PDA

View Full Version : LEXIPOL/Federal Suits/LAPD CCWS/Team Billy Jack


Billy Jack
04-22-2008, 12:39 PM
It is my hope that this thread does not go the way of my last one. If one is wearing a aluminum lined hat or fears black UN helicopters beaming into their homes and minds there is nothing I can say here that will convince them that TBJ’s efforts will be successful and are worthy of their support.

LEXIPOL LLC is far more than a ‘purveyor of law enforcement policies’. This company provides Risk Management services as well as operation manuals to government agencies all over the USA. In California they are the number one provider of CCW Policies to PD’s and SO’s. The firm’s founder is a former OPD Canine Officer who is now an Attorney. His firm is currently defending Santa Maria in Federal court. His firm is dispersing the letter referred to in the other post. They are trying to inform their client’s which are over half the departments in California, that they must follow the LEXIPOL CCW Policy or they may have legal exposure. That is legalese to say you can be sued and you may lose if you do not follow your own policy.

You may be wondering why LEXIPOL’s founder is defending Santa Maria in Federal court when there are many firms that are much larger that specialize in defending government agencies against Civil Rights suits. Here are the reasons. LEXIPOL’s policy is little more than a ‘firewall’ CCW policy. It is the policy departments purchase and put in place when they do not want to follow the law and issue fairly. It is a poorly drafted, confusing and difficult policy to follow. I have yet to find a department that actually follows it. Therein lie’s the problem for the LEXIPOL departments. They have a policy that is designed to be ‘no issue’ so when a friend of the Chief or Sheriff or public official wants a CCW, the CLEO simply waives most of the requirements and issues the CCW. All regular applicants must comply with all requirements of the policy and virtually all are denied. A real sweet operation for the departments.

The CCW Policy is sold to the departments with the assurance that is it legally defensible. Well, as soon as the CLEOS begin to waive requirements and issue to ‘special classes’ of people they are violating the 14th Amendment as it applies to regular applicants. This is where TBJ comes in. If an applicant is denied by a LEXIPOL department or any other department we do a Forensic examination of the CCW files to see how they were issued. If we find the department has a ‘dual’ policy we offer the applicant the option of suing the CLEO and city/county in Federal court.

This is the Reader’s Digest version of what TBJ is doing. This is much more to it and I am unable to share it with you at this time. It is not our desire to cause anyone to lose their CCW’s. If you have a CCW and you followed all the requirements of the issuing department you have nothing to fear from Billy Jack or TBJ members.

A question was raised about why departments had not changed their policies after Guillory v Gates in 1984. There is a real simple answer. The CLEOS looked around and evaluated their situation and the potential applicant pool. LAPD has issued 19 permits in a city with a population of 3 million and no one says a thing. No one has bothered to sue CLEOS in Federal court. They knew that it took 12 years to get a CCW Decision out of the 9th Circuit Court. During that period no one else brought a similar suit. They figured correctly, that no one else would do so and they were right. A reading of the courts written Decision in denying Santa Maria/LEXIPOL’s, Motion to Dismiss makes it very clear that Guillory v Gates is the Case Law the court will follow in the case at hand.

We will be filing other cases against departments using the same two Case Laws, Salute v Pitchess and Guillory v Gates. Why did I let so much time pass before I took this path? I was out raising a family, one daughter who was inspired by her father’s stubbornness became an Attorney, running two businesses and serving my client’s interests. Seeing no one else was going to take the mantle, I suited up and became Billy Jack.

As I have posted previously I am here for the duration. I am not a proponent of Shall Issue as I do not see the political climate for it here. I do not spend my time attacking those that are. Politicians come and go as do CLEOS but the Constitution is an enduring document. It is to Billy Jack a most sacred document which he must protect. People ask me what kind of cases I handle. I tell them I defend the 14th Amendment. Scares a lot of them.

I hope this post does not generate into petty things like my sartorial choices. It should generate serious questions and discussions as to why most departments are using the same ‘canned’ CCW Policy. Why they do not follow it. And, why has the LEXIPOL company been selling such a flawed policy to departments all over the state.

Billy Jack


“When policeman break the law, then there isn’t any law….just a fight for survival!”




http://www.CaliforniaConcealedCarry.com

Anthonysmanifesto
04-22-2008, 12:42 PM
thank you. I appreciate the executive summary and im sure many other do to.

bwiese
04-22-2008, 1:00 PM
Good summary.

Keep plodding forward.

And while I myself am a proponent of shiny wingtips, remember that Gerry Spence "dresses weird" and has won lotsa big cases.

Billy Jack
04-22-2008, 1:10 PM
When not defending the 14th, Billy Jack can be found wearing Saddle Oxfords, Argyle socks and Argyle vest. Billy Jack very retro in thinking and manner of appearance. Actually CLEOS might find this as frightening as Billy Jack outfit.

Billy Jack

IGOTDIRT4U
04-22-2008, 1:15 PM
LEXIPOL is just like any other packaged "beat all" system. It has flaws. Humans use it.

For a system to require rigidity, like LEXIPOL is stridently urging it's users/purchasers to do at this time, it can only achieve that goal if the use of the system in the first place has no subjectives in it. The Good Cause portion of the CCW permit process introduces the subjectivity to the process, allowing the high possibility of the LEXIPOL process to fail.

There is no "right or wrong" on a CCW approach. Some methods have lasting results, and implications. Others are more subtle, and gather steam, turning the issue into a more massive issue, if applied carefully.

In all cases, why aren't ALL the gun owners in California applying for a CCW (those with permits already excepted), even if they don't stand a chance. Numbers can speak for themselves, and eventually communication ensues between those that decide what we get, and those that vote for what we want.

As to those that want to call one person's ideals and opinions "wrong", that is standing in judgement, without authority. So called proof via "facts" are not necessary to prove a point involving strategy or ideaology. One can express their opposing opinion without being wrong. And conversely, the other person is not inherently "right" for speaking last. Forget the ties to prior statements about religion or politics, NO ONE is right because they claim to be.

So, let's spearhead ALL movements to get CCW to the people.

Kestryll
04-22-2008, 1:25 PM
Just a heads up, everyone had a view and expressed it in the last thread that eventually got locked.
This is a new thread, it's not here to continue nor resurrect the arguments of the last one.
I expect that this thread will NOT devolve in to bickering and repeated 'throwbacks' to the previous thread. This is not 'I Love Lucy' and will not be a continual chain of reruns.

Discuss civilly and courteously or don't post, it's that simple.

Glock22Fan
04-22-2008, 1:27 PM
In all cases, why aren't ALL the gun owners in California applying for a CCW (those with permits already excepted), even if they don't stand a chance. Numbers can speak for themselves, and eventually communication ensues between those that decide what we get, and those that vote for what we want.

I'd love to, but spending several hundred on a lost cause doesn't impress the spouse, and personally I'd rather spend it on a new helicopter (model). Mind you, that doesn't impress her either. :(

IGOTDIRT4U
04-22-2008, 1:32 PM
I'd love to, but spending several hundred on a lost cause doesn't impress the spouse, and personally I'd rather spend it on a new helicopter (model). Mind you, that doesn't impress her either. :(


Didn't impress, mine, either, so bought more guns...

(damn LiPo batts are expensive!)

Hopi
04-22-2008, 1:33 PM
In all cases, why aren't ALL the gun owners in California applying for a CCW (those with permits already excepted), even if they don't stand a chance. Numbers can speak for themselves, and eventually communication ensues between those that decide what we get, and those that vote for what we want.



So, let's spearhead ALL movements to get CCW to the people.

Great point. I think that we are too fractured at this time, demonstrated by the last thread, to effectively convince all CA gun-owners.


Keep up the good work TBJ!

AngelDecoys
04-22-2008, 1:45 PM
Angel would like to applaud ‘Team Billy Jack’ and others like him for doing something (over nothing) with regards to CCW in CA.

Personally, I think our best bet in California is to take it out of the hands of the legislature, and to altogether remove the LE variable. I hope, pray, and wish that a lot of the CCW argument in CA will become mute once (if) the following bill passes.

Bill Forces States To Accept Concealed Gun Permits (http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/04/14/news/041508dcgunrecip.txt)

WASHINGTON -- Americans with state-issued concealed weapons permits would be allowed to carry guns wherever they travel in the country under a bill introduced Monday by 3rd District Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers.

The measure would eliminate a mishmash of concealed weapons regulations that vary from state to state, Boozman contends. All states would be forced to recognize concealed handgun permits from elsewhere.

.....................

When reciprocity between states makes denying them a loss in revenue, the attitude will change fast. Residents will just get them in other states if they are hassled here. Until that time, swaying public opinion on CCW will get us nowhere (IMO). Legal action is the only thing that makes officals sit up take notice. So until that Federal law gets passed, Billy Jack (and TBJ) gets a big double thumbs up from this guy.

