PDA

View Full Version : LAPD'S 19 CCW'S


Billy Jack
04-24-2008, 8:19 PM
I will be picking up the CCW files on LAPD's 19 stellar holders next week. I have obtained a copy of their Policy and it is surprisingly simple. So simple that thousands of Los Angeles residents should qualify. I can only assume that the 19 current holders must have REALLY Good Cause.

I will not disclose names but I will disclose occupations and Good Cause. I have this feeling that from the occupations and GC statements you will be able to figure out their names. We will also be contacting the denied applicants from the last 12 months to inquire as to how badly they really need CCW's.

The next few weeks should prove very interesting. As most are aware they are not permitted to ask you why you want any record but the tone of voice of the people I have been dealing with has been most revealing. They sense something is afoot. In addition to sending the request to the Discovery Unit I have been kind enough to send the original of each request to Los Angeles' own William J. Bratton. Why? This is done so he can not deny knowledge of what is in the files. He will make a very interesting Deposition if any of the denied applicants decides to go forward and go Federal on him and the department.

Those of you living in Los Angeles, there will never be a better time to apply if you have profession or occupation related GC or have had documented threats or a restraining order.

The 'City of the Angels' is about to get 'Devilishly' interesting.

Billy Jack


"When Chief Bratton breaks the law, then there isn't any law...just a fight for survival!"


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Riodog
04-24-2008, 8:32 PM
BJ, when you depose Mr. Bratton, I trust you'll have a "voice stress analyzer" present and operational. He's from NY. If you don't have one handy maybe one of his divisions will loan you one and pay you for your time and trouble. Go get um!!!:D

Rio

s2000news
04-24-2008, 11:20 PM
Tagged for future reading.

berto
04-24-2008, 11:50 PM
I look forward to your findings.

radioactivelego
04-25-2008, 12:12 AM
Thank you for doing such a great service for the city of Los Angeles. One day I hope to buy you a beer (and walk back to my car being able to holster my CCW :cool: )

McMadCow
04-25-2008, 10:16 AM
Oooh! Oooh! Do San Francisco next! :D

Neil McCauley
04-25-2008, 10:22 AM
Man I can't wait. :D

Casual Observer
04-25-2008, 10:27 AM
Well, we know Bratton has one.

I suspect the other 18 is a who's-who list of Hollywood powerhouses and Government officials.

glockman19
04-25-2008, 10:38 AM
Thank You.

Hopi
04-25-2008, 10:44 AM
Nice Work......go get 'em!

Jicko
04-25-2008, 10:55 AM
Wanna come down and help us San Diegians?

hawk1
04-25-2008, 11:16 AM
Does Team Billy Jack need any support from those of us that do not live in Los Angeles?

ghettoshecky
04-25-2008, 12:26 PM
Wanna come down and help us San Diegians?

+1 need em here too

Roccobro
04-25-2008, 1:40 PM
BooYah!

You attack them head on and I'll bring up the rear taking out their Trolls!
we know who*---> :troll::troll: :36: <-----CG members!

Justin

GuyW
04-25-2008, 1:43 PM
Tagged for future reading.

This can be done without a post:

Near the top of the thread, find "Thread Tools"...click on it...click on "subscribe to this thread"

Roccobro
04-25-2008, 1:44 PM
Near the top of the thread, finf "THread Tools"...click...click on "subscribe"

+1! Arf! :smilielol5:

Billy Jack
04-25-2008, 2:02 PM
San Francisco can not be successfully taken on in Federal court unless someone applies, is denied and then comes forward. All of our efforts at PRAR are of no value if no one wants to take corrective action. This brings me to the reason for this post. I just finished a conversation with the LAPD Discovery Unit. They have informed me that they have 8 denied applications from the past 12 months. What does this mean? Virtually no one is applying.
3 million population with 19 out and 8 denied. See something wrong with this picture? No one is bothering to apply. They have the potential applicants so 'whipped' that no one bothers.

TBJ can and will do its part but if people in Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County will not even apply, they win! Is that the way you folks want it to be?
I will be contacting the 8 denied applicants after reviewing their GC. It they look good we will see what they would like to do.

Do not make simplistic statements about who has them from LAPD. Celebs go to the SO. LAPD CCWS will be City connected. There is little Bratton can do for a Celeb and vice versa. It all comes down to power and access and that is why there is no 'Fair Issue'. Human nature. We all want to be 'special'. What can be more special than having one of 19 CCWS in a city of 3 million people? I want to make the 19 feel 'special' too, my way.

Was planning to pick up the 19 'special' CCWS next week but the 'newcomers', aka illegal aliens will be swarming Los Angeles while the City Council kisses their derriere.

Billy Jack

pnkssbtz
04-25-2008, 2:21 PM
San Francisco can not be successfully taken on in Federal court unless someone applies, is denied and then comes forward. All of our efforts at PRAR are of no value if no one wants to take corrective action. This brings me to the reason for this post. I just finished a conversation with the LAPD Discovery Unit. They have informed me that they have 8 denied applications from the past 12 months. What does this mean? Virtually no one is applying.
3 million population with 19 out and 8 denied. See something wrong with this picture? No one is bothering to apply. They have the potential applicants so 'whipped' that no one bothers.
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

No one is bothering to apply because everyone knows you will be denied a CCW. So its a waste of money.

As a matter of fact, currently in LA, I will be less inconvenienced by lighting my money on fire and watching it burn to ashes, than having to go through the headaches of filling out the forms and going to the Sheriff's department and then still paying them money.

To say "only 8 have been denied in the past 12 months" is incredibly misleading when their department has had a well known policy of non-issuance for decades. If one were some how able to collect the records from previous years, I am willing to bet you will see a trend that as time progresses the amount of applicants dwindle.

bulgron
04-25-2008, 2:29 PM
San Francisco can not be successfully taken on in Federal court unless someone applies, is denied and then comes forward. All of our efforts at PRAR are of no value if no one wants to take corrective action. This brings me to the reason for this post. I just finished a conversation with the LAPD Discovery Unit. They have informed me that they have 8 denied applications from the past 12 months. What does this mean? Virtually no one is applying.
3 million population with 19 out and 8 denied. See something wrong with this picture? No one is bothering to apply. They have the potential applicants so 'whipped' that no one bothers.

TBJ can and will do its part but if people in Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County will not even apply, they win! Is that the way you folks want it to be?
I will be contacting the 8 denied applicants after reviewing their GC. It they look good we will see what they would like to do.


As much as I support your actions, Billy Jack, I should point out that even you discourage people who "do not have good cause" from applying. What do you expect those of us who have a want and not a need to do? Apply anyway and throw away hundreds of dollars and untold amounts of time just to hear what we already know is the answer?

Anyway, this is why Good Cause statements should be challenged in Federal Court post-Heller (well, assuming a Heller opinion with teeth) and either declared unconstitutional entirely, or at least be forced to accept "For personal self-defense" as a viable good cause. Once that happens, I think you'll see a lot more people applying, and probably being denied by our elitist LEO officials.

Think of the target-rich environment you'll have then.

sunborder
04-25-2008, 2:37 PM
Yes, San Diego needs this badly as well. I guarantee if you come down here, we can host a Carizo Creek shoot & meet.

Hillbilly Rebel
04-25-2008, 2:47 PM
Well, we know Bratton has one.

I suspect the other 18 is a who's-who list of Hollywood powerhouses and Government officials.

Why would Bratton need one? He's a California peace officer and doesn't need a CCW. He can carry under CA law and LEOSA.

Glock22Fan
04-25-2008, 2:51 PM
Why would Bratton need one? He's a California peace officer and doesn't need a CCW. He can carry under CA law and LEOSA.

Sorry, but, believe it or not (and despite recent postings), Bratton is NOT qualified as a California Peace Officer.

That's why he needs a CCW. And he didn't qualify for that, either.

Hillbilly Rebel
04-25-2008, 2:56 PM
Sorry, but, believe it or not (and despite recent postings), Bratton is NOT qualified as a California Peace Officer.

