Press release from Paul Tanaka, candidate for Sherrif:

(Gardena, CA)- In light of the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regarding Concealed Carry Permits in San Diego County, former Undersheriff Paul Tanaka released the following statement:

“Los Angeles County is known as one of most difficult counties in California in which to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW). Of the 10 million residents currently residing in Los Angeles County, only a few hundred individuals have been issued a CCW permit. I understand the need for caution when allowing civilian residents to legally carry firearms in public . . .

However, as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment I also believe in a person’s right to defend themselves, their families and their homes from possible threats; if it is done in a responsible manner. 

As SheriffI will follow all applicable state and federal laws and court rulings as they pertain to the issuance of CCW permits. When elected Sheriff, I will ensure that every CCW request is evaluated on an objective and individual basis without favoritism.

If the applicant meets the legal requirements and conditions required under the law, I will ensure that the application is duly processed. In addition, should the request be denied, the department will issue a written statement to the applicant explaining why the application was denied.”

In accordance with the law, each citizen who applies for a Concealed Carry Weapons Permit in Los Angeles County for the purpose of self-defense will still undergo a county-sanctioned application process including background checks, department interviews, firearm qualifications, education training and a mental health evaluation.

“Allowing good and legally qualified citizens to possess a CCW Permit is a reasonable step for Los Angeles and the State of California,” said Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman. “Paul Tanaka understands the importance of empowering citizens to legally defend themselves but also knows that anyone requesting a CCW permit must complete all required training and background checks prior to issuance.”

“As the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals illustrated, the issuance of Concealed Carry Permits throughout California is not an issue of a privilege but of a right,” said Inyo County Sheriff William Lutze. “It is irresponsible of us to force residents to prove they are entitled to a right that was granted to them under the Constitution. I support Paul Tanaka and his efforts to abide by the laws and guidelines of the United States and California State Constitutions.”

[h/t Daniel Silverman]

139 Responses to LA Candidate for Sheriff Will Issue Concealed Carry Permits – Subject to “Mental Health Evaluations”

  1. I understand the need for caution when allowing civilian residents to legally carry firearms in public

    I may have missed something, but isn’t the SHERIFF a civilian resident carrying a firearm in public?

      • More “us vs them” programming, too. And as I say that, I point out that I am former LEO.

        I never understood the notion of ‘separation.’ My romantic idea of law enforcement is the old neighborhood beat cop that knew everyone by first name, ate meals with folks at the local diner and perhaps even lived in the community.

        Nowadays, it’s all about separation. Was in Wendy’s the other day with my son (a rare enough thing for us) while out of town, and three cops came in. They only spoke to each other, except for placing their order. They sat in a clump by themselves and did not acknowledge another person there.

        I had more human interaction with the lady near the napkin counter.

        So, can’t say I see cops thinking of themselves as “non-civilian” as a good thing at all.

        • We bought a place out in a more rural area last year, and I found out that one of my neighbors is a cop who patrols in the town that I grew up in, about 20 miles away. When I first chatted with him and asked him about it, his reply was basically “they couldn’t pay me enough to live in that shithole.”

        • I never understood the notion that any cop, especially ex military, would think of themselves as non-civilian.

          If at anytime you can simply resign from your duties, without fear of jail time, cause you don’t want to do them anymore, you my friend, are a civilian.

        • “neighborhood beat cop that knew everyone by first name, ate meals with folks at the local diner and perhaps even lived in the community.”

          My Dad’s local officer growing up. He still thinks those are the kind of police out there today. Hardly. They’ll surer than sh*t book your kid for scooping a piece of candy from a store than give you the opportunity to discipline them. They’ll quickly build a case around your child than give them a chance to learn. I’ve seen it. I’ve had it happen to me (not this specifically but BS),and I know it’s getting worse.

