Pirate 4x4 banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
III
Joined
·
28,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
People like Camaronotsogenius and Yellowsub need not read further.

City of Los Angeles Forced to Turn Over Documents Regarding Concealed Carry License Decisions

On December 13, 2011, in a victory for self-defense civil rights activists, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant (Department 85 - Central District Courthouse) granted a motion to compel and ordered the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD"), and the LAPD Chief of Police Charlie Beck to produce documents relating to the LAPD's policies and procedures for processing applications for a license to carry a concealed firearm.

In 1992 and 1994, the City's unlawful refusal to properly process CCW applications was challenged in two lawsuits. To settle the suits, LAPD agreed to a court-ordered application processing procedure. The LAPD agreed to a definition of "good cause" that was articulated in the settlement, and agreed that all citizens who request a CCW permit application would be provided a CCW application at any LAPD station house, along with a copy of the LAPD's procedure for handling the application, and the procedures for appealing the denial of a CCW application. The settlements also resulted in the establishment of a Citizens Advisory Review Panel, made up of appointed citizens who would review CCW applications denied by the LAPD and make recommendations regarding whether the Chief should reverse the denial.

The LAPD has repeatedly failed to honor its legal obligations under the settlements. It has not made CCW applications and a written copy of the CCW policy and appeal process available at all station houses. And it has ignored the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel and has instead enacted a de facto policy of again issuing no CCWs, despite whatever showing of good cause the applicants might make.

To rectify this situation two new legal actions, funded by NRA-ILA and CRPAF through our joint Legal Action Project, were filed.

The first is a motion to enforce the court's old order in the 1994 case, Assenza v. City of Los Angeles. Some of the original plaintiffs from that Assenza case seek to force the LAPD to reinstate its agreed-to policy of providing applications and copies of its written policy at all LAPD station houses. In support of its motion, NRA grassroots activist citizens were recruited to investigate the LAPD's practices and submitted declarations about their recent attempts to get CCW applications. They were frustrated by uncooperative officers at individual station houses, all of whom had a complete lack of understanding of the LAPD's application process, and who in almost all instances could not provide a CCW application to the requesting citizen, much less a copy of the LAPD’s written policy. Perhaps most egregiously, LAPD officers bluntly told citizens that unless they were celebrities, they shouldn't even bother filling out the CCW application because they would be denied a CCW as a matter of LAPD policy.

The second action is a new lawsuit, Davis v. City of Los Angeles. The nine plaintiffs in this suit, some of whom have had CCW applications pending and unresolved with the LAPD for years, have been subjected to a litany of abuses by LAPD in its handling of their CCW applications relating to LAPD's continued failure to comply with the original Assenza judgment. These abuses include not only the failures to provide applications and copies of the written policies at LAPD station houses, but also refusals to timely consider their applications, failures to respond to inquiries regarding the status of applications, failures to acknowledge the availability of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel as a method of appealing denial, and failure to give any weight to recommendations by the Citizens Advisory Review Panel.

As part of the Davis lawsuit, NRA-ILA and CRPA propounded discovery requests on the City seeking all documents produced, generated, created, consulted, referenced, and/or utilized which showed Chief Charlie Beck's evaluation, assessment, and decision to follow, and not follow, the positive recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel. We also sought documents relating to the current City and County of LA residents with active CCW licenses issued by Chief Charlie Beck.

The City refused to turn over any documents relating to these requests based on frivolous objections such as relevance, attorney-client and work product privilege, and vagueness, ambiguity, and burdensomeness. We quickly responded and informed the City that their objections lacked merit, especially because all of these requests were public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

The City also raised the novel, but unsupportable argument, that the Assenza procedures they should have been operating under in considering the Davis plaintiffs' CCW applications did not apply to the Davis plaintiffs, or any other citizen in Los Angeles other than the original Assenza plaintiffs. Thus, the City claimed that it should not have to produce any discovery materials to the Davis plaintiffs about whether the City's past handling of CCW applications complied with Assenza's procedures because the City argues that such procedures are irrelevant to the City's handling of the Davis plaintiffs' CCW applications.

Needless to say, the Court was asked to intervene and we filed a motion to compel to produce the requested documents. In ordering the City to produce the documents, the Court noted that the City's attempt to justify its refusal to turn them over consisted of mere "boilerplate objections," some of which were not made "in good faith." Furthermore, the Court indicated that the requests were directly relevant to investigating whether the City is in compliance with the Assenza judgment and the requirements of Penal Code section 12050.
The part in red, I am "citizens". It was laughable some of the responses I got from the LAPD when I did the legwork for this case.
 

·
III
Joined
·
28,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
good work!

I hope you can get all your CCW stuff unfucked.
Ultimately, this will likely benefit me very little as I live in the County and not the City. However, it might benefit me and any way I can stick it to the LAPD as a whole is a good day. I know a lot of great officers, but the institution sucks.
 

·
1962 YellowSubmarine
Joined
·
11,423 Posts
at your request I didn't read the article, but just because I don't like you or the NRA isn't a reason to lump me in with camarotard.

I would have probably read the article and might have even said "nice job", but I think if your head swelled anymore it might knock the chip off your shoulder.



:usa:
 

·
III
Joined
·
28,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
at your request I didn't read the article, but just because I don't like you or the NRA isn't a reason to lump me in with camarotard.

I would have probably read the article and might have even said "nice job", but I think if your head swelled anymore it might knock the chip off your shoulder.



:usa:
I really couldn't care any less if you like me. Your blind hatred of the NRA puts you neatly in the same category as camarotard. As for my head swelling, think what you will. The case isn't about me. Oh so sorry if I offended your tender sensibilities. Go wash your...oh, never mind.
 

·
1962 YellowSubmarine
Joined
·
11,423 Posts
I really couldn't care any less if you like me. Your blind hatred of the NRA puts you neatly in the same category as camarotard. As for my head swelling, think what you will. The case isn't about me. Oh so sorry if I offended your tender sensibilities. Go wash your...oh, never mind.
blind hatred is pretty far off, but in any event, thanks for proving my point, I'm gonna go wash my... well you know.


:usa:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,732 Posts
I'm sure you are on their hit list now, I would stay out of L.A. before you get Rodney Kinged...
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top