Billy Jack's Pow Wow Corner

I have been dealing with CCW issues for over 30 years and have come to the conclusion that it has nothing to do with public safety or more firearms on the street. People like Chief Bratton and Sheriff Baca should have noses several feet long from making patently false statements about controlling the proliferation of firearms through the issuance of CCW's. It is politics and power. They are synonyms of course. CCW's are routinely issued to people in positions of power at all levels of government.

At the City level it is the Councilmen and City Managers. At the County level it is Judges, elected officials, members of the Sheriff's Posse or Advisory Council and political movers and shakers. The permits are not really issued for personal protection but as a means of conveying an aura of access on the recipient. Billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, licensed by Sheriff Baca and a resident of Beverly Hills, I can assure you is not packing on a regular basis. He will have several EP personnel around him at all times to protect him. So the only reason he would have one is because he can.

Even Sheriffs with almost 'shall issue' policies have special CCW holder associations for the financially and politically connected. Once the public understand the way the game is played they will be able to change what has been a custom in California since CCW's came into existence.

These departments have policies that on paper appear very fair. In practice they issue to whom they please. In many cases most requirements of the 'Policy' are waived for these very special people. We have found instances, such as in Santa Maria where the Chief has waived statutory requirements such as mandatory firearms training and weapons inspection. Nothing like putting people on the street without the state required firearms training carrying firearms the department has never laid eyes on. Can you imagine the liability this Chief is exposing himself and his city to should one of his CCW holders ever use their firearm in a questionable manner? I want to work that lawsuit. Another department has 'rural' and 'urban' policies. Seems wealthy people in this county tend to own ranches, farms and vineyards, so the issuing authority has developed a policy to issue to these people due to the danger they might be exposed to from their property to the city. Their Good Cause is the standard 'carries large amounts of cash.' City residents with the same GC do not qualify. Seems the road the wealthy use to get to the city only poses a danger to them. The fact that many of these 'isolated' wealthy are also campaign contributors and supporters of the issuing authority is most likely a coincidence.

Tens of thousands of words have been wasted on the Internet by people who do not understand how this system works, They spend hours trying to craft the perfect GC statement. They seek help from others in this endeavor. Stop wasting your time! If a department is violating the law or the Constitution, 14th Amendment, not the 2nd., the only effective corrective action is US District Court.

You believe you have Good Cause and feel your Chief or Sheriff is playing fast and free with the law, you contact me before you even apply. My team of Private Investigators and Attorneys will work with you from the beginning without charge to get your application into the system. Once you have been denied, and in many cases you will be, you can decide how much value you place on your life, safety and that of your family. If you decide not to proceed that is fine. If you want to compel the issuing department to follow the law we can show you how to do it and provide you with all the resources to do so. Yes, there will be a cost to you, but we can make it relatively painless. There is no free lunch and Federal litigation is not without cost.

We shall determine if your department is violating Salute v Pitchess and Guillory v Gates prior to filing a lawsuit. If we prove your case the Judge can compel the issuance of a CCW. The Judge can also impose a new CCW Policy on the department. The Judge can also maintain jurisdiction in the future. So, if the department goes back to its old ways, our Attorneys can take them back to court for a Contempt hearing.

Most importantly, if you prevail and win your case your are entitled to Attorney fees and costs of suit to be paid by the Defendants. There is lots of fear and misinformation being spread on the Internet about how much money these suits costs and how long they take. Absolute rubbish from people who have never litigated for a CCW and who have no legal or investigative experience. Opinions are just that and as Dirty Harry once said; "They are like A&& H&&&'S, everybody has one!"

We have a trial set for November 18, 2008 for a case filed in September 2007. We have another case set for trial February 2009 that was filed June 2008.

If you have Good Cause, a clean background and are not destitute you might want to talk to Billy Jack and his team members prior to engaging a corrupt law enforcement official in battle. We are your Knight in this Chess game. We are not here to perfect our craft and we do not want to create bad law. Want a fair chance at a CCW? Contact us.

For the immediate future change will come in a courtroom, not the halls of the legislature.

Billy Jack

"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law....just a fight for survival"

I am constantly investigating Chiefs and Sheriffs that 'do not get it' so I find it rather amusing and at the same time disappointing that I have the same problem in my city.

In 2006 during my renewal an associate of mine and I initiated a PRA of my PD as we had a potential client at the time. What we discovered surprised even me. We found that my Chief had issued CCW's to most of the City Council members as well as the City Manager and his Deputy.

Lets deal with the Deputy City Manager first. He did not live in the city but rather Hemet which is policed by the Riverside Sheriff. As soon as the Chief became aware of this 'error' he canceled the CCW and placed a call to the then Sheriff of Riverside County who promptly issued their own to this hapless city official. Funny thing is they simply used the applicant documentation and criteria from the city application. There is no statutory authority for a department to do this. Each issuing authority is required to do its own determination of Good Moral Character and Good Cause as well as that pesky verification of residency that my Chief either did not perform or understand.

Now lets talk about how the city officials were issued their special CCW's. Seems the Chief sought them out as potential holders. Information received by yours truly in a face to face interview with a member of the Council revealed that the Chief offered CCW's to all members of the Council. The member I interviewed declined this gracious offer.

The Chief allowed the City Manager, his assistant and members of the Council to take their 16 hours of department mandated firearms training at the nice indoor Police Range on Lincoln Avenue. They were assigned an officer who was an assistant range master to conduct the training. He was on duty on city time for the two days of training. They were provided city ammunition. The City Manager was even Sold a Police Department surplus Glock. You may be ahead of me on this but the city DOES NOT SELL SURPLUS FIREARMS TO THE PUBLIC! Yours truly took his 16 hours with FTA in the dusty river bed in Norco. Great training I might add. Bill Murphy and his staff are the most professional I have encountered in my 15 years with a CCW. Pity the city officials were not exposed to real training like the rest of us Serfs and peons.

I want to remind all that this is the same Chief that implemented an unwritten policy that all third 'Renewals' become 'new' applications requiring applicants to take 16 hours of training, Psych test and jump through numerous other hoops he has created. Funny thing about his 'third renewal' policy, it is not supported by statute. This is akin to DMV deciding that all third driver license renewals were 'new' and require all applicants to start over. When applied to any other license or permit in the state this 'policy' appears quite ridiculous.

My Chief has a zero tolerance policy for CCW issuance. He feels zero members of the public should have them so he makes the process so Draconian that most do not bother to apply. Surprise, there is a 600 pound Gorilla in the room and it is Guillory v Gates. You mess with this Gorilla and he will use all legal resources available to crush you. Frankly, I would have more respect for him if he just denied all applicants. Still illegal of course but it would be consistent. Processing the city officials as if they were Paris Hilton and very special people is by far more a more serious disregard for the 14th Amendment and a more odious example of disregard for the rule of law.

Lets not overlook the conduct of the city officials in this matter. They, especially the City Manager, are responsible for overseeing the Chief. They were and are aware of his 'strict' CCW policy but they willingly accepted special training at taxpayer expense, free ammunition and in the City Manager's case a special purchase of a Police Firearm. How can these same people be expected to supervise the Chief and make sure he does not violate the law in the running of his department? He even assisted them with their Good Cause which is the same for all members. Must give the City Manager credit for being somewhat creative. In addition to listing the same reasons as the Council members, he added that he has to go from his 7th floor office to his city vehicle and he is concerned that this places him in jeopardy. He told the local paper, The Press Enterprise that he leaves his weapon in his city vehicle during the day. Mighty nice of him to tell all the bad guys out there where they can obtain a nice Glock. Announcing to a reporter where his weapon is kept is so lacking in discretion that he should have had his CCW canceled.

Almost failed to mention that the Council gave the Chief a glowing evaluation and a new 5 year contract and a $50,000 per year raise within 37 days of him providing them and the City Manager with CCW's. You do not think there was a Nexus here do you? In most places this would be considered bribery and should have been investigated by, you guessed it the City Manager and forwarded to the District Attorney for further investigation and possible prosecution. City Manager could not do that as he had been compromised by the Chief and would in essence be investigating himself.

