(CA) Sheriff revokes concealed weapon license of former challenger


PDA






Drizzt
June 17, 2006, 07:14 PM
Sheriff revokes concealed weapon license of former challenger
Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - Sheriff Lee Baca revoked the concealed weapons license of a retired captain from his department who ran against him unsuccessfully in the June 6 election.

Capt. Ken Masse, a 35-year veteran of the sheriff's department who retired last year, was notified two days after the election that his license had been revoked.

Undersheriff Larry Waldie notified Masse of the move, saying that his campaign "may have damaged the public's confidence in this agency."

Masse's lawyer called the revocation "blatant retaliation."

Law enforcement officers are generally given a concealed weapons license after retirement in California, but the credentials can be revoked after a showing of "good cause," usually for criminal misconduct.

"It happens when there's dangerous conduct, not when somebody is engaged in politics," Masse's attorney Dieter Dammeier told the Los Angeles Times . "I think it's absurd in this day and age that you'd have a public official who'd think you can retaliate against someone who opposed you. It's something you'd expect in junior high, not the L.A. Sheriff's Department."

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said the decision was justified.

"This has nothing to do with retaliation or curbing one's democratic right to freedom of speech," he said. "This has to do with misusing department data and mechanisms."

In a letter revoking the permit, Waldie said Masse unlawfully sought contributions from deputies, and that he inappropriately used department data to contact them at home.

Masse acknowledged soliciting the donations, saying he was unaware of state campaign law prohibiting candidates from seeking contributions from those who would work under them.

Officials warned Masse during the election that he may have violated the law, but did not file charges.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/14842701.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "(CA) Sheriff revokes concealed weapon license of former challenger" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Monkeyleg
June 17, 2006, 07:38 PM
What's that old saying about absolute power?

And what's with this? "Law enforcement officers are generally given a concealed weapons license after retirement in California..."

Can any CA members verify this?

Zundfolge
June 17, 2006, 08:02 PM
If this doesn't underline the fact that May Issue is a tool of government corruption, I don't know what would.

Sergeant Bob
June 17, 2006, 08:54 PM
I wonder if he complains just as loudly when "civilians" permits are denied or revoked?

Somehow I have trouble feeling any sympathy for law enforcement who would deny the people they work for the same rights they have.

PinnedAndRecessed
June 17, 2006, 09:03 PM
Can any CA members verify this?


I lived in Kal until a few months ago. The retired LEOs I knew, had permits for CCW.

1911Tuner
June 17, 2006, 09:37 PM
A 35-year veteran LEO makes enemies along the way. Revoking his carry permit is unacceptable...no matter what the politics are.

Standing Wolf
June 17, 2006, 10:17 PM
I wonder if he complains just as loudly when "civilians" permits are denied or revoked?

Well, no, but commoners aren't special people, don't you know?

taliv
June 17, 2006, 10:36 PM
wait... i thought the LA Sheriff's Dept says the best course of action, when threatened by an enemy is to call 911 or to not attempt to resist. why would he want a gun in the first place?

isp2605
June 17, 2006, 10:40 PM
As a retired LEO why does he even worry about a CCW? It's only good in CA and any state that recognizes CA CCW. As a retired LEO he can carry in any state with LEOSA.

mp510
June 18, 2006, 12:05 AM
Capt. Ken Masse, a 35-year veteran of the sheriff's department who retired last year, was notified two days after the election that his license had been revoked.

Shouldn't he be eligible for a retiree permit under the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, since he was on the job way longer than the minimum 15 years?

Pilgrim
June 18, 2006, 12:16 AM
H.R. 218 does not confer a right to carry. It only extends it to the other 49 states. If the retiree's employing agency revokes that authority to carry, then the retiree has no authority anywhere.

Pilgrim

SAG0282
June 18, 2006, 12:26 AM
Masse's potential politics and RKBA stance aside, hopefully he'll fight and win this one.

isp2605
June 18, 2006, 12:30 AM
LEOSA (HR218) does grant him the right to carry in his state, all 50 states, and territories. Your retiree agency doesn't have anything to do, nor does it grant, the right for a retiree to carry. As long as he's retired in good standing and met the other requirements of LEOSA then his former agency doesn't have anything to say about it. They can't unretire him. Also, his retiring agency does not have anything to do with authorizing his right to carry as a retiree. LEOSA does that.
The article said he served 35 yrs and retired. Therefore it appears he met all of the requirements listed by the law. The only other thing he would have to do on an annual basis would be to meet the qualification standards.

