My “Good Cause” in LA County

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Paladin

RickD, it sounds like things have changed (recently?). In the last minute, AV is nothing but encouraging re. applying for CCWs. Of course, that does NOT mean he'll issue them, but it is a positive change from previous sheriffs.

Here's a link to a clean video:

https://www.facebook.com/LancasterSh...391796248/?d=n

Go to 3:25 before the end and it runs for 2 min to 1:20 before the end. Let me know what you think.

Like you said, LA is behind the times. Maybe people contacting the department because of SHTF scenarios of CV19 and then BLM riots/looting have pressured AV to at least issue to non-judicially connected and non-LE connected folk.

Paladin,

Thanks. And I hope that you're correct in your interpretation, but I'm a skeptic. I haven't seen the video. I fled the state when I retired and now work to keep my blood pressure down. I'm passing on watching the video for that reason, but I think you've already identified a key point. Facilitating the application process sounds really good, but unless it produces a significant increase in the likelihood of one actually receiving a permit, it does little good.

Beware of the use of "Weasel Words" when listening to one in political office. The Sheriff is a very smart man. He understands the meaning of words and how to use them to his advantage. He's the first challenger to defeat a living incumbent Sheriff in the last decade. But he's made more promises than he's been able to keep in the process.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Paladin,

Thanks. And I hope that you're correct in your interpretation, but I'm a skeptic. I haven't seen the video. I fled the state when I retired and now work to keep my blood pressure down. I'm passing on watching the video for that reason, but I think you've already identified a key point. Facilitating the application process sounds really good, but unless it produces a significant increase in the likelihood of one actually receiving a permit, it does little good.

Question if I may: in the 2 min video he says "We've added additional personnel now to our CCW permit process to pick up the pace." Am I correct in assuming that "adding additional personnel" is a significant indicator? To me, it indicates this isn't just all talk. When I read Gore had added personnel to his CCW unit, that was one of the two reasons I flipped from thinking it was all BS to believed he was really liberalizing issuance.

Originally Posted by RickD427

Beware of the use of "Weasel Words" when listening to one in political office. The Sheriff is a very smart man. He understands the meaning of words and how to use them to his advantage. He's the first challenger to defeat a living incumbent Sheriff in the last decade. But he's made more promises than he's been able to keep in the process.

Yep.

[NorCalRefuge]

It's a really good thing the gang members filed all the appropriate paperwork, paid the fees and took the training classes to obtain their CCW permits...

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Question if I may: in the 2 min video he says "We've added additional personnel now to our CCW permit process to pick up the pace." Am I correct in assuming that "adding additional personnel" is a significant indicator? To me, it indicates this isn't just all talk. When I read Gore had added personnel to his CCW unit, that was one of the two reasons I flipped from thinking it was all BS to believed he was really liberalizing issuance.


Yep.

I actually am encouraged by the statement about adding personnel, but I'm still a skeptic. During my time, the U/S's aide handled everything related to CCW permits as a collateral to his regular duties. That should communicate something about the process. It doesn't take much time to print out a form denial letter and stuff an envelope. It takes a lot longer to do the background checks for an ordinary citizen approval.

But I gotta ask - How many additional people were assigned?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by RickD427

I actually am encouraged by the statement about adding personnel, but I'm still a skeptic. During my time, the U/S's aide handled everything related to CCW permits as a collateral to his regular duties. That should communicate something about the process. It doesn't take much time to print out a form denial letter and stuff an envelope. It takes a lot longer to do the background checks for an ordinary citizen approval.

But I gotta ask - How many additional people were assigned?

Yep. Hopefully, people with really strong GC apply and within a year we'll know both if he's really issuing and if so, for what sorts of GCs.

Thanks.

[splithoof]

Thank you Rick D. for the insight. I know about BP issues, and hope you are doing OK. Won't be long until I'm "working full time" for LACERA myself. A few more surgeries, and I'm done!

[FilmGuy]

OK, just watched the video. My take is this guy ain't gonna issue freely. He is still hiding behind the very vague good cause requirement and will deny pretty much everyone except those with some extreme situation. I would love to be proven wrong, but I feel he is just spewing the same stuff every other anti CCW Sheriff has used before him. I do hope everyone will at least send in an application and flood the system.

[CaliGunOwner_Mike]

Originally Posted by FilmGuy

OK, just watched the video. My take is this guy ain't gonna issue freely. He is still hiding behind the very vague good cause requirement and will deny pretty much everyone except those with some extreme situation. I would love to be proven wrong, but I feel he is just spewing the same stuff every other anti CCW Sheriff has used before him.

I agree...
GC needs to be replaced with a license like anything else. Make it like a DMV thing. You take a test, written and practical and you get your license to carry.

What good is GC if the one with GC is a malevolent maniac or someone with no responsibility?

No, the citizens NEED to be trusted. I’m going to do some research and take it upon myself to start a movement create a bill that will replace the GC requirement in California with a Licensing Exam. Just like I had to take my M1 license for a Motorcycle. I had to prove that I would be responsible and obey the law. Even though I have the right to travel, I still would want anyone on a motorcycle to pass an M1 exam. How is this not a better and more reasonable alternative?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Notorious]

But but but... watch the video... at 3:24 he twitched with his left eyebrow... at 6:17 he licked his lips... then he looked to his right for a second before he said he encouraged us to apply... going back to his previous writings, when he says "may" he really means he wants it... and given his upbringing... blah blah blah...

Are we really dissecting this guy's every word and action like a Supreme Court opinion where you pick apart everything and interpret every nuance?

Pathetic. It'll happen when it happens, if it ever happens. Anything else is just pathetic wishful thinking and elevating this local politician to heights which it's repulsive to me as a free citizen. Seriously, it's feeling like we're hanging on his words and involuntary body movements like edicts or decrees from a king. Absolutely disgusting.

[Walkerfish]

Originally Posted by CaliGunOwner_Mike

I’m going to try... it’s worth a shot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keep in mind when you do get to a better county and apply, they will ask you've ever been turned down for a CCW before.
Not sure it will hurt, but something to think about...

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

[CaliGunOwner_Mike]

Ahhhh that’s a VERY good point!
Better hold off and make it count!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Walkerfish

Keep in mind when you do get to a better county and apply, they will ask you've ever been turned down for a CCW before.
Not sure it will hurt, but something to think about...

A previous denial for insufficient GC will not hurt you in the future. That future IA will just compare your future GC to their future GC standard and decide from that. They don't care what the old IA's GC standard was or what your old GC was.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by RickD427

But I gotta ask - How many additional people were assigned?

At 34:30 he talks about CCWs and says "a few."

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...25060950854159

[Ubermcoupe]

Originally Posted by RickD427

...

The issuing practices for reserve deputies changed a bit over the years. California has four different levels of reserves, depending on their training. The highest level of reserve has 24/7 peace officer status and requires no CCW permit. The lower three levels have on-duty only peace officer status and require a CCW to carry off-duty. I saw some attempts (and resistance) to removing CCWs from the lower qualification levels. I'm not sure how that finally settled out....

Rick, just to clarify, the four are: LI (24/7), LI (on-duty), LII or LIII (on-duty).

Do they not qualify to carry under HR218?

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe

Rick, just to clarify, the four are: LI (24/7), LI (on-duty), LII or LIII (on-duty).

Do they not qualify to carry under HR218?

Affirm on the four levels. Most agencies refer to "Level 1 -Designated" to refer to a 24/7 officer and "Level 1" to refer to a fully qualified (On-Duty) reserve.

You have a good question on LEOSA coverage. There are differing opinions and I haven't seen any case law. The problem with LEOSA is that one has to meet LEOSA's definition of being a "Law Enforcement Officer." In the case of L1, 2,and 3 reserves, they only meet that definition while being on duty. When off-duty, they don't meet the LEOSA definition.

LEOSA doesn't require that the officer be employed full time, but it does require that they possess statutory powers of arrest in order to be covered. In the case of a Level 1 - Designated reserve officer, there is no issue. They're covered by LEOSA even though they don't work full time.

[Ubermcoupe]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Affirm on the four levels. Most agencies refer to "Level 1 -Designated" to refer to a 24/7 officer and "Level 1" to refer to a fully qualified (On-Duty) reserve.

You have a good question on LEOSA coverage. There are differing opinions and I haven't seen any case law. The problem with LEOSA is that one has to meet LEOSA's definition of being a "Law Enforcement Officer." In the case of L1, 2,and 3 reserves, they only meet that definition while being on duty. When off-duty, they don't meet the LEOSA definition.

LEOSA doesn't require that the officer be employed full time, but it does require that they possess statutory powers of arrest in order to be covered. In the case of a Level 1 - Designated reserve officer, there is no issue. They're covered by LEOSA even though they don't work full time.

"Designated," that's right, I remember that terminology, but it's been awhile.
I know there have been previous threads regarding non-designated POs carrying under LEOSA over the years, but given the numerous updates to the original act, I may be mis-informed as I haven't kept up.

I know it's a bit of a thread divergence, but I always assumed all Peace Officers who meet the "powers of arrest" criteria were eligible, although they may be breaking agency policy (and risk being released by said agency), which was the impetus to seek a CCW/LTC.

[Walkerfish]

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk