Los Angeles

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Weyoun View Post
A sheriff deputy told me the CCW license will be much easier to get in about 6 months or so. We'll see.

Sadly the opinion of any individual Dep. means nothing. Check the Command Structure in the provided link.

Then take into account that as of last count. There are approximately 7,800 sworn Deps in LASD. Of those 7,800, only the Sheriff, Under Sheriff, and a handfull of Asst Sheriffs. Have any idea what is going to, or likely to, be promoted as New Policy from the Sheriff.

And those few in the "inner circle", don't talk out of school, without the Sheriff's blessing.


http://shq.lasdnews.net/shq/mpp/2-02.pdf

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Sadly the opinion of any individual Dep. means nothing. Check the Command Structure in the provided link.

Then take into account that as of last count. There are approximately 7,800 sworn Deps in LASD. Of those 7,800, only the Sheriff, Under Sheriff, and a handfull of Asst Sheriffs. Have any idea what is going to, or likely to, be promoted as New Policy from the Sheriff.

And those few in the "inner circle", don't talk out of school, without the Sheriff's blessing.


http://shq.lasdnews.net/shq/mpp/2-02.pdf

I figured I'd be generous and give him until the end of the year, Dec 31st, to see if his prediction comes true. While that seems like a long way away, it's just over 6 months.

Plus, I'm more optimistic after hearing that ALL the CA sheriffs got together in Feb to discuss CCWs (after NYSRPA was granted cert, not sure if before or after Rogers started being held by SCOTUS in Feb).

[kflakes]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I figured I'd be generous and give him until the end of the year, Dec 31st, to see if his prediction comes true. While that seems like a long way away, it's just over 6 months.



Plus, I'm more optimistic after hearing that ALL the CA sheriffs got together in Feb to discuss CCWs (after NYSRPA was granted cert, not sure if before or after Rogers started being held by SCOTUS in Feb).

Where did you read about this meeting of the CA sheriffs that took place in February? Do you have a link?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kflakes

Where did you read about this meeting of the CA sheriffs that took place in February? Do you have a link?

From the Yolo Co CCW thread:

Originally Posted by workin it

In February every Sheriff in California met to discuss CCW's and each others methods of administering the program. Yolo County had three people present. I had the opportunity to speak with them and they are issuing. There has been several people apply but have not gotten to the "attend training" part of the process.

[Paladin]

Look what I forgot about.... A 2nd post by a 2nd CGNer re. a conference of all CA sheriffs to discuss CCWs.

Originally Posted by caliguy93

I spoke with the LT in charge over the phone. He confirmed the good cause requirement will be significantly lower but would not confirm that simple self defense is sufficient. He seems to imply that some sort of articulate good cause would still be required.

He said they are attending a sheriffs conference this coming Wednesday dedicated to discussing ccw issuance and will update their website after the conference to decide how they want to deal with applications

This was posted back on Feb 15th and thus the meeting of all CA sheriffs re. CCWs was on Feb 20th.

NYSRPA was granted cert on Jan 22nd and on Feb 19th the Court told the state in Rogers to submit a Response. I wouldn't be surprised if the conference was in response to NYSRPA being granted cert. I'm sure it, and maybe even Rogers, were discussed at this conference. (Rogers is now being held by SCOTUS, along with several other 2nd A cases that have been neither denied or granted.)

Frankly, I hope the anti holdout sheriff continue to be antis so that once the serfs get a RBA (at minimum LOC), dozens of them will spontaneously do that when they want and where they want throughout every anti county, giving those sheriffs what they deserve -- the widespread chaos of a free people exercising their RBA!

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Look what I forgot about.... A 2nd post by a 2nd CGNer re. a conference of all CA sheriffs to discuss CCWs.



This was posted back on Feb 15th and thus the meeting of all CA sheriffs re. CCWs was on Feb 20th.

NYSRPA was granted cert on Jan 22nd and on Feb 19th the Court told the state in Rogers to submit a Response. I wouldn't be surprised if the conference was in response to NYSRPA being granted cert. I'm sure it, and maybe even Rogers, were discussed at this conference. (Rogers is now being held by SCOTUS, along with several other 2nd A cases that have been neither denied or granted.)

Frankly, I hope the anti holdout sheriff continue to be antis so that once the serfs get a RBA (at minimum LOC), dozens of them will spontaneously do that when they want and where they want throughout every anti county, giving those sheriffs what they deserve -- the widespread chaos of a free people exercising their RBA!

Just because CSSA scheduled a meeting, doesn't in any way mean that ALL Sheriffs or their Dept Reps attended. Sheriff V of LA is very busy running around pissing on political fires he himself has started, to spend any time making 800 mi round trips to discuss topics he doesn't G-A-S about. He is far to busy defending the non existent rights of illegal aliens by making speeches on their behalf. And promising to protect them from TRUMP> To worry about actual Citizens Rights.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Just because CSSA scheduled a meeting, doesn't in any way mean that ALL Sheriffs or their Dept Reps attended. Sheriff V of LA is very busy running around ...

I'm just going by what others have posted.

Originally Posted by workin it

In February every Sheriff in California met to discuss CCW's and each others methods of administering the program. Yolo County had three people present. I had the opportunity to speak with them and they are issuing. There has been several people apply but have not gotten to the "attend training" part of the process.

(bolding and underlining added)

Back when he was campaigning, AV promised to issue more than McDonnell, but less than that other challenger (who said SD = GC). So far, I haven't heard of any changes yet. AV took office in early Dec. I'll give him the rest of the year to see if he's going to voluntarily liberalize issuance (to any degree). After that, we'll be awaiting SCOTUS' decision in NYSRPA case to force change, even if it is only a 2nd A RBA for LOC, which we'll be more than happy to do to force sheriffs to readily issue CCWs to get us to stand down. This is analogous to what happened in Ohio (in 2004?) after their state Supreme Court said they have a state constitutional RBA Openly.

[pacrat]

Because CSSA scheduled a meeting, and that meeting also possibly had CCW on the meeting agenda, and some guy in Yolo Cnty talked to a deputy. Still doesn't show that anybody from LASD was there.

Campaign promises from Liberal Democrats have historically amounted to less than nothing.

NYSRPA is a very narrow "TRANSPORT" case. Nothing to do with any aspect of CCW or LOC. Just unloaded LIB [locked in box] for city residents.

Again with the threadbare Ohio comparison?

I.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Ca has no such Bill of Rights and nothing analogous to Ohio's "1.04".

11 years ago today "Heller" was adjudicated and published. Yes, it affirmed an individual RKA [without the B]. But has done nothing to alleviate the oppression of 2A in Ca. yet. Maybe after I'm dead and gone enough cases will make it to SCOTUS to incrementally make the left coast a free part of America again.

Don't take any bets that the dickwad died in the wool Leftist Liberal Sheriff V will be of any help making that happen.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Because CSSA scheduled a meeting, and that meeting also possibly had CCW on the meeting agenda, and some guy in Yolo Cnty talked to a deputy. Still doesn't show that anybody from LASD was there.

I didn't say it did. But it really doesn't matter. AV will do what he will do. The only relevant issue is whether he'll keep his campaign promise to issue more CCWs than McDonnell. So far, I've seen no indication that he will. But he's got 3.5 more years to go in this, his first term, so time will tell.

Originally Posted by pacrat

Campaign promises from Liberal Democrats have historically amounted to less than nothing.

Time will tell if that applies to AV too.

Originally Posted by pacrat

NYSRPA is a very narrow "TRANSPORT" case. Nothing to do with any aspect of CCW or LOC. Just unloaded LIB [locked in box] for city residents.

If the ruling gives us a RBA and/or strict scrutiny, that will have broad ramifications. The federal courts is where our last, and best, hope lies. But seeing that Roberts yet again joined the 4 "liberals" on SCOTUS to rule against Trump and the 4 "constitutionalists" on SCOTUS re. the census citizenship question, my hope there is diminishing too....

Originally Posted by pacrat

Again with the threadbare Ohio comparison?



Ca has no such Bill of Rights and nothing analogous to Ohio's "1.04".

Never said CA did. We're hoping for a federal Con 2nd A BoR RBA.

