From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: LA Police Chief gets CCWP
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:58:09 GMT

In <1992Jul30.221613.24046@crash.cts.com> dbarber@pnet01.cts.com (David C. Barber) writes:
>The new head of the LA police department (Willie Williams) has requested, and
>received, a CCW permit since he travels in dangerous parts of town, has a
>high profile, and is not yet accredited in California as a law enforcement
>officer (exempt from CCW regulation).
>
>The review board, who has issued *only* this one permit in the last 25 (or
>so) years, insists that "we consider each case on its merits."

Clayton has provided a good summary of the relevant state law.  (He
didn't mention that permits are good statewide, which seems to
surprise folks from some other states.)  However, the "facts" of this
case are stranger than I suspected.

The SF area newsreports were that the new chief wanted to carry before
he was officially a chief, which would require a permit.  There may be
a small window in which that is true, but there's other factors at
work, factors that didn't get reported up here, but are all over LA
(including the media).  It appears he needs the permit to carry even
after he becomes chief.  (The rest of this is from LA news sources.)

The department armorer refused to issue the good chief a gun as a
police officer because said chief hasn't passed the relevant tests.
According to some reports, he's failed them twice.  (I've heard that
he's always been an administrator, but I thought that even officer
admins went through the relevant training.  Maybe things are different
in Penn, where he's from.)  Why the armorer obeyed the law is an
interesting political question, as is why the chief didn't just buy
and carry his own gun.  (Who's going to arrest him?)  I don't know the
relevant factors.

In any event, he then went to the LA county sheriff, who turned him
down.  (There is nothing like starting off with good cooperation
between local agencies.)  LA sheriff HAS issued permits to other
people.  (It hasn't issued many, but it does issue some.)

Why he went to the sheriff is an interesting question.  State law
gives him the authority to issue permits (as soon as he's sworn in).
(If he's eligible for a permit from LA county, he's eligible for a
permit from any police chief in LA county.)  Why didn't he just issue
one to himself?  Maybe he doesn't know the law.  (Failing those tests
is certainly suggestive.)  In any event, he then went to the city
police commission for a permit that state law authorizes him to issue.

LA city runs their permits through the police commission, which hasn't
approved anyone since 67-68, but it is unclear how this works.  (Even
a gun-lawyer I've talked to doesn't understand the legal details, but
maybe they're actually political....)  I can see how the city might be
able to require the chief to issue permits to people approved by the
city, but I have no idea how they can stop him from using his state-
granted authority to issue permits.  (If he had, then I don't see how
this would have gotten any publicity.)  In any event, the commission
let him give himself a permit.

BTW - SAF/CCRKBA (I don't know which, and maybe both) is currently
starting legal action against LA city and other selected agencies over
their use of discretion wrt permits; the press releases have been sent
out so it's okay to talk about it.  (Not that I really have anything
useful to say, but now I will admit that it's happening.)  The chief's
problems and responses should help in the suit.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns