PDA

View Full Version : CCW Questions for Billy Jack


Toolbox X
04-26-2008, 10:38 AM
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.

To clarify, you are saying we should not apply for our CCW unless we have a occupational, professional or a specific threat related issue.

That is the problem.

First, many of us want to know what kinds of occupational and professional issues constitute good cause? Does transporting lots of money count? How about firearms or other valuables? What about working in high crime areas, or working late at night? Are there certain professions like late shift gas station attendant or liquor store clerk that are considered inherently more dangerous and constitute good cause? What about a part time job as a security guard, or a private security contractor?

Many of us may have a good cause and not even know it. We need to know what is acceptable and what isn't, what is worth fighting for and what is a waste of time.

Second, most of us do not have death threats or jobs as a diamond transporter. The thing is, bad guys can show up anywhere at any time. College classrooms, shopping malls, or the McDonald's down the road. Being able to protect ourselves, our families, and innocent bystanders from a gun wielding madman, most of us will agree, is a one hell of a good cause.

Our Constitutional freedom is being violated when we are restricted without "good cause" on the part of the government.

Now I understand we are not ready to fight that battle yet. However, a lot of us would really like some clarification about the current CCW system and how to play the game to our advantage. We're in the dark here. Can you please shed some light on what passes the good cause test and what does not? Who should apply and who should not? When to apply, even if you know you will be denied, and how to use that denial most effectively to create change in the system?

-Grant

aplinker
04-26-2008, 10:46 AM
I think that statement needs to be considered in context.

With the way LA is now he's looking for people with rock-solid "good cause" statements to get denied as a means to sue LAPD/LASD.

I'm in total agreement with you, but how I read it is at this point they need "test cases" with slam-dunk good cause statements.

bulgron
04-26-2008, 11:01 AM
I think it would be a mistake to limit yourself to just what Billy Jack is doing. I know he won't help you if you don't fit into his game plan, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to quietly sit down and give up. It just gets a little harder from there if TBJ won't give you advice.

I've seen Billy Jack essentially say two things on this board (someone please correct me if they think I'm off base here): (1) Damn the torpedos, people should be applying if they want CCWs so that issuing authorities know what sort of demand there is for them out there; and (2) Billy Jack doesn't want to hear from you unless you have a good cause that ought to safely fly in the problematic counties.

Me, I've accepted that Billy Jack is of no direct help to me, not now and probably not ever given what I believe his goals are. Fair enough. So now I'm waiting on Heller to see what comes of it, and to see what the follow-on litigation might look like, before I settle on my strategy for getting a California CCW.

Heller isn't very long off now.

I can wait.

Billy Jack
04-26-2008, 11:02 AM
uclaplinker is absolutely correct. GC varies by county and department. Many of the examples listed by Toolbox X would qualify in Kern, San Bernardino, Orange and many northern California counties. But, here in southern California the standard is much higher because CLEOS simply do not want to issue. They knowingly violate the law like Baca at LASD and Bratton at LAPD because they are gamblers and are playing the odds. They could deny hundreds of applicants and be fairly comfortable that no one would challenge them in court.

We want 'bullet proof' applicant/Plaintiffs to go into Federal court. Once a decision about their illegal policy is reached then we can consider other GC situations.

Let me give you an example. If Baca and Bratton want to continue issuing to the type of people they currently issue to they would have to lower the bar considerably after losing in Federal court in order to do so. What we would like to see is a Consent Decree where a Federal Judge retains jurisdiction over the departments and they have to make periodic reports on progress just as LAPD is currently doing after the Rampart fiasco.

There are many ways of bringing about compliance and no amount of being nice to them is going to work. The way it stands right now they are telling virtually the entire state they are only interested in the personal safety of personal friends, contributors and public officials. Do any of you actually think that will stand as legal before Federal Fudge and jury?

One more element I always keep in the back of my mind is the make-up of juries in large cities. Retired, minorities and people that are unable to avoid jury duty. Lots of potential jurors who do not like CLEOS or LEOS. Hey, Billy Jack's kind of jury.

Some of you want to wait for a favorable court decision or 'Shall Issue'. Be my guest. As to our only being interested in applicants with GC, that is true. Why take a department to trial only to fail. You do not walk in my Mocassins, so do not attempt to speak of my motivation or philosophy.

Billy Jack


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

Casual Observer
04-26-2008, 11:04 AM
I think that statement needs to be considered in context.

With the way LA is now he's looking for people with rock-solid "good cause" statements to get denied as a means to sue LAPD/LASD.

I'm in total agreement with you, but how I read it is at this point they need "test cases" with slam-dunk good cause statements.

x2.

Generally speaking, the question you posed is the very heart of the issue. The "good cause" is totally subjective to one man (the County Sheriff). In some far northern and rural CA counties "personal protection" is enough for the Sheriff. In SoCal, you're looking at a much higher standard.

The PC says you must demonstrate why you are more at risk than Joe Citizen.

As far as Billy Jack is concerned, 'Plinker hit it on the head. He's looking for rock solid test cases where (and this is just speculation on my part) you transport or have access to things that are literally worth more than your life to a criminal (ie- proscription drugs, guns, 6/7 figure sums of cash, diamonds, etc).

hoffmang
04-26-2008, 11:55 AM
Also, think about how we can build on TBJ's strategy in the future.

1. Today, if you have GC and get denied you can force the CLEO to pay attention. Once he's paying attention, he'll be a lot more serious moving forward about actually issuing to folks with Good Cause.

2. Post Heller you can start making arguments about Good Cause. There may be a place between here and shall issue - namely making an argument that some counties GC statements aren't being accepted by others and that that is a 14th violation.

3. After a son of Heller or two you can write a Good Cause statement that says something like "I have the constitutional right to bear arms and am required by California law to apply for this license."

#2 is an interesting and soon middle ground. All it takes is gathering good cause statements that worked.

-Gene

razorx
04-26-2008, 12:30 PM
I am in San Bernardino County, and waiting for SCOTUS ruling on Heller before submitting my application, not going to wait for the progeny of Heller before moving forward. I think for counties that are not completely anti-CCW, just the Supreme Court ruling itself may provide sufficient latitude for CLEO to approve given the threat of Heller based subsequent cases.

I think that more "friendly" CLEOs would approve given any kind of external change agent for them to justify non status quo type actions which Heller can provide.

Casual Observer
04-26-2008, 12:36 PM
Also, think about how we can build on TBJ's strategy in the future.

1. Today, if you have GC and get denied you can force the CLEO to pay attention. Once he's paying attention, he'll be a lot more serious moving forward about actually issuing to folks with Good Cause.

2. Post Heller you can start making arguments about Good Cause. There may be a place between here and shall issue - namely making an argument that some counties GC statements aren't being accepted by others and that that is a 14th violation.

3. After a son of Heller or two you can write a Good Cause statement that says something like "I have the constitutional right to bear arms and am required by California law to apply for this license."

#2 is an interesting and soon middle ground. All it takes is gathering good cause statements that worked.

