Tweet
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.
-
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. -
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Um, not everything is directed towards you. That's why I wrote,
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???Last edited by Paladin; 06-29-2019, 11:00 PM.Comment
-
LASD will NEVER have a pro 2A ,CCW issuing sheriff.Comment
-
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/spellingWill trade liquor/wine/beer for parts and accesories and ammo! PM me. Dont drink n shoot. Offer void where prohibited. Must be 21 or older, etc. etc.
Originally posted by TURBOELKYOriginally posted by TURBOELKYComment
-
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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
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....Comment
-
Originally posted by Paul E
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.Last edited by Paladin; 07-01-2019, 5:16 PM.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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"Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Originally posted by Paul E
I wish you the best of luck! I really hope you will get it.Comment
-
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.
Comment
There are currently 3430 users online. 62 members and 3368 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 8:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment