All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Cops

California working on denying gun permits based on “ideological viewpoints” JAZZ SHAW

AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen on Thursday didn’t simply shoot down New York’s onerous “good-cause requirement” in the gun permit application process. It set up similar laws in other states for likely revocation.

One of those states is California, where they have their own requirement that applicants must show a “good cause” or “special need” before a carry permit is issued. State Attorney General Rob Bonta sent out a letter on Friday to law enforcement and government attorneys noting the change and saying that the state’s current “may issue” regime should be able to be converted to a “shall issue” regime with few modifications. So that’s good news, right?

Not so fast. As Eugene Volokh points out at Reason, Bonta pivoted from signaling compliance with the new SCOTUS ruling to identifying another way to deny permits to people with no criminal record. He claims that the ruling will not impact the existing requirement for applicants to be able to demonstrate that they are “of good moral character.” On that basis, the state can start snooping around to see if you hold any unauthorized opinions or are prone to demonstrate “hatred and racism.” And how would they know that? Well, by going through your social media accounts, of course.

Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, for example, currently provides as follows: “Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.” [Emphasis added.]

As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant’s moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant’s character. And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant’s character. [Emphasis added.]

As Volokh goes on to explain, this entire scheme appears to be completely unconstitutional. It’s a violation of the First Amendment before we even begin to examine how it would hold up under the Second Amendment. The government is not allowed to restrict your actions or suspend your Constitutional rights based on the viewpoints you express, even if they are unpopular with the current regime.

This is an even more critical distinction to make in an era where the government is busy redefining words and appointing people to decide what is or isn’t “misinformation.” If you spoke out against the violence on display during the BLM riots, you’ve already been defined as a “racist.” Based on that alone, the California AG could determine that you are of insufficiently good moral character to be approved for a permit. If you applauded the overturning of Roe v Wade you are no doubt already on a list of “haters” of some sort so you can be similarly denied.

Volokh correctly describes the words “hatred” and “racism” as being “potentially extraordinarily broad and vague terms.” Of course they are. And that’s more true than ever in the current climate as I described above.

The problem is that this clause has been on the books in California for years. Nobody really noticed it, however, because the state government was too busy denying carry permits to people because of their supposed lack of a “good cause.” They didn’t need to bother checking into your “good moral character” because most people never made it that far in the process. And the ruling in Bruen didn’t address this point.

What that means is that if California simply begins denying carry permit applications in massive numbers based on this clause, a challenge will have to be brought against them and the whole process will have to start all over again. The Bruen case had been grinding its way through the courts since 2018 before finally reaching a conclusion last week. If someone has to start over from scratch in California, the state will be able to continue flaunting the Constitutional rights of citizens for years to come.

Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Grumpy's hall of Shame

CA bill would require liability insurance for gun owners by: Associated Press

California would be the first state to require gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover the negligent or accidental use of their firearms, if lawmakers approve a measure announced Thursday.

“Guns kill more people than cars. Yet gun owners are not required to carry liability insurance like car owners must,” Democratic state Sen. Nancy Skinner said in a statement.

She said the costs of gun violence shouldn’t be borne by taxpayers, survivors, families, employers and communities: “It’s time for gun owners to shoulder their fair share.”

The state of New York is considering a similar requirement in the wake of numerous recent mass shootings and a rise in gun violence.

In January, the Silicon Valley city of San Jose approved what’s believed to be the first such insurance requirement in the United States.

No insurance company will cover the misuse of a firearm, predicted Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California.

He said such requirements are an illegal infringement on gun owners’ constitutional rights.

“We don’t believe you can put precursors on the exercising of a constitutional right,” Paredes said. “By requiring somebody to get insurance in order to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, that ceases to make it a right.”

Skinner is amending an existing bill on another topic to allow gun owners to be held civilly liable if their firearms are used to cause property damage, injury or death.

The bill would also require gun owners to have insurance that covers loses or damages from the negligent or accidental use of their firearm. And they would have to keep proof of insurance with their firearm and show it to police if they are stopped for some reason.

Paredes had similar objections to a second bill that also would affect gun owners’ costs, this one by imposing an excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

The bill would impose an excise tax equal to 10% of the sales price of a handgun and 11% of the sales price of a long gun, ammunition or parts to build firearms.

Democratic Assemblyman Marc Levine estimated his bill would bring in more than $118 million annually that would go toward gun violence prevention programs.

Because it would impose a tax, Levine’s bill would require approval by two-thirds majorities in the Legislature. His similar measure last year fell four votes short of the 54 it needed in the 80-member Assembly.

The bills are among numerous firearms measures being considered by California lawmakers this year, including one that would make it easier to sue gun-makers and another that would allow private citizens to sue those who traffic in illegal weapons.

A Victory! California

S.F. DA recalled, L.A.’s Caruso advances as Democrats tested on crime Hannah Knowles (ONE DOWN ONE TO GO IN LA!!!)

San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin listens as Supervisor Hilary Ronen speaks at his election-day event on Tuesday, June 7, 2022 in San Francisco. He was ousted in a recall. (Gabrielle Lurie/San Francisco Chronicle via AP)

Crime, homelessness and Democratic divisions over the issues took center stage Tuesday as a liberal prosecutor in San Francisco was recalled and seven states held primaries that helped mold each party’s image heading into November’s fight for control of Congress, statehouses and major cities across the country.

control. And if we don’t allow second chances for
Loaded: 95.12%

Rick Caruso heads to runoff in Los Angeles mayoral race

The recall of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin (D) — whom critics called too lenient — came as angst over liberal leaders’ approach to public safety also loomed large in a contest for Los Angeles mayor, where Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) and billionaire businessman Rick Caruso are projected to advance to a runoff. Caruso, a former Republican, has pitched himself as a different kind of Democrat who will fix long-simmering crises in the nation’s second-largest city.

Soaring inflation, gun violence and abortion rights were on voters’ minds Tuesday as they headed to the polls in California, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota. Republicans are seizing on rising costs and crime to try to retake the House and narrowly divided Senate this fall. They have sought to pin those problems on the Biden administration and liberal policies, arguments that resonated with some voters Tuesday.

Turning in their ballots for Caruso together, a group of neighbors wished for “a better future” before taking a selfie. One woman said crime was her biggest concern — her husband’s brother had been robbed at gunpoint the day before in Burbank.

Surrounded by supporters at a bar Tuesday night, Boudin said the recall campaign “exploited an environment in which people are appropriately upset.”

“They were given an opportunity to voice their frustration and their outrage, and they took that opportunity,” he said.

“Looking for someone to blame,” an audience member chimed in.

Democrats are bracing for an uphill battle this fall amid low approval ratings for President Biden and political head winds that the president’s party has historically faced in first midterms. To counter those trends, Democrats are seeking to cast GOP candidates as extremists beholden to Trump.

“I’d like to get a functional country again,” said Iowa voter Mehgin Lawrence, who was torn between several Democratic candidates vying to challenge Republican Charles E. Grassley, 88, the country’s longest-serving sitting Republican senator. “There is a lot of dysfunction in general on both sides of the aisle.”

Grassley won renomination, the AP projected, and he is favored to keep the seat. In the Democratic race to replace him, retired Navy Vice Adm. Mike Franken defeated former congresswoman Abby Finkenauer, who was also seen as a strong contender. Franken has sought to appeal to Iowa’s swing voters. “It is that middle segment who want logical, pragmatic, smart, dedicated national servants to work for them, leader servants,” he said in a recent debate. “I believe I’m that person.”

The night’s first results from the East Coast and the Deep South, meanwhile, highlighted conflicts within the GOP, offering the latest tests of former president Donald Trump’s influence and more moderate candidates’ efforts to beat back challengers from their right.

In Mississippi, Rep. Michael Guest (R) was in a close race with challenger Michael Cassidy with a majority of the vote counted. Cassidy targeted Guest’s vote last year for a commission to investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection by a pro-Trump mob at the U.S. Capitol. Rep. Steven M. Palazzo (R-Miss.) was forced into a runoff, the Associated Press projected, amid scrutiny of an ethics body’s finding there is significant evidence he misspent campaign money.

Sam Welford, 45, cast his vote for one of the opponents, Clay Wagner, and said Palazzo has “run his course.” Welford said he does not align with any party but said rising prices under Biden played a key role in his choice to vote Republican Tuesday.