Originally Posted by pacrat

11 years ago today "Heller" was adjudicated and published. Yes, it affirmed an individual RKA [without the B]. But has done nothing to alleviate the oppression of 2A in Ca. yet. Maybe after I'm dead and gone enough cases will make it to SCOTUS to incrementally make the left coast a free part of America again.

Don't take any bets that the dickwad died in the wool Leftist Liberal Sheriff V will be of any help making that happen.

Time will tell.

If we don't get federal courts RBA recognition, your best hope is "local" (countywide) organizing and pressure on AV or sheriff's candidates. The next primary (which usually decides who wins), is less than 3 years away. IIRC, the cutoff for candidates is ~6 months before that, so 2.5 years away. Best to allow half a year to vet best viable candidate (electable, plus competent for all responsibilities, plus desires job, plus pro 2nd A), so that's 2.0 years away. So, if NYSRPA doesn't have a major impact on Carry rights, you've only got 2.0 years to establish and build a county-wide political organization, equivalent to San Diego Co Gun Owners PAC (https://sandiegocountygunowners.com/), to swing a county of >10M people.

I wish you the best!

[CCWFacts]

My impression is that AV is an extreme progressive. He may very well start issuing more, but if he does, my guess is that it will be to people well-connected to the Democratic machine here. Think successful attorneys, wealthy non-profit staffers, wealthy union officials, that kind of thing. At least that's my guess of what he meant about issuing more. Time will tell.

[pacrat]

"V" is a lifelong Democrat.

His lips moved when he made that campaign promise.

Not hard to discern what value that promise has.

[kflakes]

Well, joking a bit here, if AV issues only one CCW more than McDonnell did, technically he has kept his campaign promise.

[Paladin]

From the Off Topic forum:

Originally Posted by Lex Talionis

Here is a video posted by Katman from Onus News Service of Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva being asked during a Q & A session by a citizen about why it is next to impossible to get a CCW in Los Angeles County. Watch the video and the smugness and attitude by this top law enforcement officer in the most populated county in the country and how he TALKS DOWN to all of us. The video will turn your stomach.

My reply:

Originally Posted by Paladin

This was painful to watch, not because of what the Sheriff AV says (which is disappointing, but not surprising), but because of the sincere, but ignorant fighter for our side.

Some observations:

0:15 "swore to uphold the Constitution to the United States..." If he had only read the first 3 posts of my CoCoCo CCW Advice thread (actually just the first few paragraphs of the first post http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1482924), he would have better equipped and made a better argument.

1:35 "we've reduced the standard from impossible to 'Good Cause' ... a particularized reason that is specific to you, not generalized fear of crime ... it could be your occupation, it could be (mumbled, something re. the time of the day), it could be you've been a victim of violent crime, you could have a stalker from hell and they're out and about, not in prison, ... so we've changed the standard but you have to apply for it." Under AV's GC standard, thousands of small business owners (sandwich shops, gas stations, etc.) could probably get issued to protect themselves because they regularly make cash deposits. Even people who live and/or work out in rural areas where there are long response rates by the sheriffs sound like they have a solid chance. But NOBODY wants to do ANYTHING if it won't GUARANTEE that they themselves will get a CCW....

3:25: AV is WRONG when he says SCOTUS has "already decided" public carry can be restricted. They have NOT decided anything re. it. They've only declined to review lower courts' decisions re. it. Hopefully, that will change sometime between 2019 Oct 01 and 2020 July 01.

3:35 Again, "our guy" thinks our 2nd A RBA is the basis of our state's CCW law -- it isn't.

4:35 "Rural counties is a different equation": "Rural counties" like San Diego, Orange and Sacramento?

At 5:00 he says someone way out in Lake Los Angeles, because of long response times, he'll have a "different equation" (i.e., different GC requirement), than someone in a more urban part of LA Co.

Our guy claims Mayor Paris (City of Lancaster) (~5:10), wants his city to issue CCWs. But currently, Lancaster does NOT have it's own PD (and thus it's own Chief of Police to legally issue CCWs), but rather uses LASD for police services. https://www.cityoflancasterca.org/re...f-s-department IOW, "our guy" may have just tipped Sheriff AV off to the beginnings of an attempt to get around his restrictive CCW policy (by forming their own PD and hiring their own CoP)!

