Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-20-2019, 4:44 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Question WHAT IF and WHY NOT

Posted here because concerns ALL MUNICIPALITIES IN CA.

In the CCW section during fairly recent discussions. Some things said by Sheriff Villenueva got me thinking.

https://youtu.be/pn0FQS864dQ

At or about 5:10 in the vid the sheriff is asked about the city of Lancaster possibly issuing CCWs. Sheriff V responds that only Sheriffs or COP can issue, not mayors.

https://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw_app.pdf

Opening paragraph of BOF form in link;

Quote:
Authority
California Penal Code sections 26150 and 26155 provide that a sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county may issue a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person (CCW license). Penal Code section 26175 requires the Attorney General to prescribe a
statewide standard application form for a CCW license.

WHAT IF, a municipality such as Lancaster chooses to appoint a "POLICE COMMISSIONER" as the designated CITY CLEO, and also contract with LASD for services?

There is nothing saying a "commissioner" must be post certified or even have LE experience. OR ANY numerical standard that constitutes a PD.

I seriously doubt that even as a lifelong Chicago Dem. Villenueva would try and negate LASD contract with Lancaster. Worth millions of dollars to LASD budget.

As far as I can tell. Any Incorporated City could do this. Such as West Covina, which has a Mayor and CC that wants CCW. And even passed an ordinance stating "Self Defense" is justifiable GC. But run into roadblocks with their CoP.

So let's hear it;

WHY NOT?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-20-2019, 7:11 PM
FilmGuy's Avatar
FilmGuy FilmGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's worth a shot. Might as well aim for Santa Clarita too. Personally I believe this Sheriff is going to be a bit busy with the self created scandals of hiring his son as a Deputy and rehiring his friend, the formerly fired Deputy. Might be a good time to whip up the locals and getting them to demand local control / oversight.

Last edited by FilmGuy; 07-20-2019 at 7:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-20-2019, 7:36 PM
Fishfearme86's Avatar
Fishfearme86 Fishfearme86 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I live in Lancaster, I really need to read up on this, this is the first I have heard about this. This whole arguement needs to go away. His rationale for issuing or not issuing just sounds like political speak for "yeah, we aren't issuing any" Thank you OP for this info on Lancaster, this is encouraging. With it becoming so damn expensive, even more so now, there are more people moving here, and the crime is increasing even in areas like where I'm at when there was none a few years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-20-2019, 7:56 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,854
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Posted here because concerns ALL MUNICIPALITIES IN CA.

In the CCW section during fairly recent discussions. Some things said by Sheriff Villenueva got me thinking.

https://youtu.be/pn0FQS864dQ

At or about 5:10 in the vid the sheriff is asked about the city of Lancaster possibly issuing CCWs. Sheriff V responds that only Sheriffs or COP can issue, not mayors.

https://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw_app.pdf

Opening paragraph of BOF form in link;




WHAT IF, a municipality such as Lancaster chooses to appoint a "POLICE COMMISSIONER" as the designated CITY CLEO, and also contract with LASD for services?

There is nothing saying a "commissioner" must be post certified or even have LE experience. OR ANY numerical standard that constitutes a PD.

I seriously doubt that even as a lifelong Chicago Dem. Villenueva would try and negate LASD contract with Lancaster. Worth millions of dollars to LASD budget.

As far as I can tell. Any Incorporated City could do this. Such as West Covina, which has a Mayor and CC that wants CCW. And even passed an ordinance stating "Self Defense" is justifiable GC. But run into roadblocks with their CoP.

So let's hear it;

WHY NOT?
The contract for services likely sets out the supervisory obligations and responsibilities. I would not contract my deputies out to a city with its own commissioner, but maybe LACSD did.

A public records act request submitted to Lancaster will get you a copy of the contract, or agreement, whatever they called it.

Lancaster would of course open itself up to liability by stepping into the chain of command, which I do not imagine would interest them.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-20-2019, 8:13 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishfearme86 View Post
I live in Lancaster, I really need to read up on this, this is the first I have heard about this. This whole arguement needs to go away. His rationale for issuing or not issuing just sounds like political speak for "yeah, we aren't issuing any" Thank you OP for this info on Lancaster, this is encouraging. With it becoming so damn expensive, even more so now, there are more people moving here, and the crime is increasing even in areas like where I'm at when there was none a few years ago.
My grandson is a LAS Deputy that is assigned to the Lancaster station. And a long time friend, recently retired from LASD after 30+ yrs patrolling Antelope Valley.

