An Open Letter to Hawthorne Police Chief Stephen Port

Michael,

How does the local statute on carrying a concealed weapon read? Does the statute or ordinance have a due process clause? Does it list the criteria for approval or denial?

Personally, I would have sent a certified/return receipt letter requesting a written explanation for the denial before I wrote the letter that you did. You might have burned a bridge prematurely.

California's CCW is among the worst in the nation. It is purely discretionary, and most urban sheriffs and PDs refuse to issue to almost anyone. A few years back LAPD got busted for issuing no permits at all (before that, only one - to then-Police Chief Daryl Gates), but even that depended on the view that the PD had a duty to consider applications for CCW, not that it had a duty to actually issue them to anyone in particular.

Michael could, theoretically, re-apply with the County of Los Angeles, as both the County Sheriff and the local Police Chief have authority to issue CCWs. I don't think he'll fare any better at the county level, though.

I have no right to a written explanation. The permits are issued purely at the discretion of the issuing authority (chief or sheriff).

And no, Sheriff Block doesn't issue them either, although the Angry Clam informs me that he does send out actual rejection letters.

I just...I just blink my eyes in amazement everytime this crops up - actually watching people feel the need to carry a concealed weapon in public...

If I were to take a live, armed weapon and carry it on my person, in public, it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation. To know that I carried an instrument of sure and certain death on my person, available and ready to be pulled out and used at a moment's notice to possibly kill...a child. A homeless person. An innocent.

Obviously that is not your intent. You want to protect yourself - maybe that is how you feel in California. But being brought up in Eastern Tennessee I've never once felt the need to protect myself from imminent bodily harm in public. And if I were aware of a location that might be unduly hazardous - a dark alley, a badly lighted parking area - I would avoid it. I've never been mugged, nor can I readily pull up a name of any person I've ever met that's been mugged or even bodily threatened in my whole life.

What scares me most is the arbitrary nature of self-defense. What line must be crossed to signal to you that there is imminent danger or threat? Is it a criminal pulling a gun on you? In which case, unless you're a gunslinger, you're not going to outdraw him. Is it someone pulling a knife? Threatening words? Bad language or rude gestures? Where is that one point where you decide, "Yes, my life or the life of my loved ones is in danger and I must now take it upon myself to take the life of another person." What if the guy is reaching into his jacket, and you are sure, absolutely certain that it is a weapon. You pull your gun and shoot--and see he's reaching for his wallet. Or worse, you miss and hit a child running in the street. Where is that line?

The radiation would rot my brain and I would never be able to live with myself.

Maybe it's different in California. Maybe it's different in Tennessee. Maybe I don't love my family enough...maybe I love them too much. But I know myself, and know that if I surrendered to the paranoia - and I mean that in the most basic sense - there would be no turning back.

I'll stay in the light, thanks.

The radiation would rot my brain and I would never be able to live with myself.

Barry, I am glad that you are not going to carry a weapon to protect yourself. I don't think that you are qualified. Of course, that does not mean that others are not, and your decision not to has no bearing on their decision to carry a weapon.

Barry,

I have no problem pulling up the names of several people I know who have been robbed at gunpoint. Crime happens, sometimes even in broad daylight. If it hasn't happened to you, you're lucky -- but not superior to those who have been victims.

No offense, Barry, but you're really going overboard here. I mean really, if you feel this way about carrying a gun, how scared do you get driving a car near pedestrians? You can kill a lot more people a lot faster with a car, and all it takes is a momentary lapse of attention, and no intent whatsoever. The gun will sit quietly in its holster until you pull it out, requiring both intent and deliberate action.

You can argue the benefit of carrying a firearm, and question someone's justification if you like, but speaking of a concealed firearm as if it emits radiation says more about you than it does about anything else. I know that I'm engaging in the popular pastime of "psychoanalyzing from a distance" and I apologize for that, but really, getting so intense about the mere proximity of a gun is a little silly. It's only a tool, and if you aren't comfortable with it that's OK, but some of us are trained, comfortable, and interested in keeping one handy.

Long version at Interocitor. But the Gates suit was "Lake vs City of Los Angeles" (might not be avaialable online), and there are subsequent suits, which I link to. One was by a LAKE party, and failed due to said party not wanting to complete a new application. The other against Pitchess succeeded as far as requiring the sheriff to actually consider the application (which had been rejected out of hand).

To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.

Barry--

Are you so morally arrogant that you think that you've got the ethics market cornered? The fact that you don't believe in self-defense does NOT give you the right to impose that belief on others. That is as indefensible as me imposing my religion on you.

Kevin: Thanks for the great info. I'm adding it to my FOIA request.

Barry: Please don't carry a gun if you don't want to. You're under no obligation. As for myself, I know plenty of people who have been robbed.

If it's protection you want, why not carry something concealed like a Tazer or knife? Both legal (with some exceptions in California). At least no innocent bystander is likely to get injured while you engage in a shoot out with your would-be assailant.