The following is LEOSA concerning retirees. No where does LEOSA have anything to say about a retiree's agency conferring a right to carry. As long as he meets 1-7 then he is eligible under LEOSA.

--Chapter 44 Title 18, United States Code, 926B--
As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law
enforcement officer' means an individual who--
``(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;
``(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest;
``(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or
``(B) retired from service with such agency, after
completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;
``(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;
``(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;
``(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
``(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

DoubleTapDrew
June 18, 2006, 12:53 AM
"This has nothing to do with retaliation or curbing one's democratic right to freedom of speech," he said. "This has to do with misusing department data and mechanisms."

What does that have to do with his CCW? Doesn't sound like a violent act.

atlctyslkr
June 18, 2006, 10:20 AM
I am sure that there are plenty of departments out there that would love to have this guy and put him on reserve status (giving him full law enforcment powers). There are alot of reserve sherriff's here and they have the same powers as any other law enforcement officer. Some of them are in their 80's!

crazed_ss
June 18, 2006, 10:55 AM
Well, I cant say I'm too broken up over this.
If I cant have a CCW, this retired guy shoudlnt have one either. He's not perfoming LEO duties anymore.. he's just a regular guy.

Punkermonkey
June 18, 2006, 01:37 PM
Monkeyleg -

And what's with this? "Law enforcement officers are generally given a concealed weapons license after retirement in California..."

Can any CA members verify this?

Most retired LEO's in California receive a type of department ID from their former agency. The ID shows that they are retired and can be stamped "CCW Approved" - in red ink. Active and Retired LEO's do have the option to get a CCW from most any agency in CA. Most sheriff and police agencies policies are shall issue to active and retired LEO's. Don't quote me on this but I also believe that according to the State penal code (12050 and 12025) it is shall issue as well.

Oh, and it looks like Baca is taking his queue from Corona, whom just punished his campaign rival.

Jim March
June 18, 2006, 05:01 PM
Retired law enforcement CCW is handled under PC12027, basically a shall-issue system. Reservists and the general public are handled under PC12050-54, a may-issue system.

:barf:

Jim March
June 18, 2006, 08:14 PM
Oh yeah...almost forgot. The latest news about Baca is that he's a Scientologist.

:scrutiny:

gunsmith
June 18, 2006, 08:39 PM
says he can carry , right?

he seems to meet the requirements.

isp2605
June 19, 2006, 12:11 AM
"still, hr218 says he can carry , right?
he seems to meet the requirements."

From the info in the article it would appear you are correct.

DoubleTapDrew
June 19, 2006, 12:36 AM
"still, hr218 says he can carry , right?
he seems to meet the requirements."

From the info in the article it would appear you are correct.

Yes but he is in the PRK. Your rights are determined by the presiding dictator, not by the bill of rights, and they can be taken away at will. :barf:

isp2605
June 19, 2006, 12:43 AM
Read my previous post where I listed the section of LEOSA that pertains to retirees. PRK has nothing to say about it. It's a federal law. As long as he can meet the 7 items for retirees then it doesn't matter what his former agency says or the PRK.

Hawkmoon
June 19, 2006, 12:45 AM
Yes but he is in the PRK. Your rights are determined by the presiding dictator, not by the bill of rights, and they can be taken away at will.
H.R. 218 is fderal law -- the Peoples' Republik of ********** cannot override it or cancel it.

What they can do is make it difficult or impossible for him to meet all the requirements of H.R. 218 -- for example, they might deny him access to qualifying, and annual qualification is one of the requirements.

Pilgrim
June 19, 2006, 12:52 AM
Retired law enforcement CCW is handled under PC12027, basically a shall-issue system. Reservists and the general public are handled under PC12050-54, a may-issue system.
A Sheriff or Chief of Police may deny CCW to a retiree if the retiree retired under a mental stress disability or retired so he wouldn't be fired.

A Sheriff or Chief of Police may also revoke a previously issued CCW of a retiree if the retiree does something with his firearm that would have caused him to be fired were he still employed.

Pilgrim

Rumpled
June 20, 2006, 02:27 AM
All I gotta say is Baca and Carona are both chicken caca on their recent actions against their opponents.