“Look at where we are today,” said Pamela Turner, a retired nurse and “staunch Republican” in Mississippi who blamed Democrats for the state of the country, even as she voted to oust Palazzo. “Look at the price of gas.”

In New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District — one of many the GOP hopes to flip this year — Tom Kean Jr. was projected to defeat challengers who attacked him as not conservative enough. And Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who has clashed with Trump, won renomination, the AP projected.

Republicans call Kean a top recruit and say the former state senator is well-positioned to flip the seat in November. The son of a former governor and grandson of a former Congressman, Kean finished just over a percentage point behind incumbent Rep. Tom Malinowski (D) in 2020 and will face Malinowski again this fall under more favorable conditions for Republicans nationwide.

Related video: LA mayor candidate Bass calls out billionaire opponent Caruso as recent former Republican

At a polling site in Bridgewater Township on Tuesday, Bob Hummer said that while he voted in the Democratic primary, he is leaning toward voting for Kean in the general election — he said thinks Republicans are better on economic issues.

In California, Democrats offered voters different tacks and tones on public safety — underscoring how the issue has rankled voters even in liberal strongholds.

A liberal DA finds voters’ moods have changed even in San Francisco

In 2019, voters embraced Boudin’s pitch for a less punitive justice system that looks to rehabilitate offenders. Drawing on his public defender experience and personal story — his parents went to prison when he was a child — Boudin triumphed over an interim district attorney backed by the Democratic establishment. The district attorney’s supporters say he has become an easy scapegoat for a systemic and nationwide problem: Crime rose in many large cities during the coronavirus pandemic.

“There is a very long tradition from the right of using these issues as a wedge, using these issues as a weapon, with no actual interest in the solutions that have been proven to reduce crime,” said Julie Edwards, a spokesperson for the anti-recall effort, in an interview.

But recently, leaders like Boudin have been on the defensive, as Republicans highlight some activists’ push to “defund the police” and as Democrats including Biden try to recalibrate their party’s image.

With about half the vote tallied by early Wednesday morning, roughly 60 percent were in favor of recalling Boudin, the AP said. San Francisco Mayor London Breed (D), who has called for a crackdown on “criminals who are destroying our city,” will appoint Boudin’s replacement.

Caruso, the wealthy developer in Los Angeles, has been framing himself as the change candidate in the mayoral race, vowing a tougher response to homelessness and crime. He has poured his own fortune into the campaign, spending tens of millions of dollars.

Bass, a veteran lawmaker and finalist to become Biden’s running mate in 2020, has also promised to tackle a “humanitarian emergency” of homelessness and made public safety a key issue. But she emphasizes social services to prevent crime and says not all neighborhoods want police to be more visible.

Early Wednesday morning, with most votes yet to be counted, Bass and Caruso were in a tight race. Because neither candidate won a majority of the vote in a crowded field, they will face off again November, when strategists say they expect Caruso would face tougher odds.

To some voters, the choice was anyone but Caruso.

“I think he’s a little too polished for my taste,” said Daniel Sackler, 57, even as he agreed with some of Caruso’s proposals on crime. “Billionaires are not to be trusted for the most part.”

Jennifer Dustin, 46, said she has considered moving her family from Los Angeles because of concerns about crime — but still, she voted for Bass.

“They are all going to say the same stuff,” Jake Kuczeruk, 33, said. “If it translates to action is the real question.”

In Los Angeles, public anger drives an identity-focused mayor’s race

Also in California, Rep. Young Kim (R), who flipped her seat in 2020, was facing not only Democrat Asif Mahmood but also GOP rivals including Greg Raths, a city council member and retired fighter pilot. A super PAC aligned with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has funded ads against Raths as Kim tries to ensure she advances in California’s unusual primary system. The two candidates with the most votes proceed to the general election regardless of party.

California Rep. David G. Valadao (R) was seeking reelection as his opponent, Chris Mathys, attacked his vote last year to impeach Trump for his conduct leading up to the storming of the Capitol last year. Trump hasn’t endorsed a challenger, despite pouring massive political capital into other critics’ races — underscoring many Republicans’ belief that Valadao is their best bet at retaining a blue-leaning district.

Other U.S. House races also grabbed the attention of party strategists. In Iowa, state Sen. Zach Nunn won the Republican race to challenge Rep. Cindy Axne, the conservative-leaning state’s only Democratic legislator in Congress. The seat is expected to be highly competitive this fall.

In Montana, one of Trump’s Cabinet members — former interior secretary Ryan Zinke, who resigned during an ethics investigation — was in a tight race for the Republican nomination in a new congressional district expected to boost the GOP’s influence in the House. Montana got a second House seat after the 2020 Census.

Zinke, who secured Trump’s endorsement, has four opponents in the GOP primary. Critics have noted he splits his time between Montana and California and have also highlighted the government watchdog report released this year that found that he broke federal rules as interior secretary and also lied to an ethics official.

Former local TV weatherman Mark Ronchetti won in a crowded GOP field to take on New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D), according to the Associated Press, as Republicans see room for gains even in a state controlled by Democrats. Ronchetti ran for Senate in the state in 2020 and lost to Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D).

Democrats said they believe that Ronchetti’s views are not in line with New Mexico voters, pointing to comments he’s made questioning climate change as the state has faced massive wildfires. “No individual fire or storm is the result of climate change,” Ronchetti told the Albuquerque Journal. “That isn’t the case.”

Annie Linskey and Scott Clement in Washington; Brian Wellner in Iowa; Ashley Cusick in Mississippi; Miranda Green in Los Angeles; and Jack Wright in New Jersey contributed to this report.

Even Crazy SF could not stomach this guy! Grumpy

Born again Cynic! California

Gee another “Shocker”!!! – Gov. Newsom vows California action after Texas school shooting by Daniel Macht

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state legislative leaders on Wednesday said they are trying to accelerate over a dozen bills in the legislative process to reduce gun violence.

“California leads this national conversation. When California moves other states move in the same direction,” Newsom said in Sacramento.

Newsom, Senate President Pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins, D-San Diego, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, made the announcement a day after 19 children and two teachers were killed in a shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.

Atkins said change has to happen before “another neighbor, mother, teacher or child is senselessly ripped from our worlds.”

“Every person that has stood in the way of solutions, whose votes have put more guns on our streets and in our classrooms needs to put their extreme and misguided ideologies aside. Children are scared to go to school,” Atkins said.

Newsom said he will be signing over a dozen bills at the end of next month to “advance efforts in a series of critical areas on ghost guns, on issues related to the proliferation of assault weapons, ghost guns as well as others where we need to increase our enforcement.”

Among some of the bills that Newsom has committed to signing include AB 1594, which would create a standard by which the firearm industry could be sued in civil court; AB 1621 targets ghost guns and firearm components that do not have serial numbers; AB 2571 would restrict the marketing of firearms to minors; and AB 1327 creates private right of action to limit the spread of illegal assault weapons and ghost guns.


California already has some of the nation’s strictest firearm laws.

Newsom referenced several other shootings in California that led to gun control measures being passed throughout the years including the 1989 Stockton school shooting that killed five children. Then Republican Gov. George Deukmejian signed the first assault weapons ban in the country called the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act.

“The series of tragedies and incidents the state has stepped up and stepped in, not just rhetorically, not through words but through action and that’s what we’re doing here again today,” he said.

Newsom said California’s restrictions on guns have “consistently outperformed other states in terms of gun murder rates and gun death rates.”

He criticized Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for dismissing gun laws in other states.“Gov. Abbott just name-checked the state of California, I would caution him from doing that,” Newsom said. “Particularly, and you can just go to the CDC website and look at the gun murder rate in 2020 that was 67% higher than the state of California in 2020.”

On Wednesday, Abbott had said: “There are, quote, real gun laws in Chicago. There are, quote, real gun laws in New York. There are ‘real’ gun laws in California. I hate to say this, but there are more people who were shot every weekend in Chicago than there are in schools in Texas. And we need to realize that people who think that ‘maybe if we could just implement tougher gun laws, it’s going to solve it.’ Chicago and LA and New York disprove that thesis.”

Newsom, as he has in the past, also criticized “extremist” federal judges who have ruled against some of California’s gun laws — Judge Roger Benitez compared assault weapons to Swiss Army knives and Judge Ryan Nelson earlier this month wrote the majority opinion blocking the state’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic weapons to adults under 21.

“You can ask Judge Benitez about how he’s feeling about this last 10 days,” Newsom said. As for Nelson, “I wonder how he’s feeling right now (after) what happened in Buffalo and what happened in Texas.” Both of those shootings were carried out by 18-year-old men using semiautomatic weapons.