Throughout my career I have encountered hundreds of assaulted victims. I have never met one who said the circumstances of their assault would have changed, had they been armed with a concealed weapon. Quite the contrary, a handgun in anyone's hands, during an assault - by whatever means - is likely to make the fit hit the shan in a heartbeat. Nor have I ever encountered a 'robber' armed with a handgun who ran away, when his victim pulled out theirs. Though I guess you could be the exception. Do you really want to take that risk?

Consider also the response of law enforcement to you, while waving a gun in the air for the purposes of 'self defense'. I know few cops who are telepathic and immediately know that you are the 'good guy' while responding to the scene and viewed from inside a patrol car. Yelling, "Hey, I'm the good guy, I have a permit." doesn't really cut it.

Yes it's obscene that there are thousands of illegal handguns on the streets, but that's no reason to make a bad situation worse. Another gun on the street, is just that. Many 'illegal' handgun carriers are just as capable as you may be, the fact that you may have passed all test requirements doesn't necessarily make you anymore proficient at 'crunch time'.

I have carried a legally concealed weapon for years, throughout California, including L.A. I have never had cause to use it and perhaps, even though well trained, at times it may have given me some false bravado. Sure, I 'feel' safer when walking up to an ATM at midnight, but the real question is what am I going to do when an assailants own handgun, knife or other weapon, is six inches from the back of my head. And...why am I there in the first place!

Consider this also, the fact that you composed and sent your 'letter of complaint' to the Hawthorne Police Chief, may have unwittingly exposed a psychological trait, which could reinforce the reason not to have granted a CCW permit in the first place. I think you have now burned any bridge you may have had, short of legal action.

Most Cops carry concealed weapons on and off duty, yet rarely, are they involved in circumstances requiring the use of their firearm. Before you consider taking this issue further, I would strongly recommend looking into an evening 'Ridealong' program with your local P.D. You may change your mind completely...

The best argument for liberalized concealed carry is not that YOU will better be able to protect YOURSELF if attacked. It's that, if concealed carry is liberalized, OTHERS will be more likely to intervene if you are attacked.

Miscreants and predators seldom target an area that has high rates of concealed carry -- and "high" needn't be more than about 5%. The risk of an armed intervention is just too great for the payoff.

Concealed carry is a bit like a vaccination against a very contagious disease. In terms of preventing an epidemic, your immunity is less important than the immunity of those around you.

Plug: As far as burning bridges go, it's not like they were going to reconsider if I asked nicely.

As for the rest, guns are tools. Just because I had one with me doesn't mean I'd whip it out every time I was threatened. But if I was with my wife, girlfriend, kid, whatever, and someone tried to kidnap them, at least I'd have an effective option for trying to protect them. Now, I have no options other than to watch passively and call the police.

Guns can obviously be used dangerously, but you can't make the assumption that I'd use them that way.

As for knives, it's totally illegal to carry any blades in California that are intended to stab people. I can carry any knife I want, but if it's for "self-defense purposes" then it's illegal. That's my reading of the laws, anyway. So advising me to carry a knife as a weapon is advising me to commit a felony.

I don't know much about tazers, but I haven't read much good about them. If I'm going to shoot someone, I'm going to want them dead. What am I supposed to do with a slightly stunned PCP addict? That's silly.

I have had a CCW permit for over 5 years (I live in Knoxville, TN.) At no point have I felt "irradiated" with an urge to go gangbusters on the homeless nor have I ever had the occasion to defend myself (I hope I NEVER have to). Barry, do you hear voices in your head telling you to kill people when you carry a pocket knife?...or swing a baseball bat with your kid?

Hm. Absent your "good cause" statement, it's pretty much impossible for a third party to make an independent evaluation of whether the chief erred in denying your application.

I'm not expert, or even vaguely informed, about gun-control laws. But from your account it seems that the way the law is written gives the police chief the authority to deny pretty much whomever he wants if he judges that the community's interest in safety (by virtue of not having several hundred or several thousand additional self-appointed dispensers of deadly force running around) outweighs the given individual's reasons for wanting to carry a concealed gun.

But if you're going to go to the trouble of publishing this letter, I'm curious why you don't go the whole nine yards and publish the "good cause" statement, too. You say it would compromise your safety to do so, which seems kind of unlikely, some ways, but again, none of us are really in a position to evaluate that. If you can't divulge the actual statement, can you at least explain a little more how or why it would compromise your safety to do so?

Yes, criminals who wish to will still be able to get guns, despite your being denied the concealed weapon permit. And if your blood is spilled by one of those criminals in a manner that a weapon-carrying Michael Williams could have prevented, your blood will be on the chief's hands. But so, too, would the blood be on his hands if he approved your application after you had failed to supply any particularly good reason for carrying such a weapon, and then you lost your cool one day after someone cut you off on Hawthorne Blvd., or something, and used your deadly force in some inappropriate manner on the other guy.

As someone who sometimes transits Hawthorne, it seems to me that the policy under which you were denied might well be one that, overall, enhances, rather than detracts from, community safety. Again, we can't really tell, can we? The law puts that decision-making power in the chief's hands, rather than ours (our yours), and you haven't supplied a crucial part of the evidence he used in reaching his decision.

Maybe this is some horrible injustice. Maybe it's just you whining. We can't tell.

after you had failed to supply any particularly good reason for carrying such a weapon

I don't see any thing here:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

that says anything about having a "good reason" or a "permit" to carry. And I'll state right here that this is your permit to carry.

Barry,

You're well within your rights to not carry a concealed weapon. As for your extreme "radiation" views, read the following article and then consider your position again.

"http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,510054129,00.html"

Note the following couple of paragraphs:

Before leaving their home, the couple argued about Guenon taking his Ruger 9 mm pistol with him. He usually left the gun at home but said he'd felt antsy all day and wanted to take it that night. His wife didn't like guns and asked him to leave it at home.
This argument — and Guenon's decision to leave the gun behind — plagues him today. Because 30 minutes later, as the family cowered under a table about 10 feet from where Martinez unloaded his .22-caliber pistol into Rasmussen and Parker, the former police officer reached for his gun, and it wasn't on his hip.

Let's try this again and see if the link works:

Here's the article

Plug carries, but thinks that others shouldn't.

I go by what people do, not by what they say. When cops and govt officials neither carry or rely on those who do, I'll take their "don't carry" advice seriously.

As far as Barry goes, I'm touched by his concern for the safety of folks who might attack him, but I don't share it. In fact, I think it encourages attackers.

This is directed mainly at Barry but everyone else should feel free to chime in at any time.

I worked for some years as a civilian fingerprint tech for the Columbus, Ohio PD. In that time I've come across many people who were victims when simply having a gun would have saved them. This has a great effect on me, so much that I started a free firearms training course. I've been doing it for 13 years now and, yes, some of my students were able to save their lives and those of their children because they had the means of defense.

I'm dedicated to trying my best to ease some of the suffering that is visited on the innocent. I spend way more money than I should, make sacrifices when there's no obligation to do so, and do it for no reward other than the hope that one of my students will be better prepared to help themselves when the time comes.

So far as increased danger from a better armed public goes, not one of my students has ever had an accident. They have never been involved in an unjustified shooting. Unjustified fears are just that, unjustified.

So far as the reason for advocating concealed carry, Mr. Porretto hit the nail on the head.

"The best argument for liberalized concealed carry is not that YOU will better be able to protect YOURSELF if attacked. It's that, if concealed carry is liberalized, OTHERS will be more likely to intervene if you are attacked."

At this moment, Ohio doesn't have a concealed carry law, and it's been a felony to carry a concealed firearm for 65 years. That has never stopped any criminal I've ever met, though. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

So what happens if I witness a violent attack? Can I, a competition shooter with close to 20 years experience, be able to help? Can I even defend myself? Obviously not. The best that I can do is cower in terror and hope that the perp chooses to kill the person huddled next to me.

That feeling of helplessness might be fine for some, but I find that the helplessness eats at me like cancer. Not the knowledge that I could help if I have the means.

James

PS So far as tasers or pepper spray goes, they simply don't work. And, yes, I know from experience that they don't. CS or CN spray does work as long as the perp is 15 feet away or less, and even then it simply makes it easier for you to go HTH. It wouldn't prevent anyone from shooting the guy with the spray can like few well-aimed shots would.

I don't think issuing CCW permits has caused any problems.

Most of the people I know here in Kentucky have CCW permits. Even our secretary does, and she once shot her ex-husband in the chest with a .357, then sent him to jail for 5 years.

Aside from CCW we have open carry, and a girl I go caving with even used to do her grocery shopping with a gun on her hip. She's had to pull it a couple times, since she often works alone in the woods.

Despite this difference in our CCW permit rates, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics based on data from the FBI's uniform crime report, the percentage of homicides committed with a gun in 2000 was 69.6% in both Kentucky and California. But we only had 193 homicides, not 2079.

According to the FBI 58,066 police officers were assaulted and 56 of them were killed in 2002. Could that less than 0.1% death rate during an assault have something to do with the gun on their hips and their knowledge of how to use it? In the past 10 years 8 Kentucky law enforcement officers have been killed, versus 62 in California. Obviously our concealed and open carry laws aren't causing any bloodbath amongst our police.

I think the Cheifs in California are just towing the party line and conventional California wisdom on this one.

Barry: if you actually believe that crap about a radioactive gun eating away your sanity, it's time to check yourself in and get the help you desperately need. Your sanity has already been eaten.

Plug: your theory that "another gun on the street, is just that" is an interesting one, but it's a tad inconsistent with the data from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, Israel, and roughly half the Swiss cantons. Apart from these minor empirical difficulties, your theory is rock-solid.

Hey, Plug, what kind of psychological trait does Michael's letter expose? My degree is in molecular bio, not psych, so I can't tell. It seems like a really reasonable letter of complaint... unless complaining itself is the psychological abnormality. But that seems weird, cause I'd think complaining after applying for something and being rejected with no justification, after you'd met all the stated requirements, would be a pretty normal reaction. Could you go into a little more detail about that? Thanks! :)

I live in South Carolina, and plan on having a CCP soon. I do not yet have the money saved up to buy a gun. When I'm sitting in my car at a well-lit ATM machine, I'm constantly looking around. I know that with my window rolled down, even for a very short time, someone could come running over and threaten to take my money from me, or try to jump into the car by pushing me out of my seat. If I had a handgun underneath my blazer, I know for a fact that I would still look around. But I would no longer feel like a helpless, petite woman. Cops can't be everywhere at once, and when my neighbor got robbed a few years ago, the cops took 20 minutes to show up.

www.flashbunny.org

Michael, if you decide the fight is not worth it (and only you can make that decision), consider tranferring to Washington State. Washington is a shall-issue state and doesn't have a training requirement (though I recommend that everyone take at least a basic handgun course before deciding to carry, as I did).

Barry and Plug, I support your right to choose not to carry if you don't want to. However, that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to prevent me from defending myself in the most effective possible way. I could post, oh, about a thousand pages of information to support the fact that liberal concealed carry results in a net benefit to society. I leave it as an exercise for you to expend the minimal level of effort to find this information online.

I will, however, post a few links which I hope will enlighten you about why I and others have decided to carry a concealed weapon.

Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun:
What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
An essay by Eric S. Raymond who you may recognize as one of the big names in the Open Source software field.

A Nation of Cowards
An essay by Jeffrey R. Snyder (who gave permission to Eric Raymond to host a copy on his site). Mr. Snyder also has a book, "Nation of Cowards," which includes this essay and several others. I highly recommend this book to everyone who carries, is thinking about carrying, or who thinks it's a bad thing to carry.

Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
An article by By Sarah Thompson, M.D. which attempts to analyze why people have seemingly irrational views toward gun control. Barry, your post especially made me think of this article. Please, please read this with an open mind. It is not my intention to be insulting, far from it. I hope that this article will open your eyes and, should you determine that what it says applies to you, that it will get you thinking about your views and whether or not they are rationally driven.

In addition, I would like to point you toward John Lott's definitive statistical study of gun control, "More Guns, Less Crime." He shows, with rigorous statistical analysis, that the introduction of liberalized concealed carry (i.e. shall-issue) results in a reduction in crime. Many have tried to refut his findings, but none have withstood scrutiny.

In the letter of complaint it states that dignity was taken away by refusing to grant a permit. This is incorrect.
Dignity was taken away when it was demanded that a person jump through all the hoops & grovel for permission to exercise a fundamental Right. I honestly cannot see how people find it acceptable, let alone dignified, to beg for approval & then pay a fee in order to be able to exercise the Right of Self Defense.
So while I agree that the sheriff should be held accountable, it's not for denying the permit in question, but for even suggestion that he would enforce a law requiring one in the first place.
But should anything happen where a firearm could have prevented harm to anyone, the sheriff would be responsible to a small degree for denying the permit, but the person who should have been carrying should bear the brunt of the blame. Not for not being able to acquire a permission slip from his county master, but for placing an immoral & unjust law above his Right & needs in the first place.
My advice would be to carry regardless of any law to the contrary if you feel the need. Much better to try to fight an unjust law (even in an unjust system) than to have your relatives do it for you after the funeral services. Or worse, for you to fight it after the loss of a loved one to a violent crime.
& yes; if you carry without getting "Massey's permission" you'll be in for legal trouble if caught. But I would prefer legal trouble to being defenseless. Learn the law as it applies to you, & develop sound, rational arguments as to why that law is invalid. It's not that difficult seeing as how the law uses prior restraint to deny a person their Right to Arms. Even so most judges will turn a deaf ear. Challenging the law is a direct affront to their power as well as that of the local LEO's & most (but not all) judges like their power too much to listen to reason. Juries are another matter. Much better chance to nullify an unjust law with a jury, although judges step in & try to make that difficult as well.
In any event, know the law & why you're breaking it. & don't do so silently; discuss with you friends, co-workers, any & everyone you can why this law is immoral & should be disregarded. Try to get them pissed off about it so they'll at least remember this affront to our freedoms if they don't actually make efforts at changing this "law".
As for Barry, I think the basic point has been made; if you don't feel comfy carrying then by all means don't. Just don't try to deny others the choice that is rightfully & solely theirs to make.
As for Plug...that post was a text book example of the elitist attitude of far too may LEO's. Hypocrisy would be a good word to describe advising someone against carrying while that person giving the advice carries himself.
As for the advice about doing a police ride along - yes, everyone should. But not to learn how dangerous the world is or to see how difficult a cop's job is, but to keep the damn cops in line. I could be wrong but an armed civilian in every squad car would cut down significantly on the occurrence of Rights violations by cops. You know, violations such as arresting someone & confiscating their property simply because they chose to exercise their Right to Arms w/o the permission of the local constabulary.
But attitudes such as those demonstrated by plug are part of the problem; weapons carrying should be reserved for those who are elite in nature, such as government employees & those with government approval. But I fear the worst part of the problem is the acceptance of this attitude, as evidenced by even applying for a permit in the first place, let alone not throwing the bums out of office that imposed upon our Rights in such a manner.
But carry if you feel the need. Laws to the contrary be damned, as well as those who made them & those who would enforce them. & try to oust the miscreants from office; both those who made & those who enforce this "law".

Just for *hits and giggles I live in South Carolina and I got more crap trying to get a card from my local library than I did obtaining a CWP.

Live long and prosper y'all

Here's a California solution to the problem. Find out what elected officieal hires this joker and simply take that job. Proceed to fire him.

