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 > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-09-2018, 4:14 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up CCW GC standard for *City* of Los Angeles (pop 4M -- more than SD Co!)

While the average law-abiding citizen in the City of Los Angeles still doesn't have a chance for a CCW, for those who do have "Good Cause" due to fitting into 1 or more of the 5 "circumstances" listed, their odds are much better than with the LA county sheriff. We shouldn't use the blanket statement that they've got "no chance" without remembering that they might with LAPD. With a population of 4 million, I'm sure there's probably thousands of LA city residents who could get a CA CCW from LAPD if they knew about this and tried.

I've added the bolding and underlining within the paragraphs for emphasis.

Quote:
GOOD CAUSE:
The policy LAPD has adopted is that good cause exists if there is convincing
evidence of a clear and present danger to life or of great bodily injury to the applicant, his (or
her) spouse, or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law
enforcement resources, and which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures,
and which danger would be significantly mitigated by the applicant's carrying of a concealed
firearm.

<snip>

Pursuant to the Judgment of Declaratory Relief in Anthony Assenza, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.,
the following further rules and guidelines are provided for the interpretation and implementation of the
Department's good cause policy:

Good Cause.
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 that no other reasonable 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; c) The applicant has obtained, or is a person included within
the protections of a court order which establishes that the applicant is the on-going victim of a
threat or physical violence
or otherwise meets the criteria set forth in Penal Code Section
26175; d) The applicant establishes that circumstances exist requiring him or her to transport
in public significant amounts of valuable property
which it is impractical or impracticable to
entrust to the protection of armored car services or equivalent services for safe transportation of
valuables; e) The applicant establishes that he or she is subject to a particular and unusual
danger of physical attack
and that no reasonable means are available to abate that threat.

Favorable Factors.
Among facts upon which the Department will, in the exercise of its
discretion, look favorably in considering applications are whether: a) the applicant has a
demonstrated record of responsible handling of firearms; b) the applicant has a commitment to
safe and responsible handling of firearms as shown by having voluntarily taken firearms training;
c) the applicant has a record of good citizenship in general as evidenced, for instance, by service
to the community through such activities as creditable service in the armed forces, including the
National Guard and state militia or in the police reserves, or of active participation in charitable
or public service organizations or activities or in political affairs; d) the applicant is trustworthy
and responsible as evidenced, for instance, by employment history, positions held in civic,
political, religious or secular achievements or record of personal accomplishment in other areas
of endeavor; e) that the applicant suffers under a disability or physical handicap, including age or
obesity, which hinders the applicant's ability to retreat from an attacker.

Unfavorable Factors. Factors which will bear negatively on issuance (unless they appear
to be in the remote past) are: a) the applicant has a long-term history of mental or emotional
instability, alcoholism, drug use or addiction to controlled substances; b) the applicant has a
history of fault in serious accidents with firearms, automobiles or other dangerous
instrumentalities; c) the applicant has had a permit to own or carry a concealed weapon denied,
suspended or revoked for good cause by any issuing authority; d) the applicant has had a driver's
license denied, suspended or revoked for good cause by any issuing authority; e) the applicant
has a long-term record of irresponsible and dangerous behavior with automobiles as indicated by
numerous convictions of serious driving offenses; f) the applicant has a long-term history of
conduct from which it appears that he or she is not now of good moral character, trustworthy or
responsible. While none of the foregoing disqualify an applicant per se, a license will be denied
if it appears, in the discretion of the Department, that the applicant does not now have good
character or that issuance of a license to him/her is not consistent with public safety.
More at:
http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/...May%202013.pdf
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-11-2018 at 1:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-10-2018, 5:16 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,641
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAPD
Pursuant to the Judgment of Declaratory Relief in Anthony Assenza, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., the following further rules and guidelines are provided for the interpretation and implementation of the Department's good cause policy
That little zinger there is easy to read past. This letter gives a lot more background on that case. TL;dr: LAPD is subject to court supervision as part of a settlement and actually must issue in those five categories. Someone who fits in one of those categories and wants to pursue this and who lives in LA city has a good chance of getting a CCW. Many people probably fall into those five categories, especially transporting valuable goods for business reasons.