        • As an ex LEO, why do you think that happened? I’m an old guy and I remember when cops did interact and know the community, even in a large suburb of LA, back in the 70’s a number of cops knew me by my fist name, although I was a rowdy teenager that met many a Torrance cop, the interactions were not bad, they were more on the lines of getting caught by a parent.

          Cops were not seen as bad guys, and both cops and not so straight and narrow guys like myself treated each other with respect.

          What happened to society today, weather a cop shoots an unarmed suspect or the community passes judgment on that cop before they learn the facts?

          How can we turn this around, how can we get back to the point where the community trusts and respects cops and the cops can trust and respect the community they serve?

    • You beat me to the punch. Unless he’s active military, he is a civilian.

      I try whenever possible to use the word “citizen” instead of “civilian”. In the context of discussions such as this, it’s usually a better fit.

      • but but but he has ALL the same GEAR, its just in a different color! He just SO CLOSE to being in the military and not a civvie 🙂

    • me wonders if questions about one’s political affiliation will be part of the “mental health” exam . . . . hence, Black Republicans need not apply since we don’t wear a victim label on our chest.

    • Seems to me if anyone needs a mental eval. before doing something it should be a person applying for political office. The very fact that a person thinks they are capable of handling the power of that position responsibly already makes them suspect.

    • “Why do you want a gun?”
      “To support the Constitution and deter the government from descending into tyranny.”
      “This is America! That can’t happen here, you must be crazy!”

      • Yeah that sounds about right. In fact, our rulers think that anyone not in the ruling class who wants to carry a gun around is crazy.

  2. It’s only a matter of time before simply wanting to own a gun will be classified as a mental disease thus everyone who wants to own a gun will be denied. This is why background checks should be struck down entirely. Yes, even for ex-cons. If I was in prison for whatever reason and I’m now out in public it makes no sense to deny me a gun because 1) if I can’t be trusted enough to have a weapon then I should still be in prison and 2) if I really want to hurt someone again I’ll find a way.

    • You had me except for the ex-cons. I still oppose BG checks – because they are essentially guilty until proven innocent – but have no desire for child molesters, rapists, and wife beaters to still have RKBA. I’ve met many of those “reformed” dirtbags, and continue to be underwhelmed by their moral compass. Recidivism happens. A lot.

      Granted, bad guys will still have guns whether they are legal or not. I just don’t support the “rights” of violent felons. I’m fine with them not voting also. Maybe that makes me insensitive, but the easy fix is avoid kidnapping, rape, attempted murder, etc.

      • I have no desire for child molesters, rapists, and wife beaters to still have RKBA.
        —————————————————

        And child molester gets defined as a person who played with a child at a park.

        Rapist becomes someone who had sex, and the other party had some regerets.

        Wife beater becomes someone who raised his voice at his spouse, because that constitutes mental abuse.

        Many states have online sexual offender lists for your neighborhood. I checked out my neighborhood and there were scores of “sexual offenders” within a few miles. I checked the crimes for which they were registered, and literally less than 1 in a 100 is what I would consider a sexual offender.

        One of those was an actual forcible rape, all the rest were urinating in public, 23 years old men having consensual intercourse with 17 year old. The majority of the charges just made you wonder how that was illegal, much less being branded as a rapist. There were married couples on the list, for having sex with each other. There were gay couples on the list, for old convictions for having “unnatural sex”

        When the State can define a crime as anything it wants, and you allow that definition to take away your rights, you don’t have any rights. You are always one election away from being stripped from the RKBA. The moment they think they have the votes to create a category of crime to prevent you from legally owning a firearm, they will do so.

        • Xanthro, you hit upon a very important topic, and I agree with you. Too many minor crimes are characterized as major crimes, and too many things that should not be criminal at all are characterized as crimes.

          I get an alert from Lifelock whenever a registered sex offender moves into my area. I checked the map once and only once – those sex offender registries are useless – the whole map is covered in dots for people doing things that shouldn’t be crimes. How can you tell from looking at the map where the REAL threats are?

          However, you cannot trust a violent con. Ever.