It worked for Sonny Bono. Just be careful on the ski slopes.

Stay the course. Assert your rights, and refuse to accept perpetual victimhood, my brother!

Yours is a valid, fair and accurate report of a just cause! Stay the course!

Good luck and God bless!

Thank you all for your support. I'm pretty sure I'm going to file the FOIA request on Monday, and I hope things go smoothly.

Just remember, Sen. Paula Hawkins and the courthouse steps in Miami, circa 1984, How about the Doctor an his wife KIDNAPPED just 2 weeks ago in Arkansas, The Senator was a VICTIM, The Doc was not (he had a concealed handgun, the perp who was wanted for two murders an elderly couple, a shooting of his ex gf's mother, and pistol whipping the ex's son 16 yrs old). Look up the stats on the town in GA that has MANDATORY gun ownership. Kenesaw or something like that. Law or no if I feel threatened I WILL CARRY. Arestraining order is just a piece of paper, and the local law enforcement is under NO LEGAL COMPULSION to PROTECT YOU.

First of all, the "radiation" comment was a metaphor I was attempting to use to illustrate the effect possessing a gun on my person would have on my mental well-being. I didn't intend it to be taken anywhere near literally - I thought that would be obvious, but perhaps not.

Second, nowhere in my comment did I try to "impose" my belief on anyone. Nor did I attempt to be morally or ethically superior to anyone, I simply expressed a continued amazement that people find life in public dangerous enough to feel that carrying a concealed weapon is both necessary and beneficial. Several people mention they know dozens of other people who have CCW's - including a secretary who once shot someone in the chest(?) - I myself know of noone who does personally (except those I've met blogging).

Yes, random violent episodes do happen, such as the event cited by Steve, but unless I'm just missing the news they are few and far between. Perhaps I just happen to live in a sane part of the country.

And to the others, no, I don't hear voices in my head telling me to kill my children with baseball bats, nor do I feel compunctions to veer my car off the road into a crowd of people. I understand the lethal potential of a car, but it has other primary uses like, oh, say, transportation. A gun does not.

> First of all, the "radiation" comment was a metaphor I was attempting to use to illustrate the effect possessing a gun on my person would have on my mental well-being.

Then don't carry.

> I understand the lethal potential of a car, but it has other primary uses like, oh, say, transportation. A gun does not.

Few people's lives are saved by cars. Lots of peoples lives are saved by the use of guns.

And, for all this "primary uses" stuff, cars are amazingly lethal. Maybe we should stop worrying about intention....

Yes, criminals use guns as well. However, gun control doesn't disarm them, so the only question is what we should do about non-criminals.

Barry believes that the safety of criminals is our primary responsibility. I'm not looking to encourage criminality so I disagree.

"I understand the lethal potential of a car, but it has other primary uses like, oh, say, transportation. A gun does not."

You are completely wrong.

Firearms are necessary to compete in sports that are accepted even at the Olympics. Hunting and target shooting are legitimate uses. Every single game warden and natural resource officer will tell you that populations of game animals need to be controlled through hunting to avoid the dangers of disease, inbreeding and destruction of their food supply.

They are the best tools for controlling vermin on the farm, and no farmer I've ever met would consider a suggestion that they give up their guns as being sane, let alone reasonable. (Please note that even England and Japan, countries with incredibly oppressive gun control, allow their farmers to own guns.)

And, of course, there's the use that you seem to be deliberately ignoring. The very legitimate and necessary use as a tool to protect innocent people.

It's true that you don't feel comfortable with the last reason I cited. But making up wild assertions that run counter to the facts aren't helping your case.

James

Sorry to hear of your recent loss of dignity. Hope you find it soon or otherwise can recover quickly.

By the by, have you considered a self-defense course? I highly recommend Tai Kwan Leap. The babes dig it too.

I'm so very, very, glad I live in a "shall issue" state--Washington. I know a man, legally blind, who walked into the police department with his seeing-eye dog and got a CCW.

For clarification...
Whether or not I carry a concealed weapon has nothing to do with an elitist atttitude. Police officers are extensively trained to carry weapons, both concealed and exposed, on an off duty . Furthermore many departments actually mandate that their officers carry concealed weapons whilst off duty. Though perhaps my training and experience would make me somewhat 'elite'. I hold my experience and training above your or anyone elses, 'CCW permit approval' or their prowess at hunting, any day, regardless of how many days you spent on the range or deer they shot.

I have no problem with anyone carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, if the State permits it, with some reservations, and the issue is fully recognized by its population. My primary concern, and supported by most Ca. Police Chiefs, is that the validity of the applicant is simply not known. It is better to err on the side of caution for overall public safety. Therefore denial is usual, with or without cause. I don't think you originally articulated your need well enough, or you didn't have just cause and it didn't satisfy the reviewer. At this juncture, any addendum - including your letter - rightly or wrongly, will be viewed with cynicism.

I do not profess to be any psych. - just A LOT of years of experience dealing with people at their worst (and occasionally 'best'). Knowing how 'the system' works, your response to permit denial would have served best by requesting a face to face interview, (with The Chief - or a subordinate) rather than a rambling complaint, which is probably already in the 'round' file.