I contacted the City Attorney about the misconduct in the issuance of CCW'a and guess what he did? He handed my letter off to the Deputy City Attorney who represents the Chief. He sent me a nice letter asking what I knew. I declined to answer or provide any information. These are all public records and do not even require a Subpena to obtain. The Chief's Attorney asking me what I knew was most interesting. I noticed the City Attorney and all members of the City Council and they did nothing. That was a legal notice that there was a problem. Going to be real difficult for all parties to say they did not have a clue the Chief and others were apparently violating the law, Policy and the 14th Amendment. It is amazing how public officials can paint themselves into a corner when they believe no one is watching or cares. I can assure city officials someone is watching and someone does care. I care enough to march them into Federal court in what will be Guillory II.

Did I mention that our City Manager is a convicted Forger? Misdemeanor. He wanted something really bad so he forged a signature on a credit card purchase. It would seem that moral turpitude or Moral Character are simply not an issue when my Chief feels you 'need' a CCW, especially when you are the City Manager who can fire him for misconduct. There is no way this City Manager can fire this Chief without hanging himself in the process. Smart man my Chief, he has co-opted the one person who can fire him.

http://www.riversideca.gov/council/

http://www.riversideca.gov/manager/

http://www.riversideca.gov/rpd/ChiefOfc/Chief_of_Police.htm

These are links in case you want to have a look at these fine public officials and see names and faces. I like everything out in the open. It is Billy Jack's way. The only original City Council CCW holder from 2006 is the diminutive one, top row, with a moustache. We are obtaining current CCW holders names to determine if the Chief has rewarded the new Council members with CCW's. Anyone want to venture a guess?

No other applicants have been afforded such star treatment. Something magical happened while I was doing that PRA in 2006 and stumbled across the city official CCW's. My personal CCW was expedited for reasons not known to me. I was at the Police Department one day doing follow-up to my pending PRA when I was approached by the CCW clerk and asked if she could take my photo. I asked why? She said it was for my renewal. It was not due to expire for about 3 weeks but I said Ok. Then she asked me if I wanted to sign it. I said sure. When I signed it I noticed it had already been signed by my Chief. Think there was a Nexus between my discovery of 14th Amendment violations and the speedy renewal of my CCW?

If you are with me and have a little understanding of the law you will understand what was happening here. They were preventing me from suing the city under Guillory v Gates. Once I discovered what the department had done with regard to the city officials which was completely contrary to how they process the public and more importantly how they processed me, they had to neutralize me as a possible Plaintiff. No matter how illegal or corrupt the department's policy may be, as long as they issue me a CCW I am prevented from suing them as I lack standing in state or Federal court. Very clever that Chief of mine. Made it so I can not sue him.

Well that was then and this is now. The department is providing CCW Applicants with an outdated policy full of errors and omissions. It is like they simply do not care. Most of the 2006 City Council have been replaced with the one exception already mentioned.

What is missing from the Policy is the criteria for the Firearms Proficiency Test which is administered at the police range. They are temporarily using the Riverside Sheriff Range due to some environmental issues at the police range. I believe it to be lead. This may explain some of the bizarre behavior exhibited by Council members at City Council meetings over the past 2 years. I thought they were just stupid buffoons. I had no idea they were displaying manifestations of lead poisoning. Do not get me wrong, they may still be stupid buffoons but they may also be affected by the lead at the police range.

Now here is why the Proficiency Test violates Salute v Pitchess and why its implementation appears to violate Guillory v Gates. It is not included with the policy. You have to make a request to obtain a copy. It is administered cold, it lacks an adoption date. No warm up shots, no practice runs. Even though this is a new test that the renewing applicants have never been exposed to before.

In addition it goes against the training that most CCW holders have received from professional schools as part of their state mandated training. The test is more stringent than the qualification required of Riverside Police Officers! It is more stringent than the test required by the Riverside Sheriff of their CCW applicants. It is a sham and a fire wall to eliminate applicants while giving the appearance of complying with the law.

The re testing policy is not in writing and it is at the discretion of the Lt. the Chief has placed in charge of the CCW program. Salute v Pitchess mandates that all aspects of the CCW Policy be public and available to anyone that asks. Having what amounts to a 'secret' policy on who gets to retest is clearly Arbitrary and Capricious and will not stand a court challenge. As you may have guessed a PRA has been prepared for a copy of the written 'retest policy', which of course does not exist and all range test forms for all applicants and renewals under this Proficiency test. As the old expression goes 'let's see which city officials can shoot straight'. More importantly, lets see who can shoot straight the first time.

An interesting aspect of the test is the failure rate, 50%! It will be most interesting if we find one of three things have occurred. City Officials qualified on their first attempt, they did not and were allowed to retest, or they were allowed practice shoots before attempting to qualify. My Chief was violating Salute and Guillory in 2006 by having two separate and distinct policies and I do not see any reason for him to suddenly develop integrity in the implementation of his CCW policy.

This brings us pretty much current. The difference between 2006 and now is I will not accept my renewal unless I was processed the same as everyone else. My integrity is not for sale for a piece of paper. The department's policy is clearly in violation of Salute and it also constitutes a violation of Guillory as well. I have but one course of action I must take. I shall either let them refuse to renew it when I refuse to comply with illegal aspects of the policy or let it expire for the same reasons.

I will immediately file a Guillory USC 1983 action in Federal court and this time with a twist. I will seek a Federal Injunction for immediate renewal of my CCW as I am the party most likely to prevail and also the party most likely to be damaged, read that as injured or killed pending the outcome of the lawsuit. If I have a Chief that is this ignorant or contemptuous of case law and statute it is clearly time for Billy Jack, aka Preston Guillory, for those who had not figured that out by now, to saddle up and protect the Constitution our forefathers shed blood to give us. No tin horn with a badge is going to ride roughshod over this Brave!

If the Chief, City Manager and any Council member possessing a CCW issued in violation of statute, policy and case law had any integrity they would immediately resign. With a 'see no law enforcement evil' District Attorney Rod Pacheco, and a lazy reporting staff at the Press Enterprise, the rag that passes for a newspaper in this county, the only remaining alternative to fully expose their conduct is the previously mentioned Federal suit. Gentlemen, you have a choice, follow the law or.............!

Never forget: "When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law..just a fight for survival!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM4ADoVc6TU

Billy Jack
Proud defender of the Constitution

Friends,

Chief Danny Macagni's Deposition was completed Thursday, August 28th, 2008. Both he and his Attorney, Bruce Praet, 'Finest law enforcement defense litigator in the United States' were woefully unprepared for the Deposition. They used a procedural rule to avoid producing the original files at the Deposition. They will not have that liberty at the trial. They will both be facinated by the make-up of the average Federal Jury in Los Angeles.

Chief continues to assert he only issues to those he knows and that our
client's Good Cause exists primarily outside of Santa Maria so he should
get his CCW from some other department. Clearly he has not read 12050PC or if he has he simply does not understand it or he does not care what it says.

He admitted not having revoked the Dr. with the DUI and claimed he was
unaware a Warrant had been issued for his arrest. He said he would be
having the Dr. come in to discuss the matter. This Dr. is the son of a
former Chief who is now on the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. That makes him, in the Chief's eyes a prominent person.
They must have a very shallow pool from which to draw leaders in that city.

When told the hospital where all three Dr.'s with CCW's worked does not
allow anyone on the property with weapons except LEOS he responded 'they
might encounter a person with the same intentions, relative of a patient
where they were not satisfied with the level of treatment, in a grocery
store'. The little Chief, he is quite diminutive, physically and
intellectually, stood his ground that all seven holders had Good Cause.

When asked about the Dr. that lived in and listed his address as Orcutt
(unincorporated county territory) on the DOJ Application. He had no idea
how that had happened. Even though it was issued and renewed listing the address as Santa Maria. When told they did not revoke it until
Plaintiff Investigator discovered it while in his outer office doing a
PRA, he did not have an explanation.

