Los Angeles

[thethreegs]

N/A

[LrdVaderZ]

@pacrat To be fair, it would probably be best to look at what adjacent counties with high numbers are doing. I don't know for sure but I don't think they are hiring non officers to do the admin work. Doesn't OC have 60,000+ ccw'ers for 1/3rd the population?

The move is Permitium. They are going to do it it's just taking forever for whatever reason. LASD is still taking snail mail and processing by hand. That alone is an incredibly inefficient waste of resources. They will still have to keep interviews as part of the process, per Villanueva, but your actual application details, upload of relevant paperwork, and appointment scheduling can all be automated. With GC gone, they don't need a Sheriff to arbitrarily decide and deem anymore, it's just waiting for interview to confirm and waiting for backgrounds to clear. I bet that move alone would cut the time in half if not more.

Exactly - with that thing up and running, it could handle the clerical mess as well as (if it can accept ATI number) handle LiveScan stuff, so deputies would only have to do interviews, which in many cases can be done remotely, since proofs/etc can also be uploaded straight into system.

[ezaircon4jc]

...Today I also met Sheriff Alex Villanueva. We asked about the CCW question. He answered that now, more than 10k applicants, but only 9 people work in the CCW unit.

Does the loss of funding have anything to do with this?

[pacrat]

@Pacrat I only bring this up because that is was a deputy who works directly with the CCW unit told me. I have been issued already but I called to find out more info for those who have been denied due to lack of GC and were thinking of reapplying before their 1 year mark.


@cmarcc the problem with that is, what if you just get a denial letter for not waiting the 1 year period (not saying you'll get denied, just a thought) then you just set yourself back another year.

^^^I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT^^^ Does not change the rumor situation. Thus far, only Bonta and V, can say for sure. And neither are talking. I made no attempt to impeach your statement, or cast aspersion on your character. I believe you heard exactly what you said.

[dawgcasa]

@Pacrat I only bring this up because that is was a deputy who works directly with the CCW unit told me. I have been issued already but I called to find out more info for those who have been denied due to lack of GC and were thinking of reapplying before their 1 year mark.


@cmarcc the problem with that is, what if you just get a denial letter for not waiting the 1 year period (not saying you'll get denied, just a thought) then you just set yourself back another year.

That may be what the deputy said … but if that is the official policy, it won’t take long before it is exposed by someone with a law degree as yet another attempt at a prior restraint, with threat of a lawsuit attached. I mean, previous to NYSRPA they used good cause to discriminate the right to carry into a practical ban. Then NYSRPA said such discrimination is unconstitutional. So LASD is going to turn around and say “good cause is no longer required, but if you were denied for previously not having sufficient good cause, you must now wait ONE YEAR before you can apply again”? That’s just replacing good cause with yet another means of denying you your right to carry … another ban … and what about the 14th amendment implications of ‘unequal’ treatment? If someone is applying for the first time, they get through the process? But if your right was unconstitutionally denied to you previously because of the illegal subjective good cause standard you can’t reapply for a year? That’s just crazy … and it means that deputy doesn’t have a brain, or he’s just following orders of someone that doesn’t have a brain.

No … I would hope one of the gun rights groups would quickly smack the LASD in the head with a lawsuit over that.

[pacrat]

@pacrat To be fair, it would probably be best to look at what adjacent counties with high numbers are doing. I don't know for sure but I don't think they are hiring non officers to do the admin work. Doesn't OC have 60,000+ ccw'ers for 1/3rd the population?

The move is Permitium. They are going to do it it's just taking forever for whatever reason. LASD is still taking snail mail and processing by hand. That alone is an incredibly inefficient waste of resources. They will still have to keep interviews as part of the process, per Villanueva, but your actual application details, upload of relevant paperwork, and appointment scheduling can all be automated. With GC gone, they don't need a Sheriff to arbitrarily decide and deem anymore, it's just waiting for interview to confirm and waiting for backgrounds to clear. I bet that move alone would cut the time in half if not more.

"V is using "staffing as an excuse". Imagine 20 clerks doing the secretarial crap. Rather than 9 deputies. I see no down side, and lots of TAX dollars saved.

Neither FBI nor CaDOJ, have sworn Special Agents or Sworn LE Officers doing clerical work on BG checks. They have CLERKS. And that is who is doing the ACTUAL BG checks for V and every other sheriff in Ca.

FBI rap sheet takes minutes. DOJ takes 3 MONTHS minimum at this time. Check other CCW county threads. ACCORDING to Barnes. As of 7-1-22, OC has 17,245 current CCW. See OC thread, post #4407.

DOJ's intentional and IMO illegal foot dragging is not on V. They are running same time line in all counties. That is Dem Leftists in Excremento.

I do agree with computerizing the system. Even if no help to me, I have a lap top only. No scanner, printer, or fax.

V could do a lot more to resolve his self created staffing issue And save a lot of money. And 7 more Deps on duty, rather than playing secretary, would be better resource management Re crime control. But then he wouldn't have that particular lame excuse. Would he?

V and Barnes both took office in 2018. V is NOT a friend of 2A. Or he would have gone SHALL before being forced to. He was only better than previous Dicks. In ONLY 1 category of GC, "business/employment". Just enough to get 2A votes.

[LARES]

@Pacrat I wasn't issued for business/employment and I was issued January if this year.
GC: based on me traveling to work but nothing I do for work directly puts me in danger

[ezaircon4jc]

...They have CLERKS. And that is who is doing the ACTUAL BG checks for V and every other sheriff in CA...

My niece does background checks in NV. She says she's been swamped for a while.

[pacrat]

@Pacrat I wasn't issued for business/employment and I was issued January if this year.
GC: based on me traveling to work but nothing I do for work directly puts me in danger

Yes, Lares I remember your issuance and GC. I'm old but not senile. At least not yet.

You were an exception. You had the "hook" of being a LA County Employee.

It wasn't the work, it was the hook, and driving around at night, was the excuse to make the exception. So still just barely employment related.

[LARES]

@Pacrat back then I would have agreed with you but not after a friend from a different department was denied. I don't think being an employee of the county has anything to do with it

[pacrat]

@Pacrat back then I would have agreed with you but not after a friend from a different department was denied. I don't think being an employee of the county has anything to do with it

With new info lets re-evaluate. Did the denied employee get nigh time call outs?

[Chatsworth12345]

Do you still need a denial letter from LAPD?

As of April 2021, you do NOT need a denial letter from LAPD. Apply directly to LASD if you live in LA County.

Thank you for this information, but do you have any articles that show this? I am moving from Ventura County to Chatsworth and am applying and the only information I have is from the LASD website that reads you need to be rejected from LAPD before applying through LASD. LAPD isn't responding to me and LASD hasn't responded either. I went to the station and asked the deputy and she didn't know the answer either. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

[LARES]

@Pacrat yes but not as often.

[LARES]

Let me rephrase something, I meant to say same department different division

[pacrat]

@Pacrat yes but not as often.

Let me rephrase something, I meant to say same department different division

So MAYBE, it wasn't a matter of policy guidelines, or job description circumstances, or Cnty employment. Leaving one to consider that it was just an arbitrary subjective call made on the basis of one deputy's OPINION.

All the more reason to rejoice the Bruen THT criteria.

Now the DemTurds in Excremento are PIMP'n HARD for increased GMC Scrutiny to maintain power to deny. Even though GMC is also required to meet "THT" parameter.