Between the two of them, I get the definite impression that the AV is the Wild West. With Gangs, street violence, and quickly becoming more ghetto-ish all the time.

Definitely contact Mayor Parris, go to council meetings, etc and voice your concerns. Maybe even put forth a proposal for appointing a "PoPo Commissioner".
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-20-2019, 8:31 PM
Fishfearme86's Avatar
Fishfearme86 Fishfearme86 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
My grandson is a LAS Deputy that is assigned to the Lancaster station. And a long time friend, recently retired from LASD after 30+ yrs patrolling Antelope Valley.

Between the two of them, I get the definite impression that the AV is the Wild West. With Gangs, street violence, and quickly becoming more ghetto-ish all the time.

Definitely contact Mayor Parris, go to council meetings, etc and voice your concerns. Maybe even put forth a proposal for appointing a "PoPo Commissioner".
The thing about it out here is I was here as a child, post Rodney King riots it got bad up here, that's why my family left. But work brought me back here, 4 years ago I was impressed, things had changed. But now with housing prices increasing "down below" as we say, jobs galore out here with aerospace, not to mention this has always been a dumping ground for pedos andundesirables, its heading down again. I am going to contact the mayor's office, , and go to a council meeting. I'm stuck here until I can find a job in Texas, my wife and I want to arm and protect ourselves! Hopefully Lancaster can become an example of how it can be done!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-20-2019, 9:08 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
The contract for services likely sets out the supervisory obligations and responsibilities. I would not contract my deputies out to a city with its own commissioner, but maybe LACSD did.

A public records act request submitted to Lancaster will get you a copy of the contract, or agreement, whatever they called it.

Lancaster would of course open itself up to liability by stepping into the chain of command, which I do not imagine would interest them.
Obligations and responsibilities wouldn't be reflected in the ability of a city to appoint a "commissioner" to act as liaison with LASD, and issue permits.

Maybe Fyshfearme86 as a resident of Lancaster, could check on a contract copy.

What "liability"? There has NEVER been any liability attached to an IA for any issuance of a CCW.

For CLARITY, the "appointed position" I envision. Would in no way be an active POST certified LEO. It would be strictly a Legal Figure Head. With power granted by City to issue CCW.

As previously stated, would AV recant on a contract over a CCW pissing contest?

Maybe the answer can be found here;

https://www.cityofpalmdale.org/Porta...%202018-19.pdf

Specifically the top end of page 23.
Quote:
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES

FISCAL YEAR 2018-19

BUDGET
Neighborhood Services
Public Safety 25,043,930 31.68%
Public Security Officers 397,970 0.50%
Crime Prevention Act P3001 388,880 0.49%
E Byrne Grant-2014 P1072 422,410 0.53%
Parking Enf and Admin Citations 420,020 0.53%
Community Service Officers 226,060 0.29%
Code Enforcement 786,470 0.99%
Animal Control 900,050 1.14%
Forfeiture 3,000 0.00%
Rent Control 64,220 0.08%
Total Neighborhood Services 28,653,010 36.24%
The bolded item likely includes FIRE SERVICES. But if LASD's bite of the pie is only 50%. Would AV piss away $12.5 MILLION ANNUALLY TO KEEP HIS DEMOCRAT BENEFACTORS HAPPY, on the CCW issue?

AND PLEASE REMEMBER............. I'm only using Sheriff AV, and the unhappiness Palmdale has with him. As an example of what I envision "could happen" if other Municipalities choose to issue CCW, against the wishes of a "Contracted Sheriff's Dept".
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-20-2019, 10:25 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 5,004
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Posted here because concerns ALL MUNICIPALITIES IN CA.

In the CCW section during fairly recent discussions. Some things said by Sheriff Villenueva got me thinking.

https://youtu.be/pn0FQS864dQ

At or about 5:10 in the vid the sheriff is asked about the city of Lancaster possibly issuing CCWs. Sheriff V responds that only Sheriffs or COP can issue, not mayors.

https://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw_app.pdf

Opening paragraph of BOF form in link;




WHAT IF, a municipality such as Lancaster chooses to appoint a "POLICE COMMISSIONER" as the designated CITY CLEO, and also contract with LASD for services?

There is nothing saying a "commissioner" must be post certified or even have LE experience. OR ANY numerical standard that constitutes a PD.

