1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Good cause - Los Angeles County, CA?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by dirtbos, Aug 29, 2005.

  1. dirtbos

    dirtbos New Member

    Jan 10, 2003
    Southern California, surrounded by the enemy.
    The Packing.org site has added a statement that Los Angeles County, CA is more inclined to issue (with good cause, etc.). This is coming from the rank and file officers, according to the site. Has anyone had success? Is anyone aware of what constitutes "good cause" in LA County?
  2. DeseoUnTaco

    DeseoUnTaco Member

    Jun 26, 2005
    Hello DB,

    I've been tracking and working on Los Angeles CCW. In fact I'm going to start a website just for this issue. Here's the scoop so far:

    According to DoJ records (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ccwissuances.pdf) , there were 1391 permits issued in Los Angeles in 2003. Los Angeles County has a population of about 10mil. City police chiefs may issue permits, but it's well-known that they rarely do in Los Angles county, so we can make a fairly good estimate that there are 2,000 or fewer CCW holders in LA County. That's out of 10mil people. In states which have gone shall-issue (ie, most of the US) very aproximately 1% of the population ends up getting CCW permits, so if LA is similar (which it is) you would expect about 100,000 CCW permits, not 2,000 permits. (As a side note, it is well-known that for people who need to carry guns, such as private investigators, etc, but don't have the juice to get a permit in LA, they establish a residence in some other county and get their permit that way, so there are probably much more than 2,000 people who live in LAC who have permits, just most of them are not issued by LAC.)

    In other words, out of every fifty people you would expect to have / apply for a permit, only one has it here, so the natural question is, what's different about this one person vs. the other 49 who didn't get it (or didn't bother to apply because they knew they wouldn't get it).

    Jim March put in a California public records request to get information from Sheriff Baca about who has permits and why (cause statements). That's all public information. Sheriff Baca has not responded. Jim is suing the CA DoJ to force them to hand over the information. That's good. As soon as he gets it, I'll pester him until he gives it to me, and then I'll dig up all of Sheriff Baca's campaign finance records, have them data-entered, and put it all together on a nice website.

    Once all that is in place you'll be able to see who has permits, who was rejected, and how much money people did (or did not) contribute to the Friends of Sheriff Baca fund.

    Back to your original question: Yes, LAC is "more inclined" than San Francisco, which has issued about ten permits, but it's far from shall issue. For comparison, Orange County, with a population of 2.8mil and a lot less blacks than LAC, has 1225 permit holders.


    Los Angeles county CCW: one per 7200
    Orange County CCW: one per 2300
    (A typical shall-issue state: one per 100)

    So, if you want a CCW in California, choose a county that doesn't have very many blacks!

    Also, another note, probably a lot of people in CA carry without permits. At worst, it's a misdemeanor, and it's all at the discretion of the officer, who might make a decision to let it go.

    I would give Sheriff Baca a "D" rating, not an "F". I would give the sheriff of San Francisco an "F". A few of the rural sheriffs in CA get "A"s. I would like to see Sheriff Baca start doing a better job and improving his grade, or else get a more competent person for the job.
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2005
  3. Jim March

    Jim March Mentor

    Dec 24, 2002
    SF Bay Area
    The DOJ data in question combines the sheriff's permit issuance with ALL of the towns in the county. So Baca is AT BEST a "D----".

  4. DeseoUnTaco

    DeseoUnTaco Member

    Jun 26, 2005
    Ah, good point. I don't know if I can really give Sheriff Baca a full-strength F. That honor is reserved for one man, and one man only:
    Sheriff Michael Hennessey of San Francisco.

    To be fair to Sheriff Hennessey, we should break up the grade into two grades, like this:

    Sheriff Baca: D- on issuance (he issues some permits) and an F on corruption (he collects MILLIONS of dollars in his campaign funds, based to some extent on selling permits)

    Sheriff Hennessey: F on issuance. He only issues permits to criminal judges, DAs, that kind of thing, and rarely at that. A on corruption. He is not using permits as political favors or to expand his campaign fund. Not that his issuance policies matter; I'm sure that all the PIs, bailbondsmen, etc, in SF have "residences" in some nearby rural counties. The only people this affects are people like cab drivers, women who work the night shift somewhere and have to wait for the bus, those kind of people who can't afford to set up a nominal residence somewhere else and go through all that.

    I guess when you add it up, I do respect Sheriff Hennessey more.

    Ok, as soon as you get your data from the DoJ I'm going to expose everything there is to expose, with a database that correlates campaign finance with permits in LA. Then we'll see what happens.
    Yes, I also agree with that.

Share This Page