Benitez and Nelson both declined to comment through spokesmen. Abbott’s office did not immediately comment.

The Texas shooting comes as FBI statistics show a rise in active shooter incidents. They surged in 2021 by more than 50% from 2020 and nearly 97% from 2017.

In California, one person was killed and five others were wounded during a shooting at a church in Southern California last week.

“In the face of repeated tragedies in our state and elsewhere, California remains committed to doing everything we can to stem the violence. As a society we must do better,” Rendon said.

California Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom Well I thought it was neat!

San Francisco in the Late 40’s & 50″s before the insanity hit the place!

Born again Cynic! California Cops

The Los Angeles Times Won’t Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story BY JACK DUNPHY

AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill
Any government whose law enforcement apparatus is immune from scrutiny by a free press is all but guaranteed to become oppressive, and it goes without saying that we, as free Americans, would bridle at any such arrangement. But there is a danger in the other direction as well, one in which police leaders are so concerned with how they are portrayed in the media that they lose sight of their mission to reduce crime. Such is the current state of the Los Angeles Police Department, whose chief Michel Moore lives in fear of what might be written about him in the Los Angeles Times.

On May 3, in downtown Los Angeles, 54-year-old Leron James allegedly brandished a handgun at firefighters, who then notified the LAPD. Patrol officers responded but could not coax James from his 5th-floor apartment, prompting a response from the LAPD’s SWAT team. When James opened fire from his apartment window, two SWAT officers returned fire and killed him. So here we have a straightforward set of facts and a use of deadly force by the police about which there should be little controversy.

Alas . . .

According to a May 20 story in the L.A. Times, as SWAT officers were preparing to deploy on the incident, one of them was captured on another’s body-worn camera saying, “Happy hunting.” Neither the officer who made the comment nor the one he said it to were involved in shooting James, and as hot-microphone indiscretions go, this one strikes me as pretty mild. That didn’t prevent someone from bringing it to the attention of the L.A. Times, whose writers and editors exult in any opportunity to present the police, especially the LAPD, in an unfavorable light.

Responding to the Times’s story like an obedient servant was LAPD chief Michel Moore, who said the offending officer had been removed from field duty pending the outcome of an investigation. “It’s a disturbing remark,” Moore said. “Gallows humor or otherwise, it doesn’t have a place.”

Oh, please. Having worked some time ago at the same division and same rank as Moore, I can attest that he regularly made comments far, far more “disturbing” than this one. He can be grateful (as can I) he did his time on the streets in the days before body-worn cameras, when mildly inappropriate remarks like this one resulted in nothing more than a talking-to from a sergeant out by the gas pumps. Those days are long over, and yes, this and every officer should be circumspect in what he allows to be recorded for posterity, but the reaction to this has been beyond absurd.

Moore promises an “investigation” into the matter. Of what, exactly? The remark was caught on video, so the only questions to be asked are what policy was violated, if any, and if there was a violation, what to do about it. No matter how quickly and easily these questions can be answered, the unfortunate officer will probably spend up to a year on administrative duties as Moore and his top brass twiddle their thumbs in their typical fashion and the internal affairs process drags on. In the meantime, the officer’s life will be upended, and the LAPD and the citizens of Los Angeles will be needlessly denied the benefits of his skills and expertise.

Not content with giving the shaft to a single officer, Moore has ordered a review of SWAT operations over the last ten years in an effort to uncover “any potential problems or patterns” that might have gone unnoticed in what is already the most scrutinized entity in the LAPD. I expect the L.A. Times to soon report on an officer being reprimanded for parking the SWAT truck in a handicap zone during a barricaded-suspect operation.

What will not be investigated, unfortunately, is the question of who brought the “happy hunting” matter to the attention of the L.A. Times. Who is it within the organization who stands to benefit from the upheaval that will follow? The Times was quick to link this incident to its 2020 reporting on a pending lawsuit filed by a former SWAT supervisor who alleged the existence of a “SWAT mafia” whose members encourage the use of deadly force. In August 2020 I commented on that lawsuit here on PJ Media, offering statistics that would seem to belie the plaintiff’s allegations. The L.A. Times clearly has a source close to the matter, yet these relevant statistics are never included in any of the paper’s coverage on this issue.