Like I said: "our guy" may be well meaning, but he is ill informed and painful to watch.

All in all, AV is what we predicted when we revised the CA CCW GC map after his taking office: he's using McDonnell's GC standard, but actually issuing under it (vs McDonnell who pretty much ignored his own CCW policy and just issued or denied as he saw fit -- 25 out of 25 CCW apps audited by the state auditor did NOT comply with McDonnell's own policy).

I'm going to cross post the OP and my post in the LA Co thread in the CA Counties CCW Info forum since they'll want to see this.

Hopefully, by this time next year, SCOTUS will have made a decision in a 2nd A case that will force CA law and sheriffs to issue more CCWs.

For those who think nothing's changed in the past 10 years (since McDonald case), compare these 2 CA CCW GC maps -- we've kicked butt! We're now down to the most hardcore anti counties.

[Paladin]

It sounds like what we figured his GC standard would be: light red, possibly even yellow.

Literally thousands could qualify under this: small business owners (sandwich shops, fast food franchise, gas stations, convenience stores, etc) who make regular, large cash deposits, or transport valuables/valuable equipment for the job, etc.

Female RE agents (probably a few thousand of these alone in LA Co), who show homes to strangers at all hours of the day or evening, may also qualify ("a particularized reason that is specific to you").

That long LE response times GC might even work for camping, hiking, backpacking, motorcycling in the wilderness, if backed by evidence proving that you regularly do those (camping receipts, photos, maps, etc).

AV said you've got to apply to find out if you can get issued. I'd recommend using the advice I complied in my "CoCoCo CCW Advice" thread stickied/pinned at the top of this forum. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1482924

[pacrat]

he's using McDonnell's GC standard, but actually issuing under it

REMAINS TO BE SEEN!

Parroting campaign promises. Does not make them true.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by pacrat

REMAINS TO BE SEEN!

Parroting campaign promises. Does not make them true.

Like he said, "we've changed the standard, but you have to apply for it."

Until CGNers who have a "a particularized reason that is specific to [them]" apply and let the rest of us know how it went, we're both just speculating.

[pacrat]

Why should I? Knowing full well it would be an exercise in futility!

The New Dem King of LASD quoted parameters of what will be "considered".

I fall firmly outside every one of those parameters.

So until there is a SCOTUS ruling that the 2A means exactly what is says about infringements.

AND US-DOJ grows a pair of gonads and is willing to arrest Federal Criminals with Badges in Ca. Which history has shown WON'T HAPPEN!

LA COUNTY REMAINS VIRTUALLY NO ISSUE FOR AVERAGE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

[Paladin]

The more I think about what AV said re. GC, the more I think he's saying taken LA Co to "light red." What this means, as I posted above, is that thousands of small business owners and others should be able to get CCWs. While this won't help the vast majority of law-abiding LA Co residents, the more CCWers the better for us and the worse for BGs. Plus, if they apply and get issued now, they won't be clogging up the system if/when we win a RBA from SCOTUS.

Here's what AV says re. GC (at 1:35 to 2:10): "We actually, we, ah, reduced the standard from impossible to a "good cause." So, all I'm asking for for an applicant for a CCW is give me a particularized reason that is specific to you, not generalized fear of crime, but specifically to you. It could be (1) your occupation. (2) It could be the activities you’re doing and what time of day. (3) You could be a victim of a violent crime, say you have a stalker from hell on your case and and they're out and about, they're not in prison. All of these things, anyone of these things, and we're applying them pretty generously. So, we changed the standard but you have to apply for it."

#1 and 3 are common GC justifications in restrictive counties: your job/occupation puts you at risk or you have had threats against you that have been reported to police. I couldn't clearly make out what he said re. #2 above. I wrote what I thought he said, but it doesn't make sense to me. If someone can understand him better, please post it and I'll edit the above.

Then he compares LA Co's standard to rural counties' ("Shall Issue"). He then, erroneously, claims because of LA Co's population density, Shall Issue would be a bad policy. While OC has only 1/3rd of the pop. of LA Co, it has that pop in 1/4th of the area, and so has ~10% higher population density than LA Co and yet has >20,000 2-year CCWs issued vs ~500 for LA Co! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._in_California

2:25 He then goes into why "more guns on the streets" isn't a good policy in his opinion. This is where the only counter argument is the 2nd A and since (a) CCWs aren't under the 2nd and (b) SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the RBA, you can't go that way, but rather need to point out his policy argument is invalid given the experiences of Sacto, Fresno, Orange and now, San Diego counties and the large urban cities and counties in the 42 Shall Issue states, not one of which has gone from liberal issuance to restrictive issuance.

3:25 AV then mistakenly says that the Supreme Court has "decided again and again" that CCWs can be restrictively issued.

4:50 AV says that the "overwhelming majority" of LA Co residents want a GC requirement. Again, since SCOTUS hasn't yet said we have a right to public Carry, this issue is a policy/political issue, not a rights issue.

4:55 AV says his standard is different for residents who live in really rural parts of LA Co. (4) Most likely, IMO, he'll require you to either live or have a job that requires you to be in such a rural area. This may indicate a another possible acceptable GC being regularly hiking, backpacking, motorcycling or camping in rural areas with long LE response times. Of course, you'll need to prove you actually do those activities (photos, log books, maps, camping/park receipts, etc.). But you never know until you or someone else applies and lets the rest of us know. It only costs $10 to get a Good Cause decision by LACSO.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Why should I? Knowing full well it would be an exercise in futility!

The New Dem King of LASD quoted parameters of what will be "considered".

I fall firmly outside every one of those parameters.

So until there is a SCOTUS ruling that the 2A means exactly what is says about infringements.

AND US-DOJ grows a pair of gonads and is willing to arrest Federal Criminals with Badges in Ca. Which history has shown WON'T HAPPEN!

LA COUNTY REMAINS VIRTUALLY NO ISSUE FOR AVERAGE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

Um, not everything is directed towards you. That's why I wrote,

Originally Posted by Paladin

Until CGNers who have a "a particularized reason that is specific to [them]" apply and let the rest of us know how it went, we're both just speculating.

While you may not be able to get a CCW from AV, you can organize an outreach to small business owners (sandwich shops, pizza restaurants, gas stations, jewelry stores, etc), RE agents, and others who fall within those "parameters" to get them to apply, right???

[Bill Carson]

LASD will NEVER have a pro 2A ,CCW issuing sheriff.

[Peter W Bush]

I’m a business owner in LA. 3 businesses- wine bar, liquor store, and a bar, and I was very recently threatened by a convicted felon who stole from the store (all documented with the LAPD detective handling the case. Of course LAPD wont issue but do you think I actually have a shot if I apply with LASD??
I did apply with LAPD, got denied, appealed to the citizens review board, they recommended LAPD to issue, and LAPD denied the recommendation of course. Very frustrating process that took about a year or more.

Sent from my phone. Sorry for grammar/spelling

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Peter W Bush

I’m a business owner in LA. 3 businesses- wine bar, liquor store, and a bar, and I was very recently threatened by a convicted felon who stole from the store (all documented with the LAPD detective handling the case. Of course LAPD wont issue but do you think I actually have a shot if I apply with LASD??
I did apply with LAPD, got denied, appealed to the citizens review board, they recommended LAPD to issue, and LAPD denied the recommendation of course. Very frustrating process that took about a year or more.

See my post #961 above. Looks like you could qualify under #1 and 3 of the 4 reasons AV would issue a CCW. You should have a solid chance with LASD under AV, from what he says. I'd give it a go. Be sure to review my CoCoCo CCW Advice thread stickied at top of this forum. PM me if you need/want to -- all kept in strict confidence. Be sure to let us know after you get issued/denied.

[kflakes]

Originally Posted by Paladin

See my post #961 above. Looks like you could qualify under #1 and 3 of the 4 reasons AV would issue a CCW. You should have a solid chance with LASD under AV, from what he says. I'd give it a go. Be sure to review my CoCoCo CCW Advice thread stickied at top of this forum. PM me if you need/want to -- all kept in strict confidence. Be sure to let us know after you get issued/denied.