Keep up the fight. You are appreciated!

liketoshoot
04-22-2008, 1:54 PM
1st I'm all for what TBJ is doing and has done.
2nd I don't belive that spending money on something that can not be had is a good idea.
3rd as I'm relocation in a few month to a more CCW friendly part of this state, I'd rather just wait till then.

More power to Team Billy Jack.

383green
04-22-2008, 1:59 PM
In all cases, why aren't ALL the gun owners in California applying for a CCW (those with permits already excepted), even if they don't stand a chance. Numbers can speak for themselves, and eventually communication ensues between those that decide what we get, and those that vote for what we want.

I don't believe that I have a "good cause" that would satisfy my sheriff's department at this time, so I don't think that TBJ and I could work together right now and I'm sure that I'd fail to get a CCW on my own. If a time comes when it will be helpful to the greater cause for folks like me to apply for CCW in Riverside county (even if I expect to be denied), then I'd like to do my part! Right now I don't think it would help me or anybody else, and I'm pretty overwhelmed with my home construction project (both in time and money) anyway.

I'll keep my eyes open in case TBJ's efforts, and/or the upcoming SCOTUS ruling, and/or any other events will make it worthwhile for me to apply. I'm also interested in seeing what others think about this.

Glock22Fan
04-22-2008, 2:03 PM
I'll keep my eyes open in case TBJ's efforts, and/or the upcoming SCOTUS ruling, and/or any other events will make it worthwhile for me to apply. I'm also interested in seeing what others think about this

Glock22Fan is also hoping that one day it will be worth him applying for a CCW, but that day isn't yet.

nobody_special
04-22-2008, 2:10 PM
I am not a proponent of Shall Issue as I do not see the political climate for it here. I do not spend my time attacking those that are. Politicians come and go as do CLEOS but the Constitution is an enduring document. It is to Billy Jack a most sacred document which he must protect. People ask me what kind of cases I handle. I tell them I defend the 14th Amendment.

While I think your efforts are admirable, I believe the equal protection issue is a minor - but important - problem.

In my opinion, useful open carry or (especially) shall-issue CCW are of paramount importance. California's laws, with severe restrictions on open carry and ambiguous good-cause and good moral character requirements, effectively deny law-abiding people the ability to defend themselves. TBJ's efforts are a necessary step for shall-issue anyway, and yes I agree that the political climate makes shall-issue effectively impossible.

I'm hoping that a SCOTUS decision for an individual right might change the legal climate enough that we may get a positive interpretation of bearing arms that improves the open carry situation. Unfortunately, I don't see any legal avenue for obtaining shall-issue; Heller won't help with that.

383green
04-22-2008, 2:11 PM
Incidentally, I also have not bothered to apply for any out of state carry licenses. I travel very rarely, and even less rarely out of state, so it hasn't seemed to be worth the effort. Now, if a reciprocity law went into effect and it was worded in such a way that I could carry in CA by getting a non-resident carry permit in some other state, then I'd be all over that.

383green
04-22-2008, 2:18 PM
I am not a proponent of Shall Issue as I do not see the political climate for it here.

I'd like you to clarify what you stated there. Are you opposed to the concept of shall-issue, or are you simply saying that it's not a good area for you to focus your efforts in right now?

Hopi
04-22-2008, 2:21 PM
I'd like you to clarify what you stated there. Are you opposed to the concept of shall-issue, or are you simply saying that it's not a good area for you to focus your efforts in right now?

His statement above does not imply that he is opposed to shall-issue per se, he is just not advocating for shall issue as it seems to be a losing cause at the moment in CA.

Python2
04-22-2008, 2:22 PM
In all cases, why aren't ALL the gun owners in California applying for a CCW (those with permits already excepted), even if they don't stand a chance. Numbers can speak for themselves, and eventually communication ensues between those that decide what we get, and those that vote for what we want.

.

I have done my part, was given a run around, took almost two years, applied to chief "Denied" then applied to sheriff "Denied" as well.

383green
04-22-2008, 2:31 PM
His statement above does not imply that he is opposed to shall-issue per se, he is just not advocating for shall issue as it seems to be a losing cause at the moment in CA.

That's what I thought, but his wording made this a little bit ambiguous to me. I'd still like to see his own confirmation of this.

WokMaster1
04-22-2008, 2:54 PM
When not defending the 14th, Billy Jack can be found wearing Saddle Oxfords, Argyle socks and Argyle vest. Billy Jack very retro in thinking and manner of appearance. Actually CLEOS might find this as frightening as Billy Jack outfit.

Billy Jack

add Argyle speedos & Billy Jack is set to scare the CLEO into complying without any lawsuits. Wokmaster knows...;):D

AngelDecoys
04-22-2008, 3:01 PM
Now, if a reciprocity law went into effect and it was worded in such a way that I could carry in CA by getting a non-resident carry permit in some other state, then I'd be all over that.