Related: More Dishonesty in the LA Times About the LAPD

So, since the L.A. Times can’t be bothered to ask for these numbers, or else has them but won’t print them for the corrosive effect they may have on the paper’s long-propagated narrative, I present them here. The LAPD began capturing detailed statistics on SWAT deployments in 2013, since which time the team has responded to more than 1,200 incidents. And bear in mind they respond only to incidents in which suspects are armed or believed to be, to include call-outs for barricaded suspects and warrant service for high-risk circumstances. In all of these deployments, force of any type, ranging from deadly force to tear gas to even the least aggressive forms of physical restraint, was used in just 8 percent of them. Deadly force was used in a mere 1.4 percent of the deployments.

If there is a “SWAT mafia,” they don’t seem to have much influence on these outcomes, a fact you won’t find in the pages of the Los Angeles Times.

California Cops

3 LAPD officers have negligent discharges within days By Tom Knighton (Color me surprised! Grumpy)

ajuprasetyo / Pixabay
I don’t like the phrase “accidental discharge” in most instances. After all, they’re not accidents. They’re generally the result of someone screwing up, which means their negligent discharges, not accidents.

There are exceptions, but they’re not that common.

Then there are those who think that the police are the only ones who really can be trusted with guns, in part because of those negligent discharges, because they’re the only ones with the proper training.

That’s just freaking hilarious.

At least three Los Angeles Police Department officers inadvertently fired their weapons during just one week in late April, the police chief said on Tuesday, May 3.

Two shootings occurred when the officers were inside their apartments, each accidently firing the weapon and sending a round into the unit next door.

The third shooting was at LAPD’s Wilshire Division station on Venice Boulevard. The officer who fired it was handling a coworker’s gun.

“A round was fired in the detective’s squad room,” Chief Michel Moore told the Los Angeles Police Commission. “The round was discharged directly into the floor.”

No one was injured in any of the shootings.

The sudden flurry of unintended shootings drew Moore’s attention and caused concern for some on the commission.

Moore said Deputy Chief Michael Rimkunas of LAPD’s Professional Standards Bureau was conducting an investigation into all three incidents.

Now, understand that even though I don’t believe police walk on water nor are super-trained badasses incapable of screwing up with a firearm, I will acknowledge that this is an anomaly. While officers do have negligent discharges from time to time, the fact that there were three in a single department isn’t common.

It suggests there is a training issue within the LAPD.

However, that’s not necessarily the problem. The officers could have gotten the proper training and still managed to screw it up. A lot of mistakes aren’t the result of insufficient training, but people figuring they know better than their training.

Plus, the LAPD isn’t exactly a small department. At any given time, there are thousands of officers doing something that may potentially cause a negligent discharge. If you look at each occurrence as essentially being random from a statistical point of view, then it stands to reason that sooner or later, you’d see bunches. This might just be one of those bunches.

However, I can’t help but remember things like this when someone tries to tell me I don’t have enough training to carry a firearm with me every day. That may or may not be true, but I do have enough training to keep my snot-slinger away from the bang switch, which seems to put me ahead of at least three LAPD officers right about now.

If they’re not just trusted to carry a weapon, but paid to do so, and are unable to match my own level of training, then I should be free and clear to carry a weapon.

Luckily, I live in a constitutional carry state, so no one can tell me no anyway, which is such a beautiful thing.

Born again Cynic! California Cops

Los Angeles D.A. declines to file charges against Chappelle attacker By Cam Edwards

(Photo by Matt Sayles/Invision/AP)
Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon is already facing the distinct possibility of a recall election over his soft-on-crime policies, and I doubt this is going to be helpful to his defense. The liberal prosecutor has declined to file felony charges against the man who assaulted comedian Dave Chappelle during a performance at the Hollywood Bowl earlier this week after concluding that the actions did not rise to the level of a felony offense.

Isaiah Lee, 23, was charged instead by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office with single misdemeanor counts of battery, possession of a weapon with intent to assault, unauthorized access to the stage area during a performance and commission of an act that delays an event or interferes with a performer.

“This alleged attack has got to have consequences,” City Attorney Mike Feuer said in a video statement announcing the charges.