-Gene

It'll depend a great deal on what Heller says about "reasonable" restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. If it has teeth, you could possibly go to Federal court and say something like "30-some-odd states have shall issue CCW and have seen no rise in crime (you could actually cite places like Ohio which have seen a drop in crime). Therefore, California's may-issue standard is unreasonable given the standard in other states."

bulgron
04-26-2008, 1:10 PM
It'll depend a great deal on what Heller says about "reasonable" restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. If it has teeth, you could possibly go to Federal court and say something like "30-some-odd states have shall issue CCW and have seen no rise in crime (you could actually cite places like Ohio which have seen a drop in crime). Therefore, California's may-issue standard is unreasonable given the standard in other states."

Actually, all we have to do is get rid of G.C. statements and that pretty much forces Sheriffs to issue or face a 14A equal protection lawsuit.

To get rid of G.C. statements, I see one of two paths, depending on what shows up in Heller. Note that everything that follows requires 14A incorporation (which I think the Scary Rifle guys will get us when they revisit Silveria) before we can proceed.

1. What do you mean I have to justify to an elected official that I "need" to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed right? For this argument to work, we need something better than the minimal standard of scrutiny, and we need recognition that the 2A also protects carrying guns around.

2. The 2A protects my individual right to defend my own life with arms. So what do you mean that "for self protection" is not a good enough reason in my good cause statement?

I like #2 better than #1, because then that same argument can be used to throw out a bunch of bad knife and blunt object laws in this and other states. But obviously it requires that Heller says all the right things relative to self-protection.

On the night that Heller is released, I'll be curling up with a printout of the opinion, a glass of scotch and a highlighter while I try to figure out what the best path forward to shall-issue CCW is going to be. Think of it as a hobby. :D

hoffmang
04-26-2008, 1:19 PM
Let me elaborate on my point #2 up above a bit.

Arguendo, lets assume a very narrow Heller that strikes down DC's challenged laws. I don't think it will be quite that narrow but you'll see why scope doesn't matter much.

If the 2A is an individual right and is incorporated we can bring parity to Good Cause statements within the state and that parity will balance toward the least restrictive CLEO issuers. The why is this. First, what TBJ is doing is making it very clear that the 14th applies to privileges (which CCW in CA is absent the 2A). That means that the scope of 14th amendment review is currently really abuse of process (by not issuing or constructively not issuing) or discriminating between issuances for those with good cause. Since there is no individual right to keep or bear arms in California today, we can't make an argument that compares issuance between Kern County and San Francisco County, but once there is we can.

Now the only real remaining argument on the other side is that "keep and bear" is a term of art. Absent an ability to try to make that stick - and it hasn't worked in places that are moderatly anti gun like the Ohio Supreme Court, it will be very hard for the CLEO in San Francisco to survive any sort of heightened 14th amendment scrutiny on his issuance practices as compared with other in state CLEOs. His best argument would be rural v. urban, but that is hard to make in the face of the fact that a permit issued in Kern County is perfectly valid in San Francisco County. Also, it will help to have LA and other urban districts already being more sane thanks to TBJ on issuance to use against the "urban" argument.

All this assumes that Heller won't let us get quickly to my #3 above.

-Gene

XOne
04-26-2008, 1:24 PM
My brother was murdered in 2007 and the killer was never caught, is that good cause? I am positive San Francisco will deny my request for a CCW permit.

yellowfin
04-26-2008, 1:34 PM
It'll depend a great deal on what Heller says about "reasonable" restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. If it has teeth, you could possibly go to Federal court and say something like "30-some-odd states have shall issue CCW and have seen no rise in crime (you could actually cite places like Ohio which have seen a drop in crime). Therefore, California's may-issue standard is unreasonable given the standard in other states." Why wait for that? Shouldn't that have been done a decade or so on that basis? May Issue/GC doesn't hold a drop of water according to that NOW and it violates the 14th and Full Faith and Credit NOW. This praying to the SCOTUS and wait and see is why we have people thinking our rights are optional because we have to receive the pope's blessing for them.

nobody_special
04-26-2008, 1:42 PM
3. After a son of Heller or two you can write a Good Cause statement that says something like "I have the constitutional right to bear arms and am required by California law to apply for this license."

JMHO, but I don't think there is any chance of this happening. The 2nd will never be construed to protect a right to carry concealed.

bulgron
04-26-2008, 1:47 PM
Why wait for that? Shouldn't that have been done a decade or so on that basis? May Issue/GC doesn't hold a drop of water according to that NOW and it violates the 14th and Full Faith and Credit NOW. This praying to the SCOTUS and wait and see is why we have people thinking our rights are optional because we have to receive the pope's blessing for them.

Because the game right now is:

(1) to get the 2A recognized as an individual right within the 9th circuit court of appeals. At the moment, they think it's a collective right and so all court challenges about gun laws are severely hindered by that.

(2) get the 2A incorporated under the 14th amendment. Without that, you can't make a viable Full Faith and Credit argument.

I know what you're saying about rights, but in truth we aren't fighting about rights (which can't be taken away, no matter what the courts or government says) so much as we're talking about liberty, which is about exercising our rights without fear of government retribution.

It's an ugly little game that we're playing here in California. One that involves the courts and the politicians and the people's opinions. I think we're going to to win this game, but it take finesse and patience to do it.

bulgron
04-26-2008, 1:51 PM
JMHO, but I don't think there is any chance of this happening. The 2nd will never be construed to protect a right to carry concealed.

I disagree. See my post #9 in this thread to see why.

But even if I'm wrong there, then we can still get shall-issue concealed carry by forcing the state to allow us to open carry. Once we can do that, then shall-issue concealed carry will come quickly after LEO gets tired of dealing with panicked "man with gun" calls. Note that this is how they got shall-issue CCW in Ohio.

And if that doesn't work, then we can ask why retired LEO has a right to carry concealed when the ordinary citizen does not. This is an equal-protection argument that should ultimately bring the LEO unions around to our side of the political fence.

Toolbox X
04-26-2008, 5:53 PM
I would like to go back to the original intent of my post.

I want my CCW. So do many other people reading this thread. What should we do? We don't know what constitutes a good cause for our county, which means we might have an acceptable GC or we might not.

I understand that Billy Jack is only interested it people who have an iron clad acceptible GC for their county, but what are the rest of us supposed to do in the mean time? BJ knows more about this than anyone. I was hoping he could give us some direction.

For example, my friend and I live in Sacramento county. So far as I know we do not have acceptible GC's for our Sheriff. Should we apply anyway? I understand TBJ will not challenge our denials in court, but what should we do?

lehn20
04-26-2008, 6:27 PM
Howcome the CCW applications outline a criteria/requirements when they mean nothing! Many people check the boxes and they satisfy all requirements but are still denied. Why are the requirements there then!!!

Secondly, why do we need a Good Cause? All we should need to do is apply and if we have a clean background then it should be shall issue. I would be ok with 8-16hr approved training course also, but that is it!.