Arming yourself with a 'knife' is permissable - as I said "with some exceptions" - those are outlined in 12020 PC (dirk or dagger) and 653K PC (switchblade/flick-knife) Most other knives are perfectly permissable - though that may be a little 'too up close and personal' for you. However, it may become 'illegal' if you profess to carry it for self defence purposes. Dhuuuh! And if you REALLY need to defend yourself - openly carry a machette. I'm not aware of any law which specifically prohibits it, though you might get 'detained' and a few strange looks.

Having read all these posts, for and against, I still am at a loss as to how and when you intend to 'use' the firearm AND GUARANTEE PUBLIC SAFETY AT THE SAME TIME. Jeeze, even the well trained, and experienced can't do that! That's why they train extensively, with real life scenarios to reduce potential liability. Neither does 'Little Bob's' 1984 Miami incident buy much comfort or persuasion for me. Anything more recent, say in the past TEN YEARS...?

Okay, so your 'wife and kids' are under threat,(heaven forbid) and being whisked away by a bad guy, you will do what??? "...Drop my kid, or I'll shoot..." C'mon...they are now being jeopardized twice - once by the bad guy and now by you. Of course he's a rational, right-minded individual, who can be appealed to with a sense of moral responsibility.

Scenario 2, ...Parking your car on the street, you feel threatened. The ranting, raging psycho guy, is waaay too far in your face, and he needs a reminder to, " back off buddy, and I, I, I,...I m'mm'mean business" ...out comes the gun. Oops, possible misdemeanor, or worse...gun seized as evidence. Possible jail time...$$$$$$

Scenario 3, You are under attack and the onlookers, all armed with there own concealed firearm come to your rescue. What, here in California? - in your dreams. Yeah, I bet that happens all the time in 'liberalized' States. In Ca.... "Witness, what witness, I didn't see anything" Better yet, you go to their aid...can you say "law suit"? $$$$$$

Of course I could go on and on...but let's talk reality, that sort of thing happens how often in Greater L.A. with it's 13 odd million population? You have more chance being injured by a drunk driver - I know, lets give everyone cars, that should minimise some risk. Surely a more appropriate tack is to not put yourself or family in harms way in the first place. South Central, East L.A., Compton etc., are not places to go carol singing, okay! Well they are, but there's a risk attached.

If this or any other State allows CCW permits and have stats. to show it reduces crime, I'm all for it, but I'm not convinced it works well in an overpupulated, psycho-ridden, road-raging, gang menacing L.A. - The latter two categories will likely better a young white college grad. armed with his shiny .357 without thinking twice, - but if it makes you 'feel' safe - carry one anyway. I bet you will never JUSTIFIABLY use it.

There are far more incidents of, "...Cop shoots good guy with a gun...", than there are "...Good guy with gun saves family from certain death." Of course there are stories where someone might have been saved, if only they had there gun with them - but who knows. Exposing a firearm in the heat of the moment frequently has dire and unintended consequences. Pulling a gun out is a VERY SERIOUS MATTER. You have about a nano-second to make a decision and you had better be right, whether you 'use' it or not.

In closing, whether or not you get a permit, or carry a weapon anyway,(I AM NOT DICTATING THAT YOU SHOULD NOT NOR AM I ANTI-GUN), I ask you consider my points and be mindful of consequences.

If you are really serious about fending off would-be attackers, carry a big plaquard identifying yourself a being, 'Armed, but Defensively Untrained' (English, Spanish, Tagalog, and all other Asian and Mid Eastern languages and dialects) for all the world to see, don't just leave the rest of us innocent folk guessing while we cower behind parked cars and you satisfy a need.

Finally, Publicola is just plain whacko if he thinks that an armed civilian in every patrol car is his idea of public safety. It is idiotic and demands no further comment. The guy that said Tazers, pepper spray etc. are not effective, has never been 'shot' or 'gassed' ...I have and it is God awful during, and for a good five to ten minutes afterward. I couldn't even wipe drool from my chin...let alone muster any kind of attack. Though granted they can be a little hit and miss, hey, just like a bullet.

My advice...take up kick-boxing...keep the gun at home.

Plug,
Whether I'm "whacko" or not is a completely different issue; one I'm sure which you could find a few people to agree with you on.

But my "suggestion" about armed citizens is no more ridiculous than yours about doing a "ride along" with cops. Do you really think that cops alone deal with the bad part of society? Ever notice that cops show up after the fact more often than not? That would mean civilians deal with the bad guys on a far more frequent basis than cops. Want a ride along program that shows the darker side of life? Find a Pizza Hut & ask to ride along with one of the drivers. Far more dangerous occupation than law enforcement.

& actually if I had my druthers, there would be armed citizens in place of, not addition to cops. We all have the responsibility of preventing &/or stopping crime. I see no reason to create a special class of civil servant to replace our obligations as citizens.
But an armed citizen with each & every cop would benefit the People. Not because the cop would have instant back-up to protect himself against the people with, but more likely that the People will have instant back-up to keep the cop from disregarding their Rights.

