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. *****