Interesting California situation in progress...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Superpsy

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
463
Location
Central OH
I didn't see this anywhere so here goes...

From http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=105421

It was my pleasure to help bring together various employees of Torrance. You could actually feel the love in the City Hall Council Chambers as they each received personal copies of the Federal Complaint. What made this so exciting for City Council members is that they were served both individually as civilians and in their official capacities.

Served Chief Neu at PD HQ after waiting for 45 minutes in the lobby while he was in an important meeting. Lobby officer asked me to make an appointment to serve him. Told her it does not work that way. I would sit for a reasonable time and if he did not come out I would go by his home later and serve him there. I like to be as accommodating as possible.

I went to a dinner at El Pollo Inca, in Lawndale which I highly recommend if you like Peruvian food. Went to Council Chambers at 1845 prior to session beginning at 1900. Client was with me seated in the back of the room. I began serving Council Members when I was promptly approached by the City Attorney who told me I could not serve them there. I attempted to explain Federal guidelines for personal service of process as he had apparently not received the memo. He copped an attitude and then walked away. While he was gone from the Chamber I managed to serve the City via the City Clerk and one Council Woman.

At this time the Chief, out of my line of vision directed the uniformed officer to approach me while I was on the dias where various Contractor lizards with business with the city had been standing previously. I was informed that I was not allowed up there. I noted there was no sign to that effect and I would refrain from doing so if it would make them happy. My client noted him looking past me for instructions from the Chief and or his Command Staff who had now gathered at the side glass partition.

City Attorney returned, having gained his composure and said he was authorized to accept for remaining Council members in both capacities. I told him I wanted a witness to that effect. I called the City Clerk, Sue Herbers over. She is a nice, pleasant person who did not seem to share the animosity towards me that seemed to permeate the room. I had the City Attorney repeat what he said he was authorized to do and I provided him the remaining copies and left the Chamber.

On our way for and at coffee my Client and I discussed the fact that the Laker game would probably not be the most important topic at home this evening for the Chief and his Command staff, let alone the Council members.

When the City Attorney told me I could not serve Federal documents in the PUBLIC CITY HALL COUNCIL MEETING ROOM I had a Doctor Strangelove "You men can't fight here, this is the War Room" moment.

All and All I came away with the impression that I was not terribly liked in that city at that moment. I was informed, I had attitude and I was not about to back down to a bunch of folks that are so stupid that when they send out the Application and CCW Policy, it comes with a cover letter stating it is there long standing policy not to issue CCW's.

Thats right, they tell you in writing they are going to violate state and Federal law with regards to your application. Sure made my job a lot easier.

I see our Webmaster is back in the provinces so we shall have additional information on this case up at www.californiaconcealedcarry.com in a few days. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to post them here.

In closing I must add in Gene Pitney style: "It isn't very pretty, what a town without a legal policy can do.......

Billy Jack (Former resident of Torrance. Who said you can't go home? I just did and it was sweet beyond belief!)
 
I will be very interested in seeing how this goes. Thanks for posting it and keep us informed of your progress.

Just to be clear...this is not me. I just read this on another forum and wanted to share.
 
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_9569649

Here is a story about the suit:
Gun permits sought in suit
TORRANCE: Civil rights case challenges long-standing policy.
By Nick Green, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 06/12/2008 11:41:34 PM PDT

RELATED LINKS:
# » Learn more about state's CCW laws
# » FAQs about state's gun laws
# » NRA guide to gun laws and CCW permits

A Torrance man has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city for its long-standing policy of not issuing concealed weapons permits.

Also named in the suit were Torrance Police Chief John Neu and all seven members of the City Council.

The chief, mayor and city attorney all declined to comment on the lawsuit they were served with Tuesday.

David W. Spears, 43, alleges the policy is in "willful disregard of the law" and seeks to overturn it.

Spears, a revenue investigator for the city of Lynwood who lives in Torrance, sought the permit for his .45 caliber subcompact Glock pistol.

Spears said in his lawsuit he is often "accosted, confronted and threatened by hostile individuals and would-be criminals demanding money" in the course of his duties, as well as when he is off-duty in Torrance.

He stated he needs the gun to protect himself, and contends he meets all the requirements for a concealed weapons permit.

That includes demonstrating he has "good cause" for the permit, has no criminal
record and is not a "prohibited person" under federal or state law.

