[JasonDavis]

At the request of CalGuns Foundation, Inc., I was asked to investigate the City of Los Angeles' and the LAPD’s policies and practices on the issuance of licenses to carry concealed handguns. This attached open letter serves as a summary of the City of Los Angeles' and LAPD’s policies and guidelines on issuance of licenses to carry concealed handguns. A second open letter addressing their practices will follow after the investigation is complete.

Quick summary . . . Los Angeles CCWs are very possible as they pretty much have a shall issue policy for certain categories of persons. Read the letter!

[wildhawker]

Thanks Jason and CGF!

[DVLDOC]

Thanks for the info, Jason! I'll be keeping your contact info...

[hoffmang]

And for those not logged in:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ccw...2009-09-05.pdf

-Gene

[obeygiant]

Thank you! Great work.

[F-2_Challenger]

Wow. Great Job.

[cineski]

Just curious how much "significant amounts of valuable property" consists of?

[sfwdiy]

Originally Posted by cineski

Just curious how much "significant amounts of valuable property" consists of?

I was wondering about this as well.

Assuming one actually meets the criteria listed within this document, approximately how much would the total cost be including legal fees and everything else to actually obtain a CCW from LAPD?

--B

[JasonDavis]

Originally Posted by sfwdiy

I was wondering about this as well.

Assuming one actually meets the criteria listed within this document, approximately how much would the total cost be including legal fees and everything else to actually obtain a CCW from LAPD?

--B

The costs will vary because of the fact that your training costs vary and legal fees also vary based on the law firms handling the matter, etc.

As for "significant amounts," that will be more clear in the follow up letter.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by JasonDavis

The costs will vary because of the fact that your training costs vary and legal fees also vary based on the law firms handling the matter, etc.

As for "significant amounts," that will be more clear in the follow up letter.

I'd suggest folks in LA contact Jason as we'd like to test out LA's compliance with the court order. Don't forget who LA City Attorney is...

-Gene

[Gator Monroe]

Have they issued more than 100 ccw's in the last 30 years ?

[cineski]

Of course a CCW denial on your record doesn't look too good.

Originally Posted by hoffmang

I'd suggest folks in LA contact Jason as we'd like to test out LA's compliance with the court order. Don't forget who LA City Attorney is...

-Gene

[JasonDavis]

Originally Posted by cineski

Of course a CCW denial on your record doesn't look too good.

Oh, ye of little faith . . .

[nick]

The only problem is, one has to live in L.A. Not sure it's worth it

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by cineski

Of course a CCW denial on your record doesn't look too good.

Actually it doesn't matter. What you don't want is a denial for cause. A denial for not meeting "Good Cause" has no actual practical effect anywhere.

-Gene

[ke6guj]

IIRC, Billy Jack has been asking, even begging, for CCW applicants who fall under those "shall issue" catagories, specifically the security group.

[Gator Monroe]

Originally Posted by Gator Monroe

Have they issued more than 100 ccw's in the last 30 years ?

Does this question have no relationship with OP and do none of you want to know the history of this issue or (Am I on ignore again )

[Quemtimebo]

I'm smack-dab in the middle of LA and I'd love to help, but I'm not sure I've got "good cause." Other than that my friend was shot by gangstas a few blocks from here. Somehow I don't think that'll work...

[Gator Monroe]

Originally Posted by Gator Monroe

Have they issued more than 100 ccw's in the last 30 years ?

I lived in LA for 40 years ,and think the # of CCW's issued in that timeframe are shockingly low.

[JagerTroop]

In re: Obtaining A CCW In The City of Los Angeles
...
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.

Holy Crap! I never thought there would be an advantage to being overweight. Looks like it's CCWs for all fat guys

I may have to move to LA

[CnCFunFactory]

Originally Posted by JagerTroop

Holy Crap! I never thought there would be an advantage to being overweight. Looks like it's CCWs for all fat guys

I may have to move to LA

I need to get over to Fatburger and get a king deal. Here I thought it was a good idea to diet and lose those extra pounds.... Silly me.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Gator Monroe

Does this question have no relationship with OP and do none of you want to know the history of this issue or (Am I on ignore again )

When this settlement was reached 30 people received licenses to carry in 1989. The point of this thread is that a surprising number of folks in LA can get a CCW. I'd suggest applying and following the instructions laid out in Jason's letter and the settlement agreement.

-Gene

[ojisan]

Jason, thank you for your efforts and I look forward to the follow up.
Memories brought back to life!