That's why he needs a CCW. And he didn't qualify for that, either.

Then he is in violation of the penal code. All chiefs must be basic POST certified within two years of taking office. How long has it been now?

Python2
04-25-2008, 2:57 PM
No one is bothering to apply because everyone knows you will be denied a CCW. So its a waste of money.

.

Wasting money is not entirely true. Maybe in some counties or PD's, but not in my county. I did not have to pay a penney to my PD nor to my sheriff when I applied, appealed and got denied other than cost of certified mail and time.
Also, I think you are missing the other point and benefit the effect to an agency when all of a sudden mass application are being received by them.

Glock22Fan
04-25-2008, 2:59 PM
Wasting money is not entirely true. Maybe in some counties or PD's, but not in my county.

Some counties do make you pay non-returnable fees up front. Some use this to deter you to keep their denials down.

CSDGuy
04-25-2008, 3:09 PM
Sorry, but, believe it or not (and despite recent postings), Bratton is NOT qualified as a California Peace Officer.

That's why he needs a CCW. And he didn't qualify for that, either.
Then explain to me how he's legally the Police Chief for LAPD? If he's not a California Peace Officer (either by the traditional route or by POST waiver process), he's not legally able to be a Police Chief.

Roccobro
04-25-2008, 3:19 PM
Some counties do make you pay non-returnable fees up front. Some use this to deter you to keep their denials down.

Seems to be a very effective strategy, it's even working CG members. :(

I promise, that if I lived in LA right now I would be applying. Just for the grass roots effort.

Pnkssbtz- I have some of my money coming back from the Fed .Gov. I can cover the amount you'd "burn up" applying if you put forth the effort to put pen to paper on our behalf. Well worth it in my opinion.

Justin

Billy Jack
04-25-2008, 3:22 PM
We are unable to answer some questions about Bratton and other issues at this time as they are still under investigation and you are not our client. We can tell you anything on the Internet and if you do not have the documents in front of you it is of no value.

I am not encouraging any applicants to apply who do not have occupational, professional or a specific threat related issue to cite in their application. As to Heller, it may help, it may not. You can grow old waiting for the calvary to arrive or you can mount a tactical attack and take them down just like Sappers during WWII or Navy Seals today.

Those in the know, are aware we have much more then we are willing to post. You never know if 'The finest law enforcement defense litigator in the United States' or someone of his ilk is lurking.

Billy Jack

buff_01
04-25-2008, 3:23 PM
No doubt it's for the security guards of the elite. They are the only ones with the right to protect themselves, according to the state of CA.

liketoshoot
04-25-2008, 3:42 PM
Wow TBJ you do have your work cut out for you. Good luck.
Most of you down here do not live IN Los Angeles but in surrounding cites that have their own police force, you are still under the Sheriff's protection though, and that means Sheriff Bacca who will not issue a CCW to us civillians. I was going to apply but as I'm moving to a more CCW friendly county (San Berdo)I will wait untill then, if I'm denied I will contact TBJ to see what can be done at that time.

Zhukov
04-25-2008, 3:56 PM
I was curious. The city that I live in (though, I'm unincorporated, so I'd have to go to the Alameda County Sheriff) has their requirements listed.

At the bottom they require you to have a liability insurance policy. Is that legal for them to do?

http://www.hayward-ca.gov/webware/Default.aspx?Message=266&t=-1

pnkssbtz
04-25-2008, 3:59 PM
I was curious. The city that I live in (though, I'm unincorporated, so I'd have to go to the Alameda County Sheriff) has their requirements listed.

At the bottom they require you to have a liability insurance policy. Is that legal for them to do?

http://www.hayward-ca.gov/webware/Default.aspx?Message=266&t=-1

From what I read in Salute vs. Pitchess, the only criteria for deciding issuance of a CCW is:

Good Moral Character
Good Cause
Resident in that County


IANAL...

