Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-27-2008, 5:07 PM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think that Scarecrow Repair and Bulgron 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.

P.P.S.: I also like TBJ's plan to warn San Fransisco about his impending visit.
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-27-2008, 5:54 PM
Python2's Avatar
Python2 Python2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 906
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
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
__________________
Pinoy Bwana
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-27-2008, 6:46 PM
razorx's Avatar
razorx razorx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 693
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegratenate View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-27-2008, 9:13 PM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-27-2008, 10:42 PM
razorx's Avatar
razorx razorx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 693
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zok View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-28-2008, 7:39 PM
retired retired is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,227
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-29-2008, 9:30 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-29-2008, 12:10 PM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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!"
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-29-2008, 1:07 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.

Last edited by yellowfin; 04-29-2008 at 1:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-29-2008, 1:58 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin2 View Post
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?
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-29-2008, 2:37 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,466
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Jack View Post
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.
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-29-2008, 2:59 PM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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!"

Last edited by Billy Jack; 04-29-2008 at 3:44 PM.. Reason: new information and emphasis
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-29-2008, 4:46 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-29-2008, 5:58 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin2 View Post
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.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-29-2008, 6:10 PM
trashman's Avatar
trashman trashman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Great Valley
Posts: 3,787
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Jack View Post
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

Last edited by trashman; 04-29-2008 at 6:11 PM.. Reason: i am, not i are
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-29-2008, 6:19 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,466
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
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.
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-29-2008, 6:40 PM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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!"
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-29-2008, 6:52 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Jack View Post
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.

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.

Outta here 'til the weekend!
__________________
"Gun-free zones" are "safe spaces" for killers. -- Milo

"If you're a Muslim, you slaughter Infidels: it's what you do."

Moderate Muslims will hold you down so the Radicals can cut your head off.

195+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-29-2008, 6:55 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,466
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I asked about reg.ed AWs as GC, to which BJ replied:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Jack View Post
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)
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.

Last edited by CCWFacts; 04-29-2008 at 7:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-29-2008, 7:04 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

I apologize for going minorly off topic, but can someone decode the PPO acronym?

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 04-29-2008, 7:18 PM
Diabolus's Avatar
Diabolus Diabolus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California / Los Angeles
Posts: 4,361
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I apologize for going minorly off topic, but can someone decode the PPO acronym?

-Gene
Private Patrol Officer
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 04-29-2008, 8:22 PM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Negatory on the answer. PPO is a Private Patrol Operator.

Billy Jack
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-30-2008, 3:02 PM
eijjie33's Avatar
eijjie33 eijjie33 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: los angeles
Posts: 908
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

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?

Last edited by eijjie33; 04-30-2008 at 3:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-30-2008, 5:17 PM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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

Last edited by Billy Jack; 04-30-2008 at 5:24 PM.. Reason: left out information
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-30-2008, 9:18 PM
eijjie33's Avatar
eijjie33 eijjie33 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: los angeles
Posts: 908
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

huh 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
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-30-2008, 11:19 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

fleegman,

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

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-01-2008, 12:08 AM
fleegman's Avatar
fleegman fleegman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 175
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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?

Last edited by Kestryll; 05-01-2008 at 9:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-01-2008, 12:20 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

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
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05-01-2008, 6:36 AM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-01-2008, 6:50 AM
Billy Jack's Avatar
Billy Jack Billy Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 685
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 05-01-2008, 9:20 AM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,459
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

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.
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CGF.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:15 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.