Yes, being an old fart, I remember all this.
We all waited breathlessly for the shall-issue victory, but it never happened.
Yes, there was a settlement / victory, but reality is that nothing really changed except the plaintiffs and a few others got their CCWs.
The hype was they were doing this for all of us, and they would follow through for CCW for everyone.

I remember being glued to my TV, watching the news as the plaintiffs walked down the stairs in front of the courthouse, the media outside and gun owners everywhere awaiting their victory statement and what the results meant.
The plaintiffs walked down the side of the stairs away from the media, got in their cars, and drove away without a word.

The plaintiffs quickly faded away, and the media dropped the whole story.
We never really heard anything more from the victorious plaintiffs, perhaps as part of the settlement agreement, perhaps because they got theirs and didn't really care about anyone else.

While there may be "new policy", as Gator asked, how many permits have really been issued to the average citizen since this "new" policy was implemented over 25 years ago?

I'm waiting for SCOTUS.

(Thank you to all the legal guys, without you there is no hope).

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by ojisan

The hype was they were doing this for all of us, and they would follow through for CCW for everyone.

Well now, that sounds familiar. I'm thankful that CGF is willing to do what many others claim to, but never accomplish... go the extra mile and get real shall-issue, and not just CCW for a few dozen people.

[jello2594]

I've got my application sitting with LAPD now, with my good cause under one of the ones outlined in the letter.

[Gray Peterson]

Ok, so who's on this advisory panel? Who dropped the ball here?

[Glock22Fan]

As said above, Billy Jack pointed all this out some time ago, in several of his blogs and (through me) in several threads. Whereas I appreciate Jason's efforts, I'm not sure that he has added anything world shattering to our knowledge.

Originally Posted by Billy Jack, 3/12/09

If you are a resident of the City of Los Angeles and have by definition Good Cause and want to apply to LAPD or have applied and been denied within the past two years we would like to speak with you. Their is a Judicial Order in place that mandates 'Shall Issue' for persons in certain categories. LAPD and Chief Bratton ignore the policy of course. They routinely deny all applicants except for prosecutors and persons doing business with the city such as armorers who manufacture SWAT weapons.

It is way past time to make Chief Bratton follow the law. We are seeking qualified applicants to become Plaintiffs against the city. Remember, their is a Judicial Order in place that Chief Bratton is violating. A Motion to Compel and Motion re Contempt will get his attention. In addition he can be held personally liable for willfully disobeying the Order. Can you imagine Chief Bratton being held in Contempt of court? Actually many residents of Los Angeles already hold him in contempt but that is a different matter.

Want to a part of history? The following individuals are defined in the court mandated LAPD Policy.

1) Persons that can establish an immediate or continuing threat to themselves or their family

2) Persons employed in the field of security

3) Persons with Protective Order (Restraining Order)

4) Persons who transport in public, significant amounts of valuable property which is impractical to entrust to the protection of armored car services

5) Persons who can establish they are subject to a particular or unusual danger of physical attack and no reasonable means are available to abate that threat

The LAPD Policy states that: 'Good Cause shall be deemed to exist, and a license will be issued in the absence of strong countervailing factors...'

That's right folks, LAPD has a Shall Issue policy for certain individuals. If you are in one of those categories and comply with all requirements under 12050 PC you will get a CCW. If not from the kind, law abiding Chief, then by a Judge.

If I have your attention, use the e-mail form to contact us or cut to the chase and go to clueseau@dslextreme.com

This is an addendum to my post of March 12, 2009. Seems many on the firearm sites were unable to understand the legal situation the LAPD and Chief Bratton find themselves in. Sending in hearing impaired or the blind would not be a good idea. When I saw some of the posts I suspected someone had accessed and smoked sacred weed or their foil hat was simply too tight.

There is a Judicial Order in place, Chief Bratton is in violation of same. It is a real simple matter to show this to a state or federal judge. When a person or persons come forward who falls into one of the above listed categories we shall take America's most media savvy Chief to court.

Added March 26, 2009. The Los Angeles City Council is set to place on the ballot a change to the City Charter that would allow Chief Bratton and his successors to serve more than 2 five year terms as Chief. This is understandable considering the stellar job the former Transit cop has done.

Now I know what some of you are thinking, I have heard it before. The police will not like me if I sue them. Hello!, they do not like you now if they are willing to violate your rights and place you or your family in jeopardy. Want a friend? Buy a dog!

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Glock22Fan

As said above, Billy Jack pointed all this out some time ago, in his blog and (through me) in several threads. Whereas I appreciate Jason's efforts, I'm not sure that he has added anything world shattering to our knowledge.

