From: [kim 39] at [husc7.harvard.edu] (John Kim) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: summary (long) of suit against LA for CCW issuance Date: 11 Oct 1993 08:40:45 -0400 J. Case Kim 9202 Walker Street [kim 39] at [husc.harvard.edu] Cypress, CA 90630-3130 October 11, 1993 WARNING: This is a fairly long post and contains legal terminology and concepts which some may find boring. It espouses a RKBA that some liberals, gun-grabbers, and hopolophobes may find frightening, politically incorrect, and/or offensive. INFORMATION ON THE SUIT AGAINST THE LA POLICE COMMISSION REGARDING THE IMPROPER LICENSURE POLICY FOR CCWS. Many of you will recall that I have been looking and looking for information on this suit. Ever since reading Don Kates article I wanted to know what had happened. Also, Peter Alan Kasler of the Threat Management Institute ([t--i] at [crl.com]) suggested that the outcome of this settlement could have a positive effect on CCW licensure policies throughout California. Now I know why nobody could give me a simple answer about this suit. It's LONG! (Well, maybe not as long as civil suits go, but longer than I expected.) It's 78 pages of double-spaced, typed text, plus about 11 pages of exhibits. Naturally, I'm NOT going to put it all on-line, but it was such fascinating reading that I'm going to put parts of it up here. BASIC INFORMATION -Date Filed: Sep 24, 1992 Plaintiffs' Attorneys of -Superior Court of the Record State of California -County of Los Angeles 1. Benenson & Kates -North Valley District 300 Montgomery, Ste. 538 San Francisco, CA 94104 Number is either PC008329 OR 2. Don B. Kates, Jr. PO008329 OR 920 Arlene Way P0008329 (hard to read it) Novato, CA 94947 3. Manuel S. Klausner, Esq. Petition for mandamus, Kindel & Anderson civil complaint for 555 S. Flower St. equitable and declaratory Long Angeles, CA 90071 relief (taxpayer's suit and civil rights action) PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS: [I've deleted their names to protect their privacy, but there are 13 plaintiffs, and I will name the two organizations. 10 plaintiffs are men, 1 plaintiff is awoman. The two orgs are the 2nd Amendment Foundation and CORE, the Congress on Racial Equality]. vs. DEFENDANTS City of San Fernando, City of San Fernando P.D., Chief Dominick J. Rivett (City of L.A.), City of L.A., L.A.P.D., Chief Willie Williams, Stanley K. Sheinbaum, Jesse A. Brewer, Anthony de los Reyes, Ann Reiss Lane, Michael R. Yamaki, and Commander Frank E. Piersol. Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners: Robert Carter, Esq. Daniel Polsby, Esq Rutgers Univ. Law School Northwestern Univ. Law School 15 Washington Street 357 E. Chicago Ave. Newark, NJ 07102 Chicago, IL 60611 Stephen J. Herzberg, Esq Univ. of Wisc. law school Madison, WI 53706 Then we get to a long, repetitive, and, in my humble, non-expert opinion, BRILLIANT suit alleging everything from violation of the law, infringement upon Constitutional Rights, sexual discrimination, attempt to create a monopoly in the field of plainclothes security, and the wasting of taxpayer dollars. To wit: " 2. Plaintiffs challenge defendants' unlawful policies which: a) assure to off-duty and retired police officers a monopoly of plain clothes security employment; b) license only celebrities, people with special influence and retired police officers; c) evade and flout the responsibility and refuse to exercise the discretion to issue licenses which is reposed in them by state law; d) abridge the California constitutional right to self- defense (Article I, $ 1); e) confer special privileges and violate equal protection, due process of law and the right to work at one's chosen occupation, contrary to both California and federal Constitutions. Plaintiffs sue under Title 42 U.S.C. SS 1983 et. seq., and for declaratory and equitable relief under California law and as taxpayers." Suit then describes plaintiffs as (descriptions condensed): Plaintiff #1 is a L.A. journalist who infiltrated the neo-Nazi group Aryan Nation and whose reporting and trial testimony has led to death threats. Plaintiff previously needed protection by Federal Marshals. Had been granted LTC in Mass. and CCW in NYC (but moved out of NYC and thus lost it). Plaintiffs #2-7 each must, for work-related reasons, "...travel by automobile, often at night and carrying large sums or valuable merchandise, throughout Southern California, including extremely dangerous areas which recently experienced violent civil unrest." Plaintiff #2 is a "gun store sales representative...(etc.)," who "...regularly delivers by car to customers such merchandise averaging in value $3,000.00 or more." Plaintiff #3 is a woman who retails and wholesales, among other things, home water filters. "...regularly carries with her merchandise or cash of a value exceeding of $2,000.00. On occasion... $4,000.00." Plaintiffs #4-6 all carry large sums of cash on a regular basis, and Plaintiff #6 is a gunsmith and carries valuable guns whose "average value...is $1,500.00; on occasion he carries...in excess of $5,000.00." Plaintiff #7, "...a music teacher, travels to and from students' homes at night in very dangerous areas." Plaintiff #8 is an investigator, law clerk, and paralegal for a criminal law firm and must, "...travel at night into very dangerous areas and to deal with dangerous individuals who may take offense at his questioning of them.... He is also required...to serve process after dark in such areas and upon such dangerous individuals." Plaintiff #9 is a radio station reporter who must "go to every area...to cover riots and other violent occurrences including murders, robberies, rapes and aggravated assaults." He has received death threats, and the seriousness of such threats is demonstrated "by the shootings of Jerry Dunphy, Alan Berg, John Lennon and Rebecca