Los Angeles

[LrdVaderZ]

I thought the denial letter went out from the Commander is that the same as an LT in LASD?

It's just a facsimile signature. Can you see undersheriff signing a crapload of the denial letters?

[Lockdown.-]

I will reveal after some time passes. I don't want to reveal my source. Cough cough Cuban cough cough.

[RoundEye]

Yours will be sent by Villanueva himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice! I’ll frame it and hang it next to the denial letter I have signed by chief more where he says not all Title II weapons are dangerous.

It's just a facsimile signature. Can you see undersheriff signing a crapload of the denial letters?

I think yours was signed by the Commander on behalf of the Under Sheriff. My question is this new ban hammering LT the same as the Commander?

[LrdVaderZ]

Mine was signed Timothy K. Murakami, Undersheriff, signature easily read, but it looks like a stamp, not the direct signature

[m1abob]

[Rpak562]

So.. I'm going to use my shield during training this weekend but I've been debating on if I want to add a red dot on it later BUT if I get the slide milled, the loaded chamber indicator is removed. Does anyone know if this still considered an "approved" modification? So I guess what I'm really asking is, is removal of the chamber indicator allowed.

[awiner]

So.. I'm going to use my shield during training this weekend but I've been debating on if I want to add a red dot on it later BUT if I get the slide milled, the loaded chamber indicator is removed. Does anyone know if this still considered an "approved" modification? So I guess what I'm really asking is, is removal of the chamber indicator is allowed.

Yes, this is ok.

[J2centen]

Timeline update

4/19 Mailed application
4/21 App received
5/7 Money order cashed
7/9 Call for interview (called from a 323 area code number)
7/15 Interview
7/16 Livescan
7/16 CA/FBI completed
10/6 Call from a different deputy to confirm some details
10/7 Email to proceed with training

[Paul49]

This thread is for those who want to apply for a LASD CCW now. Discussing the NYSRPANYSRPA case? Remember Peruta?) The place to discuss that case is the thread at this link: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1676407

I understand the purpose of this thread.

However, in the last few pages several people have brought up the NYSRPA v Bruen case as a potential bail out for those who have been recently denied and for those interested in Constitutional Rights.

My comment was meant to provide a dose of reality so that speculation stops and we continue to live in the here and now.

[Rpak562]

Yes, this is ok.

I hope you're right lol

[Lockdown.-]

I don't think his flip flopping. The department is still issuing. Just clamping down on "I go on hikes with a camera" gCs

[cupobutter]

I don't think his flip flopping. The department is still issuing. Just clamping down on "I go on hikes with a camera" gCs

Agree, I don't see it as flip flopping, just a greater emphasis on solid yellow

[thethreegs]

N/A

[No.11]

Not terribly interested in debating this so I'll say this piece. Yellow suddenly became available earlier this year. People with yellow were able to get issued. Now yellow suddenly became unavailable. Imagine you were in a window where the exact same GC issued people but you were not issued. That would be flip flopping to YOU, right?

Now replace yellow with green. Perhaps it does not appear like flip flopping to some because it does not affect THEM. The moment it does, your tune would likely change.

Could be the LT has made this decision on her own and AV isn't even in the loop on it, just like he didn't know that the process was taking longer than 60 days. It would seem to make sense considering the change of LT recently.

[meanspartan]

Yup. That's why just because you have been given a livescan and told to proceed with training doesn't guarantee issue. You still have to get through the LT. The new LT was probably instructed to be hyper strict.

And if this news is true, which we have already seen is likely, then that is a huge sour to CCW and reflects extraordinarily poorly towards Villanueva. You can guarantee I and MANY others wouldn't be supporting a guy like that. Low transparency, flip flopping and inconsistency. I have a friend who has a near identical application GC/GMC and he was issued. He happened to apply earlier than me. I know for a fact that there is another forum member that as was issued as well with near identical GC.

I have already stated this but timing and luck may have MORE to do with issue than the actual content of your GMC and GC itself. This is not how you gain the confidence of the people who support you. Sorry, it's just not. It's great that Villanueva opened up CCW at all - but if you open up to issue only to flip flop months later. Well, that's not how you win the people. I scoffed at the idea that this was politically fueled but now it's sadly looking so.

It makes sense - all the LG guys on this forum have not been given the proceed to training. Stuck in purgatory. Pretty sure those denials are coming soon. I will eat crow if I am wrong.

Same here. I'm happy I got my permit (I was yellow), but to loosen it up so some people with green GC get the permit, but then to close it up just as quickly, is almost worse than never issuing to greens at all, because you are treating people unequally based on just lucky timing. Ironically, Villanueva still would have gotten praise for moving LA from red to yellow and stopping there. But going all the way to green then reversing is an awful look and makes it all appear like his real goal was hitting some quota to piss off the county board.

Unless the person who runs against Villanueva is openly hostile to CCW entirely and would take LA back to no-issue, then I will vote against Villanueva at this point. This is disgusting behavior. If anyone from LASD follows this thread and this new LT is acting against Villanueva's wishes, tell the Sheriff to get his underlings in line, in which case I'll happily vote for him. But I doubt that's the case, this reversal probably came from the top. It's bad enough our constitutional right to bear arms is subject to a government veto, but it at least should not be an arbitrary process (which takes longer than the 90 day time limit California law requires) that gives people false hope.

I hope SCOTUS moots the issue this year by requiring at least shall-issue across the board, but we'll see.