I seriously doubt that even as a lifelong Chicago Dem. Villenueva would try and negate LASD contract with Lancaster. Worth millions of dollars to LASD budget.

As far as I can tell. Any Incorporated City could do this. Such as West Covina, which has a Mayor and CC that wants CCW. And even passed an ordinance stating "Self Defense" is justifiable GC. But run into roadblocks with their CoP.

So let's hear it;

WHY NOT?
38630 of the Government code will be the problem.


38630. (a) The police department of a city is under the control of the chief of police.
(b) In municipalities which provide for police and other emergency services through a consolidated public safety agency which includes traditional law enforcement, fire protection, and other emergency services, the chief, director, or chief executive officer of such an agency shall control the agency. The chief, director, or chief executive officer of a consolidated public safety agency is a peace officer, and shall meet all of the same requirements imposed by law, regulation, or POST guidelines and recommendations as a chief of police, and he or she shall have all of the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges as does a chief of police. No one who fails to meet all of the above requirements of a chief of police and peace officer shall be appointed to the position of chief, director, or chief executive officer of a consolidated municipal public safety agency.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-20-2019, 11:06 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
38630 of the Government code will be the problem.


38630. (a) The police department of a city is under the control of the chief of police.

(b) In municipalities which provide for police and other emergency services through a consolidated public safety agency which includes traditional law enforcement, fire protection, and other emergency services, the chief, director, or chief executive officer of such an agency shall control the agency. The chief, director, or chief executive officer of a consolidated public safety agency is a peace officer, and shall meet all of the same requirements imposed by law, regulation, or POST guidelines and recommendations as a chief of police, and he or she shall have all of the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges as does a chief of police. No one who fails to meet all of the above requirements of a chief of police and peace officer shall be appointed to the position of chief, director, or chief executive officer of a consolidated municipal public safety agency.
Keeping in mind that (a) and (b) are separate requirements. And when read carefully. Neither negate the legal possibility of an appointed "CCW Commissioner" or CoP. Whatever a city chooses to call their employee.

summation of each;
(a) Does not state POST as a requirement to be CoP, or in this case "commissioner".

(b) says the top cop in an LE agency contracted to a municipality must be POST certified.

38630. Also does NOT in any way preclude a City from having both a CoP, as CLEO of a one man Dept. And contracting with [their words] "consolidated municipal public safety agency". For day to day service.

It's just not there.

Last edited by pacrat; 07-20-2019 at 11:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-21-2019, 7:56 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can't envision a "CCW commissioner" ever getting of the ground. The majority of local incorporated city councils are made up of liberals, who simply don't believe in self defense; their solution is more handouts in order to placate the criminals. Not enough citizens really care about CCW; to them firearms are something relegated to the back of grandpa's closet that he used to hunt with many decades prior.
Secondly, why would agencies such as LASD even want to recognize some new commissioner position that a contract city creates?...What is the benefit for them?....Now that's just someone else they have to talk to. More work to do.
I just don't see this happening. If you want CCW down in Los Angeles County, elect a different Sheriff. Absent that option, you can pray that some court eventually throws the whole system out, and replaces it. Lastly, vote with your feet.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-21-2019, 8:11 AM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,321
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The city of Lancaster did indeed appoint a Chief of Police
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...F5ldwv01p8Aws8

But, possibly not qualified. The Mayor is aware of the possibility of this including the potential for a 'contract city' to have its cake and eat it too with regard to CCW

I've heard that Palmdale did something similar a few months earlier but quickly unwound it. I've also heard that Santa Clarita is watching to see how things shake out.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-21-2019, 8:22 AM
Fishfearme86's Avatar
Fishfearme86 Fishfearme86 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
38630 of the Government code will be the problem.


38630. (a) The police department of a city is under the control of the chief of police.
(b) In municipalities which provide for police and other emergency services through a consolidated public safety agency which includes traditional law enforcement, fire protection, and other emergency services, the chief, director, or chief executive officer of such an agency shall control the agency. The chief, director, or chief executive officer of a consolidated public safety agency is a peace officer, and shall meet all of the same requirements imposed by law, regulation, or POST guidelines and recommendations as a chief of police, and he or she shall have all of the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges as does a chief of police. No one who fails to meet all of the above requirements of a chief of police and peace officer shall be appointed to the position of chief, director, or chief executive officer of a consolidated municipal public safety agency.