I've been lucky to have a LASD CCW for 4 years, but it sucks you have to renew every year and you never know if they will re-issue!!.

BillyJack
What should one do, if they after having a CCW for years, suddenly get denied for renewal on grounds of no new threats?.

thegratenate
04-26-2008, 6:47 PM
razorx,

I am not an expert, but I also live in San Bernardino County, and think that you really need to quit waiting for things to change, and get your app filled out. This county is issuing permits, but the process is extremely slow. I recommend that you look into weather or not your good cause is sufficient in OUR county. I know that other counties have denial by runaround, and they toss out good causes because of not being connected, but that is not the case in our county. There is another forum called calccw that has lots of information, if you log on over there and pm the right people you will be able to get a good idea of how your good cause would be received. The major obstacle that we have in this county is that the process can easily take as long as two years if your timing is not good.

I applaud the work of those who are trying to get other counties to issue permits, and hope that we can turn this whole state around before too long, but a couple of counties are doing ok right now. We need more applicants in the counties that are issuing in order to make the rest of the state take notice and realize that citizens of other counties are being denied a right that is given to some.

Glock22Fan
04-26-2008, 7:07 PM
The understandable frustration shown by the above posters shows what is wrong with the system. TBJ is working within the system, nibbling away at what we feel can and should be done within the law.

Is this enough? Not by a long way, but it is what Billy Jack knows how to do. We hope that we will make all CLEO's wake up and start issuing fairly. That in itself won't bring "Self Protection" CCW's to places like L.A., but as the number of permit holders grow, we hope to see some changes in the laws.

A lot of people say "Nothing short of Shall Issue laws is worth working for." Whereas I personally would welcome Shall Issue laws, I think that it won't happen overnight and it won't happen until more counties see that a more relaxed issue of CCW's does not lead to rivers of blood.

So, and again I speak for myself, anyone who promotes the issue of CCW's in any way is helping with the effort. All I would say is make sure that you do it properly and carefully, and don't expect overnight miracles. Do you write thought-provoking letters to the paper? to local politicians? Do you add intelligent and rational comments to blogs and on-line newspaper articles? Just a word here, we get away with spelling and grammar murder on the web, letters and on line comments should be impeccable, or you will look like an uneducated roughneck to the general public. Ideally, DO NOT invoke the 2nd amendment; it sends up hackles in people inclined to be anti-gun.

I think that it is valuable for our CLEO's and the general public to see that there is indeed a demand for issue from law abiding upright citizens. As a team, we cannot recommend what you should do, nor could we help if you get denied because your good cause really isn't as strong as today's misguided laws require. As Billy Jack says, at present we must win every case we go for, so that "new" sheriffs and chiefs learn to take us seriously.

If I can quote Margaret Mead, "Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change society; indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

tango-52
04-26-2008, 8:26 PM
Sacramento is pretty much non-issue for CCWs. San Bernardino, on the other had, is quite receptive. But in all cases, your Good Cause is just that, Yours. No one else can figure out what puts you more at risk. Experience has shown that when a bunch of people start showing up with the same GC, the Sheriff figures out that there is some collusion or a particular instructor that is providing the GC. Then everyone coming in with that GC gets denied, even if they truly had that Good Cause. There are a lot of people all over the state who have CCWs and are helping others through the process at www.calccw.com but they won't write your GC for you either.

Toolbox X
04-26-2008, 9:07 PM
Why is everyone avoiding my questions or turning them into something else?

I'm not asking anyone to write my GC. I would just like to know some examples of acceptable GC in Sac if anyone knows any.

More than anything I would like to know if I should apply for my CCW in Sac, knowing full well that I will be denied. Will me getting denied help our cause, even if I don't have a glowing GC? Or should I not apply because getting denied with hurt my future chances when I apply in the future.

I like to think these questions are simple and black and white. Can anyone answer them?

tango-52
04-26-2008, 9:34 PM
Why is everyone avoiding my questions or turning them into something else?

Sorry if my response was not clear enough.

I'm not asking anyone to write my GC. I would just like to know some examples of acceptable GC in Sac if anyone knows any.

There are no known GCs for the average citizen in Sacramento. When the new Sheriff was running for office, he indicated that he was very pro-CCW. After he was elected, the people that run politics in our Capitol told him how it was really going to work if he wanted to stay in office. That consisted of issuing to political hacks, supporters and legal types, not the average citizen.

More than anything I would like to know if I should apply for my CCW in Sac, knowing full well that I will be denied. Will me getting denied help our cause, even if I don't have a glowing GC?

Don't waste your time or money, unless you have a few tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on a legal case. If you do have that kind of money, talk to the man in the black hat.

Or should I not apply because getting denied with hurt my future chances when I apply in the future.

Being denied in Sacramento because of insufficient GC will not necessarily hurt your chances in many of the neighboring counties.

I like to think these questions are simple and black and white. Can anyone answer them?

If these weren't clear enough, I know a place where there are a lot of people with CCWs in the vicinity of Sacramento (neighboring counties) and some that have the same problem as you (living in Sacramento without a CCW). Many started in Sacto, got frustrated, and moved just over the county line so that they could get their CCW. They work in Sacto and CCW. Try posting some of your questions at www.calccw.com

retired
04-26-2008, 9:47 PM
And if that doesn't work, then we can ask why retired LEO has a right to carry concealed when the ordinary citizen does not.

bulgron, tho you may not agree, nor like the answer, the reason is probably because, even tho retired, there is that possibility the retired leo may have contact with someone he arrested at one time or another. That mere contact could possibly endanger his life or his family's if they are with him. I had that experience once early in my career off duty and it scared the sh*t out of me and my wife. Thankfully it worked out alright.

Now, I realize if the retired leo lives far from the area he worked in, that possibility of contact may be lessened, but it still exists.

Please don't take this possible explanation (and I'm just postulating here) to mean that I'm not in favor of "regular" citizens obtaining a ccw. I am most certainly in favor of this state being a shall issue state and GC not being required to obtain one. I felt this way during my whole career in le.

I actually had hoped to come into contact with someone with a ccw during my patrol time, but it knowingly never occurred. Just to have a chance to congratulate him if nothing else. Of course, I worked in L.A. County and didn't patrol out of Malibu or West Hollywood, where I would have come into contact with celebrities.:rolleyes:

I am fully aware the only reason I have a ccw is because I worked in le, since the county I live in rarely issues them. I'm also fortunate to have the HR218 ccw.

I sincerely hope that all of the qualified citizens in this state can one day soon be able to also have a ccw.

Billy Jack
04-26-2008, 9:55 PM
So many questions, so little time. Let's take the easy ones first. The person with the LASD CCW who is concerned about it being renewed. The SO is only obliged to renew it if you still have GC. If your GC was to change or disappeared they will not renew your CCW. I am aware of a couple of PI's that had CCW from a northern CA department. Because they were employment related when they ceased being licensed the new Chief did not renew them.

I keep hearing entitlement popping up. Both Glock22Fan and I have cautioned about this. As I am writing this you do not have any entitlement to Concealed Carry. Think I am wrong, take a case before the 9th Circuit and watch them box your ears for you.

This may change based upon how SCOTUS decides Heller. Some of you seem intent on hoping that Heller will solve all your problems. That is like standing outside Tee Pee with leather bucket hoping for rain. Maybe you get rain, maybe you just get good tan.

GC is individual and will be evaluated by your local CLEOS. I keep hearing this Sheriff or that Sheriff mentioned. Are you folks aware that virtually all Police Departments issue some CCWS? Ask around you local range or gun shop. Write the Chief a letter. I am currently working LAPD and Chief Bratton. I know more about him right now than his celebrity attorney spouse does. She knows the good, I know the not so good. I do know he will never attain his desire to be Director of Homeland Security. Too much baggage that has yet to be made public. All my Intel comes from public records. 35 years or reading public files and putting the facts in order.

I will try to answer any posted question that benefits the majority of the site's visitors.

Billy Jack


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


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

bulgron
04-26-2008, 11:00 PM
bulgron, tho you may not agree, nor like the answer, the reason is probably because, even tho retired, there is that possibility the retired leo may have contact with someone he arrested at one time or another.

Um, no, what you describe is a need. And I completely agree that retired LEO probably has more of a need that, say, me.

But rights are not about need. Rights are about, well, rights.

In California today, the ability to carry a loaded firearm past your doorstep is (supposedly) governed by need. Which is why, today, LEO can carry and I cannot.

But my argument is that I shouldn't have to explain why I need to exercise a constitutionally-protected right. So if Heller comes back and says that the 2A protects my individual right to keep and bear arms, then my argument becomes legally valid: why does a retired (or off-duty, for that matter) LEO have more of a right to carry a weapon in public than I do?

Look at it this way: suppose you spent your professional life as a newspaper man, while I spent my professional life as a bartender. Do you then have more of a right to write your thoughts down on paper and have them published?

The answer, of course, is that while you may have more of a need that I do, you do not have more of a right. And where constitutional rights are concerned, the law is blind to need.

Clear as mud?

bulgron
04-26-2008, 11:03 PM
Some of you seem intent on hoping that Heller will solve all your problems. That is like standing outside Tee Pee with leather bucket hoping for rain. Maybe you get rain, maybe you just get good tan.


When there isn't a cloud in the sky, sometimes all you can do is stand outside the Tee Pee with the bucket hoping for the best.

Crazed_SS
04-26-2008, 11:22 PM
Um, no, what you describe is a need. And I completely agree that retired LEO probably has more of a need that, say, me.

But rights are not about need. Rights are about, well, rights.

In California today, the ability to carry a loaded firearm past your doorstep is (supposedly) governed by need. Which is why, today, LEO can carry and I cannot.

But my argument is that I shouldn't have to explain why I need to exercise a constitutionally-protected right. So if Heller comes back and says that the 2A protects my individual right to keep and bear arms, then my argument becomes legally valid: why does a retired (or off-duty, for that matter) LEO have more of a right to carry a weapon in public than I do?

Look at it this way: suppose you spent your professional life as a newspaper man, while I spent my professional life as a bartender. Do you then have more of a right to write your thoughts down on paper and have them published?

The answer, of course, is that while you may have more of a need that I do, you do not have more of a right. And where constitutional rights are concerned, the law is blind to need.

Clear as mud?

Concealed Carry isn't a constitutionally protected right. If it were, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

Toolbox X
04-26-2008, 11:38 PM
Concealed Carry isn't a constitutionally protected right. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Nonsense. The right to bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right, yet look at the discussion it creates.

bulgron is exactly correct.

I don't have to prove "good cause" in order to get my drivers license, buy a dirt bike, or fly an airplane. The reason for that is because our Constitution guarentees me the freedom to do whatever I please unless the government shows "good cause" that I should not be allowed to do something. The burden of proof is on the government to prove a person should not be allowed to do something. The people do not have to prove they should be allowed to do something.

CCWFacts
04-27-2008, 12:22 AM
I do know he (Bratton) will never attain his desire to be Director of Homeland Security. Too much baggage that has yet to be made public. All my Intel comes from public records. 35 years or reading public files and putting the facts in order.

Here's something I don't get.

SMPD Chief Macagni has put his career on the line (perhaps ended his career) all for the sake of denying one obviously safe, qualified, extremely well trained person a CCW. What is going through these guys' heads? What makes this a rational choice for them? They are politicians who have fought hard to get where they are. Why are the willing to throw it away over denying a CCW to a guy like McCloud? And in Bratton's case, he could have a career beyond police chief. Why are these smart people making such willfully idiotic decisions? In Macagni's case, if he had issued the permit when he saw that McCloud was serious about legal action, the whole thing would have disappeared and no one would have heard of it. What's going through their heads that would put denying a CCW above their entire careers?

artherd
04-27-2008, 1:36 AM
What's going through their heads that would put denying a CCW above their entire careers?

Arrogance.

zok
04-27-2008, 2:25 AM
I am in San Bernardino County, and waiting for SCOTUS ruling on Heller before submitting my application, not going to wait for the progeny of Heller before moving forward. I think for counties that are not completely anti-CCW, just the Supreme Court ruling itself may provide sufficient latitude for CLEO to approve given the threat of Heller based subsequent cases.

I think that more "friendly" CLEOs would approve given any kind of external change agent for them to justify non status quo type actions which Heller can provide.

I don't understand what Heller is going to change. If a CLEO is breaking the 14th , what makes you think they are going to start following the law when they are breaking it now? If they do not want to give out CCW's then they are still going to play the same game. You are still going to have to apply get denied and file in Federal Court. Maybe I am wrong.

Billy Jack
04-27-2008, 6:02 AM
The Senior Members seem to have a knack for cutting to the chase. I like that and applaud them. If some members attempted to file a Federal Complaint based upon the extremely flawed logic I am reading you would not survive the first defense Motion to Dismiss.

First, you do not have a 'right' to a driver license or to fly an airplane. You must first meet certain requirements, be tested and have something of a background check done. Second, I wholeheartedly agree there is no Constitutional Right to carry concealed and I seriously doubt that the Heller decision will come anywhere close to where some members hope it will. It may well create an opportunity to be cited in future CCW cases brought under the 14th.

CCW issuance will always come down to the 14th because at this writing you no not have a 'right' to carry concealed. Even in shall issue states they have guidelines and controls. If you are denied in a Shall Issue state you have to sue to prove the issuing authority was wrong in the denial. I feel some of you may be reading a lot more into Heller than will develope. Thus my Brave with leather bucket hoping it will rain. If I want water, I shall go to the source.

CCWFACTS is correct when he says that 'arrogance' is the reason the CLEOS continue to violate the law. LEXIPOL co-founder and Santa Maria Defense Attorney Bruce Praet in his warning told all his CCW clients that they must follow LEXIPOLS policy or they risked liability in a court case. Let's think about that letter for a moment. We have an attorney telling the ranking CLEO in these departments that they must follow the law. Am I the only one that sees humor in that warning? Why should anyone have to tell them to follow the law?

