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