Billy Jack
04-25-2008, 4:30 PM
That would be creating a wealth standard, that is the ability to purchase the policy. If a person were qualified in all other respects would a denial stand a court challenge? Short answer no! Much like a Poll Tax was used to discriminate against black voters in the south. A Federal Judge would throw this out real quick. One more issue I almost missed. What is the policy for? They will claim it indemnifies the department from actions of the holder. California Government Code currently provides TOTAL immunity from liability for government officials acting within the course and scope of their duties.

The applicant would still have to satisfy all other requirements. This is like the requirement that the applicant be a US Citizen. That has also been found unconstitutional by a Federal court.

You go to love the ingenuity of these CLEOS.

No such immunity exists for Federal violations. It is a paper chase, nothing else.

Billy Jack

Bishop
04-25-2008, 5:47 PM
Give 'em hell BJ!

blackbox
04-27-2008, 9:15 PM
This is old, but this seems like a great example of LAPD denying someone who had good cause:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,307346,00.html (note article is from 1993).

The director of American Me (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103671/), a 1992 documentary on the Mexican Mafia gang, had death threats against him, and LAPD denied his permit. (and he's now better known as Battlestar Galactica's Admiral Adama).

AJAX22
04-27-2008, 9:21 PM
Would it help if some of us were to apply and be denied? Would you prefer to review our good cause statement prior to our submitting it?

I believe I have an application all filled out in my files.... I just didn't want to waste the money if it was not going to do any good

Billy Jack
04-27-2008, 10:57 PM
The cases blackbox refers to are too distant for a court to consider as well as being under a different Chief. As to AJAX22 I am not encouraging anyone to apply unless they have rock solid Good Cause. That would be occupation or profession related or documented threats the life of the applicant or their immediate family. This is the mythical standard that Bratton maintains while denying for those very same reasons and issuing to City connected persons.

If you have stellar GC go to our site www.californiaconcealedcarry.com and e-mail us your GC.

Billy Jack

AJAX22
04-28-2008, 6:50 AM
I work in a secure building in down town LA and frequently transport servers containing propriatary corporate documents (including database's of customer info, credit card numbers, medical info etc) between datacenters.

I don't know if that would qualify as good cause..... but I'm willing to try if you think it will help....

rue
04-28-2008, 8:27 AM
The applicant would still have to satisfy all other requirements. This is like the requirement that the applicant be a US Citizen. That has also been found unconstitutional by a Federal court.
Billy Jack

I disagree with this, if you are not a US citizen you shouldn't be afforded the right to a CCW or the right to have a gun. That right should be for citizens only.

dasmi
04-28-2008, 8:33 AM
I disagree with this, if you are not a US citizen you shouldn't be afforded the right to a CCW or the right to have a gun. That right should be for citizens only.

Every person is born with the right to self defense. It is not dependent on being a citizen of any particular country.

rue
04-28-2008, 8:53 AM
Every person is born with the right to self defense. It is not dependent on being a citizen of any particular country.

Nobody is saying that a non citizen doesn't have the right to self defense, they just shouldn't have the right to a firearm unless they are a citizen IMO.

I can't trade the safety and security of our homeland to give a non citizen the right to have a firearm.

dasmi
04-28-2008, 8:54 AM
In a society like ours, where a large portion of people are armed with firearms, denying people firearms is the same as denying self defense. Isn't that one of our core arguments against gun control?

rue
04-28-2008, 8:59 AM
In a society like ours, where a large portion of people are armed with firearms, denying people firearms is the same as denying self defense. Isn't that one of our core arguments against gun control?

We aren't born with firearms in our hands nor do you need a firearm to defend yourself. I'm pro-gun but guns aren't the only way to a defense.

Billy Jack
04-28-2008, 9:01 AM
Las Vegas PD took the same position in not issuing to a resident alien. Englebert Humperdinck. Yes it is his stage name. A Federal Judge disagreed and ordered them to issue. Point of reference, Federal Judges get a little testy when you bring something to them that has already been clearly decided. As they are wont to say; "Not an issue before this court, move along".

Ajax22, need more information. Please go to: www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

You can e-mail us and we can have a phone conversation in the first person about your GC.

