second is drawing your weapon and having the BG submit to detention until LE arrives. Under no circumstances would I suggest that anyone pursue the BG if they should run away. The only thing you should be doing at that point is getting a description and direction of travel.

Anyway, I go back to my original quote:

It may sound ridiculous and even childish to non-LEO's but half the fun of LE is catching the bad guys. And there is a statement in LE "if you catch'em, you clean'em." In other words, if we as citizens are defending ourselves and catching and turning the BG's over to LE, where's the fun in it for LE? They have to do the paperwork without the adrenaline rush, and believe me I always got a rush when I got to chase BG's.

CCWFacts
02-04-2008, 8:03 PM
Obviously, for LEOs, catching the bad guys is the "reward", and doing the paperwork is the drudgery. If they liked doing paperwork they would be accountants, not cops!

Piper
02-04-2008, 8:06 PM
The you catch em you clean em remark has more to do with somebody responding to the scene of "your" incident and basically doing a piss poor job and handing you a cluster to deal with.

If somebody is not responsible for the entire sequence of events when something happens, it can get really difficult to finish the paper work.

It sort of translates differently from place to place, but in substance it's the samething and I hated to clean something I didn't have the pleasure of catching.:D

As a side note, warrants are great because I didn't have to clean'em.

tyrist
02-04-2008, 8:46 PM
Warrants are a beautiful thing. Recap a felony. No evidence to book, no Probable cause determinations. Still need to do a report in some agencies though. Always a super simple report and on paper a felony is a felony.

I hate citizens arrests though they are always fubar and I do all this work for them to not show up to court and the guy gets let go.

ryang
02-04-2008, 8:57 PM
From his point of view, however misplaced it may be, the issue was liability. Now, we know the issue of liability is really a red herring, but I'm not convinced he knows its a BS excuse. He actually believes there is a liability issue.Do a google search on "california ccw application". The first hit is a PDF of the application.

Section 4 states:
The licensee is responsible for all 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.

Section 6 states:
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.

It's there twice on the CCW app. Section 6 is the part that the applicant signs. Please ask your relative what grounds he has to think these portions of the CCW app do not provide him protection against liability.

Suvorov
02-04-2008, 9:22 PM
We don't have easy access to CCW permits because we live in a leftist state and continue to elect anti-gun people to the legislature and anti-gun sheriffs to their county seats. Cops are a reflection of their community and if the communities are anti-gun then the cops will tend to be that way as well. Really, the cops are only enforcing the laws that we (the "people" of California) keep electing eurowannabe liberals into office to write. Sure, the cops here in the PRC are more anti-gun than those in Wyoming, but the sheeple of Kalifornia are more anti-gun than the citizens of Wyoming.

CCWFacts
02-04-2008, 9:40 PM
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.
etc

This language is all to prevent the licensee from suing the issuing authority. Ie, he gets his license, goes crazy, shoots someone, and then sues the sheriff for having given him a permit. If I'm understanding the GC correctly, such a suit would be just as hopeless as a rotten driver suing the DMV for giving him a license.

ryang
02-05-2008, 8:47 PM
This language is all to prevent the licensee from suing the issuing authority.Which part of "The licensee is responsible for all liability" or "I accept and assume all responsibility and liability" do you not understand?

M. Sage
02-05-2008, 10:39 PM
Massafeff: You can open carry unloaded with magazines and/or speedloaders filled with ammo on your person. A loaded magazine (that isn't in the firearm) doesn't make a firearm loaded. That's been hashed and rehashed on here about 100 times (literally, and probably more.)

Glock22Fan
02-06-2008, 8:51 AM
In regards to TBJ's Santa Maria case, wasn't the Defendant's motion to dismiss hearing today?


Yes, and as covered elsewhere, the motion was denied.

So, we're heading for a trial, folks.

artherd
02-07-2008, 12:15 AM
I suppose he could arrest you and hold you until your lawyer shows up and tells them to release you, with your property...

Yes, and under Plummer v. State he could be shot dead for making that unlawful arrest.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”