Unless I am missing something it seems pretty ironclad. That's such a shame. Honestly I wish we had our own PD with citizens that live here. The County sheriff has many who live down below and dont really care about those of us that actually live up here. We are just "desert rats" according to some. But when you work on military aircraft like me, this is home. I really am going to contact the mayor and attend a city council meeting if it will help. But that government code seems to spell it out.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-21-2019, 8:33 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,854
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
What "liability"? There has NEVER been any liability attached to an IA for any issuance of a CCW.
Liability for alleged police misconduct. Another party for the plaintiff to sue.

E.g. criminal gets shot by deputy while robbing a liquor store in Lancaster. Now gets to sue shop owner, deputy, LACSD, Sheriff, and Lancaster.

Lancaster does not want or need that additional exposure.

Though P5 nailed it above from the looks of it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-21-2019, 9:03 AM
Tarmy's Avatar
Tarmy Tarmy is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 824
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In a strong Mayor form of government, which many cities in Ca have adopted, the Chief works for the Mayor...at the discretion of the Mayor. Not all cities have this form of governance...and the Chief works for the entire Council...small but significant difference.

In theory, this would make your question a good one for strong Mayor cities...
__________________
Wilson Protector .45, Springer 9mm Loaded, Franchi Instinct SL .12ga. and some other cool stuff for the kiddos...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-21-2019, 2:41 PM
JohnBrian's Avatar
JohnBrian JohnBrian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bakersfield, Checnyfornia
Posts: 1,130
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishfearme86 View Post
The thing about it out here is I was here as a child, post Rodney King riots it got bad up here, that's why my family left. But work brought me back here, 4 years ago I was impressed, things had changed. But now with housing prices increasing "down below" as we say, jobs galore out here with aerospace, not to mention this has always been a dumping ground for pedos andundesirables, its heading down again. I am going to contact the mayor's office, , and go to a council meeting. I'm stuck here until I can find a job in Texas, my wife and I want to arm and protect ourselves! Hopefully Lancaster can become an example of how it can be done!
Move a short distance north to Rosamond. Kern County Sheriff issues permits with minimal cause (or whatever it's called).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobnailed Saint View Post
As for the "don't leave CA you coward" sentiment: I don't fault anyone for feeling that way. I felt that way myself for years. In the end though, CA is a lost cause and the poor people of rural CA will be ruled by the pink-clad fist of San Francisco for the foreseeable future. Living the rest of my life in misery and denying my children freedom won't change that.
WTB: Remington R51 Second Generation

WTB: Ruger GP100 .357 3" Seven shot
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-21-2019, 3:11 PM
Fjold's Avatar
Fjold Fjold is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Bakersfield
Posts: 21,100
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

I worked with the city government of Lompoc in Santa Barbara County to get the policies in place for the Chief Of Police to issue LTCs for city residents because Sheriff Brown wouldn't issue any. It took about 6 years but we finally got a city policy in place in 2017. Very few LTCs have been issued but it's more than Brown would issue.
__________________
Frank

One rifle, one planet, Holland's 375

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/Fjold/member8325.png

Life Member NRA, CRPA and SAF
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-21-2019, 6:03 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A radical chiropractic procedure is usually the best remedy for a lawless government that enforces illegal laws.
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-21-2019, 8:57 PM
Christopher761 Christopher761 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 845
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So don't call it a "Commissioner." Definitely not a "Commissioner of CCW." Call it a "Chief of Police."

I am not sure what the code section actually requires (Govt Code 38630) when it refers to "POST guidelines." But, the chief could take the classes. Not that big of a deal.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-22-2019, 1:13 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishfearme86 View Post
Unless I am missing something it seems pretty ironclad. That's such a shame. Honestly I wish we had our own PD with citizens that live here. The County sheriff has many who live down below and dont really care about those of us that actually live up here. We are just "desert rats" according to some. But when you work on military aircraft like me, this is home. I really am going to contact the mayor and attend a city council meeting if it will help. But that government code seems to spell it out.

Read post #9. 38630 (a) and (b), are NOT congruent.

They are separate. Under (a) A CITY can appoint a CoP as strictly a figurehead position if they choose. And empower him to issue CCW.

And under (b) Contract with LASD for day to day police service.

All Legal and tidy under "38630" as it is written.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-22-2019, 1:21 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Liability for alleged police misconduct. Another party for the plaintiff to sue.

E.g. criminal gets shot by deputy while robbing a liquor store in Lancaster. Now gets to sue shop owner, deputy, LACSD, Sheriff, and Lancaster.

