|
Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#83
|
||||
|
||||
https://pdfviewer.lawow.org/norman-h...-al-2022-10-31
Case here ^. Will be interesting to see how this plays out...bad stuff done in youth...rehabilitated...now older but CCW denied for bad stuff done along time ago.
__________________
"Bruen, the Bruen opinion, I believe, discarded the intermediate scrutiny test that I also thought was not very useful; and has, instead, replaced it with a text history and tradition test." Judge Benitez 12-12-2022 NRA Endowment Life Member, CRPA Life Member GLOCK (Gen 1-5, G42/43), Colt AR15/M16/M4, Sig P320, Sig P365, Beretta 90 series, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer Remington Nylon, 1911, HK, Ruger, Hudson H9 Armorer, just for fun! I instruct it if you shoot it. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I say again, Justice Thomas gave them (IA’s) all the power they need to deny applicants; GMC is now the proper tool for denial. What he should have done was to remove any permit schemes altogether. Oh well, it’s only another decade+ to untangle, if ever. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
He’ll win.
He doesn’t require a permit to exercise his right. “We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a hand- gun for self-defense outside the home.” I love he’s suing under title 42 Section 1983, he also needs to add Title 18 Section 241 & 242. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It sounds like something else is a foot. IDK what process you have to pursue this in your IA. If it were me, I'd get a DMV printout of your driving record, and then compare that to your application and to what the IA says your driving record is (if you can get it). In one instance, the investigating officer brought up an infraction that occurred while I was deployed in Iraq. There is a change the investigation falsely included incidences that aren't you. I dont know how, but this should be addressable. Also a chance that you forgot a ticket or two within the requested timeframe. If this happened, the investigator wouldn't have the warm and fuzzies. |
#88
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#89
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you don't mind me asking, were most dismissed through traffic school or through court appearances (or lack of appearance in court by officers, which can be common)? I watched this thread get linked on the caguns subreddit and I was quite disgusted at all the people ready to take the first opportunity to forfeit your rights if given the chance, especially without considering what you posted with much thought. Anyhow, have you tried contacting the department to try and get more info on the denial? Ask them if there's an appeals process? It doesn't look Burbank has an appeals process, though last I read statute doesn't require them to have one (The recently failed SB-918 would have implemented some standards regarding local appeal processes that would have been optional for the local agency, which then you had the option to get a hearing in superior court if you wanted). According to their policy doc: https://www.burbankpd.org/assets/1/7/50034337.pdf Quote:
Either way... I think Dvrjon's advice is on the money for the most part: if you do contact the department getting more information, the goal is to get that information and record it as accurately as possible. Email makes for the best records, though if it's a phone call record the time, date, the names of everyone you speak to, and what they said accurately. If it's an in-person meeting, bring a notepad, ask for documents when they given reasons. In all cases be polite, try to keep your emotions in check, so you get the most information out of everyone you speak to if possible. The reason is twofold: 1.) To see if a solution can be found without a lawsuit and 2.) to accurately make a record of your experience and the department's true statements regarding your denial, so that it may be of better use to a lawyer should you pursue legal action through CRPA or FPC, and to also record that you tried every option available to you to resolve the issue without legal action in good faith. At that point, assuming there's no other recourse, and if it's a pretty bull**** reason... I'd contact CRPA or FPC and tell them about your denial, give them all the information, seeing what advice they have and if they want to take your case. I would mention that the Burbank PD does mention in their policy that within 60 days of denial you can apply with the LA County Sheriff for a permit. As an aside... it's an interesting policy in that Burbank PD acts as a spoiler by denying people and then having you send their denial to the LA County Sheriff to attempt again. It's not really an appeals process but it does leave open a legal avenue that you may have to pursue to say that you had no other options to get a permit, while allowing Burbank PD to cast a negative light on your application with LA County Sheriff, and basically dumping the responsibility onto LA County Sheriff... it's very.... bureaucratically craven I suppose? Anyhow, good luck! |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#91