Sincerely,


Billy Jack

Casual Observer
04-28-2008, 9:03 AM
Nobody is saying that a non citizen doesn't have the right to self defense, they just shouldn't have the right to a firearm unless they are a citizen IMO.

I can't trade the safety and security of our homeland to give a non citizen the right to have a firearm.

There are men and women who are not citizen who have/ currently giving honorable service in the US military.

You have to be a legal resident to get a gun, so that at least implies to me that the person is here to stay and is attempting to become a citizen the legal way. In today's day and age, that counts for a hell of a lot.

Glock22Fan
04-28-2008, 9:11 AM
As someone who was not a citizen for the many years it took INS to process my application, I am offended by the suggestion that I should not have been trusted with a firearm at that time.

In case you guys don't know, "The People" is everyone, not just citizens. Everyone has the right to free speech, everyone has the right not to be punished in cruel manners, and everyone has the right to the protection offered by the 2nd and the 14th.

I have no problems with you laying on the illegal residents, but lay off the legal ones, such as I was once.

bulgron
04-28-2008, 9:26 AM
In my opinion it is the height of hypocrisy to want firearms for US Citizens only, but not for legal residents of these United States. The right to self-defense knows no nationality, and we cannot draw artificial lines in the sand just because it makes us feel a little bit safer or superior or whatever it is that drives these sort of arguments.

Hillbilly Rebel
04-28-2008, 9:49 AM
There are men and women who are not citizen who have/ currently giving honorable service in the US military.

You have to be a legal resident to get a gun legally, so that at least implies to me that the person is here to stay and is attempting to become a citizen the legal way. In today's day and age, that counts for a hell of a lot.

Corrected that one for you. :)

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 9:49 AM
As someone who was not a citizen for the many years it took INS to process my application, I am offended by the suggestion that I should not have been trusted with a firearm at that time.

In case you guys don't know, "The People" is everyone, not just citizens. Everyone has the right to free speech, everyone has the right not to be punished in cruel manners, and everyone has the right to the protection offered by the 2nd and the 14th.

I have no problems with you laying on the illegal residents, but lay off the legal ones, such as I was once.

I understand the legal ones... but with regards to the illegal ones....

It is illegal to have a gun while in the commission of a crime. Every second of every day that an illegal alien is here, he is breaking the law. How then could he have a firearm?

Corrected that one for you. :)


With 19 posts, you've not been here long enough to correct anyone... ;)

StukaJr
04-28-2008, 9:53 AM
Nobody is saying that a non citizen doesn't have the right to self defense, they just shouldn't have the right to a firearm unless they are a citizen IMO.

How familiar are you with the Immigration Process? How many natural born citizens are automatically entered into multiple LEO and FBI databases, checked by Interpol, health screened and interviewed multiple times - all of that just to receive a permission for Permanent Residence card? Or discovered brush with any felonious activity meaning swift deportation?


I can't trade the safety and security of our homeland to give a non citizen the right to have a firearm.

Are you saying that legally residing in the US legal firearm owners are the prominent threat to the safety and security of the United States? :confused:

sinner
04-28-2008, 9:59 AM
More good work from TBJ. Cant wait to see how this one turns out :43:

StukaJr
04-28-2008, 10:00 AM
I understand the legal ones... but with regards to the illegal ones....

It is illegal to have a gun while in the commission of a crime. Every second of every day that an illegal alien is here, he is breaking the law. How then could he have a firearm?


Can your read the post again, especially:

I have no problems with you laying on the illegal residents, but lay off the legal ones, such as I was once.

Jezuzzz...

Glock22Fan
04-28-2008, 10:12 AM
Can your read the post again, especially:

I have no problems with you laying on the illegal residents, but lay off the legal ones, such as I was once.


I read EPU as amplifying what I said, not challenging it. Maybe I was wrong?

hill billy
04-28-2008, 10:21 AM
Only slightly off topic here, can you not apply for a permit with the LAPD if you work in the city but live in the county? I thought there was some provision for this? Not that it really matters either way I guess.

BJ, I replied to your email last week, thanks for getting back to me.