Especially this part:

Quote:
Declarations under penalty of perjury suffice as evidence of facts showing good cause, provided that the Department is not required to accept the allegations in a declaration if it has credible counter-evidence or finds the declarant not credible
This policy isn't bad actually! It's not shall-issue but as far as not-shall-issue policies go, this isn't bad.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-11-2018, 12:13 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
That little zinger there is easy to read past. This letter gives a lot more background on that case. TL;dr: LAPD is subject to court supervision as part of a settlement and actually must issue in those five categories. Someone who fits in one of those categories and wants to pursue this and who lives in LA city has a good chance of getting a CCW. Many people probably fall into those five categories, especially transporting valuable goods for business reasons.

Especially this part:



This policy isn't bad actually! It's not shall-issue but as far as not-shall-issue policies go, this isn't bad.
Yep. The more I think about it and the 5 categories that "shall be" deemed to have GC, I think the city of LA is at least "light red", maybe even "yellow" on the CA CCW GC map (at bottom). Plus, we're talking about the City of LA which has 4M out of the 10M living in LA county. While we may not be able to "liberate" 100% LA county, if we can help 40% of the population that's going to have a positive impact on the most populous anti holdout county.

But the issuance rate is sooo low given a pop of 4M because hardly anyone knows about this loophole, and EVERYONE automatically says you've got no chance unless celeb, politician, rich, etc.

In a city of 4M, just the "circumstance" of being in (b) "security" and needing a CCW must have hundreds or thousands of people. Same with (d), transport valuable property -- think small store owners making deposits, property owners/managers collecting & depositing rents, as well as jewelry dealers, coin/gold dealers, etc.

Plus, there are TONS of LGBTetc people in LA who may qualify under (a), (c) and/or (e).

We've got to figure out how to get this info out to the groups that qualify.

ETA: Here's a link to the letter CCWFacts quoted: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ccw...2009-09-05.pdf Read at least the first 3 pages, then read the next 5 if you still think you may qualify.

ETA2: Here's the CA CCW GC map for newbies, lurkers and visitors.

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-12-2018 at 7:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-12-2018, 4:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
That little zinger there is easy to read past. This letter gives a lot more background on that case. TL;dr: LAPD is subject to court supervision as part of a settlement and actually must issue in those five categories. Someone who fits in one of those categories and wants to pursue this and who lives in LA city has a good chance of getting a CCW. Many people probably fall into those five categories, especially transporting valuable goods for business reasons.

Especially this part:


This policy isn't bad actually! It's not shall-issue but as far as not-shall-issue policies go, this isn't bad.
Here's the key parts, IMO, from attorney Jason Davis' letter for Joes/Josephines who *need* a CCW and are wondering if they can get one from the LAPD:

Quote:
As a result of the litigation, the City of Los Angeles and the LAPD entered into highly complex
settlement negotiations with the Plaintiffs and came up with five shall issue categories: 1) threats
to self or family; 2) employed in security; 3) subject of protective order; 4) significant amounts
of valuable property; and 5) subject of particular and unusual danger of physical attack.

The applicant does not need to provide pictures of previous attacks or other physical proof of
such good cause, rather a declaration under penalty of perjury shall suffice.

The LAPD cannot deny by delay as many agencies do with firearms related permits. In fact, the
application must be either approved or denied within fifty (50) days, with some exceptions. If an
application is granted for one of the above enumerated reasons, then the permit must be issued
for the maximum length allowed by law – currently two years.

If an applicant is denied, they can have their application reviewed by the City of Los Angeles
Advisory Panel on Concealed Weapons. This panel is composed of persons appointed by either
civil rights attorney Don B. Kates, or in his absence, the Second Amendment Foundation.