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Edit: they discontinued the H6 for some reason https://www.theawarenessgroup.org/dm...scontinuation/ |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Yeah I was surprised too, I think most people were missing the point, and dismissing the fact that traffic violations should not determine my moral character nor prohibit me from exercising my second amendment right. I hadn’t contacted the department until today, I called the Sergeant of the CCW Unit and left a voicemail and am hoping he gets back to me soon. I reached out to CRPA and they gave me a phone number to Michel Lawyers. I reached out to them and the lawyer emailed me back asking if it would be possible to see the denial letter. I sent it over, and he said I should reach out to the number provided in the letter, and not to argue with them but instead ask them in detail to explain why they believe I lack “good moral character”. He said then to let him know what they say so if he reaches out to the city attorney on my behalf, that he isn’t doing so blindly. Hopefully I can get in contact with the department soon and understand the details of the denial so I don’t waste anytime and if need be to apply again through the sheriff. |
#93
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But basically this means that, on top of how old the tickets are, you fought your tickets (even if the officer didn't show up) and won. If they used that as an excuse when you weren't even convicted/found guilty most of the time (not to mention these are old tickets), then that puts them more in the wrong. Denying someone their ability to carry based off of the fact that they went to court and won is some real bull**** (if that ends up being the alleged reason). Anyhow, once again, good luck! I hope you don't have to go to court and you're issued your license soon; as much as we like watching the court challenges, being in a long term court case is a whole 'nother stress level in life. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Traffic School is not dismissed
Sorry Beau, the OP was correct when he said "I did use traffic school a few times as well, and so when I mentioned that I had been guilty for 3 tickets, those are the ones I was referring to. Because if I’m not mistaken in order to opt for traffic school you must plead guilty."
NOPE to - - Traffic school just keeps the point from impacting your insurance. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Read what you wrote, they instilled fear in you so that you won't do anything. If you are willing to go along with that, understand that remaining a sheeple doesn't get you anything. Let me put this another way: A government agency and one person have in their official capacity as law enforcement said you do not have good moral character. Think about that real hard. It wasn't someone on the street, it wasn't someone who knows nothing about you, it was a law enforcement agency that stated as fact in their opinion that you do not have good moral character. Every time you look in the mirror, think about that. You have to look at your family and friends, the people you work with, anyone you know and that is there, you do not have good moral character and if you let that stand then perhaps it's true. Make them give you a specific reason in writing, not over phone call nor let them tell you they don't have to let you know, they do. So, do you have good moral character, do your friends and family think you have good moral character and most important, do you think you have good moral character? An official finding, which is exactly what this is, isn't just someone saying it, it's law enforcement officials saying it. It's no longer about carrying a gun, it's a direct attack on you specifically. Cower in fear because you hope they might change their mind and what does that say? An unwillingness to stand up for and defend your reputation (this is about that) does speak to character. Once crapped on, it becomes a habit or has always been there. See how it works? Read some of the other replies. All dissect what you've done and done about it. Who are they? I'll tell you, they are part of the system that decided you don't have good moral character dude. Instead of going after some person who might not have good moral character themselves but will tell you that you don't, they dive into your driving record. Oh, it just explaining the system. Suuuure. GTFO. .
__________________
Let Go of the Status Quo! Don't worry, it will never pass...How in the hell did that pass? Think past your gun, it's the last resort, the first is your brain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent. In the history of humanity, no defense has ever won against an enemy with time on their side. Last edited by SharedShots; 11-04-2022 at 8:52 AM.. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
So sad to see so many are already programmed.
YOU DO NOT REQUIRE PERMISSION FROM GOVERNMENT TO EXERCISE YOUR INALIENABLE ENUMERATED RIGHT. “We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a hand- gun for self-defense outside the home.” Get off the traffic tickets. Focus on the RIGHT, and those unlawfully restricting you from exercising it. States have NO 10th Amendment right to restrict the carrying of a handgun today for self defense outside the home. States MAY, restrict carrying in “sensitive places” that comport with laws between 1790 and 1969. If you are not a prohibited person you can carry outside the home for self defense. Period. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Some of you aren't thinking past your gun.