Schaeffer, the knifing of Theresa Saldana and the stalking of innumerable other media personalities including David Letterman and Sharon Gless." Plaintiff #11 is a newspaper publisher, bail bondsman, and licensed P.I. in South Central Los Angeles. Has been threatened, attacked, and had office shot at. Also wishes to resume employment as a plain clothes security guard. Plaintiff #12 is a P.I. who has performed bodyguard work and has protected bail bondsmen who transported lots of cash. He had a CCW issued in Long Beach from 1957 to 1985 but it, and all Long Beach CCWs, were terminated in 1985. He has been "virtually" unable to continue plain clothes security work since then. Plaintiff #13 is last known person to hold a valid CCW issued by the City of L.A., but it was not renewed in 1974. He is an insurance and investment broker who carries lots of cash at times. Plaintiffs #14 and #15 are not seeking CCWs but "declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the waste of tax-derived funds in administering defendants' unlawful politics (etc. etc)." Org. Plaintiff CORE is a civil rights organization. By fighting racism, drug abuse, crime, etc., its Los Angeles members become targets of intimidation and attack because they take steps against criminals/gang members/drug dealers etc, and the police cannot individually guard each CORE member. Org. Plaintiff 2nd Amendment Foundation is filing in support of law abiding citizens and taxpayers of L.A. who are adversely affected, denied the right to work (in plain clothes security), discriminated against, and suffer loss as a result of "illegal conduct of defendants hereinafter described." The lawsuit then alleges that the defendants have hurt the public interest because: 1. proper handling of CCW could deter and reduce crime 2. failure to obey law encourages resistance and disobedience to the gun laws 3. forces lawful gun owners to fanatically resist even reasonable gun control measures which would benefit the public interest Suit alleges that since journalists are often endangered because they exercise freedom of speech; because the state has specifically said that it cannot protect them; and because the defendants have denied and discouraged all CCW applications when a CCW is clearly the only way some journalists can continue to freely exercise their 1st Amendment rights, the defendants are thus violating the plaintiffs 1st amendment rights! Suit alleges that City of San Fernando has, without reason, terminated most valid CCWs previously issued by that City. Alleges that actors Fred Dryer and James Darren were improperly issued CCWs to perform duties as SF reservists, but that such CCws were not needed to perform those duties and that Dryer and Darren were not really performing any reserve duties. Alleges that this is "...part of a subterfuge engaged in by defendants in order to cover the giving of CCW license to celebrities and other specially favored persons." Suit alleges that LA does not consider applications seriously and has a process of discouraging and denying them, to wit: 1. Tell people they are not issued and refuse to give out applications. 2. Send letters explaining that they are not issued, with a detailed part saying that concealed carry is bad for you anyway. 3. Say that CCWs are only issued if there is an IMMEDIATE threat to your life which cannot be countered in any other way. 4. Tell you (if you apply anyway) that you must attend a hearing, and the wait for this could be up to 5 months. 5. Have Commander Frank E. Piersol officially recommend to the Police Commission hearing that your application be denied. 6. Require large liability insurance coverage for the CCW to be valid. 7. Didn't approve any license from 1974 to 1992, when it approved ONE license without a 5-month waiting period, without an insurance rider, 6 days before Chief Williams finished filling out the application, and without requiring him to prove that there was an immediate threat to his life which could not be countered by his department's officers. The suit asks that the process be reformed; that the defendants turn over copies of all applications, including the reasons for denial or approval, and all supporting documentation; that the defendants pay legal costs; that the defendants stop lying about the potential effectiveness of guns for self-defense; that the new standard for whether or not a civilian CCW should be issued should be the same as that for issuing CCWs to retired police officers; that all people who were denied CCWs from 1974 to 1992 be informed by mail that they may have been improperly denied and that they may not reapply for reconsideration; that the L.A. process should be turned over from the Police Commission to the Chief; that defendants stop implementing a policy designed to approve few or no CCWs; and that defendants stop charging more than the actual cost to CCW applicants. The suit also asks that defendants issue written standards for determining "good cause." The suit alleges that the LA requirement of liability insurance for each CCW is improper because Gov. Code $818.4 says that "A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by its issuance, ... of, or by the failure or refusal to ... deny..., any permit, license, certificate, approval... where the public entity or an employee of the public entity is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued...." Also that Gov. Code $821.2 provides similar immunity for public employees making discretionary licensing decisions. There is a lot more! I'm currently writing some of the phrasing into my ancillary documentation for my CCW application. -- J. Case Kim P.O. Box 1264 [kim 39] at [husc.harvard.edu] Cambridge, MA 02238 ****These opinions mine alone, unless specifically noted to the contrary. I do not speak for Harvard University. *****