In all honesty, I don't know if the bill I mentioned has been introduced before, and/or 'if' it has any traction in Congress this session but....... As written, it would mandate reciprocity between states. (It probably could be considered more important for the east coast states where commuting across state lines happens daily. We benefit from that). Any CCW you get from another state would have to be honored here. So if given the run around, or denied in CA, you would just take a vacation and come back with a CCW.

No doubt a lot of Californians would go on vacation out of state. That is, If it becomes law. If it doesn't become law, perhaps the other avenues of attack such as Billy Jack efforts will have the desired effect.

383green
04-22-2008, 3:09 PM
As written, it would mandate reciprocity between states. (It probably could be considered more important for the east coast states where commuting across state lines happens daily. We benefit from that). Any CCW you get from another state would have to be honored here. So if given the run around, or denied in CA, you would just take a vacation and come back with a CCW.

I think I've seen speculation before that if such a reciprocity law passed, states may stop issuing non-resident permits since this would no longer be necessary to allow visitors to carry there. Thus, I can imagine a hypothetical situation where real reciprocity went into effect, but residents in may-issue or no-issue states would still be stuck without the ability to legally carry a concealed weapon. I don't know if this would be a likely outcome... I may just be talking out my back end here. Which brings me to this topic:

add Argyle speedos & Billy Jack is set to scare the CLEO into complying without any lawsuits. Wokmaster knows...

That mental picture scares me, too... :ack2:

GuyW
04-22-2008, 3:12 PM
I'm hypothesizing that the described Lexipol CCW Policy purchase, possibly reflects 2 facets of the agencies involved:

1. Intellectual sweat-equity process by *someone* in the LE agencies is necessary to actually master the material and understand the ramifications of proposed actions, and such may not occur by purchasers of Lexipol products. *Someone* needs to personally do the research and critically evaluate the law and requirements for issuance of CCWs - rather than just outsourcing same by buying the Lexipol policy.

2. The purchase of Lexipol CCW policy indicates an arrogant view of CCWs - that the process really isn't important because applicants have no rights to this privilege and have few options to effectively appeal their denied applications....so screw 'em...

Glock22Fan
04-22-2008, 3:40 PM
Billy Jack and I differ slightly in our views on Shall Issue. For the present, we believe that what we are doing is the best that we could be doing to advance the program.

The likes of O.J., some other celebrities, and others who clearly have the wrong attitude, even though they may be (or may have been in the past) law-abiding citizens on the face of it, suggests to some that Shall Issue isn't necessarily ideal. Whereas I understand this view, I believe that the experiences of the states now practising Shall Issue suggests that such problems, if they exist, are statistically unimportant (except, of course, to the individuals affected by them). If it works in Florida, Utah and Vermont, why not here?

Such philosphical issues can be debated later. For now, our job is to get CCW's in the hands of people who carry money and valuables, into the hands of women (and men) with restraining orders, etc, etc, etc.

bulgron
04-22-2008, 3:47 PM
I'll be traveling to Nevada this summer (when I have the time) to take the requisite CCW class and then to apply for a Nevada out of state permit. This will make it legal for me to CC in the two states that I visit the most often -- Minnesota and Arizona.

I guess I could just find a Utah class near me and then apply for that, but what the hell, I'm itchin' for a Nevada road trip. What can I say? :D

Anyone in Silly Con Valley want to join me?

This is actually phase one in my attempt to pry a CA CCW out of some issuing authority, somewhere.

In phase two, I think I'll file some annoying PRAs against various issuing authorities, just to let them know I'm out here. It's almost as good as applying and being denied for a permit, if you ask me. Here, I'll probably be duplicating work performed by TBJ, but again what the hell. I'm not going anywhere and I find I need a hobby. Besides, I might actually learn something that might change things here in this county.

What I do after that depends on what happens with Heller. It also depends on what legal action I see bubbling up in California around Good Cause statements. What I'm hoping to see is Good Cause either declared unconstitutional entirely, or forced to accept "for self defense" as a valid GC. But it all comes down to what Heller says, and what has to happen in order to get 14A incorporation.

I won't object to joining federal lawsuit attacking GC statements at some point in the future if the opportunity presents itself, although I doubt that I have the wherewithal to be a sole plaintiff.

I don't know, maybe I'm delusional. But that's sort of how I'd like to see things roll out over the next four or five or even ten years.