As to the 'Chicken on the radio tower' incident he denied lying about that during an investigation. As to the derogatory Michael Jackson statement, he denies making that statement at all. When informed that a room full of Officers heard him say it he did not have an answer. We have the names of three officers who heard him say it. Trust me, those of you who have heard the statement from me, know very well he does not want to have to defend what he said in front of a Federal jury in Los Angeles. He would need an armed escort back to his vehicle. Those who have been told of the alleged statement are shocked a Police Chief would be so lacking in discretion. I have seen his CCW files and I can assure you he probably does not know what 'discretion' means.

Next step is the Deposition will be available in electronic form within 10 days. An original will be sent to 'Danny Boy' via his counsel and he will have 20 days to read it and make corrections. Any correction will allow Plaintiff Attorneys to ask questions about those corrections at trial.

We are 10 weeks out from trial and other things will take place prior to
that date but they are matters I am not at liberty to discuss. Sadly the
real City Attorney or his representative did not attend the Deposition so they did not have an opportunity to observe their Chief in action. We were stuck with former Orange PD Canine Officer, Bruce Praet. Rumor has it at the department that when the dog reached a certain age they had to make a decision. They kept the dog and cut Bruce loose. He is just lucky they did not decide to put him down. I do that here on my Blog but I doubt he is quick enough to realize it.

Hope you all enjoyed the update.

For those that follow such things I shall be in San Jose very soon so if you want to share anything about Sheriff Laurie Smith, SCSO or SJPD just give ole Billy Jack an e-mail.

Billy Jack

I am sure many of you recall the childhood fable about the industrious ant and the slacker grasshopper. Well we seem to have a similar situation in Orange County. Seems the grasshoppers were running around proudly displaying their CCW's at range shoots and those infamous Sushi parties while the industrious ants were working throughout the state doing PRARS and meeting with Chiefs, Sheriffs and command staff.

Suddenly the slacker grasshoppers were faced with a famine, in their eyes, of CCW issuance. Like a dark cloud of locusts the Denial/Revocation letters spread across the county. The grasshoppers sought intellectual support from other grasshoppers but that did them little good as they did not have a clue as to how to deal with the letters.

For the past TWO YEARS the ants had been warning them this could happen. They cast aspersions on the ants and continued to party hardy while proudly displaying their 'concealed firearms' so everyone would know they had one. Apparently the words 'concealed' and 'discretion' were lost on the grasshoppers.

Now the grasshoppers are reaching out for help. Funny thing, they are now asking the ants for help. They continue to attack the ants, even going so far as to blame the ants for their problems. Silly grasshoppers, CCW's are for all with Good Cause and who act responsibly. Flaunting your Good Cause, or lack of same on the Internet and proudly showing all that you are carrying concealed is not displaying good judgment or discretion.

The ants told the grasshoppers to prepare but the warning fell on deaf ears. But wait, it has just been announced that the grasshoppers have a secret plan for stopping the Denial/Revocation letters. Perhaps it involves Sushi.

The ants are now sitting on the sidelines smiling with amusement as the grasshoppers scramble about trying to formulate a plan. Somewhat reminds me of an Andy Hardy movie where the mortgage is due and they get together to put on a play in someones barn with donated costumes and musical instruments. I have learned over the course of time that life rarely imitates art, but we shall have to wait and see if this play to be put on by the Orange County grasshoppers will work.

There is a Zen expression that says; "That which brings you the most pleasure can also bring you the greatest pain." I guess the grasshoppers do not have much time for philosophical discussions.

Billy Jack

Seems to be a lot of people that can not be made happy until the state is 'Shall Issue'. Problem is they lack the money, organization or talent to change the system in any way. True, change through attrition or in this case litigation is slow and somewhat cumbersome but it works.

People like to sit on the sidelines criticizing what is not happening in CCW reform rather than doing anything about it. California has over 350 law enforcement agencies that are authorized to issue CCW under 12050PC. I have personally reviewed the policies of 2/3 of these departments. How many have the many doom sayers reviewed? It is so easy to post that the man in 'The Hat' does not believe in 'Shall Issue' so he is a bad person.

I will not devote my time to something that is not doable at this time. If that offends some, they shall have to get away from their computers and decide how they want to go about making California Shall Issue.

Want to know why no one has obtained a CCW using Guillory v Gates since oh, me? Well no one with real Good Cause has come forward and filed a Federal suit. You can not simply walk into a department and say:
'Guillory v Gates' and they fall at your feet and issue a CCW.

I have been watching many of you posters and non posters since 1984 sit on your hands and bitch and complain about the unfairness of the system. Yet, none of you has come forward and filed a suit. Gee, what does that say about most of you? I hear the standard answers from potential applicants every single day.

I do not have really Good Cause.
I do not have the money.
I do not have the time.
My spouse will not let me.
I do not want to make my Chief/Sheriff angry at me.
Too much trouble.
Even if I win, they will appeal and cost me lots of money.

The real reason is a lack of integrity! If any of you feel under the current law that you have Good Cause, apply be denied and then sue! If you do not have Good Cause you will need to find a way to change the current law. Wasting your words attacking me ladies and gentlemen will not get you a CCW. It may make you feel good but that is about all.

Want to do something constructive? Read Salute v Pitchess and Guillory v Gates. Obtain a copy of your issuing departments policy and read it. Well over 50% of the people who contact us for assistance have never read the policy or 12050PC. That is flat out stupid. But I digress. After doing your homework, you contact a local Attorney who is well versed in government issues or Due Process and Equal Protection.

The two of you make an appointment to meet with your Chief or Sheriff. If you have difficulty getting that appointment you ask your local elected official to set it up for you. At the meeting you have a frank discussion of the Constitution and the two case laws that reinforce fairness in the issuance of CCW's.

Now go home and wait for a phone call or a letter. You might be surprised at the result. How do I know this works? I had to do this in 1993 to get my first CCW. Even with my own case law in place they were not going to issue.

Chiefs and Sheriffs do not sit around reading the law prior to acting, they just act. It is your job, if you will, to point out to them that their policy is either illegal or they are not following it. If that does not work you can invoke Salute or Guillory in the court of your choice.

Do not, repeat do not sit around bellyaching about me. Yes that will make you feel better but it will not change anything. If you want change you will have to do something about it. Look at McCloud in Santa Maria, Spears in Torrance, ** in San Jose, * in Los Angeles, * in Torrance, **** in San Diego County. These people did not sit around crying about the unfairness of the system, they did or are about to do something about it. How many of you have the integrity to place you name in front of your department on a Complaint? Mighty quiet out there.

It is not the job of Billy Jack, Preston Guillory, McCloud, Spears or anyone else to deliver 'Shall Issue' to California or to get you a CCW. If you believe you qualify for one under the current law go for it. If you do no qualify but still want one, change the law. I can not make it any simpler than that.

For those wearing tin foil hats that are afraid of law enforcement reprisals you have every right to be concerned. I have heard from tribe elders that in some jurisdictions applicants considering suing for a CCW have been kidnapped off the streets, fed into a chipper and never seen again. True these are just rumors but I am trying to track them down.

If the level of integrity that I have seen on the Internet firearm sites existed amongst our forefathers there would never have been a Boston Tea Party, oneth by land twoeth by sea and we would all be speaking with a British accent.

Men in tin foil hats still do not 'get it'. SCOTUS did not address Concealed Carry in the version I read. People, wishing it were there will not make it so. Even after Incorporation it will be years if ever before Heller will be applied to how states issue CCW's. As to TBJ rushing to file these suits, if 'tin foiler's read my Blog you would realize each suit takes 6-12 months to investigate and 1-3 months to prepare a Complaint for filing as our Attorneys and I do work other cases. At my end it sure does not seem like we are rushing. As to Heller rendering all of our suits moot, you folks better re-read the 14th Amendment. Even under Shall Issue the 14th could be violated and legal action would be required to set it straight.

Sure wish I had more leisure time to post ridiculous legal theories. Kind of reminds me of when I worked HOJJ as a young Deputy Sheriff. We were regaled every evening with accused Felons giving each other legal advise based upon their last visit to the jail library and their learned reading of the law. When you read a legal opinion of any law posted on the Internet you had better ask yourself if the persons posting same has any real understanding or just likes to post on firearm sites. Also have to check the 'pull date' on their tin foil hats.

Billy Jack

"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law...just a fight for survival!"