Should the Advisory Panel recommend that the application be approved and the LAPD still
denies the application, then LAPD is subject to attorney’s fees if the applicant subsequently
prevails in a civil action on the same basis that the advisory panel recommended.

Most importantly, the Assenza Judgment that places these requirements upon the City of Los
Angeles and the LAPD is an ongoing Judgment, which means that the court retained jurisdiction
over the case to ensure that the Los Angeles defendants did not continue their repeated
violations.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-12-2018 at 5:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-12-2018, 4:46 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Some Yahoo on the Web
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ventura County, near where the big fire started...
Posts: 3,006
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Reading through all of this, and based on the info in the Link provided, I'm starting to think the city of LA might be light red, perhaps something better. That being said, we need people to APPLY to see if they actually issue, and then tell us about it!
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love. -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015


Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-12-2018, 5:29 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The City of Los Angeles has a population of 4,000,000. That's greater than EVERY other CA city. That's greater than EVERY CA county except LA county! That's greater than 23 states!!!

If 1/4 of them are disqualified from buying a handgun (e.g., under 18 yo, or felons, etc), that leaves 3M possible CCWers. If only 1% of them are in 1 or more of the 5 "circumstances," that's 30,000 possible new CA CCWers!

Folks, this is HUGE! I am stunned there aren't all sorts of posts by CGNers who live in LA all excited by this opening, even if it is a narrow opening. I'd give this thread 5 stars, if I could vote on my own thread....

We need EVERYONE to get the word out about this so that those who do live in LA, can buy a handgun and can pass LAPD's GC standard applies and gets a CCW. Send this to family, friends, and shooting buddies. Cross post this on gun and other suitable forums and social media.

Having thousands or, even better, tens of thousands of CCWers in the heart of LA county will cause Sheriff McDonnell to have a stroke!

ETA: I found some more documents related to LAPD and CCWs.

A Michel & Associates legal memo: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Davis-v-LA.pdf

A CA Appeals Court decision -- Michel & Associates lost: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B241631.PDF
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-13-2018 at 8:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-18-2018, 7:16 AM
readinglist readinglist is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 78
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thanks, Paladin, this is very useful.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-18-2018, 11:01 AM
navydad2010's Avatar
navydad2010 navydad2010 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hesperia, PRK
Posts: 421
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I work in security. Two years ago I worked a site on strike with some Pinkerton officers. All were carrying concealed. Many lived a short distance from the site Sunset Kaiser Permenente. I do not know for sure but I got the impression they were NOT licensed Private Investigators.

YMMV

__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. - James Madison

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-10-2018, 10:26 AM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,873
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

While it's an improvement I see some concerns.

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,
The things in this that bother me are the 'immediate or continuing threat'.
Does this mean at some point they can say upon renewal that 'The threat has passed you no longer need a CCW'?
Who defines 'threat'?


b) The applicant is employed in the field of security, has all requisite licenses
If the person changes jobs or fields of employment does the CCW get revoked?

c) The applicant has obtained, or is a person included within the protections of a court order which establishes that the applicant is the on-going victim of a threat or physical violence or otherwise meets the criteria set forth in Penal Code Section 26175;
These two phrases bring up questions; 'the protections of a court order' 'on-going victim'.
When the court order expires and/or the person is no longer an 'on-going victim' they no longer qualify from the sound of it.


d) The applicant establishes that circumstances exist requiring him or her to transport in public significant amounts of valuable property
Who defines 'significant' and why is money or valuable property more important than my life?

e) The applicant establishes that he or she is subject to a particular and unusual danger of physical attack and that no reasonable means are available to abate that threat.
What exactly does 'subject to a particular and unusual danger of physical attack' mean, who determines what is unusual and if it's a 'particular' danger does the license depend on that particular danger and if it abates the license goes away?
The repeated 'out' for LAPD of 'no reasonable means...' is bothersome too.
Who defines 'reasonable means' and how broadly will that be interpreted?