        • However, you cannot trust a violent con. Ever.
          —————————————————————–

          There are convicts in prison for violent crimes, who literally work as forest firefighters, putting their lives on the line to save others. They are in very expensive homes, and the rate of crime committed by them is almost zero.

          I’ve worked with a number of people who served time in prison for violent crimes, and they were no different than I in terms of a danger to others.

          People can change, and they do change.

          If Rodney King can change, anyone can. I knew Rodney for years before his arrest incident, he was a thug, took claim for murders, and was in general as big an asshole as there is. I literally laughed when he came out and said, “Can’t we all just get along” because I KNEW HIM.

          He didn’t live very far from me, I’d still see him from time to time, and I was wrong. He did change. No, he didn’t become a great person, he still had a tendency to drink too much, but he went from a person bragging about committing violence, to a person who opened doors for people. He became someone who was friendly and tried to be helpful. I never heard a word on the street of him actually being involved in any crime against a person (outside of DUI). He never fought again, never sold drugs again.

          If we don’t recognize the attempt people make at being better citizens, then we make it almost impossible for them to be better citizens.

          People out of prison need to be reincorporated back into lawful society, because if they are otherwise not in jail, they are in unlawful society.

        • Xanthro, I worked in a state prison. The thing that’s truly telling and chilling is the number of violent offenders that accept no responsibility for their actions. Almost to a man the ones I had contact with blamed their victims for them being in prison.

          ” they made me do it” was something that I heard so often. These guys have no impulse control and treating them as 2nd class citizens or 1st class will make no difference.

          I think we POTG do our cause a great disservice when we stand up for gun rights for felons. Never forget, there is a legal mechanism for removing the 2a from the BOR. All it takes is numbers and if we drive people away with our support of real criminals and real mentally disabled people who should not have guns then we give those numbers to MAIG and mda.

        • Xanthro, I worked in a state prison. The thing that’s truly telling and chilling is the number of violent offenders that accept no responsibility for their actions. Almost to a man the ones I had contact with blamed their victims for them being in prison.

          ” they made me do it” was something that I heard so often. These guys have no impulse control and treating them as 2nd class citizens or 1st class will make no difference.
          ——————————————————————

          And these people should not be out of prison unsupervised.

          That’s the point, if a person can’t be treated as a 1st Class citizen, that person should remain incarcerated.

          But currently, we treat the hardened sociopath criminal the same as a person who is unlikely to commit future crimes.

          I don’t care if someone smoked some weed, hell, I don’t even care if they sold weed. It’s not my thing, but it’s not directly endangering others either.

          Treating someone who smoked weed and got arrested, the same as a repeat offender who enjoys beating people is silly.

        • Xanthro says:February 26, 2014 at 14:04
          “…Treating someone who smoked weed and got arrested, the same as a repeat offender who enjoys beating people is sillyevil.”

          There. Fixed that for you.

    • Your comments make no sense. It is a statistical fact that people who have been convicted of a crime are more likely to commit a violent crime than someone with no criminal record. The majority of murderers have a long rap sheet before they commit murder.

      Furthermore, the statement that “you will find a way” to commit an act of violence if you want to is a pretty illogical justification for having the right to arms restored.

      • I think the key point is:

        “1) if [someone] can’t be trusted enough to have a weapon then [he/she] should still be in prison”

        • Steve, I actually would agree with that. I don’t think we should EVER let armed robbers, rapists, murderers, etc. out of jail.

          But we do.

      • Your comment makes no sense. People with long rap sheets should not have been released so as to become recidivists. Even the 3 Strikes thing has not worked out very well.

        The revolving door is a major player in this problem. Violent crimes are committed by only about 3% of the population….lots of crimes committed by they same few over, and over again. Get a handle on recidivism as a first step.

        To meet the end, however, the overcrowded prisons must be alleviated of their housing of ‘victimless’ crimes. But, doing that destroys the sacred cash cow of modern law enforcement….asset forfeiture.

        • I agree with everything you just said, JR, except for the part where you claim my comment makes no sense. What i said and what you said are not mutually exclusive.

        • Aaron, my apologies. I was simply using a rhetorical “trick” by responding in the manner you started your comment with.

          Stripping such rhetoric from my comment, I guess a better way to respond would have been something like “I believe your comment is incomplete; there is another side to it.”

          Fair enough?

      • Actually Arron, your comments make total sense if you feel that people really never pay their debt to society; that people never change; and that once someone has committed a violent crime they will be forever punished; never to be a free human being; never again to be able to participate in society by having the right to vote or the right to keep and bear arms. Subject to be assaulted, brutalized and even murdered as a second class subject. without the legal ability to effectively defend themselves.

        Such a level of inhumanity to ones fellow man is incomprehensible to me.

        • Serving a prison sentence does not “repay a debt to society”. In fact, that old canard is a ridiculous proposition – sort of like saying that if I buy your lawnmower, I can repay that debt by giving Joe Schmoe down the street a cup of sugar.

          A prison sentence is a PUNISHMENT. It is not a reparation or repayment.

          And no, I do not believe that a rapist or murderer can EVER be trusted.

        • Yeah Arron; with that attitude, is why I believe the recidivism rate is so high. For what ever reason a person commits a violent crime; once they are “punished” they are thrown out into that violent world without an effective means to defend themselves; so they have two choices; be a “law abiding citizen” and be a second class subject; to be hated and despised by law abiding citizens and criminals alike; or stay a criminal and a predator on the sheep and at the very least have the respect of other predators like himself. Then. while he’s out in pubic he can carry a weapon; then if he gets arrested, he will be in prison with other prisoners dis-armed like himself.

          With people like you Arron, if it was possible; you give absolutely no reason for a predator to reform.

        • Thomas, most criminals got the chance to reform the first time they run afoul of the law, BEFORE they have committed a violent felony.

          So far, no prison program that I am aware of has been succesful at reducing recidivism.

          You have causality reversed. The “attitude” against cons is not the cause of recidivism, recidivism is the cause of the “attitude” against cons.

        • I disagree Arron; it was only recently (1960’s) that committing a felony led to a lifetime loss of voting and gun rights; most states had laws in place that if the ex-con committed no crime after say five years, they could get their voting and gun rights back.

          Evidently Americans, for most of our history, thought that it was right and just; after a person showed they had reformed, to give their rights back.

          Statistics show that if a criminal survives early adult criminalhood; many end up going straight; so your saying; even those that after twenty or thirty years of being a law abiding subject; they still don’t deserve to be treated like a free human being; they will forever be a subject, second class, never fully free,

          Like I said Arron; your cruelty and inhumanity is breathtaking.

        • MY cruelty and inhumanity??

          What about the cruelty and inhumanity of the armed robber who pistol whips his victims? The cruelty and inhumanity of the rapist who sticks a knife into his victims’ neck just enough to draw a little blood, in order to ensure they don’t struggle?

          Perhaps we have some common ground when it comes to certain non-violent crimes.

          But I have absolutely no tolerance and no sympathy for muggers, robbers, violent rapists, murderers, and other heinous criminals. I don’t think they should EVER get out of prison, but they often do. I don’t care if they go homeless or starve to death, they should not vote and they should not be allowed to possess or even handle firearms.

        • Yeah Aaron; I get it; you reap what you sow; you sow the ground where there is no place for forgiveness, and you will get no forgiveness in return.

          Oh well. Good luck to you Aaron, I hope the best for you.

    • +1

      If an ex-felon is trustworthy enough to live in my community, then s/he is trustworthy enough to enjoy the rights accorded to all Americans (voting, speech, RKBA, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc).

      If s/he isn’t can’t be trusted, then why the hell are they living amongst us?

      • facts are stubborn things.

        ex-cons are more likely to commit crimes than an average citizen.

        I do not believe they should vote or own guns.

        If the idea of being restricted from voting or owning guns offends you, then don’t become a felon.

        Now, there is one important clarification: America criminalizes too many things, so I agree that there are non-violent felony crimes that should NOT be felonies.

        • But the root cause of recidivism is opportunity. If they are removed from a victim pool, they cannot commit a crime with any weapon. Isn’t that the very premise behind prison?

          On a related note, and not a specific response to your comment in particular, I do find it interesting that just yesterday in the SC Mental Health thread, it was vehemently argued that mentally ill people should not be allowed firearms. The point was when a person is deemed a danger to themselves or others, they should be denied 2A Rights.

          Okay, but aren’t the same people (as a group / profession) making those assessments as are okaying the release of violent offenders from prisons? Isn’t recidivism made possible by the release, only after some parole hearing where a judgment is made on their likelihood of becoming a recidivist?

          My point is the track record of such judgments is woefully inadequate. It seems hard to argue “parole” and “deny rights based on assessment of violent proclivity” in the same breathe.

          I’m curious as to recidivism rates for violent actors that serve full, Class A felony sentences….30 years for murder, etc. The stats we seem to always see are skewed by low actual times served.

        • JR, criminal activity is rampant in prison. Prisoners are both victims and perpetrators.

          Do you have any stats to back up your implication that increased opportunity would reduce recidivism among violent criminals? Because although I believe there are some programs that have been succesful with youth who haven’t done really serious crimes, I haven’t seen anything to support your implication.

        • Except recidivism is so high BECAUSE we treat ex-cons as second class citizen. You take away their rights and take away their ability to get a decent job, then you act surprised when they turn to crime out of anger and desperation.

        • Maybe cons ought to consider the consequences before they punch granny in the face and take her social security money.

          Maybe cons ought to consider the consequences before they mug and pistol whip somebody.

          Maybe cons ought to consider the consequences before they rape and choke some girl.

          Maybe you and I have some common ground when it comes to non-violent crimes, but for the crimes I mention above, cons deserve far worse than they actually get under our criminal justice system.

        • Aaron, to address your questtion directly to me, I was speaking of innocent victims in the form of the grannies and such that you mention. If the offenders are in prison, they are denied that innocent victim pool, and cannot, by definition, be recidivists.

          The statistics you have mentioned numerous times about “ex cons are more likely to commit violent crime again” is only even possible because they are released.

          I don’t believe rehabilitation is impossible. But, I do believe that the revolving door justice system is largely to blame for the recidivism problem you mention.

          It’s the old “If you don’t trust him with a gun after he’s released, why are you releasing him” argument.

          Now, all that said, a LOT of murderers are in prison for crimes of passion. They are not necessarily a long term threat to others; something got the best of them – perhaps it was chemically induced, etc. Despite the nature of the crime they committed, they CAN ‘pay their debt’ or fulfill the terms of their punishment (however you want to look at prison), and I can entertain the possibility that they CAN have all rights restored.

          Then there are other crimes, like robbery, rape and the class of murders that betray a complete lack of respect for fellow man and the social contract between us all.

          I guess my point is that blanket statements are kind of hard to make fit any and all circumstances. There are murderers I’ve met that I would trust with owning their own handgun after serving their sentence (a real sentence, not like 2 years, etc) and there are armed robbers I’ve testified against that I hope never see the light of day as a free man again.

          Hope that clarifies…

        • JR, I agree that blanket statements don’t always translate well to individual circumstances.

          I also agree that America has a significant problem with inconsistency of crime and punishment: an aggressive and violent rapist should NEVER be released, but an 18 year old who has consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend should never put in jail for stat rape in the first place (depends on state law).

          Both dudes will show up a sex offenders, and both might be disenfranchised in their state, but one dude committed a heinous crime and the other committed no crime.

        • Aaron, no argument there – at all. Just like there is a difference between these two types of “rape,” there are differences in mental health illnesses and felonies as they seek to define them in statute. (See CT ‘magazine registration’ as a good example).