Now as far as a cops special training goes...I know dozens of competitors who could out-shoot any cop any day of the week on a shoot/no-shoot type course of fire. Face it - most cops simply don't practice any more than they have to to qualify. & considering the number of accidents attributable to law enforcement relative to their numbers I feel much safer with armed citizens.

So I submit that the special training that you claim LEO's receive is really not that special or effective. Hell, I doubt it would allow someone place at a civilian handgun match, let alone win.

"I have no problem with anyone carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, if the State permits it, with some reservations, and the issue is fully recognized by its population. My primary concern, and supported by most Ca. Police Chiefs, is that the validity of the applicant is simply not known. It is better to err on the side of caution for overall public safety. Therefore denial is usual, with or without cause. I don't think you originally articulated your need well enough, or you didn't have just cause and it didn't satisfy the reviewer. At this juncture, any addendum - including your letter - rightly or wrongly, will be viewed with cynicism."

& that whole paragraph I have issues with. First of all I simply don't recall the Good Lord coming down from on High & granting any cop, sheriff, legislature or government the authority to tell a person he may or may not carry the means of Self Defense. So you not having a problem with it as long as the government approves is tantamount to saying that if the government disapproves you'd back them up on that as well. In which case both you & the government would be guilty of infringing upon the Rights of the individuals under your jurisdiction.

Lemme try to make it clear: despite laws on the books, or policies in common use, it is up to the individual, not the sheriff, police chief, judge or anyone else, if they should exercise their Right to Arms. The arrogance involved with saying that you have concerns about public safety as your rationalization of denying a person the ability to carry a weapon is sick. What you are doing is condoning the denial of a person to defend themselves should the need arise, all the while carrying a weapon yourself. That is hypocrisy plain & simple.
Again, it is not your position or anyone elses to decide whether or not another may carry.

That in & of itself sums up the elitist attitude nicely. In essence you're saying that the common person should not carry a weapon because of the danger, but cops are better than common people so they should carry.

& the scenarios you raise..there are an equal number on both sides of the issue that we could drag out. But the end result is the same: having the potential to cause harm is not the same as causing harm & potential alone should not be addressed. If we go by the numbers cars are much more lethal than firearms. Drive one through a crowded mall & you'll kill more people in less time than any mass shooting that's occurred in the U.S.
But we don't ban cars or severely limit who may drive. Hell, even felons can get a drivers license. People are routinely trusted with objects responsible for almost twice as many yearly deaths as firearms, yet you'd have the state severely curtail who carried the means of defense? & don't even get me started on the estimates of defensive gun uses in the U.S. per year. They range from 80,000 to 2,500,000.

So I find your view to be a little flawed. Civilian gun ownership & possession has benefits that seem to outweigh the harms exponentially, whie government approval to carry weapons is a direct & insulting violation of our Rights.

& I disagree with you that you're not anti-gun. You do seem to favor some, if not all forms of gun control (judging by implication, please correct me if I'm wrong). You may not want to seem to be anti-gun, but if you favor prior restrainst gun control that deals with mere possession or ownership, then you're anti-gun. The only question is to what degree of anti-gun are you. I assume you'd stop short of disarming cops but there's a lot of room to operate between that & being pro-gun.

& if you want something more recent than 1984, here's a link to sites dealing with defensive firearms use by civilians. The most recent story is from December 11th, 2003.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/

But I have some advice for you: quit being a cop. It seems to have colored your thinking into an "us or them" box & the only way to rid yourself of that is to go back to being one of us peasants. Besides, if you find another career you won't have to enforce unconstitutional gun laws that your state seems to pass like fresh prunes.

& for the heck of it, here are two links for y'all to check out.

The first highlights the difference between gun control & gun safety

http://libertybelles.org/articles/gunsafety.htm

& the second deals with the good news, bad news & truth about concealed carry permits

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20031129.htm

I do not trust any government that does not trust an armed population.

I think it's obvious that if Barry thinks handguns emit radiation he is a nutcase. Really Barry just because you are too much of a coward to defend yourself doesn't mean I can't defend myself with leathal force if neccasary.

Have you checked eBay?

"The radiation would rot my brain and I would never be able to live with myself."

Barry, a good tinfoil hat will protect you from that radiation. Go to my site for directions on making your own !

Hey guys, I think Barry was speaking metaphorically about his own perspective on carrying. He can have his own opinion, and I'm sure he's not alone in his feelings about guns.

Plug: I appreciate the many points you bring up, but in the end I'm not really interested in increasing public safety. I think if I had a gun the public would be marginally safer, but more importantly, I'd be a lot safer. And if you extend that and let everyone have a gun, big deal. The people who want to hurt me already have them.

Anyway, maybe I should consider asking for a face-to-face interview before I do anything else. I don't get the feeling they'd acquiese, but it's worth a shot.

"If this or any other State allows CCW permits and have stats. to show it reduces crime, I'm all for it, but I'm not convinced it works well in an overpupulated, psycho-ridden, road-raging, gang menacing L.A. - The latter two categories will likely better a young white college grad."