Lancaster does not want or need that additional exposure.

Though P5 nailed it above from the looks of it.
A scumbag could sue the City that contracts a LE dept as it is now. This would create "no additional exposure".

Unless in the possible off chance that the New Figurehead CoP, issued a CCW to himself. then shot a criminal in the performance of his duty. But that can't happen, because even tho he is CoP. Policing is not in his job description, as a Non POST employee.

Read Posts #9 and #19. Nothing in 38630 that P5 posted precludes.

Last edited by pacrat; 07-22-2019 at 1:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-22-2019, 1:29 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher761 View Post
So don't call it a "Commissioner." Definitely not a "Commissioner of CCW." Call it a "Chief of Police."

I am not sure what the code section actually requires (Govt Code 38630) when it refers to "POST guidelines." But, the chief could take the classes. Not that big of a deal.
A definite possibility as I noted because 38630 does not make any mention of how many officers a city has to have before it is considered a "police dept". (1) suffices and he is the Chief.

POST guidelines is cop speak for "Police Officers Standards & Training".

Basically "Boot Camp for Cops".

https://post.ca.gov/Training
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-22-2019, 9:14 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,854
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
A scumbag could sue the City that contracts a LE dept as it is now. This would create "no additional exposure".

Unless in the possible off chance that the New Figurehead CoP, issued a CCW to himself. then shot a criminal in the performance of his duty. But that can't happen, because even tho he is CoP. Policing is not in his job description, as a Non POST employee.

Read Posts #9 and #19. Nothing in 38630 that P5 posted precludes.
Why do you ask questions when your mind is obviously made up?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-22-2019, 10:02 AM
markgrubb markgrubb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tehachapi
Posts: 311
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Like an earlier post suggested: move a few miles north to Kern County. Shall issue CCW. And far less of a ghetto than “Palmton/Lancaster, though Rosamond is not exactly optimal either.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-22-2019, 10:03 AM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 5,004
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
A scumbag could sue the City that contracts a LE dept as it is now. This would create "no additional exposure".

Unless in the possible off chance that the New Figurehead CoP, issued a CCW to himself. then shot a criminal in the performance of his duty. But that can't happen, because even tho he is CoP. Policing is not in his job description, as a Non POST employee.

Read Posts #9 and #19. Nothing in 38630 that P5 posted precludes.
Perhaps you should actually read the POST regulation's. Your assumption that a police chief does not have to have at a minimum an active POST basic certificate is wrong. It takes one year of employed service to obtain a basic certificate, after successfully completing a basic academy.

Of course some city could appoint and fire a new "chief" every two years to get around that, but I doubt it would take very long for the state to figure that out and put an end to that game.

§ 1011. Certificates.
11 CA ADC § 1011
BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS


(B) Police Chiefs/Persons in Charge
Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.4(c), as a condition of continued employment, each police chief, or any other person in charge of a local law enforcement agency, who is appointed on or after January 1, 1999, shall possess the POST Basic Certificate within two years of appointment.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-22-2019, 3:21 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Why do you ask questions when your mind is obviously made up?
Dude, it's called a "DISCUSSION".

You know, where differing views, ideas, thoughts, possibilities are kicked around and talked about. In this instance to "discuss" feasibility, probability, and legality, of a work around for the "LOCK" that Sheriffs have on denying citizens 2A rights, regarding CCW in Ca.

Using newly elected Sheriff AV of LASD, and the city of Lancaster's conflict with him, on CCW, as example. And how cities "MAY", if they choose to do so. Negate his and other Sheriffs, lifelong Chicago Democrat views on gun control.

It's my idea. But my mind is not "MADE UP". Because if it can be shown to be a good idea but not legal. Then it is what it is.

So Why Not?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-22-2019, 3:47 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P5Ret View Post
Perhaps you should actually read the POST regulation's. Your assumption that a police chief does not have to have at a minimum an active POST basic certificate is wrong. It takes one year of employed service to obtain a basic certificate, after successfully completing a basic academy.

Of course some city could appoint and fire a new "chief" every two years to get around that, but I doubt it would take very long for the state to figure that out and put an end to that game.

§ 1011. Certificates.
11 CA ADC § 1011
BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS


(B) Police Chiefs/Persons in Charge
Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.4(c), as a condition of continued employment, each police chief, or any other person in charge of a local law enforcement agency, who is appointed on or after January 1, 1999, shall possess the POST Basic Certificate within two years of appointment.
P5, thanks for participating. As a respected CG member with a LE background, your input is most appreciated.