That reminds me, did you get a chance to look at my GC? It’s been a while ago, haha

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kflakes

That reminds me, did you get a chance to look at my GC? It’s been a while ago, haha

I've got too many pokers in too many fires!

I'll try to get to it in next day or two. If I don't, just keep politely reminding me....

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paul E

I applied today, sent application via certified mail. I’ll follow up when the denial comes.

Let us know not only what happens, but also how the process went, were staff/LE friendly, helpful and encouraging or the opposite? What fees were charged and when. How long the different stages took. What the interview was like. What those involved said about the CCW process under AV (no change from McDonnell? big change in positive direction for us?)

I should mention that going by what AV actually says about GC, he may have taken LA Co not to light red, but yellow or even light green depending upon how he interprets and applies what he said. For example: does regularly hiking or backpacking in rural, wilderness areas with evidence that proves you actually do that work (light green)? Or must it be that you live or have to work in rural areas (yellow)?

What we need are LA Co residents who most likely would pass if AV's words are true (people with crazy exs/stalkers, or regularly deal with large amounts of cash (deposits or sales), drugs or guns, or who's job puts them at risk (female residential RE agents who've felt or been threatened), apply and let us know how it goes. If they get issued, then folks with weaker GC statements (yellow) should apply to see if they can get issued.

Meanwhile, the federal courts will do what they will do (or not) on their own time table.

[RoundEye]

Originally Posted by Paul E

I applied today, sent application via certified mail. I’ll follow up when the denial comes. Do they deny via mail or phone?

Eh... With LASD it's supposed to delivered by hand Downtown, and with LAPD you need to make an appointment and again deliver it by hand downtown.

[mej16489]

Paladin doesn't want to believe anyone when we tell him that LA County is still 'dark red' My evidence is that Villanueva is actually more restrictive in issuance of licenses then McDonnell was. Who was in turn more restrictive then Baca...who was in turn more restrictive then Block...who was in turn more restrictive then Pitches...

I understand that he want to give the guy a chance to make good on his word; but the reality is, there are actually people here who are at least somewhat 'in the know' and can extrapolate the outcomes based on the small known samples.

LA County is "Virtual No Issue"

[kflakes]

Originally Posted by Paul E

I applied today, sent application via certified mail. I’ll follow up when the denial comes. Do they deny via mail or phone?

When I applied under McDonnell a little over a year ago, I received the rejection by mail. The rejection was just a general statement that no good cause was found, without any explanation or detailed discussion. I would think that the process is still the same. I received my rejection letter around 3 months from the date I submitted my application by mail.

[kflakes]

Originally Posted by Paul E

Per their website:

This is correct. You do not hand deliver your application. You mail in the application accompanied with a check. I posted the previous version of the guidelines under McDonnell in an earlier post, and it was the same procedure as the current procedure under AV.

I wish you the best of luck! I really hope you will get it.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by mej16489

Paladin doesn't want to believe anyone when we tell him that LA County is still 'dark red' My evidence is that Villanueva is actually more restrictive in issuance of licenses then McDonnell was. Who was in turn more restrictive then Baca...who was in turn more restrictive then Block...who was in turn more restrictive then Pitches...

I understand that he want to give the guy a chance to make good on his word; but the reality is, there are actually people here who are at least somewhat 'in the know' and can extrapolate the outcomes based on the small known samples.

LA County is "Virtual No Issue"

The bolded is not evidence, it is a conclusion. Evidence is what you base that conclusion upon. Please share evidence with us.

I felt that way when Gore in San Diego said 2 years ago he's issuing more CCWs. I figured no way in hell would "Ruby Ridge" Gore issue more CCWs and posted such. Turned out, much to everyone's delight, Gore did change and not just for his re-election campaign. IIRC, ~2 years ago he had ~300 - 400 2-year CCWs issued and now, before the end of this summer he should break 3,000 2 yr CCWs, and if he keeps up his current pace, that should be 4,000 by the end of the year! Just start at the OP of that thread to see how it all played out.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...2#post23149412

[kflakes]

Originally Posted by Paladin

The bolded is not evidence, it is a conclusion. Evidence is what you base that conclusion upon. Please share evidence with us.

