California CCW Shall Issue

[Hopalong]

Of course this is the case, nothing is ever 100%.

But GENERALLY SPEAKING, with California's population around 38 million, and about 42,000 CCWs issued, I'd bet there are millions of people who would argue that "no guns for law abiding citizens" rings more true than false.

Most LEOs who have chimed in here seem to be saying that many rank and file officers are pro CCW,(nothing is ever 100%) but once reaching chief or sheriff, their views change.

My question is, and the point of this thread is, if not for politics, then how did this epiphany come about?

And if there is any truth to the fact that politics has played a major role, if politics were removed from the equation, why wouldn't these sheriffs and chiefs feel a sense of relief?

What I can't figure out is this.

It seems to me that most LEOs are conservative, tough on crime, law and order kind of guys. Tough, hard working, noble profession, public servant, maybe some military.

Not really a job somebody gets "just for the heck of it"; but more intrinsic.

Wether they grew up in Arizona or California.

Hardly the types that would be in cahoots with liberal politicians.

Unless, of course, they are motivated by ambition and power, in this state. (I know there are exceptions)

It seems to me that sheriffs or chiefs in Arizona are more "intrinsically" alike than not, to their counterparts here in California.

So, the fact that sheriffs and chiefs in Arizona or Texas are fine with CCW issue, while most sheriffs here are not,( I know there are exceptions) makes no sense to me.

Except for politics.

[yzErnie]

Keep in mind that I am all for responsible CCW and while I may not necessarily agree with it I truly understand some Sheriff's and Chief's logic behind their decisions. We have all seen this in today's society people seem to be of the belief that they are not responsible for their own actions and can blame whatever they do on some outside influence, being beaten as a child, narcotic/alcohol influence or whatnot. From my perspective as a life long street cop is many in management believe the requirement for responsible CCW rests with them and not the CCW holder. Simply put, many in management are unwilling to issue based upon that uninformed and misguided belief.

I truly believe most of the management is pro CCW but only behind closed doors and not in public. It would be viable for them to skirt any liability because the CCW holder has to take classes AND prove proficiency with their firearms at a law enforcement range before the CCW will be issued. IMHO, what intimidates management is the fact of a 'I'm gonna sue you' society and the deep pocket theory.

Having said that, I'm all for responsible CCW and I believe the overwhelming majority of street cops are for it as well. There have been times in my career where unlawful CCW was overlooked because what the citizen did was the right thing. Sometimes, the street runs both ways!!

[Hopalong]

Keep in mind that I am all for responsible CCW and while I may not necessarily agree with it I truly understand some Sheriff's and Chief's logic behind their decisions. We have all seen this in today's society people seem to be of the belief that they are not responsible for their own actions and can blame whatever they do on some outside influence, being beaten as a child, narcotic/alcohol influence or whatnot. From my perspective as a life long street cop is many in management believe the requirement for responsible CCW rests with them and not the CCW holder. Simply put, many in management are unwilling to issue based upon that uninformed and misguided belief.

I truly believe most of the management is pro CCW but only behind closed doors and not in public. It would be viable for them to skirt any liability because the CCW holder has to take classes AND prove proficiency with their firearms at a law enforcement range before the CCW will be issued. IMHO, what intimidates management is the fact of a 'I'm gonna sue you' society and the deep pocket theory.

Having said that, I'm all for responsible CCW and I believe the overwhelming majority of street cops are for it as well. There have been times in my career where unlawful CCW was overlooked because what the citizen did was the right thing. Sometimes, the street runs both ways!!

We, sir, are on the same page.

I may not be as clear with my words as I could be, but I am trying, really, to stick up for these sheriffs and chiefs as well.

Isn't it true, even today, that LE relies on the decent citizenry to solve most of the crimes?

[Notorious]

Plain and simple. It's the L word. LIABILITY.

If I issue this CCW, would I have to spend money to defend my actions later in court and possibly lose my job?

Sheriffs and Chiefs can do all the due diligence but unscrupolous lawyers (is there any other kind?) can file any suit they want. Even if the suit is meritless, they can still file and the agency has to incur time and expense to defend it. If you settle to avoid the costs, then there will always be an incentive to sue. But that's the reality of the game.

A plaintiff's lawyer can file a civil case for $200 or even get the fee waived for an indigent plaintiff. The response alone for an agency will cost many times that, even if they have their own staff attorney since it takes time to work it up, along with the meetings that have to take place, which takes time and salaries.

A Chief also answers to the City manager or mayor and the politics get inserted there. A chief may be pro-gun, but his bosses aren't. The Sheriff is a bit more autonomous but he still has the County Board of Supervisors to wrestle with for funding. Either way, there is a lot of politics everywhere. As we know, how many politicians can you trust?

When your livelihood is on the line, you would be apt to err on the side of caution to not anger those in charge and your career longevity. I can see why the higher ups do the things they do. You would too if you were in their shoes. What price would you pay to issue CCW's when you know you are taking a risk with your livelihood if it was unpopular? How many would die on that hill? Would you?

[Hopalong]

I understand your argument and agree.

It's no wonder why the sheriffs/chiefs behave the way they do under the present system, but...

Are you saying, that even if state law was shall issue, and the politics removed, that the sheriff/chief could still be held liable , and sued, if someone with a CCW did something stupid?

If that was the case, then what do these other shall issue states do?

Do they have a central issuing agency to issue CCWs? ( I guess they must, since they issue to non residents)

Could the DOJ take over something like this? Seems like they are already in the gun business anyway.

The DMV issues deadly weapons to idiots everyday and they are not held liable.

It seems to me that it would be a relief to a sheriff to be protected by something like that.

These sheriffs are getting sued if they do, and sued if they don't.

[yzErnie]

Yep, a catch 22 in the true form. I would like to think a shall issue would eliminate the apprehensive mindset of some but it would have to be a wait and see situation. I don't honestly think the lead set by Arizona would ever come into place here in California.

[GuyW]

Plain and simple. It's the L word. LIABILITY....

Nope. CA statute and case law all say that government officials have no liability for "honestly" exercising their discretion.

.

[MP301]

Nope. CA statute and case law all say that government officials have no liability for "honestly" exercising their discretion.

.

This.

I could be wrong, but i am sure at some point someone that was issued a CCW has shot someone...and this being CA, it stands to reason that if you shoot someone you will get sued...and I have never heard of a CLEO getting sued for lawfully issuing a CCW..., IIRC, they have immunity from liability when they issue CCW's.

However, although they might not have liability as far as the law is concerned, they do have political liability and public opinion. A Chief can get fired and a Sheriff can lose re-election.

I think that, although they will lose the issuing only to thier cronies, if CA goes shall issue they will be all be happier. They will lose the political liability.. "Hey, I had to issue him a CCW, it's the law...dont blame me."

[Triad]

The county I work for issues more ccw permits than all others combined last I checked, so dealing with those who do ccw is pretty common especcially in the sticks out here. I am very pro ccw and both of my parents applied for and received their permits. I'd like to see them issued to those who want them and legally qualify to apply for one.

[Notorious]

Nope. CA statute and case law all say that government officials have no liability for "honestly" exercising their discretion.

.

This.

I could be wrong, but i am sure at some point someone that was issued a CCW has shot someone...and this being CA, it stands to reason that if you shoot someone you will get sued...and I have never heard of a CLEO getting sued for lawfully issuing a CCW..., IIRC, they have immunity from liability when they issue CCW's.

However, although they might not have liability as far as the law is concerned, they do have political liability and public opinion. A Chief can get fired and a Sheriff can lose re-election.

I think that, although they will lose the issuing only to thier cronies, if CA goes shall issue they will be all be happier. They will lose the political liability.. "Hey, I had to issue him a CCW, it's the law...dont blame me."

You guys are right as far as the letter of the law on the books. Government officials, including line patrol officers, are immune from liability when they exercise discretion within their scope of duty.

So... tell me when an officer uses force in the line of duty, especially deadly force, do the throngs of liability lawyers just throw their hands up and say, "well, it's within his discretion to use force in his job." and walk away or do the lawyers sue anyway? How about pursuits? How about anything a cop does that is within his discretion? You ever see a cop sued for doing his job? I bet you have.

You still have to face a lawsuit to defend your actions, if you are sued. You have to prove you did not abuse your discretion. If you issue to one and not to another... then you have discrimination issues, favoritism, cronyism, etc., among others. Wouldn't it be simpler to just not issue than face potential headaches?