In an interview, Spears said he also holds a concealed weapons permit from the state of Utah that is valid in about a dozen states, but not California.

Nevertheless, Spears contends that when he applied for a permit in Torrance, he was issued an application form, but at the same time received a letter from the Police Department stating that "we do not have records on the issuance of any such permits, since it has been the long-standing practice of our chiefs of police not to issue such permits to citizens."

"Defendants' formal policy is logically and clearly intended to put a 'false face' on defendants' public persona, making it appear that defendants comply with the requirements and rules of the Department of Justice and with (the) Penal Code - when they actually do not," Spears' lawsuit alleges.

"Instead, defendants willfully disregarded and ignored their own written policies and procedures, willfully disregarded and ignored the law, and willfully violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights in order to deprive him of a means of self defense."

One of several supporting documents to the lawsuit includes a letter from the state Department of Justice that states the Police Department is required to notify the agency of any license denials and retain records of those denials.

Terry A. Nelson, Spears' attorney, said in an interview that the Police Department doesn't follow those requirements either.

"It would be funny if it weren't so serious, but Torrance totally acts in the concealed carry weapon permit arena in violation of federal law," Nelson said. "I speculate that the reason they don't is if they kept the records they'd show numerous applicants being told, 'don't bother'" to apply.

This isn't the first time Torrance's policy of not granting concealed weapons permits has come into public view.

A Daily Breeze survey in 1994 found that virtually no local police chiefs, who have the discretion under state law to issue concealed weapons permits, did so.

"I didn't want to be responsible for someone out there carrying a gun," former Torrance Police Chief Don Nash is quoted as saying in the article. He granted only one permit during 22 years as chief - to a South Bay prosecutor who had been threatened.

"The premise is that you assume some kind of responsibility," Nash added. "I didn't want it on my conscience if someone out there shot somebody."

A major exception in the early 1990s was the liberal policy of Ted Cooke, then police chief of Culver City, who had issued 25 percent of the 508 permits issued countywide in 1993.

Nelson, a member of the National Rifle Association, cited two court cases in his suit to support his client's position.

In one 1976 state case, a judge held that a policy of "uniformly denying all applicants" constituted an abuse of discretion.

Another 1984 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco held that a policy of uniformly denying all applicants was a violation of equal protection and due process.

"To us it is a pretty open-and-shut case," Nelson said. "They have literally sent (my client) a letter admitting they are violating the law and violating his constitutional rights."

[email protected]


And if you would like to read the Complaint it may be found here:
http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/cccw/cache/pdffiles/torrance_complaint.pdf
 
Sounds like certain towns in MA (especially close to Boston) that refuse to issue LTCs (unless they are just for target practice or something). Hopefully this sets a good precedent.

Dope
 
Hopefully this will open some doors somewhere.

Also, this seems ironic:
"I didn't want to be responsible for someone out there carrying a gun," former Torrance Police Chief Don Nash is quoted as saying in the article.
Isn't the "Police Chief" responsible for ALL the police officers carrying guns?
 
California CCW

The California ccw battles are being apprached not from 2nd amendment angles, but from equal protection or 14 th amendment.

For those of you in the other non issue states, California is important to you and here is why.

CCW permits are public record in California, especially the so called good cause as to why the permits were issued in the first place.

Now, the sheriffs and police chiefs have not been very law abiding when it comes to answering public records act requests, so that will be a battle.

California cities and counties will probably fight tooth and nail which means equality under the law would go up the federal court system.

The 9th circuit actually has been good on equal protection even though they are horrid on 2nd amendment.

The California CCW system could potentially wind up in front of the US Supreme court.

Nicki
 
Also from Calguns.net:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=105998&highlight=lexipol
LEXIPOL LLC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought this was very interesting on what I found on the internet. Lexipol sent a warning to all there clients on TBJ. This is interesting reading. I think they are very concerned on how Chiefs and Sherifs follow there policy.


FERGUSON, PRAET & SHERMAN
A Professional Corporation
1631 E. 18th Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705-7101
Telephone (714) 953-5300 Facsimile (714) 953-1143
[email protected]

CLIENT ALERT
November 8, 2007


TO: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs

FROM: Bruce D. Praet, Attorney at Law

1. Update to: WARNING! Beware of “Set Ups” With CCW Applicants – Federal Lawsuit May Soon Follow.

Hopefully, you all read (and recall) our October 10, 2007, Client Alert on “Team Billy Jack” and their (semi)organized effort to target California law enforcement agencies for litigation in federal court over CCW permits. While we have attached a reprint of the October 10th Client Alert below as a reminder, I’ll bring you up to speed on a few new developments you should be alert to in your own agency:

1. Because these guys are encountering the Lexipol CCW policy in the pending Santa Maria case as well as other agencies, they are now desperate to determine how wide spread this (very solid) policy might be throughout the state. Most of you (if not all) have already received or will be receiving a very simple Public Records Act (PRA) request from Preston Guillory simply asking if your department is currently utilizing the Lexipol CCW policy.

a. Frankly, this question is a matter of public record (as is your actual CCW policy) and there is really no reason you shouldn’t answer the question. [You really should visit their website at www.clueseau.com as they actually outline their tactics and even list all “known” Lexipol subscribers.]
b. However, be alert to the next tactic(s) which may include sending a “ringer” to your agency applying for a CCW permit to be followed by a PRA request for all other CCW permit applications. [NOTE: Certain aspects of these applications will also be subject to disclosure under the PRA.]


Although we have filed a very strong motion to dismiss the current federal lawsuit
against Santa Maria PD (hearing set for November 19, 2007), these folks are obviously looking for additional target agencies and you should be alert to any and all related applications, PRA requests and other related issues. As we have stated in the past, Lexipol has provided you with a very solid CCW policy – we only ask that you make sure it is followed in every instance in order to minimize your exposure to federal litigation from these folks.

Reprint of October 10, 2007 Client Alert

Heads Up! There is an organized effort trying to set up California law enforcement agencies for federal lawsuits over the (non)issuance of CCW permits. A private investigator out of Riverside by the name of Preston Guillory [i.e. Guillory v. County of Orange, 731 F2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1984)] is actively soliciting and supporting cases against California law enforcement agencies over the CCW permit process [See: www.clueseau.com] Although we are fairly optimistic that we will ultimately prevail in our defense of the Santa Maria Police Department in the most recent lawsuit in the Central District, it is clear that Mr. Guillory and others are actively pursuing these cases. [See also: Dunmore v. County of Placer, recently dismissed in the Northern District].

The good news is that all of our Lexipol agencies have a very comprehensive and sound CCW policy [Section 218] which is fully compliant with the latest state and federal law. However, we strongly encourage you to follow your policy since even the best policy is of little benefit if not followed. One of the latest tactics used by these groups is to send in their “applicant” who seemingly complies with all of the procedural requirements of both your policy and Penal Code § 12050, et. seq. In the meantime, you will also receive a Public Records Act request from Mr. Guillory (or someone else) seeking all other CCW permit files. [NOTE: While certain information from these applicant files is exempt pursuant to Government Code section 6254(u), other general information will be subject to disclosure.]

If you grant a permit to the “applicant”, obviously they’ll be happy and they’ll either move on or attempt to dupe you with the next “applicant”. Once you inevitably deny an application, they will now attempt to shove your own policy down your throat by demonstrating (courtesy of your own records) that you might not have strictly followed your own policy in granting other CCW permits. Just like the recent issue with “Honorary Badges”, this CCW process is potentially ripe for scrutiny to determine whether or not any Chief or Sheriff is granting permits based on a personal or political agenda rather than policy and state law.

Since it is well established that the issuance of CCW permits is absolutely discretionary and further that no one has a constitutional property or liberty interest in such a permit, these folks are testing all sorts of new and novel legal theories. For example, Mr. Guillory and company are testing an “Equal Protection” theory in our Santa Maria case based upon the allegation that their “applicant” was treated differently than others who had received permits, but who purportedly had demonstrated similar or even less “good cause”. In the Placer County case, Plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the entire application process on a theory that it was unduly invasive in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Whether or not these folks will ever prevail on any theory remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, please be vigilant and alert to “applicants” and make sure that you cross your “T’s” and dot your “I’s” by following your policy throughout the process. Even if we continue to win in court, the cost of defending these matters can get expensive.

As always, we appreciate the opportunity to keep you informed of the latest legal issues affecting your agencies. If you should have any questions about these or any other legal issues, please don’t ever hesitate to call for further advice (at no charge) at (714) 953-5300 or email us at [email protected]. As with all other contemporary issues, our proprietary software provides all of our LEXIPOL policy subscribers with ongoing access to all of our comprehensive policy amendments and daily training bulletins encompassing the latest changes resulting from relevant case law and statutory changes. If you are one of the few agencies not yet availing yourself of our customized policy manual system, please call us at (949) 484-4444 for further information or visit our website at www.lexipol.com.
 
Hopefully this will change things

The most aggravating factor in the whole state is the percentage of corrupt chief law enforcement officers that have used this to further their political ends, generate cash and deny those with good cause the right to protect themselves.
I can't get too excited. It is California, after all, and we have an abysmal record on 2nd ammendment freedoms.
 
This is the type of action that's needed in CA!
Does this mean that the rest of us Californians will now be free of the "You fools in California deserve what you get!!!" posts? :scrutiny::p
 
Does this mean that the rest of us Californians will now be free of the "You fools in California deserve what you get!!!" posts?

Lets hope so....
 
I'm not an attorney but this letter sounds to me like a conspiracy is taking place
"FERGUSON, PRAET & SHERMAN
A Professional Corporation
1631 E. 18th Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705-7101
Telephone (714) 953-5300 Facsimile (714) 953-1143
[email protected]

CLIENT ALERT
November 8, 2007


TO: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs

FROM: Bruce D. Praet, Attorney at Law
..."
 
So I guess I am dense but exactly what law are they saying is being violated?

I thought "may issue" pretty much meant just that, that it was at the discretion of the locals?
 
Discretion must be applied.

These cases are 14th amendment because the applicants are *rejected* prior to applying, or without further review. In the case of Torrance, they sent a *letter* with the application stating that you could apply but a permit would not be issued. They actually admitted to not applying discretion at all.

There is Federal Case Law that backs the position/tact that Team Billy Jack is taking. Salute vs Pitchess and Guillory vs Gates.

A 2nd amendment case is always a non-starter in California (9th circuit as well) but the 14 amendment violations are much easier to define and illustrate that our civil rights are being violated in California.

Who would have thought that the new Civil Rights movement is in California? :)

Some Open Carry guys back east are also using the 14th. I think this strategy can be applied in more places like Hawaii......
 
I'm getting the distinct warm fuzzy feeling that we gunnies are finally getting as smart, tactically, as the antis.

Could it be so?
 
i just noticed that the OP's post from the other site is from October 2007. i read quite a bit of the posts up to the most recent ones and there doesn't seem to be any real progress or updates. the wheels of justice turn slowly.

Bobby
 
Just a suggestion here...

Having to read halfway down a thread to figure out what it's about takes time... Howzabout a quickie summary - just a line or two - before posting links and long rambling things that don't really say what they're about?
 
Summary

Actually the gentleman *joined* the forum in 2007.

The post was made in June 2008. (look on the left when you read the linked post).

Quick Summary:
California issues CCW permits if you meet certain criteria
One of the criteria is "Good Cause"
In the old days, a Sheriff denied everyone without actually using discretion, ie. evaluating an applicant's Good Cause.
Sherrif was sued successfully in Federal Court
Federal Court ruled Sheriff (and all other issuing authority in California) must exercise discretion. (No blanket denials or denials without review of Good Cause and opportunity for appeal)
Time passes. People forget or don't care anymore.
Sheriffs and other authorities begin to issue to friends and campaign contributors, or to no one at all. Not exercising discretion.
Some even document this violation of law.
Now, applicant applies, issuing authority says 'no way can do' in a letter in package with application. Shows they are not exercising discretion and in violation of applicants 14th amendment right to due process.
Applicant sues, and case is moving forward in Federal Court.

Lather, rinse, and repeat for other issuing authorities in California that are breaking the law.

Other:
A company name Lexipol. LLC writes policies for CCW issuance and sells it in a policy package for many LE agencies in the state. Lexipol's policy is not in line with law, and bad agencies fail to even follow those.

14th amendment cases move forward in other arenas, such as Open Carry.

Some agencies in California are doing the right thing. The odd thing is, those agencies are in areas that have a small population in California.

This is the 2nd case like this. First was Santa Maria.
www.californiaconcealedcarry.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top