You're right. I didn't read all POST requirements. Yet as you pointed out. POST Cert after 2 yrs for a CoP, is easily negated. Simply rotate the Chief. Like "Musical Chief Chairs".

In many Incorporated City Charters. The Mayor's position itself is a "Figurehead". A member of the City Council is appointed as "Mayor Pro Tem". And rotated annually among council members. Same could be done with an appointed "CoP Figurehead" position.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-22-2019, 7:33 PM
Fishfearme86's Avatar
Fishfearme86 Fishfearme86 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markgrubb View Post
Like an earlier post suggested: move a few miles north to Kern County. Shall issue CCW. And far less of a ghetto than “Palmton/Lancaster, though Rosamond is not exactly optimal either.

I would, and have. But depending on where in Rosamond I move to it could be much worse then where I am at now. And honestly with what I make now, and still would have trouble saving enough for a down payment, I just give up, and I'll find something in Texas, it just makes sense on all fronts. But back to this issue, I contacted the mayors office. Obviously I couldn't talk to mayor Parris, but I explained that I was unaware that the city had appointed a chief of police and that the county was not holding up their end of the bargain. I didn't get any answers as to what the status was on the hybrid force being created here, but I explained that lawful gun owners are curious how this would affect the possible issue of CCW permits if the county had no say in it, just our chief of police. The lady I spoke to seemed nice but didnt have any answers for me. She took my info and said she would get back to me. I told her to email me since I didnt expect any calls back (I've bugged city and state officials for years the best was during John and Ken's tax revolt years when Arnold was governor, and they never call back but usually email since their less possiblity of them being yelled at, but I digress sorry) I'm not going to leave this alone, I dont want to but will attend a city council meeting or as many as it takes to get answers. I'll keep posting updates, and just want to say thank you to you all, you guys are all pretty established here and familiar with each other, I appreciate joining in on this and other threads and not being shunned for being a FNG.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-23-2019, 12:59 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
The city of Lancaster did indeed appoint a Chief of Police
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...F5ldwv01p8Aws8

But, possibly not qualified. The Mayor is aware of the possibility of this including the potential for a 'contract city' to have its cake and eat it too with regard to CCW

I've heard that Palmdale did something similar a few months earlier but quickly unwound it. I've also heard that Santa Clarita is watching to see how things shake out.
mej16489, My apologies, I flaked and didn't see/read your very relevant response yesterday.

That is great news. Sad bit for the largest sheriffs dept in the country to take taxpayers money for service then short them and double dip on shorted personnel.

ANYTHING MORE CURRENT? That article is from Dec 2018. And mentions a Report due in 90 days. Did they keep Lee D’Errico as an appointed police chief ?

I suggest everyone interested in this thread. Read the Antelope Valley Press article that mej16489 linked. Here it is again.

https://www.avpress.com/news/city-ap...f8544fd8a.html
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-23-2019, 1:07 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,052
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishfearme86 View Post
I would, and have. But depending on where in Rosamond I move to it could be much worse then where I am at now. And honestly with what I make now, and still would have trouble saving enough for a down payment, I just give up, and I'll find something in Texas, it just makes sense on all fronts. But back to this issue, I contacted the mayors office. Obviously I couldn't talk to mayor Parris, but I explained that I was unaware that the city had appointed a chief of police and that the county was not holding up their end of the bargain. I didn't get any answers as to what the status was on the hybrid force being created here, but I explained that lawful gun owners are curious how this would affect the possible issue of CCW permits if the county had no say in it, just our chief of police. The lady I spoke to seemed nice but didnt have any answers for me. She took my info and said she would get back to me. I told her to email me since I didnt expect any calls back (I've bugged city and state officials for years the best was during John and Ken's tax revolt years when Arnold was governor, and they never call back but usually email since their less possiblity of them being yelled at, but I digress sorry) I'm not going to leave this alone, I dont want to but will attend a city council meeting or as many as it takes to get answers. I'll keep posting updates, and just want to say thank you to you all, you guys are all pretty established here and familiar with each other, I appreciate joining in on this and other threads and not being shunned for being a FNG.
Thank You Sir, for joining CalGuns as a Pro 2A Advocate. All such as you, are welcome here.

We were all FNGs at one time.

Please stay active and follow through with the CC meetings, contacting the council person of your district, and queries to Mayor Parris.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:49 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.