Feuer — a candidate for Los Angeles mayor — added, “My office takes protecting public safety extremely seriously and we are going to vigorously prosecute this case.”

I’m sure that Feuer, who’s a longtime anti-gun activist, will be happy to soak up the press attention that he’ll get for prosecuting Lee, who allegedly had a replica handgun that disguised a knife blade in his hand as he rushed the stage and tackled Chappelle on Tuesday evening. But should his office really be the one to handle this case? The misdemeanor charges aren’t likely to result in much time behind bars if Lee is convicted, and honestly, if his victim weren’t a celebrity the odds of him avoiding jail entirely would be in his favor.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Gascon’s office declined to pursue felony charges because while Lee had a weapon on him, he never had the chance to use it on his target, and since Chappelle wasn’t injured, the crime didn’t rise to the level of a felony assault with a deadly weapon regardless of Lee’s intentions.

This is a pretty high-profile example of Gascon’s alleged leniency towards criminal defendants, and it comes as the organizers of the recall campaign against the prosecutor announced they’ve hit a milestone in their efforts to gather enough signatures to get the recall on the ballot this fall.

Today, the Recall DA George Gascon campaign announced it has collected over 400,000 signatures as of May 1st, with thousands more being turned in daily.  The recall campaign has now raised over $6 million to support the effort.   To get the recall on the ballot, the campaign must collect 566,857 signatures from registered Los Angeles County voters (10% of the total current registered voters). The deadline for submission to the Registrar is July 6, 2022.    “We are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel – there is a legitimate pathway to qualifying the recall by the July 6th deadline if we do not let up.”

The recall campaign might want canvass for signatures outside some of the comedy clubs in L.A. and ask patrons, employees, and comedians to sign on after Gascon’s decision, because while it might be legally defensible, it’s likely to be pretty unpopular at a time when crime continues to surge in Los Angeles and many residents say they feel increasingly unsafe.

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

First prosecution of San Diego’s “ghost gun” ban shows how worthless the law really is By Cam Edwards

JANIFEST/iStock/Getty Images Plus
San Diego, California is one of several cities in the state that have banned the possession of “ghost guns” in recent months. Anyone caught with an unserialized firearm in the city is now subject to criminal charges, but the first case to actually get to the sentencing phase is a perfect demonstration of just how useless the new ordinance really is.

The ordinance, authored by San Diego Councilmember Marni von Wilpert (a name that sounds like it would also be good for a Disney villain), in essence mirrors existing California law, which already prohibits the possession of an unserialized firearm. The San Diego ordinance specifically creates a misdemeanor offense to possess or sell any firearm that does not have a serial number on it, which is supposed to make criminals think twice about carrying a home-built gun around. As of March of this year, the law wasn’t having any impact on violent crime, with homicides up 80% compared to the same time period in 2021 and 77 unserialized firearms seized by police. There were also 295 serialized firearms seized by police, which is another sign that going after “ghost guns” isn’t going to stop the individuals committing the shootings in the city.

But none of that matters to the virtue-signaling politicians in San Diego, including von Wilpert, who are instead now eagerly singing the praises of the “ghost gun” ordinance now that someone’s been sentenced for violating the law.

“The city’s novel ghost gun ordinance is an effective tool for removing untraceable firearms from the hands of criminals,” City Attorney Mara W. Elliott said. “We thank Councilmember Marni von Wilpert for bringing forward this ordinance, which keeps San Diego at the forefront of our nation’s battle against gun violence.”

… “It’s clear from this conviction that San Diego’s landmark ghost gun law is starting to work to stop the proliferation of dangerous, untraceable firearms in our community,” said von Wilpert.

Is it though? I realize I haven’t actually said what the sentence the defendant received here, so let’s delve a little deeper into the events that led to 23-year old Rene Orozco having the dubious distinction of being the subject of a press release by the city attorney.

Orozco’s arrest apparently didn’t make the news at the time, but according to the Elliott’s account he was arrested after fleeing from police and leading them on a car chase through San Diego’s City Heights neighborhood, allegedly tossing the unserialized gun as he then continued to try to elude officers on foot.