CCWFacts
04-28-2008, 10:34 AM
It is illegal to have a gun while in the commission of a crime. Every second of every day that an illegal alien is here, he is breaking the law. How then could he have a firearm?

It's totally illegal for an illegal alien to have a firearm. They are prohibited persons, just like felons. No one here (or anywhere) is suggesting that illegal aliens should have gun rights. They do still have some rights, like freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, trial by jury, etc.

But between legal residents and citizens, there is no distinction in terms of gun rights.

Glock22Fan
04-28-2008, 10:40 AM
Only slightly off topic here, can you not apply for a permit with the LAPD if you work in the city but live in the county? I thought there was some provision for this? Not that it really matters either way I guess.

BJ, I replied to your email last week, thanks for getting back to me.

Hill Billy,

There is a provision for issuing a work-related CCW for people who work in a given area but live elsewhere. Such permits only last 90 days, cost just as much and take just as long to get as any other CCW. Are you surprised nobody eber bothers?

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 10:41 AM
I read EPU as amplifying what I said, not challenging it. Maybe I was wrong?

You are correct.

It's totally illegal for an illegal alien to have a firearm. They are prohibited persons, just like felons. No one here (or anywhere) is suggesting that illegal aliens should have gun rights. They do still have some rights, like freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, trial by jury, etc.

But between legal residents and citizens, there is no distinction in terms of gun rights.

In reading the post it seemed as if he was saying all people are guaranteed all rights. He lumped the "gun rights" with "torture" and other things.

My comment was more food for thought than anything.

drclark
04-28-2008, 10:48 AM
Does the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc amendments apply to all people regardless of their immigration status? If you believe they do (and I believe the courts have made rulings that non-citizens and illegals rights are also protected), and Heller confirms the 2nd as an individual right, would that not imply that all people have a right to keep and bear arms (regardless of their immigration status)? The tricky part is the crime of illegal immigration is a felony? An illegal immigrant commited/is commiting a felony by entering and staying in the country illegally. However, wouldn't they still retain their firearms rights until convicted of said felony?

On the topic of the original post, I live within the LAPD jursidiction but have never applied for ccw as I assume that it will be denied... so why go through the process. I am also under the impression (maybe incorrectly) that if I get denied by LAPD/LA county, it could affect my ability to obtain a CCW if I ever moved to a more friendly county like Orange or Kern.

drc

Glock22Fan
04-28-2008, 10:54 AM
Everyone, legals, illegals and citizens, are guaranteed all rights of the BoR. However, and DrClark is right, Heller could make a big difference here.

It is accepted that some classes of "Everyone" may be denied some advantages of the 2nd. As far as I know, the other exception is that terrorist suspects may, according to some people, be denied their rights of freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (let's not get further into that here)

So, yes, the 2nd applies to everyone, but may be regulated. Such regulations apply, and should apply, to everyone, citizens and non citizens alike.

StukaJr
04-28-2008, 10:54 AM
I read EPU as amplifying what I said, not challenging it. Maybe I was wrong?

Correct. I was just at odds with EPU bringing up illegal aliens when your post clearly is about permanent residents legally owning guns - especially, since illegal alien cannot legally purchase a firearm in California, making the illegal aliens a moot point of this discussion. I thought the point of ending the post with a clarifying note is a good way to stop the thread from derailing further - I guess I was wrong.

I'm a Permanent Resident, waiting out a required time period before I can file for a Citizenship and pay the evergrowing fee - which is hopefully the last of the thousands of dollars that INS collects from myself and my family... That's right - legal immigrants pay their way and pretty much support INS for the Naturalization and Immigration process...

So I take personal offense whether I'm compared to either illegal immigrant or when some Joe Bloe feels that I'm taking something from him... :43:

yellowfin
04-28-2008, 10:57 AM
"Regulated" is a word that has fallen into ill use when it comes to the 2nd. The proper meaning of the word is to insure functioning, but the connotation which has taken over has been to bureacratically inhibit, restrict, and obstruct. To do so in that sense is intolerable. We have gotten where we are because of "reasonable regulation." DO NOT FORGET THAT.