As I said, it looks to be an improvement however I'm seeing a LOT of built in opportunities to limit not only who gets a CCW but how long they can have them.

At this point in L.A. our best option for real 'Shall Issue' is to replace the LA Sheriff with someone who has promised to follow a 'Shall Issue' format across the board.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
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 CRPA.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-11-2018, 7:37 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
While it's an improvement I see some concerns.



The repeated 'out' for LAPD of 'no reasonable means...' is bothersome too.
Who defines 'reasonable means' and how broadly will that be interpreted?

As I said, it looks to be an improvement however I'm seeing a LOT of built in opportunities to limit not only who gets a CCW but how long they can have them.

At this point in L.A. our best option for real 'Shall Issue' is to replace the LA Sheriff with someone who has promised to follow a 'Shall Issue' format across the board.
I agree: there's plenty of "outs." But when you're talking about 4M people, even getting a small % CCWs is a VAST increase in total number of CCWers in the City of LA or even LA Co.

Let's use just 1 of the 5 categories listed in the OP: "b", employed in security with all requisite licenses and requires concealed carry.

Let's assume 3/4ths of the population is >18 or 21 yo, whatever LAPD uses as a cutoff. That's still 3M. What fraction of people work in security and job requires concealed carry? 1 out of 100? 1 out of 200? 1 out of 300??? Let's go with that, 1 out of 300 adults >21 are security guards who's jobs want them to be able CCW when necessary (e.g., pretend to be fellow shoppers in street clothes). That takes us from 3M adults to 10,000 qualified CCWers in the City of Los Angeles alone. And that's just going through that numbers process for only 1 of the 5 categories! As I wrote in post #3:

Quote:
In a city of 4M, just the "circumstance" of being in (b) "security" and needing a CCW must have hundreds or thousands of people. Same with (d), transport valuable property -- think small store owners making deposits, property owners/managers collecting & depositing rents, as well as jewelry dealers, coin/gold dealers, etc.

Plus, there are TONS of LGBTetc people in LA who may qualify under (a), (c) and/or (e).

We've got to figure out how to get this info out to the groups that qualify.
Add to it, Domestic Violence victims with stalkers and Restraining Orders. Again, out of 3M adults, how many qualify? I'd guess 1 out of 200 (i.e., 1 out of 100 women), so that's 15,000 more qualified CCWers just in the City of LA! What's the current total for LA county sheriff and all the issuing city PDs: one thousand or so CCWers??? This alone could take the City of LA, and thereby LA County, to nearly 50,000 CCWers. And it does NOT have a time limit, so will still be available AFTER the June sheriff's election. So, IMO, get in touch with San Diego County Gun Owners (the ones who got Gore to start issuing more CCWs in San Diego county), and tell them you want to start a LA County branch (an OC branch has already formed), and continue a multifront fight for CCWs (and defending other 2nd A rights), in LACo. SDCGO has both a website and FB page:
https://www.facebook.com/SDCGO/

http://sandiegocountygunowners.com/ccw/

While replacing the current sheriff with one who will accept SD/PP = GC would be great, the election is in less than 3 months and replacing a sitting sheriff in CA is EXTREMELY unlikely. A previous sheriff in San Mateo county was caught up in a brothel bust in NV a few years ago and was re-elected without any problems.

Learn from our mistake with the Carry Cases: "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." Back when we won MacDonald and the Carry Cases took off in 2010, a lone voice in the wilderness was saying use the Civil Grand Jury investigative process to nail anti sheriffs. But "the Right People" were claiming that federal judges, unlike state court judges, weren't swayed by CA anti politics and would treat us fairly (despite SCOTUS being openly partisan at the time... ). How'd that work for us??? That one lone voice, by initiating a Civil Grand Jury investigation took Solano County from dark red to light green in 2012 and gave us our ONLY win in the 9 counties comprising the SFBA. Imagine if "the Right People" instead said, "Sure! There's no harm from pushing civil grand jury investigations against all the other 8 SFBA counties at the same time. There's no expense and virtually no effort: the grand jury does all the work. Let's do it!" If we had won only half of the other 8 SFBA counties, that would have transformed the SFBA legally re. CCWs and even culturally half a decade ago. Instead, the SFBA remains an anti stronghold.

Just because replacing the sheriff might be the "best option" that does NOT mean it is the only option or even the only option that should be pushed at this time.

LA County has 10M residents. If you guys don't have a HUGE number of LA people by now organized to win the sheriff's race in early June, you'll probably fail. You've got less than 3 months (and even less when allowing for mail in ballots...).
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 03-11-2018 at 8:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-11-2018, 9:44 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Kes, if you guys don't win the sheriff's election in 2018, just consider it a dry run for the 2022 sheriff's election.

My best advice: contact SDCGO, tell them you want to start or be part of a LACo branch, learn from their leadership, organize and fight on all sides (incl against LA county and LA city anti RKBA ordinances and politicians).

Hopefully, the SCOTUS and the federal courts will eventually help us (because of Trump appointees), but until then we've got to fight on our own....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-12-2018, 4:22 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I must say much of this policy looks as much like vague guidelines that can be used to justify anything the agency wants to do rather than anything an applicant can count on. I guess the proof will be in the pudding.

Has this new policy/guidelines been in place long enough for us to see meaningful results?
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-13-2018, 8:26 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
I must say much of this policy looks as much like vague guidelines that can be used to justify anything the agency wants to do rather than anything an applicant can count on. I guess the proof will be in the pudding.

Has this new policy/guidelines been in place long enough for us to see meaningful results?
I heard about it years ago from "Billy Jack" , but only recall hearing about the part re. security guards, not the other categories. It has RARELY been even mentioned since then and mostly forgotten (what LAPD wants).

For motivated folks in the City of Los Angeles (covered by LAPD) who may fit into those categories, it represents a real opportunity to get a CA CCW. But it's not a slam dunk and don't expect it to be easy -- you may want to have a lawyer involved from the get go.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-13-2018, 12:16 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I went to the LAPD website and starting at their home page could find no information regarding their issuance of permits other than a link to the standard CA DOJ application. Google has a link to a document on their policy, but you can't seem to get there from the LAPD site which is where most people will look. This certainly looks like a effort to hide the fact that they are required to process applications. I wonder if there is any way to force them to publicize this information and the steps to apply. That has certainly been part of other consent decrees in the past.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-14-2018, 8:18 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
I went to the LAPD website and starting at their home page could find no information regarding their issuance of permits other than a link to the standard CA DOJ application. Google has a link to a document on their policy, but you can't seem to get there from the LAPD site which is where most people will look. This certainly looks like a effort to hide the fact that they are required to process applications. I wonder if there is any way to force them to publicize this information and the steps to apply. That has certainly been part of other consent decrees in the past.
IIRC, if you go through those documents, the consent decree requires them to prominently post in LAPD public areas info re. CCWs and the decree. Since, IIRC, this was back in the 1990s, I'm guessing they'll require it to be easily accessible online nowadays.

The civil Grand Jury process could probably be used to prod the Chief to obey the decree. If anyone is interested in doing that (anonymously), just PM me.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-14-2018, 9:12 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is the advisory panel still in operation? is there any way to find out how to contact them?
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-07-2018, 10:39 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Plus, there are TONS of LGBTetc people in LA who may qualify under (a), (c) and/or (e).

We've got to figure out how to get this info out to the groups that qualify.
Jews who's men all dress in black and wear sidelocks of hair may also qualify under this LAPD GC policy. (I do not know what their religion would say about getting a CCW though.) Looks like there's a community of them in the City of LA:
Quote:
California

Los Angeles is home to many Hasidim and Haredi Jews who are not Hasidic. Most live in the Pico-Robertson and the Fairfax (Fairfax Avenue-La Brea Avenue) areas.[184][185]
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi...#United_States
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
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 1:05 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.