Double Naught Spy
June 20, 2006, 08:47 AM
Something doesn't add up from the posts. Why would Masse have a CCW if he didn't need one under HR218 or what would the big deal be about having one rejected if he didn't need one under HR218? Obviously, something isn't right or isn't congruent. Either HR218 doesn't actually apply or somebody is making a big to-do about nothing since Masse could still carry under HR218.

Erebus
June 20, 2006, 09:31 AM
What does that have to do with his CCW? Doesn't sound like a violent act.

It also appears he is being punished for commiting an act he hasn't even been formally accused of, nevermind convicted.

Jim March
June 20, 2006, 11:53 AM
Why would you assume Masse knows about 218, or at least it's full implications?

I would assume he doesn't! He's had a carry permit under PC12027, that's all he needed to know. He's not a gun guy, he doesn't study every new Fed gun law. If he knows about 218 at all he probably thinks it gives him interstate carry rights based on his 12027 permit.

Daniel T
June 20, 2006, 12:49 PM
Why would you assume Masse knows about 218, or at least it's full implications?

I agree. We know about this stuff because it's our hobby and/or lifestyle and we talk about it all day long. Suprisingly, most other people don't. ;)

Fletchette
June 20, 2006, 02:14 PM
It just sucks to be one of the commoners, doesn't it?

Everybody, not just police officers, makes enemies along the way, so I don't think this guy should get any special privilages.

Of course, keeping and bearing an arm is not supposed to be a "privilage". Maybe this cop will start to get a clue.

fastbolt
June 20, 2006, 02:30 PM
Interesting link to find different CA codes. Handy at times.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

CA retirement ID cards for peace officers are issued every 5 years. Whether or not the retired peace officer has the authorization to carry a concealed and loaded firearm is indicated on the ID card (as it is for currently employed peace officers, FWIW).

A CCW license under CA state law is something different.

Read PC 12027.1 if you want to learn more about retired peace officers and their ability to carry a concealed and loaded firearm ... but here's an excerpt from it that may be interesting to some of you ...

(2) A retired peace officer may have his or her privilege to carry
a concealed and loaded firearm revoked or denied by violating any
departmental rule, or state or federal law that, if violated by an
officer on active duty, would result in that officer's arrest,
suspension, or removal from the agency.

Frohickey
June 20, 2006, 02:37 PM
I bet Masse now wishes that California is a Shall-Issue state.

Don Gwinn
June 20, 2006, 07:36 PM
Maybe I've just been lied to by too many politicians, but I must admit I kind of liked Masse's statement on shall-issue CCW even though it wasn't quite what I would hope to hear:

I am not prepared at this time to declare that LA County will be a "shall issue" county. That does not mean that this could not change in the future. I am just not willing to promise something that I will not be able to deliver on at a later date. I have always prided myself on being a man of my word and have made it a practice to follow through on my promises. I would ask you to keep in mind that this is a huge issue for LA County and that there are a lot of people who would vehemently oppose a candidate who was declaring that he would make Los Angeles a shall issue county as part of his campaign platform.

I spent my entire 35 year law enforcement career with the Sheriff's Department and have worked with literally thousands of LASD personnel, both sworn and professional staff. When the deputies' union, ALADS, recently voted to endorse a candidate for Sheriff, the incumbent received less than 10% of their votes. You may be interested to knowing that I was the deputies' choice to be their next Sheriff. They know me and what I stand for and they know that I will be the Sheriff who will ensure they have the tools needed to do their jobs. I can assure you that once you meet me you will be of the same opinion. I believe I am the type of Sheriff you will want to serve under.

50 Freak
June 20, 2006, 07:58 PM
It just sucks to be one of the commoners, doesn't it?

Hate to say it, but if 99% of CA's citizens can't get a CCW, I don't think just because you're a retired LE, you should automatically be entitled to on.

Don't recall seeing anything in the Constitution about first and second class citizenship.

dav
June 22, 2006, 05:21 PM
Read my previous post where I listed the section of LEOSA that pertains to retirees. PRK has nothing to say about it. It's a federal law. As long as he can meet the 7 items for retirees then it doesn't matter what his former agency says or the PRK.
I don't wish to be rude, but I laughed out loud when I read this one. Probably that was its intent.

Seriously, is there any law, anywhere, that any government official isn't willing to violate at whim?

If you enjoyed reading about "(CA) Sheriff revokes concealed weapon license of former challenger" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!