The issue here, however, is that Jason was willing to do the research himself and post it in .pdf format that's easily available online for everyone to read. I don't think Billy Jack had at any pointed posted the Assenza settlement case or discussed the excerpts in this sort of detail.

Yes, he posted the good cause reasons, but there were things that were left out which were not posted, such as the fact that they are supposed to issue within 50 or 60 days, or the fact that they must accept the facts as given under a statement of penalty under perjury.

The second stage of this is to get LAPD in compliance with the settlement agreement, or at least determine their particular compliance with the order. I'm sure Billy Jack has done his own research, but he hasn't been as willing, insofar as what I've seen, to post it in this kind of detail. He has his reasons, I'm sure, but I disagree with the lack of disclosure aspect of the way he runs things. It's better to keep things out in the open, especially since LAPD already has a settlement agreement.

[HowardW56]

Too bad Torrance isn't covered by a judgement like that.....

[leitung]

Well at least LA thinks that security is good cause unlike Yolo and Sacramento counties.. Friggin idiots...

[Billy Jack]

Billy Jack and Team members have always been willing to discuss the LAPD Stipulated Settlement Agreement with any concerned resident of Los Angeles. Most who post and who reside within the city limit will never bother to apply out of irrational fear of denial and its ramifications.

If you fall into one of the enumerated categories by all means get up from that computer screen and apply. I consider all of my illegal denials a badge of honor. LAPD, LASO, SAPD, OCSO. I have to devote an entire page to the denials each time I go for my renewal.

Jason is a capable, qualified Attorney who will assist qualified motivated applicants to LAPD.

If you have any questions about what Team Billy Jack does you can contact us at abillyjack.yahoo.com and someone will call you back. Thats right, a real person will call you back. We assist many applicants monthly and without charge. We also sue bad departments for which we charge. If I were free what value would I have to you or myself? Remember, I do not tolerate fools lightly, with or without a badge!

Billy Jack
abillyjack@yahoo.com
www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

[HotRails]

Interesting. I wonder if favorable factor (e), page 6 contributed to the incorrect assumption that CA residents have a duty to retreat from an attack.

[DSeifert]

Originally Posted by cineski

Just curious how much "significant amounts of valuable property" consists of?

My rear end is "Significant" and quite valuable IMHO ... but alas I'm not in LA ...

[7x57]

The question unanswered is how this differs from TBJ's efforts.

If it leads to people no longer having to sue LA after the first few times so that in time there is no need for help from TBJ, Jason, or anyone else expensive <grin>, then that would be a good thing.

7x57

[JasonDavis]

As an update, CalGuns Foundation, Inc. asked me to post the Public Records Act request that we are sending to the City of Los Angeles Police Department. A copy of the Public Records Act request can be found here:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ccw...5-LAPD-CCW.pdf

Stay tuned for their response.

And, regarding TBJ, I have been in communications with TBJ on this very topic. He, and his team, has been informative and open in providing me with information and documents necessary to give CalGuns Foundation, Inc. a head start in their research.

[capo]

Interesting, I was always under the impression that the security clause was severely frowned upon by LAPD when looking to get a CCW...

[Dirtbozz]

The City of Los Angeles is only part of the problem. L A County, and it's sheriff, are just as corrupt.

I really appreciate the efforts of Calguns, but I am hoping that the county will be put "in your sights" also.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Dirtbozz

I really appreciate the efforts of Calguns, but I am hoping that the county will be put "in your sights" also.

All 58 are in the sights. Most of the 58 are decent sheriffs. However, by population...

We're just making sure that we're aware of all the background. Sykes and Palmer will fully change the battlespace. However, it looks like LA can be reminded of how to play by the rules even sooner...

-Gene

[lehn20]

tagged

[cousinkix1953]

Originally Posted by JasonDavis

At the request of CalGuns Foundation, Inc., I was asked to investigate the City of Los Angeles' and the LAPD’s policies and practices on the issuance of licenses to carry concealed handguns. This attached open letter serves as a summary of the City of Los Angeles' and LAPD’s policies and guidelines on issuance of licenses to carry concealed handguns. A second open letter addressing their practices will follow after the investigation is complete.

Quick summary . . . Los Angeles CCWs are very possible as they pretty much have a shall issue policy for certain categories of persons. Read the letter!

It's about time. Are you a famous person? They can get a CCW permit unless a criminal record prevents an important Hollywood movie star from posessing a gun at all. They get special treatment, when arrested for crimes too.

The little people are SOL unless they know somebody in the regeime...