I’m embarrassed to be a police officer in California, and if my family could afford to get the hell out, we could.

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s talk about what’s happening in Los Angeles. You know, the city in my state that’s filled with elitists who surround themselves with armed security while screaming “we don’t need guns in America!”.

The Los Angeles Police Department, under the leadership of Chief Michel Moore, has moved to cancel most of the few remaining concealed weapons permits that are in civilian hands. #NotMyChief (No, literally. He’s not my Chief. If he was, I’d need to be checked into rehab.)

This is according to new filings in a decades-old legal case.

In a sworn declaration, Moore said he doesn’t believe that people who got their CCWs as a result of a 1994 lawsuit were still entitled to their permits.

Why? He said it’s unlikely they face “extraordinary physical danger to their lives”.

“I do not believe the continued wholesale allowance for each to possess a CCW license based on circumstances that may have existed 24 years ago is in the best interest of the public,” Moore said.

Here’s the deal. Under California law, permits to carry a concealed firearm are allowed. But it’s up to chiefs and sheriffs to decide if an applicant has a valid reason to obtain one (i.e. none of these people have ever read the Constitution).

There was a case in 1994 called Assenza, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et. Al., where the plaintiffs sued because the LAPD had a long standing practice where they’d just deny every applicant.

Court records show that in 1995, the City settled and promised the LAPD would issue permits to the 30 plaintiffs in the case.

“The City should keep its word,” said attorney Burt Jacobson, a former federal prosecutor and one of the plaintiffs in the case. “They wanted a settlement, and they wrote the settlement!”

Jacobson said he’s faced threats even recently because of court cases that ended years ago.

But Los Angeles and Moore have asked a judge to undo the settlement, saying that he document the City agreed to years ago “is now restricting Moore’s ability to exercise his discretion in deciding who is entitled to a CCW license”.

Moore says nobody needs a CCW, because the crime rate is down and there are more police officers on the streets and so the threat has reduced.

I shit you not.

This guy is actually a police chief.

“Technology has improved tremendously in the last 24 years which has enabled individuals to instantly communicate with law enforcement via cellphones from anywhere and at any time should they feel threatened,” Moore said.

You literally can’t make this stuff up. Respect for the Constitution is dead. This guy needs to have his badge removed.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys said the permit holders were people who could be in danger with no other reasonable means of self-defense, which is exactly why state law allows the permits.

“If they [the City] prevail, and permits are denied to the people who really, really need them, there is a danger not just to the applicant but to the general public,” said David Pourshalimi, the attorney who also represents the permit-holders. “Reneging on this deal, that creates a hazard to the public.”

Chief Moore argues he’s been generous with the issuance of other CCW permits (sarcasm). According to his declaration, he’s given out a whopping TWO of them.

He gave them to brothers who run a law enforcement weapons business and routinely transport machine guns and other firearms.

Moore stressed he’s even put heavy restrictions on those permits so the guys can’t carry a gun for protection unless they’re transporting weapons.

A hearing is set for next Friday.

Another writer here for Law Enforcement Today put it best earlier this year…here are his words in February.

It’s Time for All Police to Leave Los Angeles

That’s it. It’s time for every police officer to get out of Los Angeles.

You probably saw the news that LA has officially dubbed itself a “sanctuary city”.

But in case you missed it, the mayor also asked the police to stop pulling people over.

First… the sanctuary city part.

“We declare, for all those who have been under attack in this Trump era, that this city, in this day, in this time, will be a city of sanctuary,” City Councilman Gilbert Cedillo said. “It will be a place where people will know that they will be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, and not by who they choose to love, and not by when they got here. They will be judged by their contributions to our city.”

Read: State Sheriffs Blame Immigration Politics for Officer’s Death

It’s what’s known as a “non-binding resolution” that was voted 12-2 by the City Council and is in line with other cities that have adopted similar policies. It’s also in line with California’s sanctuary state law – Senate Bill 54. That law ties the hands of local law enforcement who are trying to work with federal immigration authorities.

Now to the traffic stops.

Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti is asking the LAPD police chief to stop pulling people over when they violate the law.

The Metropolitan Division that cover south Los Angeles increased traffic stop dramatically in 2018. The issue for some civil rights organizations is that nearly half of all traffic stops made by the division included African-American motorists.

Read: California Governor Jerry Brown Commutes 20 Killers, Pardons 1,100 Convicts

They say that this is alarming due to the ratio of African-Americans to the general population in the community. While the Los Angeles Times stated that their review does not provide proof that officers are racially profiling suspects, several organizations claim that there is no other explanation.

Of course those organizations carefully avoid discussing socio-economic divides or crime rates in different ethnic or cultural communities.

As part of the review, no data was provided regarding the rate that African-American motorists commit violations in comparison to other members of the same community. Had those details been included in the review, it may have provided some insight into the reasons for the stops.

Read: Five white officers file lawsuit claiming discrimination

ACLU attorney Melanie Ochoa said that officers actively searching for people who might be violating the law is proof that “harassment and targeted are baked into the way the department operates,” according to the Times piece.

Hit the pause button.

When did police actively watching out for crime being committed equate to harassment? One should hope that members of all law enforcement agencies are “actively searching” for people who might be violating the law.

Not being satisfied with claims of racial profiling, the ACLU and 11 other groups wrote a letter to the mayor, the chief of police and the Police Commission overseeing the LAPD asking the Metropolitan Division to be completely pulled out of south Los Angeles.

In what amounts to nothing more than an attempt to create a free-for-all, the groups claim, according to the letter, that the LAPD’s practice of stopping people from preventing crime “fails to address safety in the community, and only leads to incarceration and harassment of African American and Latino people and exacerbates racial and wealth disparities.”

Read: California is trying to change police authorization of deadly force

If a person of color runs a stop sign or a red light, speeds, or violates any other sections of the vehicle code, they should be left alone to continue committing said violations.

Apparently, to the letter’s authors, crime is only worth addressing if it does not involve minority member of the community.

While this letter does not state that minorities in south Los Angeles should be free to commit crimes without police intervention, one could easily arrive at that conclusion.

The groups demanded more community policing, mental health services and programs for youth. These are great programs, but independent of law enforcement in the community, that is all they are, programs.

The LAPD commented to the letter stating, “We understand the delicate balance between our enforcement posture and our steadfast commitment to building relationships, engaging the community and enhancing public trust.”

While the LAPD is committed to having conversations to address the groups claims, they did not indicate that the Metropolitan Division will be leaving south Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) fought back against the claims of the letter.

“Let’s be very clear, Los Angeles police officers target behavior, not skin color.”

The LAPPL also said that the Times’ analysis of the Division is “flawed, skewed, and nonsensical,” and that it “demonstrates the implicit bias some possess against reporting facts, put in the appropriate context, about Los Angeles police officers and how we do our jobs.”

The union also said, “that preconceived false narrative, promulgated by the Times and its deliberate omission of important contextual data, admittedly zero evidence and any semblance of fair analysis, is designed to paint Metropolitan Division officers as racists who randomly stop black drivers.”

Once again, the commission of a crime should be irrelevant as long as it fits the prescribed narrative of cops being racists.

Today: Federal Judge Rules High Capacity Magazine Ban Unconstitutional – Here’s What Happens Now

Just when we thought there were no judges left in California who would uphold the Constitution, we were proven wrong.

On Friday, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that California’s ban on ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.

And it’s sure to have implications in legal battles across the country, including states like Connecticut, New York and New Jersey.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect.

Judge Benitez said the ban would never survive the test of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, saying:

“When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”

It’s been an ongoing battle. On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez’s ruling, voting 2-to-1 against the ban and sending the case back to Benitez.

Then on Friday, he again ruled against the ban, issuing an order barring California Attorney General Xavier Becerra from enforcing the ban.

His ruling was based heavily upon Heller, saying:

“Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense. This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test.“

The case is Duncan v. Becerra, No. 2:17-cv-56-81 in the U.S. District Court for Southern California.

“Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he wrote as he declared the law unconstitutional.

Conclusion From The Ruling

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that law-abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits law-abiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds. Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted. California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.

The state of California has actually prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.

That changed in 2016, when the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision.

The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued. Benitez sided with their argument that the ban on magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling.

But the latest ruling goes much farther, in essence striking down the entire ban. That allows individuals to legally acquire the high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades.

Chuck Michel is an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

“We’re still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he stuck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one,” Michel said.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra isn’t happy. He said in a statement that his office is “committed to defending California’s common-sense gun laws” and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps.

Becerra has previously said that similar Second challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts. He cited at least seven other states and 11 local governments that already restrict the possession or sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines.

There’s very little doubt that the conflict on magazine size will ultimately end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Michel said the decision “recognizes that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and that the state has to meet a high burden before it can pass a law that infringes on the right to keep or bear arms.”

In his ruling, Benitez described three home invasions. In two of them, the female victims ran out of bullets. In the third, the woman was wearing pajamas… but had a high-capacity magazine. She took on three people invading her home, firing at them while calling for help.

“She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911,” the judge wrote.

The woman killed one attacker while two escaped.

Judge Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms” under the U.S. Constitution. He also said the California law:

“burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state.”

Benitez was an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush.

He recognized that the goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, such as the San Bernardino shooting killed 14 and injured 22.

But he also called such shootings “exceedingly rare” and stressed that everyday robberies, rapes and murders can be countered with firearms.

The governor of California had no comment on Friday.