CCWFacts
04-28-2008, 11:10 AM
Does the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc amendments apply to all people regardless of their immigration status? If you believe they do (and I believe the courts have made rulings that non-citizens and illegals rights are also protected), and Heller confirms the 2nd as an individual right, would that not imply that all people have a right to keep and bear arms (regardless of their immigration status)?

If the court rules that the 2A is so protected that even felons have a right to keep and bear arms, then yes, illegal aliens will also have it. But that won't possibly happen. Gura wasn't arguing for it, and no one except L Neil Smith wants to see that happen.

Post-Heller, felons and illegal immigrants will still not have gun rights.

The tricky part is the crime of illegal immigration is a felony? An illegal immigrant commited/is commiting a felony by entering and staying in the country illegally. However, wouldn't they still retain their firearms rights until convicted of said felony?

I'm not sure if illegal immigration is a felony or what it is. What they do is deport them, not try them, or else we would go bankrupt filling up prisons.

But the big point is:

Post-Heller, felons and other prohibited persons will still not have gun rights
Illegal immigrants are prohibited persons, just like felons, mentally dangerous, fugitives from justice, etc

None of that is going to change, nor should it.

odesskiy
04-28-2008, 11:16 AM
Okay, so when are we going to see the list of 19 approved applicants?

tango-52
04-28-2008, 12:43 PM
Okay, so when are we going to see the list of 19 approved applicants?


I wonder how many of them are LAPD reserve officers.

Billy Jack
04-28-2008, 12:55 PM
Illegal immigrants are misdemeanors until they have been deported and they sneak back into our country. Then they are Felons.

The 18 LAPD CCWS are civilians. TBJ does not have any interest in Reserve CCWS as they have no bearing on our inquiries.

As to when we will have them that is answered earlier in this thread.

As to being denied having a detrimental effect on a subsequent application in a 'fair issue' county to the SO or a PD. It will not have any effect unless that second department wants some 14Th Amendment action themselves.

A denial that was a violation of the Constitution could hardly be used against you by a second department unless you let them. If you do not mind the obvious violation they will most certainly accommodate you.

Billy Jack

duenor
04-28-2008, 2:41 PM
removed for security reasons

Phugedaboudet
04-28-2008, 2:53 PM
what defines "good cause"? Is a recent increase in gang activity in my apartment's driveway sufficient? thinly veiled threats from Sureno's and VST members? Or do I need a restraining order and stalkers' letters first?

Knauga
04-28-2008, 2:58 PM
It might be best to contact TBJ directly with your potential good cause. I don't think it is wise or necessary to post it in a public internet forum.

Phugedaboudet
04-28-2008, 3:15 PM
Don't worry, I will when it comes to specifics. But i wanted to get a rough feel for what CA considers "good". I had a CCW in WA state and there wasn't an issue if you could pass the background checks. here I was once told that you had to have specific provable threats to your own or immediate family members' lives before you had a chance of getting a permit. Before I start getting forms from the Sherriff's Office and paying filing fees I wanted to get an idea of what the truth really was. Because i don't have any recorded threats or letters for proof.

It might be best to contact TBJ directly with your potential good cause. I don't think it is wise or necessary to post it in a public internet forum.

Scarecrow Repair
04-28-2008, 4:59 PM
I'm a little late chiming in here, but this is really annoying.

I disagree with this, if you are not a US citizen you shouldn't be afforded the right to a CCW or the right to have a gun. That right should be for citizens only.

There's the whole matter of your rewording of the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the privilege of the citizens to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, except by rue.

Is that really how you see things? It's exactly how the Brady Bunch sees it, as a privilege not a right, revocable at will by pretty much anybody who sees fit to take away other peoples' rights.

Gator Monroe
04-28-2008, 5:16 PM
I Knew it ! (I always said it was less than 100 CCW's given OVER LAST 35 YEARS) and prolly less than 30 ! :cool:

Gator Monroe
04-28-2008, 6:40 PM
Are the Brady Bunch Liberal Democrats ?:eek: