Jim March
Member
Nope. Equal protection. I wouldn't get involved in that regardless.
IMMEDIATE CALIFORNIA SHALL-ISSUE!!! Read this, guys!
- Thread starter Jim March
- Start date
- Status
fjolnirsson
Member
Yeah. Well, it was a thought. Just tryin' to help make this work for everyone.
jnojr
Member
I agree with Jim. Equal protection is supposed to mean no special club membership, decoder ring, and secret handshake required.
The bozos ought to get screened out by the background checks. And if a bozo does get a CCW and then abuses it, that shouldn't be any different to the rest of us than if he gets a drivers license and abuses it... deal with the bozo at that time, not pre-emptively against everyone because there might be a bozo.
The bozos ought to get screened out by the background checks. And if a bozo does get a CCW and then abuses it, that shouldn't be any different to the rest of us than if he gets a drivers license and abuses it... deal with the bozo at that time, not pre-emptively against everyone because there might be a bozo.
fjolnirsson
Member
Absolutely. I feel the same.
My suggestion was merely in response to Jim bringing up that all ccwers won't necessarily be up to THR standards, so to speak.
That could be a sticking point for some sheriffs.
This plan is intended to make CCW a possibility for all law abiding Californians. If it gets spoiled by some numbskull right at the get-go, we'll be back where we started.
Jim March
Member
The solution is to make it clear that the new permitholders are NOT "special" in some way.
It's the "elitist" pattern of permitholders that often screw up!
Example: circa 1993 - 1998 or so, Chief Byrd in Isleton had at least three times the permits out as the corrupt sheriff Craig of SacCounty. Byrd had 1,500 at peak from across the county. NOT ONE ever screwed up. Can't say the same of Craig's idiots!
Or take the elitist crap Sheriff Baca pulled in LA - the "executive reserves". There were only 20 of 'em...major campaign contributors all (Jay Leno and Steven Segall turned down slots!). Within one year, two were arrested for felonies - that's a 10% felony arrest rate for the unit (which was quickly disbanded). One of the arrests was for a clear-cut "strange ranger" situation.
It's the "elitist" pattern of permitholders that often screw up!
Example: circa 1993 - 1998 or so, Chief Byrd in Isleton had at least three times the permits out as the corrupt sheriff Craig of SacCounty. Byrd had 1,500 at peak from across the county. NOT ONE ever screwed up. Can't say the same of Craig's idiots!
Or take the elitist crap Sheriff Baca pulled in LA - the "executive reserves". There were only 20 of 'em...major campaign contributors all (Jay Leno and Steven Segall turned down slots!). Within one year, two were arrested for felonies - that's a 10% felony arrest rate for the unit (which was quickly disbanded). One of the arrests was for a clear-cut "strange ranger" situation.
Jim,
Have you given any thought to Amador County. There only 30 - 45 minutes out side of Sacramento and from what I've read on Packing.org they might be what your looking for Population 35k-ish, and high issue rate as far as Kali goes.
Have you given any thought to Amador County. There only 30 - 45 minutes out side of Sacramento and from what I've read on Packing.org they might be what your looking for Population 35k-ish, and high issue rate as far as Kali goes.
Jim March
Member
Amador is on the list too. The sheriff is out of town until late this week.
artherd
member
Jim- 'Strange Ranger' ? 
cryptoguru
Member
Sheriff Baca's corrupt "executive" program issued departmenta badges and guns! A good friend at the LAPD tells me he's still issuing "executives" quietly.
gunsmith
member
Training Idea!
Why not have potential CCW holders have armed security guard training?
There are instructors all over the state and they are mostly law enforcement instuctors anyway...just a thought
Why not have potential CCW holders have armed security guard training?
There are instructors all over the state and they are mostly law enforcement instuctors anyway...just a thought
Jim March
Member
Well...two issues:
1) How many hours of training are we talking about?
2) Doesn't security guard training involve stuff like "powers of arrest" and "use of handcuffs" and other issues we don't want CCW permitholders dealing with? In other words, we don't want to "breed strange rangers"?
The Utah-compatible program is a true citizen CCW training program, focus is heavy on "legal use of force", "get away if possible because legal issues post-shoot are a beech", etc.
1) How many hours of training are we talking about?
2) Doesn't security guard training involve stuff like "powers of arrest" and "use of handcuffs" and other issues we don't want CCW permitholders dealing with? In other words, we don't want to "breed strange rangers"?
The Utah-compatible program is a true citizen CCW training program, focus is heavy on "legal use of force", "get away if possible because legal issues post-shoot are a beech", etc.
gunsmith
member
Citizens arrest
is the same as "powers to arrest". Generally they tell you during security guard training that "you are not a cop" for instance,if directed by a store owner I could ask to look in a shopping bag if the shopper co-operated by holding it open,I could not detain a shopper because some one else suspected shoplifting. CA
Security training is basically all the things you can not do,also to get the gun card you first get the guard card and they do background checks on both.
The course is anywhere from 8 to 16 hours plus range time, how good you are on the range depends on how good you are on the range
S/O training emphasizes you "observe and report" not arrest,for instance it would be illegal for me to search for anything other then a weapon if I did a citizens arrest.
I have carried a gun on my job for 2 years and never arrested anyone
and have never recieved any handcuff training or carried handcuffs.
I dont mind not having cuffs,between radio,glock,extra mags,flashlight,cellphone and vest another piece of metal to add to my aches isn't to welcome. Besides I would rather have the bad guy lay on the floor till the cops got there to cuff him,I would imagine putting my gun back in the holster (to cuff him) could be dangerous.
S/O training says your main job is prevention by being visible and observing not arresting
I think it would discourage "strange ranger" as well as we could prove that they passed a test saying that strange ranger behavior isillegal thus relieving the LE dept of liabillity!
A test could be introduced a a court case saying the strange ranger knew that arresting people was best left to fully sworn post certified active duty LEO
is the same as "powers to arrest". Generally they tell you during security guard training that "you are not a cop" for instance,if directed by a store owner I could ask to look in a shopping bag if the shopper co-operated by holding it open,I could not detain a shopper because some one else suspected shoplifting. CA
Security training is basically all the things you can not do,also to get the gun card you first get the guard card and they do background checks on both.
The course is anywhere from 8 to 16 hours plus range time, how good you are on the range depends on how good you are on the range
S/O training emphasizes you "observe and report" not arrest,for instance it would be illegal for me to search for anything other then a weapon if I did a citizens arrest.
I have carried a gun on my job for 2 years and never arrested anyone
and have never recieved any handcuff training or carried handcuffs.
I dont mind not having cuffs,between radio,glock,extra mags,flashlight,cellphone and vest another piece of metal to add to my aches isn't to welcome. Besides I would rather have the bad guy lay on the floor till the cops got there to cuff him,I would imagine putting my gun back in the holster (to cuff him) could be dangerous.
S/O training says your main job is prevention by being visible and observing not arresting
I think it would discourage "strange ranger" as well as we could prove that they passed a test saying that strange ranger behavior isillegal thus relieving the LE dept of liabillity!
A test could be introduced a a court case saying the strange ranger knew that arresting people was best left to fully sworn post certified active duty LEO
Jim Diver
Member
Simple. Go observe guards on the range. Most are poor shots to say the least. My students shoot better by far after 10 hours of an NRA basic pistol class.
Guards with guns make me nervous. They THINK they know how to shoot and that makes them dangerous.
There are better ways to train people for this type of carry.
gunsmith
member
anyone would improve after a ten hour course
To be an armed guard you must re qualify every 6 months,my re qual wasn't so great this past time,the time before that it went great, it all depends how much you practice.
The good thing about the security guard training is that it tells you that your not a cop and seems to be a great way to weed out the "strange ranger" types i.e no pulling over people to arrest them and no badges.
the only time we should have badges on us and do police work is when under the direct supervision of a police officer.
To be an armed guard you must re qualify every 6 months,my re qual wasn't so great this past time,the time before that it went great, it all depends how much you practice.
The good thing about the security guard training is that it tells you that your not a cop and seems to be a great way to weed out the "strange ranger" types i.e no pulling over people to arrest them and no badges.
the only time we should have badges on us and do police work is when under the direct supervision of a police officer.
Jim March
Member
Should be able to talk to two sheriffs Monday. Don't want to get counter-pressure started by saying who.
More news Monday night.
More news Monday night.
jnojr
Member
One issue I have with the whole "You are not a LEO" thing is this... if I'm carrying a "regular" CCW, and see a crime being committed, I can choose to get involved. Depending on what happens, it's possible that the situation might escalate to the point where I need to draw my weapon. Ordinarily, if I'm making a "lawful arrest", I have an affirmitive defense to charges of "brandishing" or whathaveyou. But, if my CCW explicitly says I have no arrest powers, then no matter how "right" I am, I'm going to lose my CCW and likely never see another one. Given that choice, I'm going to walk away from a crime in progress. Even a violent assault on another... with a "regular" CCW, I'm OK. With a "restricted" one, I'm not.
I really believe there should be no restrictions on the CCW that aren't there for an "average joe" applicant. The ass-covering should be done via the background check, signed papers, etc. Maybe part of the requirements for being this "non-LE deputy" could be a class on the laws of arrest? That's the type of thing *every* CCW holder should have anyway. The criminal law class I'm taking right now covers stuff like this and the differences between peace officers and everyone else. That's something that could be added with no expense to the Sheriffs office involved.
I really believe there should be no restrictions on the CCW that aren't there for an "average joe" applicant. The ass-covering should be done via the background check, signed papers, etc. Maybe part of the requirements for being this "non-LE deputy" could be a class on the laws of arrest? That's the type of thing *every* CCW holder should have anyway. The criminal law class I'm taking right now covers stuff like this and the differences between peace officers and everyone else. That's something that could be added with no expense to the Sheriffs office involved.
I just saw this thread tonight, and I applaud the creativity.
The only comment I can add, from kind of a practical standpoint, is that I suspect it would be likely for a resident or public official in Whatever-County to seek an injunction against the issuance of the permits. Assuming some sophistication among the anti-gun crowd in any California county, there would be an effort to get the issue before a judge "favorable" to their position. And then the whole thing gets tied up in litigation for a year or two, with no new permits issued, until the Legislature gets to do its thing.
Now, further assuming some sophistication among the pro-gun forces in Whatever-County, someone may want to consider seeking a preemptive injunction before a judge favorable to their position and trying to have the injunction denied, which would make it more difficult (but certainly not impossible) for the antis to impose their viewpoint from the very beginning.
The only comment I can add, from kind of a practical standpoint, is that I suspect it would be likely for a resident or public official in Whatever-County to seek an injunction against the issuance of the permits. Assuming some sophistication among the anti-gun crowd in any California county, there would be an effort to get the issue before a judge "favorable" to their position. And then the whole thing gets tied up in litigation for a year or two, with no new permits issued, until the Legislature gets to do its thing.
Now, further assuming some sophistication among the pro-gun forces in Whatever-County, someone may want to consider seeking a preemptive injunction before a judge favorable to their position and trying to have the injunction denied, which would make it more difficult (but certainly not impossible) for the antis to impose their viewpoint from the very beginning.
Warpspyder
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2004
- Messages
- 15
Anyone know what the chances of getting issued a CCW permit in CA with a California POST certification but no Law Enforcement Agency affiliation?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,509
Warpspyder - you can join as a reserve somewhere. I know one guy who did with a small agency. Being a millionaire, he purchased a patrol car that is kept at the airport. When he flies in (in uniform), he hops into the car and goes on patrol as a reserve. I told him years ago if I had his money, I wouldn't play police officer. Who needs the liability?
Good work Jim. BTW, is the Chief of Isleton still issuing CCWs for $?
Good work Jim. BTW, is the Chief of Isleton still issuing CCWs for $?
Jim March
Member
Warpspyder: depends entirely on which agency you apply with, and how good your "good cause" is. Go far enough afield to a very rural area, no sweat. The closer to a rural area you are, the more "good cause" an agency will want before helping you out.
Example: you live in SF, where CCW is basically not going to happen period. You've complained about the local drug gang that shot your granny, you've had multiple documented threats, you've got a restraining order out on 42 named individuals, and you've got a collection of the bullets with your name on 'em that have been mailed to you, police reports for miles. In other words, impeccable fully documented "good cause".
Go to, say, Napa County or Stanislaus and score reserve status and with that sort of "good cause", immediate issue is a shoe in - those guys ain't quite "shall issue" but they seem to at least try for fairness. Go further out to say, Sutter, Yuba, Amador or others and you probably won't even NEED to state a "good cause" at all, although it wouldn't hurt a bit. Too deep into the center of the madness of the SF Bay Area, say Alameda or Contra Costa, and you're still screwed unless you can score some campaign contributions.
Follow?
4v50 Gary: in 1998 the legislature passed a bill to limit police chiefs to in-town issuance only. It was called the "Gene Byrd law".
SteelyDan: that is indeed an issue. But the news isn't all bad:
1) There's an issue of "standing" - can, say, San Francisco's city gov't show they are "damaged" by what's going on with this in a rural county? Doubtful. If SF or similar were to try, there are lawyers on tap ready to try a block.
2) A more dire threat is the California DOJ throwing a halt - they process the CCW background checks and if they don't think the procedures at the local level are wrong, they don't HAVE to go to court to screw things up.
But that will cause them a HUGE problem. See, there's currently a lawsuit out against the Cal-DOJ, financed by www.saf.org, with myself, SAF and CCRKBA (www.ccrkba.org) as plaintiffs. We're trying to open records of CCW issuance at Cal-DOJ's HQ. In doing so, we're presenting evidence of CCW misconduct at local agencies - obvious violations of law such as illegal fees, illegal procedures, excessive fees beyond the caps in PC12054, various patterns of racism, tons of similar stuff.
DOJ's lawyers are so far on the record in open court saying the CCW process is "local" and that DOJ "just does background checks".
That case is ONGOING. OK? Sucker is still in play.
So what happens if Cal-DOJ suddenly says that "Ruralcounty X" is doing illegal stuff (which is questionable), while deliberately ignoring Alameda County's $1mil legal liability insurance requirement which was specifically banned by PC12054(d)?
They'll look like turds in court.
Example: you live in SF, where CCW is basically not going to happen period. You've complained about the local drug gang that shot your granny, you've had multiple documented threats, you've got a restraining order out on 42 named individuals, and you've got a collection of the bullets with your name on 'em that have been mailed to you, police reports for miles. In other words, impeccable fully documented "good cause".
Go to, say, Napa County or Stanislaus and score reserve status and with that sort of "good cause", immediate issue is a shoe in - those guys ain't quite "shall issue" but they seem to at least try for fairness. Go further out to say, Sutter, Yuba, Amador or others and you probably won't even NEED to state a "good cause" at all, although it wouldn't hurt a bit. Too deep into the center of the madness of the SF Bay Area, say Alameda or Contra Costa, and you're still screwed unless you can score some campaign contributions
.Follow?
4v50 Gary: in 1998 the legislature passed a bill to limit police chiefs to in-town issuance only. It was called the "Gene Byrd law"
.SteelyDan: that is indeed an issue. But the news isn't all bad:
1) There's an issue of "standing" - can, say, San Francisco's city gov't show they are "damaged" by what's going on with this in a rural county? Doubtful. If SF or similar were to try, there are lawyers on tap ready to try a block.
2) A more dire threat is the California DOJ throwing a halt - they process the CCW background checks and if they don't think the procedures at the local level are wrong, they don't HAVE to go to court to screw things up.
But that will cause them a HUGE problem. See, there's currently a lawsuit out against the Cal-DOJ, financed by www.saf.org, with myself, SAF and CCRKBA (www.ccrkba.org) as plaintiffs. We're trying to open records of CCW issuance at Cal-DOJ's HQ. In doing so, we're presenting evidence of CCW misconduct at local agencies - obvious violations of law such as illegal fees, illegal procedures, excessive fees beyond the caps in PC12054, various patterns of racism, tons of similar stuff.
DOJ's lawyers are so far on the record in open court saying the CCW process is "local" and that DOJ "just does background checks".
That case is ONGOING. OK? Sucker is still in play
.So what happens if Cal-DOJ suddenly says that "Ruralcounty X" is doing illegal stuff (which is questionable), while deliberately ignoring Alameda County's $1mil legal liability insurance requirement which was specifically banned by PC12054(d)?
They'll look like turds in court
.Pendragon
Member
Any injunction would have to have some kind of legal grounds and probably some sort of injury or compelling interest from the complaintant.
It appears that this idea is well within the law and the privlidges and discretion of the Sheriff of a given county.
What are they going to say? "Uh, stop this, it will give gun permits to people!"
Sheriff is entitled to deputize anyone he wants. He is then entitled to give them a CCW if he wants.
Just as we cannot force a Blanas or Craig to issue if their discretion compells them to abstain, well now the shoe is on the other foot and its tough taters!
I actually think some of the case law (CBS vs Block) supports that the decision is up to the Sheriff and him (or her) alone.
But goodness, it could get really fun once the cat is out of the bag
It appears that this idea is well within the law and the privlidges and discretion of the Sheriff of a given county.
What are they going to say? "Uh, stop this, it will give gun permits to people!"
Sheriff is entitled to deputize anyone he wants. He is then entitled to give them a CCW if he wants.
Just as we cannot force a Blanas or Craig to issue if their discretion compells them to abstain, well now the shoe is on the other foot and its tough taters!
I actually think some of the case law (CBS vs Block) supports that the decision is up to the Sheriff and him (or her) alone.
But goodness, it could get really fun once the cat is out of the bag
Jim March
Member
Jnojr: first, this limit wouldn't apply to violent crime committed right in front of you, ongoing.
Second, there's a bunch of things one can do WITHOUT getting into the area of "citizen's arrest". Example: you see three guys beating and kicking one guy who's down on the ground. You shout out "what's going on here!?"
At that point, one of two things will happen:
1) The three will say something like "we just pulled this guy off a 12yr old girl with his pants down!" or something similarly nefarious. In which case you say "COOL! Hold the !@#$ while I call the cops!"
2) The three turn on you, in which case not only can you defend yourself, you KNOW it's a deadly force situation because you just saw deadly force being used against another.
Either way, YOU are not doing citizen's arrest. In case #1, you don't even need to mention the CCW; in case #2, it's self defense.
What the heck else do you really need?
Run down the street after a purse-snatcher, when the victim is in good health? Ummm...reality check: you don't have the backup, training or body armor for that kind of superhero crap. Sorry, but that's the reality.
Second, there's a bunch of things one can do WITHOUT getting into the area of "citizen's arrest". Example: you see three guys beating and kicking one guy who's down on the ground. You shout out "what's going on here!?"
At that point, one of two things will happen:
1) The three will say something like "we just pulled this guy off a 12yr old girl with his pants down!" or something similarly nefarious. In which case you say "COOL! Hold the !@#$ while I call the cops!"
2) The three turn on you, in which case not only can you defend yourself, you KNOW it's a deadly force situation because you just saw deadly force being used against another.
Either way, YOU are not doing citizen's arrest. In case #1, you don't even need to mention the CCW; in case #2, it's self defense.
What the heck else do you really need?
Run down the street after a purse-snatcher, when the victim is in good health? Ummm...reality check: you don't have the backup, training or body armor for that kind of superhero crap. Sorry, but that's the reality.
artherd
member
Jim- you put that very well.
There is plenty an ordinary citizen may do before he/she crosses into 'LEO' territory.
Namely, defend oneself, loved ones, property (though not with deadly force in general.) and others in mortal danger from harm.
We're not sheep, but we're also not sheepdogs. Think of us as sheep with a 9mm
There is plenty an ordinary citizen may do before he/she crosses into 'LEO' territory.
Namely, defend oneself, loved ones, property (though not with deadly force in general.) and others in mortal danger from harm.
We're not sheep, but we're also not sheepdogs. Think of us as sheep with a 9mm
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