I felt that way when Gore in San Diego said 2 years ago he's issuing more CCWs. I figured no way in hell would "Ruby Ridge" Gore issue more CCWs and posted such. Turned out, much to everyone's delight, Gore did change and not just for his re-election campaign. IIRC, ~2 years ago he had ~300 - 400 2-year CCWs issued and now, before the end of this summer he should break 3,000 2 yr CCWs, and if he keeps up his current pace, that should be 4,000 by the end of the year! Just start at the OP of that thread to see how it all played out.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...2#post23149412

To add to Paladin’s comment above, I believe the main point is that we are all hoping that AV would bring a wind of change for the better, regardless of how high or low those chances are. Everyone here knows that getting a CCW has always been difficult in LA and we are all cautiously reserved with AV despite his campaign promises. It’s not that Paladin does not want to believe that LA is dark red, but how else can we find out if AV is bringing a change for the better unless we start giving it a try? We are just trying to find out, and not having a blind optimism on AV. I think we’re approaching this with the realistic expectation that it is more likely that applications will continue to get rejected, but if AV makes good on his campaign promises, then it will be a pleasant surprise.

In my subjective opinion, even if applications continue to get rejected under AV, the fact that a lot of us are submitting applications shows that this 2A issue is very important to many LA residents, and AV should take notice. Would not that say something? He is well-aware that this 2A issue is very important to many of us in LA, thus his campaign promises. I could be wrong, but maybe by seeing a lot of new applications after he took office would make a bigger impact and put him in a position where he has to respond one way or another, and hold him to his promises.

I believe that’s why Paladin is warranted in encouraging many of us to file new applications, myself included. We need to do something and take our part, rather than just lament how difficult it is to get a CCW in LA. Set aside our own personal fear of getting rejected again (which I also have, to be honest), and think of the collective interests as a group. I think this 2A issue in LA is bigger than each of us individually.

That’s my two cents.

[Paladin]

Acc to this article, on 2018 July 01 -- about 6 months prior to AV taking over as sheriff -- there were 424 LA Co CCWs.

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local...232198382.html

While it is not many, esp given LA Co's pop of >10M, it is more than zero. The main benefit of knowing this number is it tells us approx. how many CCWs were issued prior to AV becoming sheriff. In a year or two, when the next news article about CCW issuance rates is published, we'll be able to see what, if any change, has occurred under AV.

[Paladin]

A 10+ year CGN member told me someone they know has been issued a CCW by LA Co's new sheriff, Alex Villanueva. The CGNer claims to have seen it themselves. They say the new CCWer has a GC that would pass a "strict" (dark red) GC standard. That's all I can post about this applicant/CCWer.

Hopefully, as more CGNers apply and get issued or denied we'll get a better idea of whether people with "light red" or even "yellow" Good Causes will be approved, and more details about AV's CCW process. (If you don't want to post about yourself, just PM me and I'll work up a post with your information and post it after your approval. All correspondence kept in strict confidence.)

No, we have not "won" LA Co. yet (it is not light green AFAIK). But the hope is (1) AV is keeping his campaign promise to issue more CCWs and (2) as time goes by he'll slowly liberalize issuance further.

But for now, it is time to celebrate! LASD Sheriff Villenueva is issuing CCWs!

[kflakes]

Originally Posted by Paladin

A 10+ year CGN member contacted me to let me know someone they know has been issued a CCW by LA Co's new sheriff, Alex Villaneuva. The CGNer claims to have seen it themselves. They say the new CCWer has a GC that would pass a "strict" (dark red) GC standard. That's all I can post about this applicant/CCWer.

Hopefully, as more CGNers apply we'll get a better idea of whether people with "light red" or even "yellow" Good Causes will be approved, and more details about AV's CCW process. (If you don't want to post about yourself, just PM me and I'll work up a post with your information and post it after your approval. All correspondence kept in strict confidence.)

No, we have not "won" LA Co. But the hope is (1) AV is keeping his campaign promise to issue more CCWs and (2) as time goes by he'll slowly liberalize issuance further.

But for now, it is time to celebrate!