Most CLEOS know TBJ is out here and lurking in the background. At this writing I have two trips planned, one to Silicon Valley and the other to Sacramento county. I can assure you I am not going up there for the really good sourdough bread I will be purchasing in San Francisco. Which reminds me. Someone posted recently that they were told by SFPD that if you plan on visiting their city with a CCW you have to have your issuing department send them a letter to that effect. That is how arrogant these clowns are. When I am ready for that visit I will send them my own letter along with a copies of applicable case law and PC secion. I will also enclose a photograph of my vehicle with the license place visible.

Stupid? Naw. That is not an invitation to bother me it is a warning not to. If they are that stupid I will gladly retire to another state on their dime. Gentlemen, I have been investigating bad CLEOS and LEOS for years. How many amongst you will actually have your CLEO send this requested letter?

It is a Chess Game. The objective is to leave them no moves. I can not state it any better than that.

Will be picking up the LAPD files in two weeks. Next week I would have to make my way through illegal alien vermin, peasants and their supporters as they exercise their 'right' to demand the same treatment as American citizens. If any of you want to come along contact me at
www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

I will talk to you in the first or third person as you wish. Billy Jack aims to please. Next question? By the way Billy Jack is a PI not an Attorney so I may not share some of the creative legal thinking displayed by some members. My positions are based on fact and experience not wishes and desires.

Billy Jack

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

bulgron
04-27-2008, 8:27 AM
Concealed Carry isn't a constitutionally protected right. If it were, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

I'm not sure this conversation is worth having. People just don't seem to "get it."

Maybe my strategies have been too complicated for people to follow. Maybe I'm incapable of stating them clearly enough. Let me try this one.

Maybe Concealed Carry isn't a constitutionally protected right.

But open carry is. The right to keep and bear arms, remember? The only problem is, the various courts have refused to protect it.

My hope and expectation is that Heller will be the first in a series of court cases that restores our right to bear arms. Notice that I said, "the first in a series". I don't expect Heller to take us all the way there, or even a good fraction of the way there. I fully expect Heller to come back as a very narrow opinion that only protects firearm keep and carry inside the home. I don't even expect Heller to make the 2A binding on the states. Those things will require follow-on litigation.

But all Heller has to do is make it clear that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This central point has been missing from the federal court system for nearly 70 years now. If Heller says that, and that's all Heller has to say for our purposes, then we can proceed with a series of federal lawsuits designed to restore our right to bear arms outside of our homes.

Now, can such a series of federal lawsuits get us a right to concealed carry? I don't know, probably not. But if the only thing we can arrive at after many years of legal wrangling is the right to bear arms openly, we'll all still end up with CCWs. Why? Because weak-kneed people in our society will demand it. They don't want to see our guns. They surely don't want to see armed people out there demonstrating and protesting. So they'll insist that we be given CCWs.

That worked in Ohio.

It should work here.

And this is just one of half a dozen strategies that I see which can result in shall-issue CCW for California. As I said, all Heller has to do is come back with enough teeth to give us a path forward.

No doubt many of you think I'm pinning my hopes on little more than a rain dance. But, honestly, at this point it looks to me like a rain dance is all I've got.

Certainly not one person on this board or off of it has recommended a strategy to me that has a better chance at me arriving at the ability to carry a weapon outside of my home without fear of government retribution.

Not one.

(Well, I could always move away from California, but I really don't feel like divorcing my wife, thank you very much.)

When you're a drowning man, you grab at whatever you can find to keep yourself afloat. Right now, the only thing I can find is Heller and the potential for a federal legal battle to restore our right to bear arms. Where firearm rights are concerned, and given where I live, and given my circumstances in life, it's the only game in town.

hoffmang
04-27-2008, 9:30 AM
Toolbox,

Send a PRA request to Sac Sheriff's office that requests the number of issued and denied applications in the last year and the Good Cause statements for the ones that were issued and were not issued. Send it certified mail or courier so you have proof of delivery.

To echo bulgron, the way Heller will matter is that we'll get to having a right to open carry loaded and courts are going to be boxed in to "either shall issue CCW or open carry loaded, but you can't negate both."

-Gene

bulgron
04-27-2008, 9:44 AM
Toolbox,

Send a PRA request to Sac Sheriff's office that requests the number of issued and denied applications in the last year and the Good Cause statements for the ones that were issued and were not issued. Send it certified mail or courier so you have proof of delivery.

To echo bulgron, the way Heller will matter is that we'll get to having a right to open carry loaded and courts are going to be boxed in to "either shall issue CCW or open carry loaded, but you can't negate both."

-Gene

When you send a PRA, who in the Sheriff's office do you send it to? Do you send it directly to the Sheriff or do you address it to some specific department?

Python2
04-27-2008, 11:12 AM
When I did my last PRA I sent it directly to the Sheriff himself and copied the County Counsel. Arrogantly enough, they ignored my certified PRA. Maybe because the Sheriff was close to his retirement in a few days and did'nt give crap.

GuyW
04-27-2008, 11:27 AM
....rights (which can't be taken away, no matter what the courts or government says) so much as we're talking about liberty, which is about exercising our rights without fear of government retribution....


Nice statement, Bulgron - one I don't remember reading before...

GuyW
04-27-2008, 11:29 AM
...And if that doesn't work, then we can ask why retired LEO has a right to carry concealed when the ordinary citizen does not. This is an equal-protection argument that should ultimately bring the LEO unions around to our side of the political fence.

OK - I think you have offered this previously (certainly someone has). I don't understand this as a winning argument, tho.

EDIT: OK, I read your argument, no response necessary...

GuyW
04-27-2008, 11:37 AM
...Now, I realize if the retired leo lives far from the area he worked in, that possibility of contact may be lessened, but it still exists.

Hence the situation, as I understand it, of NY cops (and others) retiring in Florida (and no CCWs in state of service)...where they are not only distant from the arrestees, but also have CCWS.

Kinda makes you wonder about the wisdom of that approach...pushing out retired cops who (if armed) may stop crimes for free...

(uh oh - maybe that's the real reason...)

Scarecrow Repair
04-27-2008, 11:56 AM
I don't have any handguns, don't have much interest in CCW or open carry, but this and similar threads seem to me to be missing the point. Billy Jack will no doubt correct me where I am wrong, but as near as I can tell, his entire attack is based on the 14th amendment requiring equal protection. We don't have nobility in this country or privileged classes, or at least we are not supposed to. CCW can't be issued on a whim or based on political donations or cronyism. There have to be clear guidelines, and they have to be applied equally.

That's all that is going on here. This is not a Heller-type grand attack that is going to strike down may-issue or won't-issue. It is simply going to make it clear that if big donors and cronies get CCW for dubious good causes or in spite of shady backgrounds, then no one with an equal or better good cause and less shady background can be denied.

