-

December 12, 2003

Concealed Carry in the City of Hawthorne

Michael Williams (Master of None) applied for a concealed-carry permit in his home twon of Hawthorne, CA. He filed all the (many) required forms, and jumped through the (many) required hoops. They turned him down flat. He has posted an open letter on his site -- worth reading. Here's an excerpt:

As you are aware, there are a great many people in the city of Hawthorne and the surrounding communities who carry concealed handguns and have never bothered to go to their police chief to ask permission. I have no doubt that you and your officers encounter such people on a daily basis, and that you can attest to the fact that withholding permits from law-abiding citizens does nothing to prevent criminals from carrying weapons themselves. As you are aware, men and women intent on committing felonies are not concerned with obeying state laws on concealed carry.

On the other hand, I have a great respect for the law. I followed every appropriate procedure in my application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon....

And yet, after all that, you denied my application for a CCW without giving any reason or justification -- nothing but a verbal notification...
There was a lawsuit some time back (Lake vs. City of Los Angeles (PC 008 329)), stating that police chiefs could not blanket-deny applications as LA's Daryl Gates had the practice of doing. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find it online. But Gifford v Los Angeles (B142639) and Salute v. Pitchess(61 Cal.App.3d 557) seem to be good places to start.

I wonder how many permits have been issued in Hawthorne, out of how many applications, and if this data is available through the Freedom of Information Act. I also wonder if an independant appeals procedure is in place. Looking over these opinions, though, I think Michael might want to talk to a lawyer, which I am not.

Posted by Kevin Murphy at December 12, 2003 09:17 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Thanks for the link. I don't think there's any sort of appeal procedure, at least not in any of the laws I read.

Posted by: Michael Williams at December 12, 2003 10:47 PM

In the Lake judgement (as referred to in Gifford), Los Angeles was required to set up an appeals board

The judgment also established a citizens' Advisory Review panel to review contested applications and criteria for licensure, and, under the heading "Presumption," states that "[a]bsent good cause for denial, persons having good cause as defined . . . shall be issued licenses for the maximum time period allowed by section 12050, and their licenses shall be renewed so long as they continue to have good cause."
Of course, this does not directly apply to Hawthorne. But if the city never issues a permit, then the Lake decision would be a handy precedent in any suit against the city.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at December 12, 2003 10:52 PM