Torrance: CCW civil rights case

[swdr]

--> Gun permits sought in suit

A Torrance man has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city for its long-standing policy of not issuing concealed weapons permits.

Also named in the suit were Torrance Police Chief John Neu and all seven members of the City Council. [...]

David W. Spears, 43, alleges the policy is in "willful disregard of the law" and seeks to overturn it.

Spears, a revenue investigator for the city of Lynwood who lives in Torrance, sought the permit for his .45 caliber subcompact Glock pistol.

Spears said in his lawsuit he is often "accosted, confronted and threatened by hostile individuals and would-be criminals demanding money" in the course of his duties, as well as when he is off-duty in Torrance.

He stated he needs the gun to protect himself, and contends he meets all the requirements for a concealed weapons permit. [...]

Spears contends that when he applied for a permit in Torrance, he was issued an application form, but at the same time received a letter from the Police Department stating that "we do not have records on the issuance of any such permits, since it has been the long-standing practice of our chiefs of police not to issue such permits to citizens."

"Defendants' formal policy is logically and clearly intended to put a 'false face' on defendants' public persona, making it appear that defendants comply with the requirements and rules of the Department of Justice and with (the) Penal Code - when they actually do not," Spears' lawsuit alleges. [...]

One of several supporting documents to the lawsuit includes a letter from the state Department of Justice that states the Police Department is required to notify the agency of any license denials and retain records of those denials.

Terry A. Nelson, Spears' attorney, said in an interview that the Police Department doesn't follow those requirements either.

"It would be funny if it weren't so serious, but Torrance totally acts in the concealed carry weapon permit arena in violation of federal law," Nelson said. "I speculate that the reason they don't is if they kept the records they'd show numerous applicants being told, 'don't bother'" to apply. [...]

[Bombard]

It's Billy Jack's latest.

IIRC Torrance declared G, passing applicants on directly to the Sheriff. If my (often uncertain) memory is correct, Mr. Spears has just wasted a lot of money.

[maldos]

I often wondered when something like this would happen. If in fact the city denies an individual a CCW who is legally permitted to obtain one for protection, and that individual then becomes a victim, is not the city somewhat responsible for the denying the victim his right to protection?

An off duty LEO has been given the right to protect himself and his family while OFF DUTY, but a responsible citizen has not the right. BTW, if a LEO is sued because of an incident while OFF DUTY, is he personally liable in the civil action?

Thanks for posting this one.

Maldos

[YankeeDog]

I often wondered when something like this would happen. If in fact the city denies an individual a CCW who is legally permitted to obtain one for protection, and that individual then becomes a victim, is not the city somewhat responsible for the denying the victim his right to protection?

An off duty LEO has been given the right to protect himself and his family while OFF DUTY, but a responsible citizen has not the right. BTW, if a LEO is sued because of an incident while OFF DUTY, is he personally liable in the civil action?

Any comments from the legal minds on the forum??

YD

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by maldos

An off duty LEO has been given the right to protect himself and his family while OFF DUTY, but a responsible citizen has not the right. BTW, if a LEO is sued because of an incident while OFF DUTY, is he personally liable in the civil action?

IF the shooting is within policy, and everyone of them is. He is not liable for civil action. His agency picks up the tab.

The only time a officer is civil liable for any action is Section 1983 in Federal Court.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

IF the shooting is within policy, and everyone of them is. He is not liable for civil action. His agency picks up the tab.

The only time a officer is civil liable for any action is Section 1983 in Federal Court.

I dont know the section off hand, but Ill take a guess??? Color of authority?

[Bombard]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

I dont know the section off hand, but Ill take a guess??? Color of authority?

Yep, civil action for denial of rights under color of law, Title 42 section 1983, 1985, 1986. Criminal side is title 18 section 241 and 242. Memorized those for debate season circa 1981.

[ADIDAS]

If Torrance declared G, the suit is moot.

Considering how much effort Billy Jack appears to be putting together I would find it hard to believe that he would target a city that could easily go G.

But, I could be wrong.

Adidas

[akulahawk]

Originally Posted by ADIDAS

If Torrance declared G, the suit is moot.

Considering how much effort Billy Jack appears to be putting together I would find it hard to believe that he would target a city that could easily go G.

But, I could be wrong.

Adidas

If Torrance has declared "G" and they continue to issue, then there could be a problem... IIRC, once "G" is done, they're supposed to refer everyone to the Sheriff. Otherwise, they're not following the rules. If they haven't declared "G", then they can refer to the Sheriff, deny an applicant, or issue. A city that hasn't gone "G" probably has more flexibility than one that has.

[cksh8me]

The officer is responsible all fees if the dept wants to settle and he doesn't even on a good shooting.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by cksh8me

The officer is responsible all fees if the dept wants to settle and he doesn't even on a good shooting.

Huh?

[rickr96]

Originally Posted by cksh8me

The officer is responsible all fees if the dept wants to settle and he doesn't even on a good shooting.

RD, Let me take a stab at it....

I think he's saying...

"Even if it's ruled a good shooting, if the department wants to settle, the officer will be responsible for all fees."


I don't know if his point is true or not...

[45 ACP]

Originally Posted by cksh8me

The officer is responsible all fees if the dept wants to settle and he doesn't even on a good shooting.

No no no no no!

Some people on this board really need to do some research before making sweeping statements like that!

Do you REALLY think ANYONE would be employed as a cop if they KNEW they had to PERSONALLY pay out on an off-duty officer involved shooting? Why the **** do you think departments have such stringent policies regarding both on AND off-duty conduct?

If the shooting is within the scope of the officer's authority and within department policy, then the officer is granted qualified immunity and their employer becomes responsible for the case. The officer has NO say in whether the case is litigated or settled. NONE

Try these search phrases next time you're in the legal law library:

Color of authority
Police action
Collateral employment
Vicarious liability
Qualified immunity
Off-duty
On-call

You can start here

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by rickr96

RD, Let me take a stab at it....

I think he's saying...

"Even if it's ruled a good shooting, if the department wants to settle, the officer will be responsible for all fees."


I don't know if his point is true or not...

Thanks for the interpretation.... And, no... Thats not true.