The statewide stats in shall-issue states - particularly those what switched from may- or won't-issue status over the past 20 years - are clear. Stats for LA, NYC and Chicago are not available, but only because nondiscretionary CCW hasn't been tried there (CA and NY have highly restrictive CCW; IL forbids it altogether). But stats on many other large cities in shall-issue states (e.g., Phoenix, AZ; Houston, TX) are available, and there's little reason to assume the result would be all that different in LA.

Before I start on Publicola, though there is really no need to. I do not have to defend myself, or my opinions, in bringing possible consequences for carrying a concealed firearm, to Mr. Williams' attention. And for providing advice on how best to have dealt with the resulting rejection.

As for comparing Law Enforcement to Pizza delivery drivers...Oh well, I guess you have your opinion too. I strongly suggest you go on a ride-along with a Pizza delivery guy, and take your gun with you, who knows you may get to shoot the customer because he didn't have the correct change.

Do I believe everyone in the U.S. should be allowed to carry a firearm, certainly not, especially Publicola. Therefore some, if not many restrictions should be imposed, the least of which is the sanity of the applicant.

Publicola, YOU are the very reason FOR gun control. I do not want you anywhere near me, while armed, under any circumstances I might find myself in. I'll take my own chances, thankyou very much.

But, I would REALLY like to hear from anyone, who has legally defended themselves or another, by using a previously concealed firearm, while being victimized by a weapon carrying assailant. AND, if the Police responded to the scene, what course of action occurred following the incident. Restrict responses to California, if you will.

Having carefully read Plug statements, I find a distinct lack of intellectual honesty.

I also would advocate that Plug live in the way he wants persons not part of his fraternity to live, that is, unarmed. I have known personally many police officers, and they are not magically endowed with Jedi-Like prowess with Firearms. Most of them have 5-10 hours of range instruction when the join the force, and an hour or two each year. Contrast that with an enthusiastic recreational shooter who puts in 5-10 hours each month.

I am a fairly skilled martial artist, proficient in both unarmed combat and with a few weapons. When someone asks me about self defense my first response is, Acquire a firearm. There may be debate over the exact type of firearm, but that is always going to be the best choice.

I am a 6 foot tall 250 lb man who bench presses over 300 lbs and has over 10 years of consistent practice in martial arts, Yet I would hesitate to confront an unknown assailant without a firearm in hand. Why you ask?

Because the assailant is unknown! He may (probably does) have a firearm of his own. And if I challenge him, and he finds me threating, will he not employ it? He may have friends nearby to assist him. I DON'T KNOW. So I am left with two choices when I witness something untoward (A man menacing a woman for instance). Watch from a distance and hope someone else can intervene, or arm myself, and politely inquire as to the nature of the difficulty.

Plug wrote:

Publicola, YOU are the very reason FOR gun control.

And I say: Plug, you are the reason for the Second Amendment!

One more time:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What is so hard to understand about the phrase "shall not be infringed"? You don't need a permit.

Barry, my comments to you regarding your feelings about driving a car had nothing to do with the potential good uses of driving. I used it as a comparison mostly because I do think of those catastrophic outcomes when I'm driving. I don't think you're nuts because of your "radiation" comments, if only because they seemed a little bit similar to my reaction to driving.

Of course, I still drive, because those horrible outcomes are only a remote possibility, and with care they can be minimized even further. The benefits outweigh what is really a fairly small risk. The risk involved with carrying a firearm are even smaller, as statistics bear out.

I make these comments in the (possibly futile) hopes that you will understand my point: Carrying a firearm is just one of many risky things we can do, and the level of that risk must be considered in context. Never carrying a firearm does NOT guarantee you will be free of firearm violence, just as always carrying one does not guarantee you will be a victim of same.

Three brief points here:

1) There's lots of states without this "discretionary" process in the carry permits...36 at last count. These states aren't experiencing problems with the permitholders who are willing to go through background checks and (usually) training...those people CAN be trusted. Tennessee is one of the examples - go ask your local cops as to whether or not the permitholders are causing problems.

Theorizing over how "awful" concealed carry might be is just silly.

2) The California system is both racist and corrupt. Evidence of sales of permits for campaign contributions, and massive disparities along the lines of gender, race and economic class abound. See also http://www.equalccw.com/expose.html for a start, esp. the Fresno, Oakland and Sacramento materials as a start.

3) Even if you believe in gun control, and there's a ton of evidence it flat doesn't work but I won't go there for now, you do NOT want gun control being handled in as obviously as "elitist", racist and corrupt a fashion as this. If this kind of garbage is what's needed to maintain gun control, then the whole concept needs re-thinking.

Upshot: activists such as Michael and myself aren't arguing against the training and background checks. On the contrary, we can cope just fine with reasonable objective standards.

It's the *subjective* standards that suck.

Jim March

I would like to point Plug to Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Policing. Sir Robert was responsible for the establishment of the first metropolitan police force in London, in 1822. His principles are as follows:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

(It seems that all police forces everywhere have forgotten that one.)

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Plug apparently suffers from the disease of power. Police are, to him, somehow "special" and above the rest of us poor peons who must look to them for their safety.

Sorry, Plug, but this citizen has decided that my safety is MY responsibility. I'm quite aware that the government is NOT responsible for my protection.

Leave YOUR gun at home and maybe I'll give your position a bit more respect.