Thanks, Paladin! A small step forward is still a step forward. Keeping our fingers crossed.

[kflakes]

Originally Posted by Paladin

A 10+ year CGN member contacted me to let me know someone they know has been issued a CCW by LA Co's new sheriff, Alex Villaneuva. The CGNer claims to have seen it themselves. They say the new CCWer has a GC that would pass a "strict" (dark red) GC standard. That's all I can post about this applicant/CCWer.

Hopefully, as more CGNers apply we'll get a better idea of whether people with "light red" or even "yellow" Good Causes will be approved, and more details about AV's CCW process. (If you don't want to post about yourself, just PM me and I'll work up a post with your information and post it after your approval. All correspondence kept in strict confidence.)

No, we have not "won" LA Co. But the hope is (1) AV is keeping his campaign promise to issue more CCWs and (2) as time goes by he'll slowly liberalize issuance further.

But for now, it is time to celebrate!

What would be considered a "dark red" GC? The applicant lives in a remote area with no quick access for law enforcement to respond and their occupation is highly dangerous or involving a transfer of large amount of money/expensive equipment? I would like to understand the difference between "dark red" and "light red" GCs.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kflakes

What would be considered a "dark red" GC? The applicant lives in a remote area with no quick access for law enforcement to respond and their occupation is highly dangerous or involving a transfer of large amount of money/expensive equipment? I would like to understand the difference between "dark red" and "light red" GCs.

Dark red has 3 subsections. The "dark side" of dark red is "No Issue." This is where CLEOs are flipping their middle finger at Salute v. Pitchess and the state courts. AFAIK, no counties currently do not issue. Even SF had 2 issued CCWs as of a year ago: https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local...232198382.html

To the green side of that is what I call "Corrupt Issue": that's what LA Co had under McDonnell where the state auditor found that out of 25 CCW applications audited, not a single one issued complied with his official CCW policy. Even if you satisfy the published GC requirements, you won't have a chance unless you fulfill whatever unpublished requirements the CLEO imposes.

The difference between the "light side" of dark red and light red is a matter of degree rather than of kind. For example, the amount of regular deposits from a business after normal business hours is greater for dark red. Or dark red may require that you be the business owner making the deposits whereas light red may require you to only be the manager. Dark red may require you to have been attacked and likely to be attacked in the future (think CGN's quarterboregunner), whereas light red may only require you to be a likely target or have been seriously threatened (with proof -- evidence of threat/s and police report/s, etc). Sonoma Co still has their old dark red GC standard posted:

(a) There is an existing and significant threat of death or grave bodily injury to the applicant, or his/her immediate family, which cannot be reasonably avoided or adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources, and which threat would be significantly mitigated by the carrying of a concealed weapon.

(b) The applicant establishes that circumstances exist requiring him or her to transport in public significant amounts of valuable, or inherently dangerous property, which would be impractical to entrust to the protection of an armored car or equivalent service for the safe transportation of valuables.

From: https://www.sonomasheriff.org/ccw

[Alex889]

can anyone send me a link for all the requirements for getting a ccw in los angekes area,
does anyone know if it is possible to get a ccw in a different county then the one you live in

[Mark Guerra]

Sorry, in LA county, not gonna happen. And getting one from a different county than the one you live in, not gonna happen either.
Your best bet is to move out to San Bernardino county or get a non-resident from Arizona and/or Utah. And hope for national reciprocity to pass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jeff.i.thomas]

Originally Posted by Alex889

can anyone send me a link for all the requirements for getting a ccw in los angekes area,

does anyone know if it is possible to get a ccw in a different county then the one you live in

Los Angeles county is near impossible to get. The burden of showing you have good cause is as follows:

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.

Los Angeles County Concealed Weapon Permits Website: http://www.lapdonline.org/get_inform...sic_view/48213

100 West 1st Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Non-Emergency: 877-ASK-LAPD

A CA permit must be obtained through the county you live in. The non-Resident permita are not valid in CA but are useful if/when you travel to other States


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Betfair39]

What is a good cause for the county? Is dealing with super expensive cinema gear and being responsible for the transportation of them counts as a good cause?