Would Orozco would have avoided arrest and prosecution if the gun he’d been caught with had a serial number? Of course not. So what exactly is the point of a misdemeanor charge for possessing a “ghost gun” when he could already be charged with illegal possession of a weapon for simply having a gun in the first place. Then there are the charges of eluding police, tampering with evidence, and any number of traffic misdemeanors that were committed during the police pursuit. But the City Attorney needs to show that this new ordinance is working, and so Orozco was charged with having a ghost gun, and now gets to experience firsthand the draconian punishment that will surely cause him to rethink the decisions he made.

He was sentenced last week to 45 days in custody and one year of probation. As a result, his driver’s license will be suspended from six months and he is prohibited from owning firearms for a year.

45 days in custody with good credit time means that Orozco will likely spend about three weeks in the county lockup, which doesn’t sound like much time considering how scary “ghost guns” are supposed to be. And again, he could have gotten that same sentence just by charging him with misdemeanor crimes in California state statute that have nothing to do with unserialized firearms. What’s the point?

San Diego’s “ghost gun” ordinance is pure political theater; designed to have an impact on the electorate, not armed criminals. As long as politicians like von Wilpert can convince constituents that she’s “doing something” to address their fears about violent crime, she doesn’t have to bother coming up with doing something that actually works. And in California, “doing something” means putting another gun control law on the books that at best is worthless, and far too often ends up harming the law-abiding instead of curtailing violent criminals.

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Cops

LAPD chief blames guns for California’s gun control failures By Tom Knighton (Gee I am so “shocked” by this! Grumpy)

(AP Photo/Reed Saxon)
California has the toughest state-level gun control laws in the nation. They heavily restrict pretty much every category of firearm imaginable and they’re constantly looking at how they can further restrict them.

And yet, cities in the state aren’t necessarily safer than anywhere else in the nation.

Despite that, the chief of the LAPD blames…wait for it…guns.

Thirty-four people were shot in Los Angeles last week, a bloody spike in what is already shaping up to be a violent month and year in the City of Angels, according to authorities.


The bulk of the shootings — 23 — of them occurred in a “remarkably small area” of the Los Angeles Police Department’s 77th Street and Southeast divisions, Chief Michel Moore told the Los Angeles Police Commission Tuesday. Moore called last week a “troubling week,” in a year when violent crime has increased 7.1% year-to-date. So far this year, the LAPD has responded to 575 more violent crimes than this time last year.


Barely halfway through the month, 70 people have already been shot in Los Angeles, up from 55 during the same period last year. There have been 107 homicides so far in 2022, while at this point in 2021 there were 109.


While the number has decreased slightly in 2022, Moore said it represents a 37% increase over a two-year period. Overall, violent crime — aggravated assaults, street robberies, and commercial robberies — have climbed 15.2 percent over a two-year period.

“The problem that we have throughout Los Angeles is too many guns in too many hands,” Moore said, reiterating a belief he frequently shares with the commission. The added enforcement in the 77th Street Division resulted in 16 gun arrests involving 20 firearms, including “a number of assault rifles,” Moore said.

So, the issue is guns in the most heavily gun-controlled state in the nation?

Sounds to me an awful lot like all the copious amounts of gun control has managed to accomplish is just make the state more hostile toward law-abiding gun owners, rather than actually do much to curb gun possession by violent criminals.

This isn’t much different than the gang heyday of the 1990s when LA was the epicenter of criminal culture.

Since then, the state has passed tons of gun control, ostensibly to impact those same criminals.

As we can see, it worked like a charm.

Look, I get the desire to do something. I also get that people think the problem is the wrong people having guns. I’m not going to argue about armed criminals.

But the laws on the books were designed to stop precisely them from having them, yet it doesn’t appear to have accomplished a blasted thing. Meanwhile, Californians who want to comply with the law are treated like criminals for even wanting a firearm.

It’s just not right.

Then again, it’s never been right to restrict the rights of the ordinary citizen because of the actions of a handful of criminals.

Yet when the LAPD chief talks about too many guns in too many hands rather than the wrong hands, what do you think he’s proposing? Is he acknowledging that gun control has failed the state, or do you think he’s suggesting more of the same?

Well, since he says the problem is “too many hands” and nothing about criminals in possession, it’s clear where he stands on the issue.

It’s also clear that more of the same isn’t going to make things better.

By the way, 77th Station is right in the middle of the meanest, toughest Gang Neighborhood in Southern California. I should know as I got a lot of students from there for my class in Juvenile Hall. Grumpy