LAPD'S Chief Bratton a civilian, is going to destroying SWAT

[Billy Jack]

As I posted before we are about to file our second Federal lawsuit against a CLEO with an illegal CCW policy. Lots of speculation about which Los Angeles County department we are going to sue. You shall all learn soon. The perception on some sites is that these suits will only benefit our clients. This is simply not the case. Most CLEOS can actually read, although selectively when it comes to CCW laws but they and their counsel are aware of what is going on.

You have all heard of the Domino affect. Well that is what we expect to see statewide. That has already happened in the Santa Maria case and has been posted here preciously. Cities and counties are not going to spend taxpayer funds to defend against something an adjacent department has already lost a Federal lawsuit over. Yes, CLEOS are arrogant and sometimes stupid but they do not control their budgets. Politicians do that and they are not going to support corruption when it can hurt them politically.

We are currently watching LAPD Chief William J Bratton with a smile on our face. Poor man is unable to pass the POST test required of all of his officers and thus he requires a CCW issued by the Police Commission. They are all civilians, just as he is. Not being a Peace Officer under 832PC he can not carry a firearm without a CCW. Another interesting aspect of he and them being civilians is they do not have a working knowledge of 12050PC and because of this and arrogance, they illegally issued his CCW. They carried this forward with all of his renewals.

Why has no one taken action against the Chief? DOJ does not care. Police Commission does not care. Public does not care. A recent phone caller to the Police Commission to obtain a copy of the Policy and an application was met with the statement: "We do not issue them but you can try". Have they not heard of Salute v Pitchess? Apparently not. Billy Jack and his TBJ members are sitting here waiting for a Los Angeles resident with Good Cause who has been denied in the past 12 months to contact us. We will do the rest.

A suit against Chief Bratton and the Police Commission will generate statewide and nationwide media attention due to his high profile. How many of you are aware of what he is currently doing to the SWAT Units? The same thing that was done to the LAPD at large in the 1970's? He is about to destroy the integrity of the units. I realize that may strike some of you as a oxymoron but for the most part these are great men who pride themselves on being the best of the best. Bratton wants to bring 'diversity. to the SWAT Units by recruiting female members. In order to do this he is removing strength requirements.

Strength requirements in SWAT Units are as necessary as in Fire Service. Members need to be able drag a victim or a brother officer form a crime scene should things go sideways. I never worked a SWAT unit but I can attest to the need to be able to drag a victim from harms way. If Bratton continues on this path he will be inviting a Rampart type situation where the desire to bring everyone into the 'big tent' will bring about unintended consequences.

It will be up to those of you who read my Blog and visit my site to bring us together with those denied LAPD applicants that want redress. Forcing CLEOS to follow the Constitution is the most effective use of my time. I can not do this without your assistance. Please spread the word that this site exists and we are not afraid of any Chief or Sheriff. I have worn the LASD Badge proudly and know that you do not fear that which you understand. Fear of law enforcement comes from lack of knowledge. On the other hand there is real fear of Billy Jack, TBJ, his volunteers on the part of law enforcement.

If I may borrow a phrase that most of you are familiar with; "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". Law enforcement officials know exactly what they are doing. Just as Bill Clinton, when asked why he did what he had done, said it was: 'because he could'. Unconstitutional CCW issuance will stop only when enough people take a stand.

"I get by with a little help from my friends."

Billy Jack

californiaconcealedcarry.com

[hawk1]

Bratton a civilian? Like Willie Williams?

Any plans to go after Riverside County on the CCW issue?

[Sig226]

Originally Posted by Billy Jack

Billy Jack and his TBJ members are sitting here waiting for a Los Angeles resident with Good Cause who has been denied in the past 12 months to contact us. We will do the rest.

I know what I define as good cause--- to defend my life and those of my loved ones.

May I ask what you are looking for with regard to "good cause"?


One more question, is this for LA County residents, or residents in the "city" of LA?



In any event- THANK YOU for your time and effort into this just cause. If I don't meet the above requirements please let me (us) know if there is anything we can do to help.

[sfwdiy]

Originally Posted by Billy Jack

In order to do this he is removing strength requirements.

Most of the SWAT operators I've seen that work for LAPD are really big dudes. Like in excess of 220 lbs, most of it muscle. Now add a good 60-70 lbs of gear onto that dude (body armor, tac vest, long gun or two, handgun or two, mags and ammo, helmet, comm. gear, maybe a backpack with hydration, climbing rope and gear, various tools, etc.) and that becomes a lot to drag or carry. I'd have a hard time dragging one of those guys any appreciable distance, especially if I was wearing all that gear myself on top of it. I don't think I'd be able to actually lift and carry an injured man of that size.

As for CCW denials, Billy Jack, have you thought about posting up ads on craigslist, or possibly even a newspaper advertisement? It'd help you reach a larger audience, but I bet the signal to noise ratio would get a lot worse.

--Ben

[Billy Jack]

Los Angeles city. Yes just like Willie Williams, not a California Peace Officer. As to Craigslist, I have never used or visited it. As to a newspaper ad, thought about it but much too expensive. Hoping members will spread the word and denied applicants will come forward.

[sfwdiy]

Originally Posted by Billy Jack

As to Craigslist, I have never used or visited it. As to a newspaper ad, thought about it but much too expensive.

http://losangeles.craigslist.org Craigslist is very widely known and reaches quite a large audience. It's the biggest free classified bulletin board in existence on the web. There's a specific board for just about every major city in the world at this point.

I was thinking that a newspaper ad would probably be too expensive for a one-time shot. We'll keep our ears open for ya.

--Ben

[yellowfin]

Something that needs to be addressed is that for application, the fee is basically stolen by any PD/SD that rejects the applicant by rubber stamp policies. Is there a way to push for it to be refunded (plus interest?) in the event of refusal? It is in effect right now acting like a poll tax to deter people from applying. It sure shouldn't take $200 for a department to stamp something No when the decision is made up beforehand, should it?

[Glock22Fan]

I know what I define as good cause--- to defend my life and those of my loved ones.

May I ask what you are looking for with regard to "good cause"?

We know what you mean and agree with you. However, to stand any success in these barren areas, we must present cases that are clearly within the Attorney General's definition, which can found at http://www.californiaconcealedcarry....g_opinion.html

The (1977) Attorney General's Opinion on Good Causes
OPINION NO. CR. 77/30 I.L. 'the issuing authority must determine whether the threat to the applicant (or other causal situation) is as real as the applicant asserts (e.g., is there a clear and present danger to the applicant, his spouse, his family or his employees)? Finally, if the danger is manifest, the authority should determine whether that danger cannot be significantly alleviated by alternative means of security and whether in fact can be lawfully mitigated by the applicant's obtaining a concealed weapon license.'

This decision was rendered By Attorney General Evelle J. Younger, August 23, 1977.

So, "protection of my life" is not, in itself, sufficient even though you may know a CLEO that would accept it.

[blackbox]

FYI, good op-ed piece on the SWAT changes in today's LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3411363.story

[Big O]

I've seen the Chief in uniform with his sidearm in a duty holster on the news. Since this is not concealed carry, he is carrying openly which means the weapon may not be loaded or he is in violation. Is he within the law to openly carry a loaded weapon since he is not bona fide Peace Officer under California law?