Billy Jack's Pow Wow Corner

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 to 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!"

Those of little faith that spend far too much time posting on GUN SITES, need a good reality check. They have been telling fellow Kool Aid drinkers that you will spend years seeking a CCW via the courts. Well, we filed Santa Maria in September 2007 and we are going to trial November 18, 2008. Gee, that is only 14 months. We would have gone to trial sooner had the 'finest law enforcement defense litigator in the United States' not over extended himself trying to cover his Fisteris with his law degree.

After the Chief's Deposition is completed and all sides have processed the information obtained under oath the next step will be 'the trial'.

Now to Torrance. It will go to trial February 24, 2009. It was filed in June 2008. That would be 10 months from filing to trial. Where do the learned posters that predict years of litigation get their misinformation. Wait a minute, I think I know.

Once upon a time in the Kingdom of Orange where the Lord High Sheriff issued CCW's only to his friends and cronies, there came a Knight. This Knight was attired in a rather unique manner for the times. He proceeded to do battle with the Sheriff and all the Sheriffs men, of which there were many. Most were from the Sheriff's Intelligence Unit. A definite misnomer at best as they made numerous mistakes and fell all over themselves in their feeble attempts to take the Knight down.

After years of battle, 12 to be exact, both the Knight and the Sheriff began to tire of the battle. There were bodies stacked everywhere and the cost to both sides had been great. Greater for the Knight than for the Sheriff as he simply let the Serfs (taxpayers) pay his costs of battle.

The Sheriff's Counselors came forth with an idea. They did the math and the battle had now cost the Serfs well over $1,000,000.00. They sent emissaries to speak with the Knights aides. They negotiated an offer that would allow the Sheriff to save some face and would let the Knight go off and pursue other evil doers in other lands.

The Knight had to promise not to fight with this Sheriff for 5 years and not to fight with Sheriffs in other lands for 3 years. The Knight agreed and a sack of money was provided to him and his counselors.

The counselors for the Lord High Sheriff went back and told the scribes to tell the people that the Sheriff had done the best he could for the Serfs by fending off the Knight. His counselors reluctantly had to tell the scribes that the battle had cost them $1.3 million.

All of the weak and timid Serfs remained just that, weak and timid. Time passed and the Sheriff, now quite comfortable from the tribute he had acquired over the years decided to move on and retire.

Soon a new Sheriff came into the Kingdom. He made many promises that impressed the Serfs. He gave them badges and CCW's. Many did not need them but it made them feel so very special that the new Sheriff liked them. They in turn, turned a blind eye to misconduct by the new Sheriff.

Soon, the King and his counselors realized that the Sheriff was doing things that even they could no longer ignore. They proceeded to bring charges against the Sheriff. Soon the siege on the reform Sheriff became so intense that he had to resign to take care of defending himself.

This King and his counselors knew they needed to earn the respect of the Serfs and restore some semblance of order. They began a kingdom wide search for a new Sheriff. Soon they had settled on a fair lass, Maid Sandra of Hutchins, as their choice for Sheriff. She assured the King and his court that she would restore public confidence in the office and stop favoring certain Serfs with badges and CCW's.

As you might imagine the Serfs were thrown into a tizzy. They saw their special world of CCW's, Sushi and mutual admiration about to come to an end. They decided to set upon the new Sheriff. They attacked her motivation, her integrity, even her gender. They set about spinning for the scribes that they were good people that really needed CCW's to go to the range frequently and to protect the valuable firearms they had purchased.

As time passed, the new Sheriff did what she promised the King and his court she would do. She fashioned a new CCW Policy and began to recall the badges and review the CCW's. The CCW holding Serfs went absolutely 5150. They struck out at everything the new Sheriff was suggesting. The Brave Knight, having gone off to another land, was now engaged in battles with evil and corruption in new lands from south to north.

He heard what was going on in his former land and took it upon himself to review the Sheriffs new policy. He and his loyal Counselors, both with NRA membership and participation credentials reviewed the policy and found it was both legal and fair to all.

He sent forth and told the Scribes of this. As soon as the Serf's with CCW's and their sycophants heard of this they immediately began attacking the Knight for him expressing his 1st. Amendment Rights. The Serf's felt they were the only ones with rights and further they were entitled to their ill gotten CCW's and badges. They continue to this day to attack the Brave Knight. He has taken the high ground and asked them to show what about her policy was illegal. When asked this question the entitlement Serfs grew strangely silent and looked at the ground. While they were unable to say what about it was illegal, they knew in their hearts that it had to be illegal if it was going to cost them their CCW's.

The brave Knight just smiled to himself and went back to battling the remaining corrupt Sheriffs and Chiefs of which there were legions.

That boys and girls is how California was given 9th Circuit Court Case Law known as Guillory v Gates. Yes it was named after the brave Knight.

Billy Jack

First off I am frankly surprised so many people are reading and enjoying my Blog. Yes, I do not favor 'Shall Issue; in a state as populous as California or New York and I doubt that it will occur in the foreseeable future.

That is my opinion and no amount of bashing is going to change my mind. Better for all to look to what can be accomplished by other more constructive activities.

If anyone bothered to take the time to read all the Blogs by myself and others who actually have some overview of CCW policies outside of Orange County, 'yes Virginia there are counties beyond Orange and large beautiful cities with lots of marvelous things to see and do that have nothing to do with CCW or firearms', they would see that departments throughout California are rethinking their polices as a result of the litigation popping up around them.