When a LE Official determines you don't have good moral character, that follows you. Think forward, past today. You are called upon to support someone else or speak on behalf of someone else as a character witness. Who knows what that might be but it could be a lot of things. How can you speak of anything when you have been found to be not of good moral character by a law enforcement official no less? You don't, in the eyes of government, have good moral character yourself let alone speak of anyone else. For some reason, your employer, now or in the future, discovers you were denied a CCW and the reason was you didn't have good moral character. Whoops, there goes that promotion, there goes that better job which requires a security clearance. How would such information get out? That can't even be a serious question. How many people know you were denied a CCW and how many know it was for lack of good moral character? What you're not understanding is that by participating in the CCW scheme, anything you do in the future could provide a reason to find you not of good moral character and you get your CCW pulled and your reputation tarnished and there is nothing you can do about it. You willingly subjected yourself to the process. Some of you will smirk, chuckle or justify otherwise but who among us hasn't heard or known of people who found themselves in a pickle, nothing very serious, you are ticketed for speeding yet weren't (like that doesn't happen), someone decided to bring a civil suit against you for (the list is long but could be something very small as in small claims court) oh, say you are a landlord and rent out a place, maybe even AirBnB and there is a dispute. You are placing all your character out there for a change in policy, a hair up someone's butt that could decide that is enough to determine you have no good moral character for that CCW and it's gone. So you have to slink around, afraid to say and do much because anyone could create a situation that causes your GMC review and thats it. Nah, this won't ever happen right? No one would go so far as to spend any time on that. Uh huh. Didn't a now Ex-Sheriff just get found guilty of passing out CCWs in exchange for financial payments? Why yes, that happened. What you don't realize is the strings that came with what you think is now perhaps, a right when it's a privilege and subject not to any standard but the personal opinion of one person except their opinion carries the entire weight of their office. There are some of you with CCWs getting tickets for minor traffic rule infractions. You're reporting LE contact and so far it's all a big nothing burger. What happens when in an effort to save the children, groups are successful in requiring annual GMC reviews of CCW holders? How far will your pucker factor pucker when you know that the little ticket you got was enough to find you no longer have good moral character. Have you been paying attention to trends and the way things are going? If you think the NYSPA V Bruen is going to make things better, think again because the writing is on the wall and GMC is not the emphasis. In no way am I suggesting to carry in violation of state laws as currently written. What I am saying is that I doubt more than a few of you have looked past your gun, thought past your gun and even realized the position you've placed yourself in if (and its really not if, its when) even small policy changes (it doesn't need to be some law, it can be a memo) exposes your to a GMC determination for which there are plenty of consequences and none of them any good. Right now you go about your daily carry, all happy. As sensitive place restriction get imposed to include more places, don't expect a lot of support, it isn't going to be there. What you should expect is that an inadvertent carry in a sensitive place gets your CCW called into a review process and as easy as an opinion of one person, you are deemed not to have good moral character and you are done and some CCW won't be the foremost issue you need to contend with. There are lots of reasons the 2nd/A exists but one of the reasons is that no one person can be allowed to give or take a right away from any other person. You gave that up the instant you jumped into the CCW scheme. I know, you need to carry for SD so you're doing what you must. If this forum is any indication, that is most often not true. Instead, you traded a right for a privilege but never thought about what that really meant. Start thinking now because things are changing and this is California, not Texas or Idaho. You might think NYSPA V Bruen is going to really do a lot. It will but not in California. That decision is another story but you start thinking past your gun, really think about your tenuous position if there are any policy or law changes and how you've made yourself nothing more than another name for someone who decides you're it and your reputation is toast. You might be happily married or not married, doesn't matter, stuff happens. Start thinking. Like I said, some of you will smirk, chuckle or otherwise discount this post, but you know as well as everyone else, some of you, the percentages just end up that way, will find yourself in the exact position I've described. Thank past your gun. Support as much as you can Constitutional carry when the opportunity arises but don't fool yourself into thinking anyone really cares about your CCW or will come running in defense of the scheme. .
__________________
Let Go of the Status Quo! Don't worry, it will never pass...How in the hell did that pass? Think past your gun, it's the last resort, the first is your brain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent. In the history of humanity, no defense has ever won against an enemy with time on their side. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
How about writing to the Chief and asking for an explanation on department letterhead with his “wet” signature at the bottom? #Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. #Let’s go Brandon! #FJB
__________________
|
#103
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
…and scotus has spoken on denial as a result of prior weapons arrest…GVR back to 1st circuit for review per NYPRA v Bruen (no tiered scrutiny boys!)
__________________
"Bruen, the Bruen opinion, I believe, discarded the intermediate scrutiny test that I also thought was not very useful; and has, instead, replaced it with a text history and tradition test." Judge Benitez 12-12-2022 NRA Endowment Life Member, CRPA Life Member GLOCK (Gen 1-5, G42/43), Colt AR15/M16/M4, Sig P320, Sig P365, Beretta 90 series, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer Remington Nylon, 1911, HK, Ruger, Hudson H9 Armorer, just for fun! I instruct it if you shoot it. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Here is what some of you just aren't getting:
One reason a right exists is because it doesn't allow the substitution of reasons and a facade for denial. Let's say someone has a poor driving record. Some of you equate that with moral character. We'll run with that. The IA might not see a poor driving record as a reason they'd deny a person but they do have a pet peeve for women who think they should not be able to carry a gun in the same way as does a man. Putting aside the issue that some people can't define a woman much less a man, the IA mulls it over and wonders just how they can deny a woman (female if you will) and get away with it because it might become obvious. Indeed. So, they go over things, crap, how to deny the woman and lo and behold, Ms.Winchester Cathedral has a few tickets. Well now, if CHiPs isn't the gift that keeps giving, the perfect substitution. So, the traffic tickets become the GMC issue, the perfect screen to hide the real reason for the denial, that the applicant is a women and any real man knows "the wife" isn't capable of choosing which gun to buy much less carry one. In fact, a woman should even be allowed to have anything more powerful than whatever the man in charge says is ok. An extreme depiction of how rights can be subverted into privilege and once that has been accomplished there is no way to ascertain why the privilege was denied which in effect was the denial of the right. The substitution can be any reason and just like saying you shouldn't have to explain something it also happens when denying someone their privilege that is a substitute for a right. Now, I happen to think that people who support the privilege over the right shouldn't enjoy any of either as they don't have even basic adequate moral character and those people are only too happy to sit in judgement of others and do far worse, they support those in authority who actually do it in an official capacity outside of due process. Imagine me having the authority to grant or deny. Before you say thank goodness I don't, have you stepped outside and become aware of the news where the former Santa Clara Sherrif substituted money for good cause and good moral character as passed out CCWs as favors? So, before you say that it can't happen, it has happened, we've seen it happen and its a fact it happens, there is no debate. That IA substituted money or financial consideration for Good Cause and Good Moral Character, don't say something as simple as denying a woman is any more difficult. That applies to anything else which is why the right doesn't allow for it, but the privilege does. There is little doubt that with enough digging, not one of you here talking about someone's driving record doesn't have enough in their past behavior that to someone else with a different perspective, your moral character wouldn't qualify you to carry a water pistol. The fact that you can only speaks to you're being lucky, and not of good moral character. Defending privilege in lieu of a right is as dangerous to the USC and the foundation of this country as it gets. You are one phone call, one email or letter away from having your privilege taken away just because one other person decides you aren't good enough as they define it. .
__________________
Let Go of the Status Quo! Don't worry, it will never pass...How in the hell did that pass? Think past your gun, it's the last resort, the first is your brain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent. In the history of humanity, no defense has ever won against an enemy with time on their side. Last edited by SharedShots; 11-06-2022 at 8:10 PM.. |
#106
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Must pass a lie detector test and any questions are fair game. Tell the truth and anything evaluators consider sufficiently negative will disqualify. Lie and be disqualified. |
#107
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Anyone want to bet on when the first demand for an applicant's social media passwords will be made?