          It is a tactic of the Progressives, however, to lump all these together – to overgeneralize. This is how they use fiat criminalization as one way to get what they want: utter control over “the other.”

    • You, sir, get it. Sadly, many think if you’re ever sentenced to prison, you should forever be a second class citizen.

  3. He’s politicking by saying he understands the need for caution, but still he is saying he will follow the law and ensure that applications are duly processed. It’s certainly a start.

  4. When you think about the political environment he’s running in, I find candidate Tanaka’s words refreshing. Keep in mind he lives in a liberal dream world where armed citizens lead to murder and mayhem.

    His position wouldn’t fly in Montana, but in LA he’s probably too “right wing” on the Second Amendment to get elected.

  5. Just saying that he’ll follow the laws and not just sit on permits is a step in the right direction. Yes I know this all looks bad and wrong and evil, but consider the status quo. 10 million people in LA and a handful of CCWs (likely all issued to very wealthy or well-connected people) The guy that’s there now? You could jump over all the hurdles, pass all their tests, do everything exactly right and by the book and they’re STILL going to say no. This guy is at least saying “If you meet the requirements, YOU WILL GET ONE.” Remains to be seen if he actually does it, but I still say it’s a positive sign.

    • Yes, but see my comment below that explains how it could take 10 years or longer for the Los Angeles County Sheriff to issue licenses to everyone who wants one.

  6. There is quite a difference between withholding permits for folks adjudicated to be so mentally ill that they are danger to others, and requiring a mental health evaluation in order to be granted a permit.

    What is the due process in the evaluation system? Who performs the evaluations? Does the applicant or the state choose the evaluator? Are statistics kept on the pass/fail ratio of different evaluators to ensure there is no disparate treatment? What are the criteria for passing and failing? Is there a process for the applicant to challenge the results?

    Without significant safeguards and due process, it seems to me that the requirement to undergo a mental health evaluation would get struck down if challenged in court.

    Setting up a constitutional mental health exam regime would seem to me to be impractical, if not impossible. However, I am a layman.

    Attorneys on TTAG, please opine!

    • I’m a non-attorney TTAG spokesman and I say you’re right. Not only can’t it be done “properly” it shouldn’t be done. Period.

      • IMHO, I would be OK with the requirement, IF there was evidence that it would actually reduce crime, and there were powerful safeguards in place to prevent infringing on the rights of law abiding, mentally competent Americans.

        The problems with most gun control regimes are 1 – they don’t actually reduce crime, and 2 – they are purposfully designed to infringe on rights; sometimes the proponents even KNOW they won’t reduce crime

        • My concern would be you ‘fail’ the mental health evaluation portion of the CCW process. (Particularly if it’s a catch-22, you must be paranoid and delusional to want a CCW for self-defense). Now the California Confiscation squad shows up to take all your weapons since you ‘failed’ the evaluation for CCW.

      • This is likely going to be the requirement everywhere in CA. It is precisely why I will not apply here. There is no way to make the mental health exam objective. It can be used to declare anyone mentally incompetent for any reason, and appeals would be difficult to impossible. Owning more than one gun and more than one box of ammunition could be deemed as some form of mental illness. The result could then be taking away your guns. For me, the CCW isn’t worth the risks. The only form of carry I support is constitutional.

        Yes, I am paranoid. It’s a learned response.

        • It’s heavily over used, but:

          Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you

        • I doubt that mental health exams will become a requirement, or if it was implemented that it would withstand a challenge in the courts. The reason is because the implementers would have to meet the equal protections standard, and how do you do that with a mental health exam?

          But I am a layman, and could be wrong.

        • It’s overused because it’s true in a large number of cases.

          How’s the shift going over at the fusion center? Say hi to the wife and kids.