I realize that some posters have short attention spans and are unable or unwilling to do any serious reading, that would explain why they keep posting that Sheriff Hutchins policy is illegal without citing any law or statute. In addition, they lack the legal acumen to understand that a Federal lawsuit of the type being filed for a CCW takes 6 months to a year to prepare. Some of the posters are actually criticizing Billy Jack and his team members for having filed only 2 Federal suits this year when they have nothing to show for their efforts except a lot of posts attacking me or Sheriff Hutchins Policy. I want to extend my personal apology to those who feel we have been slackers in this regard. You have been asked to participate with your time and virtually all have been silent.

Much like the children's Fable about the industrious Ant and the lazy Grasshopper, it is all about preparation. If it will make any of you feel better about us we will try to get a third case filed prior to the end of 2008. Would that be OK with you?

You have several people on the Internet sites who claim to be Attorneys and who post incessantly about 'The Law' as it applies to CCW's. Perhaps these people would like to step out of the shadows and contribute to our legal efforts in Federal court. Funny, I only see our two Attorneys on the Complaints. I guess these Attorneys that post are just to busy to do CCW litigation.

Many posters believe 'Good Moral Character' is limited to not having a criminal record. Big mistake there people. Ask CLEOS. It is a measure of the applicants judgement, discretion, common sense and so forth. Some of you might want to consider that the next time you go infantile on myself or Sheriff Hutchins' CCW Policy. Demonstrating you have the requisite qualities to raise your concerns with her personally in a letter, phone call or a face to face meeting might go a long way towards convincing her that you are safe to walk around with a deadly weapon.

I have had frank discussions with my Chief and my City Attorney about aspects of the departments policy that I do not agree with. Bottom line, he is the Chief and it is his policy.

I doubt I have won over any of the hard core 'Kill the Messenger' types that this topic has brought out but I know if you apply logic to what I have said it just might make you see Team Billy Jack is not your enemy, but an asset. Now. I welcome some intelligent discourse on this topic. If that is too much for you, you shall just have to continue the attacks. Either way, it is your decision. Remember: "I love you one, I love you all!"

Billy Jack

"When people post stupid vitriol on the Internet, it accomplishes nothing. Just provides fodder to law enforcement that you may have Psych issues that need to be explored!" Billy Jack

I apparently pushed some of the Frat Boyz and others buttons, by my ringing endorsement of Sheriff Sandra Hutchins new CCW Policy.

I feel the need to address some areas that require clarification. Statute permits a Psych Test for new applicants if required of all new applicants. There is a provision to allow it for renewals only if there is compelling evidence to indicate that a test is necessary. That is not clear in the new policy and it is an area that should be addressed.

In addition, the use of the Polygraph, although not specifically mentioned in the Penal Code is a tool that courts may feel can be used under some circumstances. The same rule would apply here as well. If it is to be employed, it should be spelled out that it will be required of all applicants or SHALL be required under some circumstances where 'cause' exists to clarify information developed during the background investigation.

It is unfortunate that many posters on various sites have such short term memories. Remember Isleton? It is against the law for a Sheriff or Chief to go Shall Issue. No matter how much the Frat Boyz and others would like it to be so, clicking your heels together twice will not make it happen. Want Shall Issue? Gather a war chest, change the dynamics of the legislature and then have someone carry a bill changing 12050PC.

Attacking me or others because you are no longer able to walk into OCSD with your bogus, fabricated Good Cause and walk out with a CCW is rather amusing to say the least. If you do not like a law, work to change it. That is what a democracy is all about. The childish attacks I am seeing are raising some flags about why some of you are afraid of a psych test and a polygraph. Are we afraid deep seated problems may emerge? Feelings of inadequacy that carrying a firearm may compensate for? Other things so scary that you dare not talk with a professional or be subjected to a polygraph examination?

When the dust settles we shall see how many of the Frat Boyz still have their OCSD CCW's. There is a silver lining in this cloud. They will have more time to post on the obsessive firearm sites and to go to paint ball competitions. Gentlemen, never forget: 'A mind is a terrible thing to waste.' Seize the day, do something constructive in the furtherance of fair CCW issuance.

Sheriff Hutchins CCW Policy is not perfect. I have personally seen and evaluated 2/3 of the 370 plus policies of the California departments with issuing authority. None are perfect but Sheriff Hutchins new policy is one I can live with and which will protect public safety. The entitlement crowd has to understand she must strike a balance between the applicants perceived need and protecting the public. The 1100 plus individuals with real Good Cause have nothing to fear from her new policy. On the other hands those that simply want to have a CCW because it makes them feel safer, will have to find another means of expression. Perhaps they can buy another really big firearm or a really big SUV or truck. I am sure you will be able to find some way to express yourselves.

I do not reside in Orange County so I have nothing to gain by endorsing Sheriff Hutchins policy. I say give her a chance and if there is something that needs to be addressed in the new policy write her a letter or call her office. I caution you that personal attacks on her will not help your case. Give her a chance. Issuing CCW's may be of paramount importance to some of you but it is a small part of her responsibilities as Sheriff.

As the expression goes ladies and gentlemen, "There is a new Sheriff in town!"

Billy Jack