(CA) Retired Chief of Police denied CCW!

Status
Not open for further replies.

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
(Oh Lord,stuck in Lodi again. *CCR*)
http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2004/01/08/news/06_mauch_040108.txt
Council denies former police captain's claim about weapon
By Jennifer Pearson Bonnett/News-Sentinel Staff Writer

The City Council has denied a claim from a retired Lodi police captain whose permit to carry a concealed weapon was rescinded by Police Chief Jerry Adams.

Charlie Mauch, who retired in 2002, also filed the claim because he had been denied a retirement badge.



He wrote that the revocation of the permit results in a "loss of future employment opportunities."

Permits are usually automatically granted to retired officers.

Mauch's permit was revoked June 24, according to a City Council memo.

He wrote on the claim form that Sgt. Steven Price delivered to Mauch a letter from Adams stating that not only would Mauch not receive his concealed weapon permit, but wouldn't receive a retirement badge either.

Under state law, the police chief has the capacity to grant or revoke concealed weapon permits.

"The California Penal Code gives the police chief authority to not issue or revoke a retired peace officer's privilege to carry a concealed weapon for good cause," Adams said. "In retired captain Mauch's case, I did revoke his concealed weapons permit for a good cause and am declining to comment further on the matter."

Mauch, who declined to comment on the claim, headed the Police Department's detectives division until he left in early 2001 on disability.

He also served as the Lodi Lions Club president and is a graduate of the Chamber of Commerce's Leadership Lodi program.

On Wednesday, the City Council voted 5-0 without any discussion to deny Mauch's claim, which names not only Adams but his "superiors and subordinates."

In general, if a citizen feels the city has done or not done something that has caused damage and resulted in a loss, he or she can obtain a claim form from the City Clerk's Office.

The claim, also the first step before filing a lawsuit, is then routed to the city's risk manager and assigned to a third-party administrator who scrutinizes the claim's details. Then it is determined whether the city is responsible, and the administrator recommends whether to deny or accept the claim.

The final decision is made by the City Council
 
It looks like someone is unhappy that they have to play by the same rules as their former peons. I wonder how many VALID civilian permit applications were denied by Charlie Mauch during HIS tenure.
 
Gunsmith, looks from the article like the guy is a retired captain, not chief.

Guess he now knows what it's like to be treated as one of the peasants.
 
One of my fave Clint Smithisms is when he states that the police should support the RKBA because one day (retirement, politics, injury) the police will end up being worthless peasants just like they were before they joined the police.

(Clint uses more, er, um "direct" or "colorful" language).
 
It looks like someone is unhappy that they have to play by the same rules as their former peons

Yup. I know nothing about the Captain's politics, but I wonder if the RKBA occurred to him while on active duty.

I support the right of all retired LEOs to carry, as long as it also applies to qualified "citizens" too.
 
I know a member of a county Sherriff's department in CA which I won't name. He is the most irresponsible person with a gun I have ever seen. His service pistol is in pathetic shape and he leaves it laying around with a 3 year old daughter roaming around the house. His wife is pretty sharp and puts the thing up because he could care less. Amazing how he manages to qualify with his gun. Having gone shooting with him, it amazes me even more. This guy should not carry now let alone when he retires.

Only the police should have guns! Tell that to AGS. BUffoooooooons
 
Oy Vey! Maybe jewish, yah?

Wonder how he pissed off the powers that be? Is Lodi normally shall or shall not issue?
 
Thats pretty juicy.

Interesting that the article mentions 2 things - I wonder if he is trying to play these:

1. Loss of CCW means loss of employment opportunities (ie: bodyguard jobs, etc).

If a regular citizen tried to claim that, they would be laughed out of the station.

2. He has all sorts of "qualifications" Lions club, loves puppies, helps old ladies cross the street, etc.

Again - lots of good folks have lots better like the poor gentleman who is fighting his Sheriff in whats that county? - don't matter.


The chief LEO has discretion - period.

Mmmmm - that other shoe fits real nice....
 
Well...there's a few interesting things...

1) This is San Joaquin County. Don't count out the possible role corruption may play here. This is the county where the FBI just busted the county sheriff! God only knows what else is going on around there.

2) The idea of suing over "employment discrimination" is a good one. Esp. for a retired cop. There's a whole body of case law surrounding the problems with "discretionary" restriction of job opportunities...most brought by newly minted lawyers who were denied access to the state bar association on a discretionary basis - that used to be common as hell. In his case, WITH a CCW permit he'd be a shoe-in for high-end security with an income as high as $35/hr or more.

3) *Jewish* discrimination? Hmmmmm....you know, that's not entirely crazy. I'd hate to play that alone, but combined with #2 above...
 
Just for anyone that hasnt visited the Lodi area it may be relevant to know that it is a complete cesspool. I dont know what the police generally do for a living around there but it sure doesnt look like they are trying to make it a better place. There may be ALL SORTS of really good reasons why this guy isnt being allowed to carry a gun. Of course he may also have been one of the few really good cops in their leadership and this is backlash (doesnt sound like it though).
 
GOOD!!

Maybe when cops are treated no different than the average pissant, I mean PEASANT, we'll see some changes in the gun laws. I'm sick and tired of all these exemptions fo police. Putting on a badge and a uniform doesnt mean that you're automatically a more responsible person where firearms are concerned.

Make police NOT exempt from the AW ban, and the foreign parts restriction, and the NFA, any and all concealed carry bans, etc. Let them be just as disarmed, restricted, etc. as the rest of us.
 
In California the law presumes an honorably retired peace officer will have his retired ID endorsed that CCW is permitted. It can be withdrawn or revoked generally for the same reasons the issuing authority would withdraw or revoke a private person's CCW.

If the retired officer commits an offense that would cause an active duty officer to be fired, the issuing authority can withdraw or revoke the CCW "permit."

CCW can be denied if the officer was retired on a mental stress disability.

Another reason for denial is if the retired peace officer retired rather than be fired.

Retired peace officer CCW will most certainly be revoked if the retired officer becomes a person prohibited from possessing firearms under the law.

Pilgrim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top