If it takes 10 years of legal action in federal court to box CA into being shall-issue on CCW, that's ok. If we went a political route, it would take easily that long too.

Glock22Fan
04-22-2008, 3:51 PM
Here, I'll probably be duplicating work performed by TBJ,

Bulgron, and anyone else similarly placed: Feel free to check with us to avoid too much duplication. Santa Clara County is "a place of interest" for us.

383green
04-22-2008, 3:53 PM
I'm curious whether TBJ is anticipating any change of tactics after the SCOTUS ruling is delivered, whether the ruling finds for individual or collective rights. With the ruling so close, I find myself waiting and holding my breath to see what will change, instead of being gung-ho to start any new pro-gun projects at this moment. Does TBJ have any comments on this that won't reveal any hole cards?

Billy Jack
04-22-2008, 4:01 PM
LEXIPOL has the ability to provide California departments with fair, easy to follow CCW policies. We did a little research on the old Internet and found policies they had written for departments in Idaho and Oregon. If you are interested just Google LEXIPOL CCW and insert your state of choice. What you will find is a very easy to read and follow policy.

I have done a thorough evaluations of these out of state LEXIPOL CCW Policies and by replacing 'Shall Issue' with 'May Issue' we would have a credible CCW Policy for California use. This will not satisfy those that want 'Shall Issue' but it would eliminate the really crappy Policy they have been selling to the 'I do not want to issue but I know I must have a written policy' CLEOS. When you compare the out of state LEXIPOL policy to its California version you will quickly come to the conclusion TBJ did. That is, LEXIPOL crafted a 'Firewall' CCW Policy for the departments. This is why they are defending that poor man in Santa Maria who is currently Chief. If I were Chief Macagni I would start ordering business cards 100 at a time. This way he will not be stuck with a bunch he can no longer use.

If Santa Maria's CCW Policy can not withstand a challenge in Federal Court it would affect 100's of LEXIPOL's clients that would either want a 'new' policy or they would move on to some other source for the future.

I can not stress how important this can be to applicants all over the state. We have just under 400 SO's and PD's in the state and the majority of them are using, your guessed it, the LEXIPOL Policy. This is why LEXIPOL has a vested interest in what happens to Santa Maria. It is very difficult to market a product that has been proven defective in a Federal Court suit. LEXIPOL, of course will throw the CLEOS under the bus saying it is their fault for not following the policy. The CLEOS will have a somewhat different problem. If they did purchase it to avoid issuing CCW's they can not say that as it would be like falling on their sword and admitting they have been violating Federal and state law.

When the litigation reaches that point, Billy Jack will sit back with a chilled bottle of mineral water and smile. The CLEOS bought a snake and the snake is now loose and about to devour them. I have always addressed my posts to CLEOS, not the honest applicants. Many CLEOS think Billy Jack loco. I do nothing to correct that impression. Gentlemen, we are at war with the bad CLEOS and the prople that keep them in power. Do not forget that. They, and those that keep them in power know they are violating the law and they tolerate that. I have a problem with that.

Billy Jack


"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law....just a fight for survival!"


http://www.CaliforniaConcealedCarry.com

I would like to invite any interested persons to accompany me the next time I go into a CLEOS headquarters to look at their files. The tension is so thick you can almost touch it. I did a southern California department last year and while I went through his files he would walk by the door of the conference room and just stand and stare at Billy Jack. Billy Jack just stare back.

hoffmang
04-22-2008, 5:34 PM
When you compare the out of state LEXIPOL policy to its California version you will quickly come to the conclusion TBJ did. That is, LEXIPOL crafted a 'Firewall' CCW Policy for the departments. This is why they are defending that poor man in Santa Maria who is currently Chief. If I were Chief Macagni I would start ordering business cards 100 at a time. This way he will not be stuck with a bunch he can no longer use.

Any speculation on what is driving the CA Lexipol group towards the "firewall" versus the more sane out of state policies? As a descriptive parallel to my question, Alison Merrilees motivation has some to do with an unfortunate incident regarding Senator Jack Scott's son. Also, I can't just seeing 50% of CLEOs actively wanting an effectively no issue policy, but I can certainly see how they get one in the package without caring much about the bundle.


I would like to invite any interested persons to accompany me the next time I go into a CLEOS headquarters to look at their files. The tension is so thick you can almost touch it. I did a southern California department last year and while I went through his files he would walk by the door of the conference room and just stand and stare at Billy Jack. Billy Jack just stare back.

Now that's my idea of a fun time (yes I realize that I'm not normal.)