__________________
My friends and family disavow all knowledge of my existence, let alone my opinions. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
What do speeding tickets have to do with good moral character - NOTHING. It's another LEO tyrant prohibiting 2A rights. You can have speeding tickets and have a high end security clearance. Just don't lie about them - that's when character comes into play. That burbank top copcould be abusing the moral character aspect. So what else is new.
Whenever I go back to CA (visit or business), I'll make it a point not to fly into or stay in Burbank.
__________________
Member NRA, CRPA, GOA. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Ponch11, IIRC this is the page where I got my driving record. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/custom...ecord-request/
It did bring up applicable infractions in my case. There is nothing else for it to bring up, so I cannot speak to how well it presents misdos or felonies. I printed it out, so IF the driving record became an issue, I could refer to it as the evidence for presenting the information I did. In my case, it was unnecessary. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
We seem to be having two different debates here.
The first is how to address the question of past driving records, or (as is the OPs case) how to deal with being denied because of the driving record. The second debate is if IA's should be considering past driving record. One debate doesnt address the other. This doesn't mean that they aren't both worthwhile to have. But let's not pretend like they are the same. If I was denied a CCW, I'm looking for practical and actionable steps to take to address the situation. A TL;DR thesis on Constitutional theory regarding rights vs privileges doesn't help. Doesn't mean it isn't valid, but valid doesn't mean relevant in the context of the original post. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
If all else fails, call Cali DMV. I wondered about how violations appear, how long they stay on your record. This is what they told me:
Dismissed by Court Violations - Any violation dismissed by the Court is not placed on your driving history, only violations which points are assessed. Infractions. She said Infractions, which are 1 point, only remain on your driving record for 3 years from the date of conviction. Infractions dismissed after attending traffic school are not visible to Insurance Companies, Law Enforcement Agencies, or Courts. They are only visible internally to DMV Employee's. The exception is Commercial License Holders, Federal Law Prohibits the shielding of violations dismissed by attending Traffic School. Commercial License Holders will show the original violation. Misdemeanors, reckless driving, DUI, driving on a freeway median (Who knew that was a crime?), exhibition of power or speed, driving on a suspended or revoked license, etc. are retained for a period of 7 years from conviction date. I am guessing Burbank PD looked at their records and Court Records to find the OP's violations since they were 5-7 years old. I wonder what the Court's and Burbank PD's records retention Policy is? I would think if DMV purges it, why didn't Burbank PD and the Courts? |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If the driving record was the basis for the denial then that opens another door; is a driving record part of moral character and if so, are there specific criteria for what parts of a driving record can or are included and is the record limited to actual driving or is it the driver license record? I say that because there can be things included in the driver license record that would not be considered to have anything to do with driving. Let's say someone failed to renew their registration on time and then renewed it prior to being ticketed. It shows up in the driver license record. The main problem I see is that the GMC is so open to interpretation that it can include through reference, almost anything despite what might be cited as GMC for other permits. Is getting a ticket for tinted windows a criteria precluding good moral character? Is it weighted different than a ticket for speeding? If the answer is yes, then why not say so and then the applicant understands the rules instead of paying money and hoping? The DMV allocates points based on the type of infraction and indeed even issues/pursues penalties based upon them. Why would not an IA have such a system in place so that even prior to applying for a permit the applicant would know if they'd be denied according to an established and published criterion? As it is now, the criteria can be made up to suit an individual, hardly equal anything in the application of laws. This thread is a good example where the applicant might know why in general terms, they were denied but is unable to ascertain specifically the items that caused the denial. This shouldn't be a guessing game, the information should be transparently provided because it costs the applicant money to apply, and that money isn't refunded in many cases should the application be denied. The fees are supposedly collected to offset the costs involved in processing the application yet, the applicant has no idea what the process uses to deny or approve the application. Taxes are collected to fund the agencies operation, saying that one service is covered by those taxes while another is not and then collecting a fee without explaining specifically what criteria is used in the process to approve or deny the fee is anything but right. When someone applies for a permit, they should merely by accessing the published criteria and their own available to themselves records be able to ascertain