Really, that's all. No magic, no wave of the wand, just simple out in the open expectation that the guidelines are applied equally, because that is what the 14th amendment requires. Maybe dsinope got everyone so riled up that they ignored this simple reality. Maybe that was his purpose.

And this has almost nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. It's just simple equal protection. If Heller makes loaded open carry possible, maybe that will freak out the powers that be enough to make this a shall issue state, and I can guess that most people would go for CCW over open carry, but that is not what Billy Jack is trying to do.

The beauty of Heller is its simplicity. No side issues. That is also the beauty of Billy Jack's approach - -no side issues, just apply the guidelines equally.

383green
04-27-2008, 4:07 PM
I think that Scarecrow Repair (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1168734&postcount=40) and Bulgron (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1168461&postcount=33) summed things up nicely. TBJ is fighting a different battle than the Open Carry and Shall Issue proponents. It happens to be in the same area, and his work way well have synergy with other CCW-related efforts (particularly if Heller opens up new attack vectors), but it's still a focused and independent effort to level the playing field in California's current CCW issuance situation.

It seems to me that TBJ's work is valid and beneficial, but it neither aims to invalidate nor replace other approaches towards Shall Issue, Open Carry, or any other 2nd Amendment issues.

I do not think that it is appropriate for anybody to criticize TBJ for not fighting the specific battle that interests them the most. Nor do I think that it would be right for other CCW-related campaigns to be avoided because of what TBJ is doing. It's a very big and screwed up system that we have here in CA, and it will take a lot of concerted efforts from a lot of people in parallel (but with enough coordination to avoid conflicting actions) to fix what's broken here.

Personally, I don't think that TBJ and I see perfectly eye-to-eye on some philosophical issues, and I don't think that what he's doing will help me get my own CCW in the near future. Still, I think that he's doing good work to fix an unjust situation, I support his efforts, and I'm glad that he's hanging out here on Calguns now.

P.S.: 383green doesn't care whether anybody speaks in 3rd person or wears a hat. 383green is himself weird enough that he shouldn't cast any stones in a glass teepee. :stuart:

P.P.S.: I also like TBJ's plan to warn San Fransisco about his impending visit. ;)

Python2
04-27-2008, 4:54 PM
P.P.S.: I also like TBJ's plan to warn San Fransisco about his impending visit. ;)

I wish I get to see this if it ever happen:)

razorx
04-27-2008, 5:46 PM
Am starting to rethink my timing a bit, given SB County "friendliness" to CCW. My GC is about self-protection but I hardly have a Hollywood CSI storyline about that to make it a slam dunk, which I am grateful for btw.

razorx,

I am not an expert, but I also live in San Bernardino County, and think that you really need to quit waiting for things to change, and get your app filled out. This county is issuing permits, but the process is extremely slow. I recommend that you look into weather or not your good cause is sufficient in OUR county. I know that other counties have denial by runaround, and they toss out good causes because of not being connected, but that is not the case in our county. There is another forum called calccw that has lots of information, if you log on over there and pm the right people you will be able to get a good idea of how your good cause would be received. The major obstacle that we have in this county is that the process can easily take as long as two years if your timing is not good.

I applaud the work of those who are trying to get other counties to issue permits, and hope that we can turn this whole state around before too long, but a couple of counties are doing ok right now. We need more applicants in the counties that are issuing in order to make the rest of the state take notice and realize that citizens of other counties are being denied a right that is given to some.

Billy Jack
04-27-2008, 8:13 PM
Scarecrow Repair you are absolutely correct in your observations and conclusions. I will continue to investigate and encourage 14th Amendment Federal suits when and where the circumstances warrant it. SFPD's Heather Fong, SFSO Hennessey, LASD's LeRoy Baca, SCSO Laurie Smith and LAPD's William J. Bratton are all prime targets for 14th Amendment suits. Denied applicants just have to come forward. One member posted that you have to have hundreds of thousands of dollars to take these people on in Federal court. That is simply not true.

After their files have been obtained via a PRAR and violations confirmed, it costs $345.00 to file in Federal court. The more files exist ala Baca and Smith the more time and cost in evaluation and trial preparation. Once you file suit they have to give you remaining files for free and confirm via Motion that the files obtained pre trial filing are the same as those in the CLEOS possession.
Not a slam dunk but doable. It would be beneficial if the people who do not have any idea what Federal litigation costs, would simply stop speculating and scaring away potential Plaintiffs. One in the can, one pending filing and 4-5 serious investigations ongoing at this writing. We receive inquiries from denied applicants virtually every day but for a number of reasons they are not suitable Plaintiffs.

Gentlemen failure is not an option. TBJ will continue filing essentially the same two lawsuits across the state. 'Dual Issue' and 'No Issue'. It is beginning to get real simple to file the same Complaint over and over. A change here or there, new names and dates and we are at DEFCON 3.
'Do you want to play a game?' Courtesy of War Games.

I like to play a lot but I am deadly serious where these suits are concerned.


Billy Jack


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


cww.californiaconcealedcarry.com

razorx
04-27-2008, 9:42 PM
I don't understand what Heller is going to change. If a CLEO is breaking the 14th , what makes you think they are going to start following the law when they are breaking it now? If they do not want to give out CCW's then they are still going to play the same game. You are still going to have to apply get denied and file in Federal Court. Maybe I am wrong.

All CLEOs do not march in lockstep and are more beholden to policies that are driven by local political environments rather than strictly what is lawful or not. For those that are somewhat friendlier, Heller can provide more latitude in expanding good cause. This is enabling discretionary flexibility vs. a legislative hammer to help free up ccw licenses.

It would not be surprising that some CLEOs favor "Shall Issue" but in their jurisdiction, it will politically not play hence the tighter reins around Good Cause.

retired
04-28-2008, 6:39 PM
Bulgron, I told you wouldn't like the answer. I agree it is a need and you should be able to carry also. I already said that in my first post. I was trying to answer your question why a retired le like myself is issued one. If they didn't feel there was a need, they probably wouldn't issue one.

As I said, I hope everyone that qualifies can obtain a ccw, I really do. I also think it is arrogant of the Chiefs and Sheriffs not to issue one, especially when they readily do so for celebrities, friends and political donors.

yellowfin
04-29-2008, 8:30 AM
Is it included as part of the suits a coercion for the LEO in charge to disclose in writing and frame as stated policy EXACTLY what constitutes, verbatim, a "good cause" according to the department in question against which all can be measured? (I.e. establishing THE good causes by which issue is granted and others with similar cannot be turned down.) I haven't heard mention of a specific demand for that.

Billy Jack
04-29-2008, 11:10 AM
CLEOS always fall back on the Attorney General Opinion defining Good Cause. The Opinion is viewable at: www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

That said, they ALL proceed to issue to whom they wish. When confronted in Deposition they are asked to explain why they issued to those that did not come close to their stated standard. At this point we provide them with ball bearings ala 'The Caine Mutiny'.

It is impossible to explain their bad permits. The Deposition makes or breaks the suit. Long before the suit is even filed we have obtained all of the departments CCW files and done a thorough Forensic examination of same. Simply obtaining a departments CCW files is of little value unless the requestor knows what to look for. It is our position that applicants should not attempt to review a departments files prior to applying. Leave that to the professionals. LAPD Chief Bratton's file was posted on the Internet and no one noticed the numerous violations of state law and department Policy in its issuance. Getting a vicarious thrill out of seeing a celebrity CCW files does not change things one iota.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com


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

yellowfin
04-29-2008, 12:07 PM
I read that. It is purposefully vague. Is there any effort to make them SPECIFIC as in EXACTLY THESE WORDS on the piece of paper is a good cause and EXACTLY something else is not? Not doing so is to continue chasing our tail. The wiggle room is the problem. Stop their squirming and demand they put it in BLACK AND WHITE. Nail their feet to the floor.

Glock22Fan
04-29-2008, 12:58 PM
I read that. It is purposefully vague. Is there any effort to make them SPECIFIC as in EXACTLY THESE WORDS on the piece of paper is a good cause and EXACTLY something else is not? Not doing so is to continue chasing our tail. The wiggle room is the problem. Stop their squirming and demand they put it in BLACK AND WHITE. Nail their feet to the floor.

I don't think that that is possible, and (if it were) it might not be a good idea.

Do we want a statement that says: "People who carry more than $3,000 in cash on more than 4 days a week can get a permit?" How about people who carry $100,000 but only on three days a week? What about people who carry $5,000 five days a week for 50 weeks/year, but not when they are on vacation?

Just to take this one example, how would you phrase that to be SPECIFIC and yet be fair to everyone?

CCWFacts
04-29-2008, 1:37 PM
CLEOS always fall back on the Attorney General Opinion defining Good Cause. The Opinion is viewable at: www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

That said, they ALL proceed to issue to whom they wish.

That's my impression. All these complex policies come into play when it's an "ordinary person" applying. All these "waived" lines come into play when it's someone they want to issue to.

We all talk about obvious bad guys like Sheriff Baca but I'm most looking forward to Chief Heather Fong being deposed on this someday.

And Sheriff Hennessey.

SF has been having a rash of muggings in some middle-class areas there. East Bayers are starting to pack and shoot back so criminals are heading towards SF, a hug and a check from the city are regarded as the way to stop crime. If you read the comments on SFGate, it's clear that a lot of people there want to start packing, and some people there already are packing (sans permit). It will be great to see CCW as a political and legal issue in SF.

Billy Jack
04-29-2008, 1:59 PM
I have yet to see anyone from San Francisco post here or contact us at our site. They are either very happy with the Job Chief Heather Fong and Sheriff Hennessey are doing or they are whupped. The legal team and I will take on any credible client anywhere in California. As previously posted I am heading to Sacramento and Silicon Valley in the next 90-120 days. Note the time frame reference to 12050PC.

Have ear to ground and hear Long Knives approaching. Must set appropriate greeting. Have fun translating that.

Glock22Fan is also correct that as long as we are a 'May Issue' state you do not want Good Cause spelled out. I have LAPD's Policy here in front of me and I quote: 'Good Cause SHALL be deemed to exist, and a license will issue in the absence of strong countervailing factors, upon a showing of any of the following circumstances:

a) The applicant is able to establish that there is an immediate or continuing threat, express or implied, to the applicant's safety, or the applicant's family's safety, and no other means exist which would suffice to neutralize that threat.

b) The applicant is employed in the field of security, has all requisite licenses, is employed by a security firm having all requisite licenses, and provides satisfactory proof that his or her work is of such a nature that it requires the carrying of a concealed weapon.

The third circumstance deals with having a restraining order and my hands are getting tired typing. It would appear that obtaining a CCW from Chief Bratton would be almost a slam dunk for lots of applicants. But there are only 19 out and only 8 denials in the past 12 months.

It does not matter what is on paper, if the CLEO is arrogant they will not issue. If applicants will not challenge them in Federal court, nothing will change. I always tell young Braves. "A good Chief is judged by what he does, not what he says.'

I bolded and capitalized the word SHALL above because in legalese that means they must have a 'countervailing' reason not to issue if the applicant meets the criteria set forth.

Surely there must be a licensed PI or PPO out there that wants to apply. Anyone with a 'one way' Restraining Order would also qualify. The word SHALL takes most discretion away from the department in the applicant process. I am trying to lead qualified applicants to the well. Please take the drink.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com


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

yellowfin
04-29-2008, 3:46 PM
To satisfy the condition of "and no other means exist which would suffice to neutralize that threat" do the other means not available to them include open carry being disallowed in that area? Basically to say that if I can't open carry then that option isn't available to me but I'd take it if it was.

Glock22Fan
04-29-2008, 4:58 PM
To satisfy the condition of "and no other means exist which would suffice to neutralize that threat" do the other means not available to them include open carry being disallowed in that area? Basically to say that if I can't open carry then that option isn't available to me but I'd take it if it was.

That could well be a way for then to deny under clause a), all they have to say is "We think that a Taser is all you need."

Clause b) just requires a security guard "whose work is of such a nature that it requires carrying a concealed weapon"

Clause c) requires a "court order which establishes that the applicant is the on-going victim of a threat or physical violence or otherwise meets the criteria."

Clause d) is "transport in public significant amounts of valuable property which it is impractical or impracticable to entrust to the portection of armored car services . . ."

Clause e) is "The applicant establishes that he or she is subject . . .and no reasonable means are available to meet that threat."

So, three of the five clauses should be good to go.

trashman
04-29-2008, 5:10 PM
I have yet to see anyone from San Francisco post here or contact us at our site. They are either very happy with the Job Chief Heather Fong and Sheriff Hennessey are doing or they are whupped.

TBJ,

There is a third option, which is that there doesn't exist a specific threat to me or my family at the moment, thus precluding a useful lawsuit.

Please be assured that I (and other San Franciscans) am watching this with much interest. I am very impressed with your approach, and unlike some other folks on this board who are frustrated with the incremental approach, I think you guys are doing the right thing and doing it the right way.

Now - there have been a string of muggings (dozens) in my neighborhood of late. I run a lot of errands on foot in the evening, which is when these types of crimes occur. Would this qualify as a specific threat? (I have assumed not)

cheers,
--Neill
San Francisco

CCWFacts
04-29-2008, 5:19 PM
Clause d) is "transport in public significant amounts of valuable property which it is impractical or impracticable to entrust to the portection of armored car services . . ."

I've asked before but haven't gotten an answer: would registered AWs and legally-owned hi-caps be considered valuable property which would justify a CCW? I'm not in LA city, so it wouldn't apply directly to me, but if having and transporting registered AWs is a strong GC, that would be applicable to thousands of people in Los Angeles, and it's all documented stuff.