-Gene

CCWFacts
04-22-2008, 5:46 PM
As a descriptive parallel to my question, Alison Merrilees motivation has some to do with an unfortunate incident regarding Senator Jack Scott's son.

FYI:

Scott is very active in gun control. He began his gun control efforts after his son Adam was fatally shot. His son Adam, an attorney who had recently graduated from USC Law School, was at a party with friends and one of his friends had a shotgun, which he didn't know was loaded. His friend discharged the shotgun, hitting Adam and killing him.

Liberty1
04-22-2008, 5:50 PM
Now that's my idea of a fun time.

-Gene

Mine too!

AngelDecoys
04-22-2008, 5:52 PM
I think I've seen speculation before that if such a reciprocity law passed, states may stop issuing non-resident permits since this would no longer be necessary to allow visitors to carry there. …... I don't know if this would be a likely outcome.

I can only speculate myself. I think the opposite scenario more likely. A number of states already do reciprocity. (FL, NV, Ut, etc. It's added revenue for CCW applications with little to no overhead. I doubt they want to give that up). If anything, states who do CCWs already would become more competitive and prices might even drop. Heck, even with my Utah, and Florida CCW's, I'd rather renew only 1 (dropping one), over spending that money in CA with the perceived waste of time/denial/hassle.

Inside CA, we'd see an explosion of CCW courses with people filing via mail out of state. I’d say departments inside CA would seriously re-think the lost revenue opportunity. And if not, that only shows that CA is a lost cause so why bother when a vacation trip would fulfill the same mission. While I applaud TBJ and their efforts at reform, long term I think the best hope for Californians is bypassing CLEO's, the CA legislature, and push the issue with the 'Federal recipricity bill.'


I would like to invite any interested persons to accompany me the next time I go into a CLEOS headquarters to look at their files. The tension is so thick you can almost touch it.

If you ever have a looksee up north in the Stockton files, I think I got a hat around here somewhere and might just join you. I'm short (no intimidation factor here) but (if allowed) would have some fun recording it for youtube ;)

Billy Jack
04-22-2008, 5:59 PM
Hoffmang you are correct in your observation. They buy the Policy Manual as a package and because CCW issuance does not have that high a priority, they do not take a real good at it. Once they realize it is flawed there is lots of finger pointing in private. The City Attorney or County Counsel has to sign off on policies so in Executive Session they have to be besides themselves that they have purchased a policy with built in liability. We took a hard look at Santa Maria's LEXIPOL policy and if they followed it to the letter it would take an applicant over 6 months to complete the process. So instead of various people admitting they made a mistake in its purchase, the Chief, in this case proceeds to violate virtually every requirement in the policy to issue to 'personal friends' and 'people I know'. The man is not smart enough to be LEO let alone CLEO. A brighter person could have avoided being sued and then making statements to local newspapers that were against his interests.

I know personally how difficult it is to admit infallibility when wearing a badge. Sometimes we must put our egos aside for the common good.

Anyway we have LEXIPOL officials doing double duty defending their product in Federal court and trying to continue to market it as if nothing had happened. As they keep losing Motions and trial date nears I fear an early retirement may be on the horizon.

One thing I have noticed on all of the sites is the reluctance to confront CLEOS. I have been doing so for over 35 years as a PI and I am still around. I suspect after they get over their initial shock, they must feel a little respect, for someone that will take them to task. That is probably outweighed by their dislike of me. I do not ask others to do what I do but I do ask that they stay out of my way as I do what I do.

Billy Jack

hoffmang
04-22-2008, 7:43 PM
So,

Is this (http://www.scdirectaction.org/copwatch/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/sonoma-co-so-ver-3a.pdf) at section 219 or this (http://www.huffsantacruz.org/police_policy_manual/POLICY%20MANUAL.pdf) a relatively accurate Lexipol CCW policy?

-Gene

tango-52
04-22-2008, 8:43 PM
So,

Is this (http://www.scdirectaction.org/copwatch/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/sonoma-co-so-ver-3a.pdf) at section 219 or this (http://www.huffsantacruz.org/police_policy_manual/POLICY%20MANUAL.pdf) a relatively accurate Lexipol CCW policy?

-Gene

Compared to Santa Cruz policy, Sonoma County looks almost reasonable. They do have that troubling bit about having to be a U.S. Citizen. Legal Resident Aliens need not apply. I think Santa Cruz is the Lexipol one, as it has the medical tests, polygraphs, psych evaluation, etc. that Friends of the Chief would probably balk at.

Billy Jack
04-22-2008, 9:02 PM
http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/lexipol.html
Partial list of LEXIPOL departments. We stopped compiling the list when we received Intel that over half the state was using it.

Find me a LEXIPOL department that is actually following the policy and I will buy you a beer.


Billy Jack

383green
04-22-2008, 10:02 PM
So,

Is this (http://www.scdirectaction.org/copwatch/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/sonoma-co-so-ver-3a.pdf) at section 219 or this (http://www.huffsantacruz.org/police_policy_manual/POLICY%20MANUAL.pdf) a relatively accurate Lexipol CCW policy?

-Gene


I note on page 29 of the Sonoma County document that previously being denied a CCW is listed as a reason to deny a new applicant. This term in particular seems to be an open invitation for perpetual denial of CCW to a person once they're denied a CCW anywhere for any reason (including any contrived technicality) the first time.

This also suggests to me that it's not a good idea to apply for a CCW without expectation of getting issued one or having some other motive such as establishing standing for a law suit.

bulgron
04-22-2008, 10:18 PM
I note on page 29 of the Sonoma County document that previously being denied a CCW is listed as a reason to deny a new applicant. This term in particular seems to be an open invitation for perpetual denial of CCW to a person once they're denied a CCW anywhere for any reason (including any contrived technicality) the first time.

Somewhere I got the impression that that is illegal. But I can't provide chapter and verse on it. Maybe Gene can clarify.

mymonkeyman
04-22-2008, 10:29 PM
Somewhere I got the impression that that is illegal. But I can't provide chapter and verse on it. Maybe Gene can clarify.

Well if they did not even consider good cause and just cited the previous denial, that would be a Pitches violation. However, if they couched the previous denial as explaining the absence of good cause, then it would probably be okay. Something along the lines of: "You applied for an CCW before, were denied, and yet you are still alive. Your stated reasons have not substantially changed, so that indicates you really don't have good cause."

Billy Jack
04-23-2008, 5:43 AM
I answered this 'previous denial' issue in a prior post. A department may not use another departments denial as grounds for denial unless they can substantiate that departments conclusion in the current application. If the prior department was 'no issue' or 'dual issue' they would be insane to also deny you if in fact you had 'Good Cause'. This myth is used as a means of discouraging people from applying.

Your humble PI was denied by LAPD, LASD, SAPD and of course OCSD. They will not use the prior denial against you as it sets them up for a 'Pitchess' violation. You folks have got to stop talking yourselves out of applying. You are just playing into the departments hands. As to my many denials, never mentioned in the subsequent denials and now when I go in for my renewal we do not even tread there as they know that is a no no.

I do not have brass B**** but I do know the law. Actually I do have Brass ones, I just wanted to make a point. During my last application I found myself updating the initial interviewer on current policy and the law as well as an attempt to over charge on the Psych test. They eventually handed me over to the Captain who handles applications and all went well. I do not walk in the door as an Adam Henry but I quickly become one when necessary. Do not let these people deter you. If you have GC you can submit it to a number of people for review, myself included. I review it and an attorney reviews it without cost. If it sucks, we will tell you so. Shy I am not.

Congratulations, this thread is progressing very nicely with good discussions and questions. There is still a tendency to spread misinformation though. Got to watch that.

Billy Jack

Python2
04-23-2008, 6:28 AM
I answered this 'previous denial' issue in a prior post. A department may not use another departments denial as grounds for denial unless they can substantiate that departments conclusion in the current application. If the prior department was 'no issue' or 'dual issue' they would be insane to also deny you if in fact you had 'Good Cause'. This myth is used as a means of discouraging people from applying.



Case in point, I was denied both by my chief and sheriff. Instead of going to court (did'nt have the money) I changed my residence in another county then after 90 days I applied again. There was a question in the application whether you have applied before. So, I told the truth, I was denied because my good cause was not enough good cause from my previous county of residence. The interviewer just smiled and shaked his head.

383green
04-23-2008, 7:57 AM
Thanks for the response, Billy Jack. I did not intend to spread any disinformation, and it looks like I need to read up on Salute v. Pitchess.

I still don't think it makes sense for me, personally, to apply for a CCW in Riverside County at this time, since my GC is basically "I'd like to be able to defend myself from bad people who haven't already tried to kill me". If you think I'm missing something, please let me know! :)

Python2, I wonder out loud whether you've tried working with TBJ, because it looks like your second denial was the exact kind of "insane" that Billy Jack wrote about.

Nom de Guerre
04-23-2008, 8:33 AM
When is the Santa Maria case/trial scheduled to be heard?

Sawdust
04-23-2008, 8:36 AM
How can one go about finding-out whether or not a particular sheriff or police department uses the Lexipol CCW policy?

Sawdust

Glock22Fan
04-23-2008, 8:44 AM
How can one go about finding-out whether or not a particular sheriff or police department uses the Lexipol CCW policy?

Sawdust

Ask them (in writing) or ask us (use this page http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/feedback.html)

Glock22Fan
04-23-2008, 8:47 AM
When is the Santa Maria case/trial scheduled to be heard?


There is no scheduled date as yet. The next step is the Chief's deposition, after which there may be another motion, after which a date will be set.

edited.

Billy Jack
04-23-2008, 8:49 AM
As to trial date, it has yet to be set. Discovery is ongoing. As to who is using LEXIPOL LLC CCW Policy, call and ask them. Better to simply write them a letter asking for a copy. It is a public record and they must provide it. Our position is that anyone with reasonable GC living in a jurisdiction using LEXIPOL should apply after consulting with us first.

Let me say this one more time. LEXIPOL is in use by more than 50% of the departments. When Santa Maria loses the suit, the other departments using it will be using it as beverage coasters as they desperately seek a new policy. To answer your next question, we have a 'dream CCW Policy' ready for submission at trial or to any smart CLEOS that wants to avoid personal contact with me or Team members.

No brag, just fact! And I wonder why I am so liked by their defense team. Go figure.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com


"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law...just a fight for survival!"

383green
04-23-2008, 9:04 AM
we have a 'dream CCW Policy' ready for submission at trial or to any smart CLEOS that wants to avoid personal contact with me or Team members.

Can we see this recommended policy?

Sutcliffe
04-23-2008, 9:34 AM
However, It sure as hell seems like you've done your homework. Good luck with the Santa Maria case. I hope it really shakes up their apple tree.

hill billy
04-23-2008, 1:35 PM
BJ,if you are ever reviewing files at any LA County cleo's I would be glad to join you for a staring contest.

Tarn_Helm
04-23-2008, 9:16 PM
Angel would like to applaud ‘Team Billy Jack’ and others like him for doing something (over nothing) with regards to CCW in CA.

Personally, I think our best bet in California is to take it out of the hands of the legislature, and to altogether remove the LE variable. I hope, pray, and wish that a lot of the CCW argument in CA will become mute once (if) the following bill passes.

Bill Forces States To Accept Concealed Gun Permits (http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/04/14/news/041508dcgunrecip.txt)

WASHINGTON -- Americans with state-issued concealed weapons permits would be allowed to carry guns wherever they travel in the country under a bill introduced Monday by 3rd District Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers.

The measure would eliminate a mishmash of concealed weapons regulations that vary from state to state, Boozman contends. All states would be forced to recognize concealed handgun permits from elsewhere.
.....................

. . . Keep up the fight. You are appreciated!
(red emphasis added)

I agree.

The only hope for CCW in this slave state is if we citizens ram it down the legislature's and the Governor's throat.
:chris:

artherd
04-25-2008, 11:23 AM
I would like to invite any interested persons to accompany me the next time I go into a CLEOS headquarters to look at their files. The tension is so thick you can almost touch it. I did a southern California department last year and while I went through his files he would walk by the door of the conference room and just stand and stare at Billy Jack. Billy Jack just stare back.

Now that sounds like fun, you have my number :)

-Ben.

mymonkeyman
04-25-2008, 11:33 AM
Angel would like to applaud ‘Team Billy Jack’ and others like him for doing something (over nothing) with regards to CCW in CA.

Personally, I think our best bet in California is to take it out of the hands of the legislature, and to altogether remove the LE variable. I hope, pray, and wish that a lot of the CCW argument in CA will become mute once (if) the following bill passes.

Bill Forces States To Accept Concealed Gun Permits (http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/04/14/news/041508dcgunrecip.txt)

WASHINGTON -- Americans with state-issued concealed weapons permits would be allowed to carry guns wherever they travel in the country under a bill introduced Monday by 3rd District Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers.

The measure would eliminate a mishmash of concealed weapons regulations that vary from state to state, Boozman contends. All states would be forced to recognize concealed handgun permits from elsewhere.

.....................

When reciprocity between states makes denying them a loss in revenue, the attitude will change fast. Residents will just get them in other states if they are hassled here. Until that time, swaying public opinion on CCW will get us nowhere (IMO). Legal action is the only thing that makes officals sit up take notice. So until that Federal law gets passed, Billy Jack (and TBJ) gets a big double thumbs up from this guy.

Keep up the fight. You are appreciated!

It is probably unlikely, but that would be awesome if that passed and it counted non-resident CCWs.