if they will be approved or denied subject only perhaps to an interview where truthfulness would be determined by asking questions clearing up gaps in information or where answers previously supplied by the applicant were unclear. The interview should not be a fishing expedition designed to trick the applicant or go beyond the scope of the published specific criteria, that opens the process up to corruption and we've all seen how that works in Santa Clara County. How easily one thing leads to another. If a driving record is linked to Good Moral Character and the interview process is allowed to include things beyond the published and specific criteria then it also allows as a fishing expedition a question such as "have you violated any traffic rules/laws that aren't on your driving record?" In such a case, while an affirmative answer might not result in a denial depending on the obvious follow-up question, an answer in the negative could since there is no one who hasn't broken a single traffic rule/law even in the slightest. The argument that there could be someone who has never violated one such law doesn't hold because the process is subjective and not objective and thus is ripe for interpretation including the criteria used. Good moral character has to be more than some general list of behaviors or circumstances with even more general examples which are not all inclusive. Good moral character defines an individual and if a driving record can be used to define who does and does not have Good Moral Character then such a definition should be applied to anyone violating any traffic laws and not just those who apply for a permit. IOW, you either have good moral character or you don't. If a driving record is allowed to be a determining factor of good moral character, we have moved to appoint where only certain people are deemed to be of good moral character while all others not applying for a permit aren't judged that way. This creates a separate and distinct class of people, one with without good moral character based only on their application of a permit and another who remain unjudged because they haven't applied for the permit. Since the state maintains a record of every licensed driver there is no reason why every person licensed by the state should not be judged to either have or not have good moral character, the means to have that as an automatic process exists; it has been done with "Federal Limits Apply" designations on the driver license as well as the different classes of licenses issued. Your driver license identifies you as a person of good moral character or one without it. If you say that good moral character isn't required to obtain a drive license then how does that work since like the CCW, it isn't a right but a privilege (see how it can't be separated into two different questions?). Let us not forget, we are talking about a scheme where a single individual has the ability to approve a CCW in exchange for personal financial or other tangible benefits because the criteria was made so that the approval or denial was fabricated out of thin air without that one individual having to justify what they did until they got caught. If the driving record can be used to justify and define good moral character or a lack thereof, no person should be able to pick and choose which parts of the driving record are weighted more than another because who can decide if Person A's speeding ticket is or worse or better than Person B's speeding ticket based only on their personal judgement, recognizing no one appointed them as a judge for any due process? That is where we are if we are honest with ourselves. .
__________________
Let Go of the Status Quo! Don't worry, it will never pass...How in the hell did that pass? Think past your gun, it's the last resort, the first is your brain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent. In the history of humanity, no defense has ever won against an enemy with time on their side. Last edited by SharedShots; 11-08-2022 at 4:11 PM.. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
I usually made a note on the citation itself re: attitude. “AH” meant A-hole outside court but was “aggressive and hostile” in court.
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#116
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Moral character as to traffic tickets, other than dui's and hit and runs is a stretch.
__________________
True wealth is time. Time to enjoy life. Life's journey is not to arrive safely in a well preserved body, but rather to slide in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "holy schit...what a ride"!! Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain A man's soul can be judged by the way he treats his dog. Charles Doran |
#117
|
||||
|
||||
People in this thread seem to be excited about Ellis v. Bonta, which was criminal convictions and good moral character in order to get a CCW. Looks like case was voluntarily dismissed.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...66770.17.0.pdf |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
This may be of interest to OP, standards for California law enforcement officers:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ectionNum=1029. Basically, no felonies or dishonorable discharges. Nothing about "a bunch of speeding tickets". OP might want to do a freedom of information request from the issuing authority asking for hiring and retention standards of their officers. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I generally travel at the posted speed limit. Anybody doesn't like that should try leaving earlier so the don't have to do 80 in a 65. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|