Here's one reason why I think registered AWs might be an interesting angle: the legislature has already declared them to be highly dangerous and prone to criminal use, so that's an established finding. And, a whole bunch of civilian (non-sworn) employees at various police departments who have CCWs probably have, as a major part of their GC, things like transporting confiscated weapons, transporting AWs, etc. This especially applies to people who are armorers, trainers, etc. Whatever GC a police armorer has, I probably also have because I legally own and transport the same stuff that they do. Maybe I should find out if my city's armorer has a CCW, and what his GC is, if this is a viable way to go.

Billy Jack
04-29-2008, 5:40 PM
First to Neill, you can tell Chief Heather Fong, Billy Jack is on the way. I will take her department on as soon as a viable applicant comes forward. I will also personally buy her a properly fitting hat. She looks like a child playing dress up.

As to CCWFACTS, it would depend on your department which you have failed to indicate. In LAPD, LASD land the short answer is no at this time. We know LAPD's policy sounds real good on its face but I live in a city of 300,000 and we have 12 CCW's out and LAPD has 19 with a population of 3,000,000. What is wrong with this picture?

Time for all the PI's and PPO's living in Los Angeles City to mosey on in and apply. I can not give legal advice but I can assure those that are on the timid side that LAPD has a real problem with a few improperly chosen words in the GC. They created a hole big enough to drive a 1983 Federal Civil Rights action through.

Neill, thanks for your support. TBJ appreciates it.

Billy Jack


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com


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

Paladin
04-29-2008, 5:52 PM
We know LAPD's policy sounds real good on its face but I live in a city of 300,000 and we have 12 CCW's out and LAPD has 19 with a population of 3,000,000. What is wrong with this picture?

Time for all the PI's and PPO's living in Los Angeles City to mosey on in and apply.I wonder if there is an association or web forum where LAC PIs/PPOs might hang out? ;) Hmm. That might need to be looked into by someone w/investigative experience. :D

BJ, I look forward to the deposition of SM's chief and when you file on the next target. Those, and Heller, should make my summer. :D

Outta here 'til the weekend!

CCWFacts
04-29-2008, 5:55 PM
I asked about reg.ed AWs as GC, to which BJ replied:

As to CCWFACTS, it would depend on your department which you have failed to indicate. In LAPD, LASD land the short answer is no at this time.

Drat. My pondering about AWs-as-GC is based on the fact that having a reg'd AW is a black-and-white thing, and, while the pool is (unfortunately) frozen, it's not small. I was also thinking about the situation in Rhode Island, where a court ruled that having an FFL (even a C&R FFL) is GC. C&R FFLs are shall-issue, and therefore, transitively, Rhode Island CCWs are shall-issue. If we could find or create a similar situation here in CA that would be great.

(edited: I was confusing DE with RI)

hoffmang
04-29-2008, 6:04 PM
I apologize for going minorly off topic, but can someone decode the PPO acronym?

-Gene

Diabolus
04-29-2008, 6:18 PM
I apologize for going minorly off topic, but can someone decode the PPO acronym?

-Gene

Private Patrol Officer

Billy Jack
04-29-2008, 7:22 PM
Negatory on the answer. PPO is a Private Patrol Operator.

Billy Jack

eijjie33
04-30-2008, 2:02 PM
i have a question,will i get approve for a ccw if i applied for one? i was jumped three times last year with just a few months in between on my own neighborhood walking home coming from work,on the 3rd time someone ran after me with a baseball bat,what i did at that time because i was not carrying anything to protect myself is run like a sissy to my house and call the police.by the time cops got there the would be assailant is long gone.when i saw the same cops who aided me on the 2nd time i got jumped was at our hotel where i work at guarding some of the mayors(because of the mayors convention) i approached them and told who i was and also told them that someone tried to jump me again for the third time,they even made a joke about it me being a professional victim, i just laughed with them about it then they said that i should carry something to protect me but when i ask them on about me getting a CCW since i own a few guns they said that i could try but they also said that i will be more likely to get rejected.thus you think i have a chance in applying for a CCW?

Billy Jack
04-30-2008, 4:17 PM
You did not specify your profession or occupation. You also failed to indicate what city you live in. If you want us to evaluate your GC please contact us via e-mail at: www.californiaconcealedcarry.com We have also listed LAPD's GC requirement if that is where you reside. Please review same prior to contacting us.

I went back to your post and noticed your Youtube post. If that is you on the video we will not be able to assist you. If you feel it is appropriate to post your image on the Internet in multiple videos you have literally shot yourself in the foot with LEO. If I were the interviewer I would recommend denial based upon lack of discretion and several other reasons that I will not share here. Sorry we are not able to assist you.


Billy Jack

eijjie33
04-30-2008, 8:18 PM
huh :eek: i didn't know that posting videos of me will be a basis for denial if apply for CCW :( well thanks anyway atleast somehow you enlightened me :D

hoffmang
04-30-2008, 10:19 PM
fleegman,

Written correctly, you have undeniable good cause. Please contact BillyJack.

-Gene

fleegman
04-30-2008, 11:08 PM
I'll get my legal docs out of storage and try to find the pertinent stuff. However, as I recall, the desk officer (who was polite and sympathetic) said I wouldn't qualify since the threat was "hypothetical" and 2 states away. Now, the threat is hypothetical, some states away, and many years old. Would this situation be of current value?

hoffmang
04-30-2008, 11:20 PM
fleegman,

You are giving value to the opinion of a guy who is incented to try to dissaude you. Think about the politics of it. The CLEO would be claiming that there is no credible threat from a person who has made an actual threat strong enough to force you to move 500 miles...

-Gene

Billy Jack
05-01-2008, 5:36 AM
FLEEGMAN


Please go to your posts and remove all information pertaining to your situation immediately!

Never post this type of information on a public forum. Go to www.californiaconcealedcarry.com for instructions on how to contact us.

Never approach a desk officer or any CLEO or LEO in person or by phone re a CCW. Plausible deniability. The stakes in these matters are very high and you can not take a casual walk in off the street and ask for 'one to go'. LASD my not be the proper department to contact for you. Do not post where you live but tell us in an e-mail.

Please follow my instructions. I have advised numerous client's in your situation and you have made several classic mistakes that can get you and your family KILLED. Reference the Torrance California story of a few days ago. That had 'dead family walking' all over it'. Torrance PD may have made some classic mistakes that cost three lives. The responding officers on the Restraining Order call will have to live with the death of the 5 year old and his mother for the rest of their lives.

I hope I have made myself abundantly clear on this.

Billy Jack

Billy Jack
05-01-2008, 5:50 AM
I urge the Administrator to delete the contents of fleegman's post if he does not do so himself. He has provided enough information for me or anyone with a little work to locate his house in the city he indicated. This goes towards the safety of his children. Please carefully evaluate my request.

Billy Jack

Kestryll
05-01-2008, 8:20 AM
fleegman, I have deleted your posts with information that can be used to find your location. While not a violation of the rules it is perhaps not prudent to post so many particulars in such an open forum.

As Billy Jack mentioned, given the information you posted, some relatively limited google-fu and checking a few old news sources it can lead to too much info. Concern for your privacy and that of your children was the cause for deletion.