Sheriff Offering a Badge and Gun to Celebrities

Sounds like a typical LA publicity stunt.

FYI: In California reserves can not automaticly carry a concealed weapon. They have to apply for a CCW permit just like a judge.

Of course if you want to get technical there is nothing in California law that allows any LEO to carry off duty, they just play a game by saying that they're on duty 24 hours a day. In California LEO's are hourly employees and under both state and federal law are not legally on duty (off shift) unless they are being paid overtime.
 
California Constitution
Article 1, Section 7b:
"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."
 
Actually, it's not that California law enforcement officers pretend they are on duty 24 hours a day, it's because the weapons control laws generally exempt peace officers.


------------------
Bruce Stanton
CDR, USN-Ret.
 
bruels,

California Constitution
Article 1, Section 7b:
"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."

The state cannot legaly exempt peace officers.
 
A thought I had this morning:

How many of the armed celebs signed that "Open Letter to the NRA?"

A goodly percentage, I sh'd think.

--Sheesh. Just noticed that KAM asked this in his opening post. (mental note: FIRST coffee, THEN post)
------------------
"We are going to fight. We are going to be hurt.
But in the end, we will stand."
--Roland Deschain



[This message has been edited by Coinneach (edited June 22, 1999).]
 
How about one of our California TFL members raising such a stink about this, that they reach celebrity status and are then allowed to become one of the Sheriff's elite? By the way, how much of a celebrity do you have to be. Can, say, a T.V. weather man become a deputy? If you become a local celebrity by dropping gold coins into the Salvation Army bucket every year, are you then elligible?
 
Scholling,

It's been going on for years.

12027. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
(a) (1) (A) Any peace officer, listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2,
or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably
retired, other duly appointed peace officers, honorably retired peace
officers listed in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5, other honorably
retired peace officers who during the course and scope of their
employment as peace officers were authorized to, and did, carry
firearms, full-time paid peace officers of other states and the
federal government who are carrying out official duties while in
California, or any person summoned by any of these officers to assist
in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is
actually engaged in assisting that officer.

------------------
Bruce Stanton
CDR, USN-Ret.
 
OK, time to chime in.

First off, the usual LA County reserves program involves more than 64 hours of training and does NOT automatically result in CCW.

Therefore this program is a violation of equal protection, phrased in the California's Constitution, Article 1, Section 7B as:

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."

If that wasn't enough, if it IS a form of "back door CCW" it violates the 16/24 hour training requirement MAXIMUM under PC12050-54 as amended by AB2022.

-=HOWEVER=-

Sheriff Baca is new at all this. He's a close friend of Sheriff Carona; the rumor mill is that Carona is on the verge of convincing him to at least act legally - which means issue at least SOME permits to those with "good cause", judging everyone individually.

Less than a dozen top cops are acting lawfully in this manner.

If Baca is about to join their ranks, it would be poor tactics to attack him over this celebrity BS.

The following is what I sent him in EMail from his feedback form on his site:

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

(The comments page is here: http://www.lasd.org/contact_us/inquiry/inq-cw-permit-local.htm - the actual
destination EMail address is jrperez@lasd.org )

Dear Sheriff Baca,

I am in the middle of a discrimination lawsuit against Sheriff Rupf of Contra Costa County alleging elitism, bias, corruption, illegal permit application policies and racism in the CCW process.

I am *winning* the case. I can show a strong correlation between campaign contributions and CCW issuance, I have proven that policies existed to deny people the blank forms and issue verbal denials. What I hope the courts will take a VERY dim view of was the practice of forming an absolute zero-issuance pact with the PD Chiefs of the only two predominantly black towns in the otherwise white county. Jim Crow was alive and well, until Richmond PD settled the suit and agreed to the following reforms:

They agree that blanket zero-issuance by any agency is illegal per Salute vs. Pitchess.

They agree to make the forms and the right to apply available to anyone.

They agree to judge every applicant's merits and needs under the "good cause" provision of PC12050 *individually* without regard to race, wealth, political connections or recent campaign contributions.

Talk to Assistant Chief Ray Howard of Richmond PD or Mr. Wayne Nishioka of the Richmond City Attorney's office about details of the settlement. My application is now in process with the DOJ.

Sheriff Rupf still insists on his right to discriminate against applicants based on where they live. This is illegal per Salute's "judge everyone individually" commandment, and the courts are going to nail him on it. PC12050 implies a choice between PD Chief and Sheriff on the part of the applicant, meaning LAPD's Chief can scream bloody murder about the "horrors" of CCW all he wants; not only are you not obligated to give him any credence in his requests for you to back him on zero-issue, you are obligated NOT to.

See also my website: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw (The "Colafrancesco Papers" are a don't-miss read.)

The Salute decision is here:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/salute.html

There are issues yet to be resolved by leaving "subjective issuance standards" in place. Subjective standards will always leave an issuing agency open to charges of bias; as an example of what can go wrong, what is Sheriff Carona going to do the first time an openly homosexual walks in and wants CCW for the purpose of avoiding being "gaybashed"? Gays are "targeted" often enough that establishing "good cause for issuance" is in theory pretty dang easy...but if they get it and straights don't, the howls of outrage will be clearly audible out to the Nevada border and you might even trigger a wave of bashing.

These sorts of nightmarish issues can only be fully resolved with objective issuance standards balanced by your discretion when an applicant "just doesn't smell right" despite jumping through all the hoops, and you as an experienced law enforcement officer just can't in good conscience support issuance. If you're known to be otherwise fair you could get away with that level of discretion and you'd be widely supported. Anything else and you're still risking a court fight.

Like Richmond as of 3/26/99, Orange County is meeting the minimal legal CCW policy requirements under PC12050 and the Salute decision. I urge you to at least do likewise and can promise that if I win in Contra Costa and post details of such to the Internet, "copycat actions" are going to spring up all over the state.

Thank you for your attention,

Jim March
Richmond, CA
 
Regarding CCW by peace officers, there is an Attorney General's Opinion which states that while a Dept. may restrict what a peace officer carries (or even prohibit from carrying) while on duty, similarly the dept. cannot restrict them once off duty. Thus, we have some departments which won't allow their officers to carry on duty while in uniform but once off duty, they do. Typically, this would apply to a lot of school districts. Crazy, but true in Kalifornia.

The opinion did not include reserves though and the reserves' carrying privilege will vary within a department and from department to department.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top