    • The California law (Penal Code provision) on the subject is that a county sheriff MAY require a mental health examination, to be performed by the same psychologist that does the testing for police recruits, and at a cost not to exceed $150. My understanding is that the testing generally consists of the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), which is recognized as a standardized, objective, and reliable measure of whatever it seeks to measure. I have never taken it, but I think most police officers have. It is intended to screen out people who shouldn’t have guns in public, who have irrational ideation, rage issues, etc. The “pass” parameters must be fairly broad, given some of the police officers we find on the street.

        • Google is your friend. It is very good if answered honestly–and it is very good at ferreting out deception if you don’t.

        • I took it once as a vocational test. I can’t put a level of accuracy to it. It’s like reading tea leaves; if you compare the patterns to a book of patterns and find a match, the results are “standardized.”

  7. “However, as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment I also believe in a person’s right to defend themselves, their families and their homes from possible threats; if it is done in a responsible manner. ”

    This is when you know their position on vcivil rights is b.s.

  8. I’m anxious (no pun intended) to hear about what a “mental health evaluation” in this case would entail.

    • Having California conduct a “mental health evaluation” is like putting Lance Armstrong in charge of Tour de France drug testing.

    • I don’t think this is currently allowed as state law.

      I guess he really didn’t mean it when he said he would follow all state laws. Typical LA law enforcement. The law doesn’t apply to them

      • Actually, it is. See above. It has been the law for a long time, too, but most sheriffs, particularly in rural areas, do not require it, while urban sheriffs (and police chiefs who are authorized to issue CCWs) uniformly require it (a) to cover their asses–which really don’t need covering because they are immune–and (2) to discourage applicants. It has the effect of doubling the cost of the application to around $300 (separate and apart from the cost of the statutorily mandated training).

  9. Screw all that legal mumbojumbo… just be an illegal alien and/or a gang member (or both!) and you got yourself a gun without the red tape. Laws are for the law abiding. /s

  10. “…will still undergo a county-sanctioned application process including background checks, department interviews, firearm qualifications, education training and a mental health evaluation.”

    Sounds like ‘get in line early and don’t hold your breath’.

    • Most counties consider the background check to be the same as for buying a firearm–run through the California DOJ, plus an extra check through NICS. Other counties (San Diego is one, and it would seem LA also) require letters of reference from nonfamily members (who are then notified of the fact you are seeking a CCW), and often those referrals and your neighbors are interviewed by detectives. Cute, huh? Nothing like keeping a low profile. The letters of reference are likely unlawful–the state mandated application specifically states that no other form or document is required, but that has not stopped these sheriffs. Some even include an additional questionnaire, contending that they would be entitled to ask all of those questions at the personal interview, so what it the harm? These are the same sheriffs who require a shooting qualification test separate and apart from the mandatory training, and again it is a requirement of questionable legality; even if one agrees that a minimal level of skill is appropriate for persons carrying handguns, that is not something the sheriff should mandate. Presumably the qualification score is the same as for LEOs, so it can’t be all that difficult to pass.

      • They probably did when they became LEOs.. I’ve read that by statute one must be a LEO to become Sheriff, and psych testing of recruits is a standard practice. (Which does not explain San Francisco–its sheriff is a non-LEO who is one of two CCW holders issued by SFPD Chief Suhr–despite the sheriff’s run-in with the law on a DV charge after he grabbed his wife by the throat during an argument, leaving bruises. The charge was plead down to a nonviolent misdemeanor. I think it unlikely that Suhr required Mirikami to take the MMPI before issuing him a license.)

    • You assume that they weren’t already wet. The man is a habitual panty-wetter. Look at his voting record. He’s probably scared of his own shadow and would ban it if he had the votes.

  11. Reality check:

    Let’s say Mr. Tanaka is sincere and on the up-and-up. How long will it take the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s department to process all the people who want concealed carry licenses?

    Let’s throw out some estimates, shall we? Nationally, something like 3% of the population legally carries handguns in public. Thus about 300,000 Los Angeles County residents will want concealed carry licenses. Further, let’s assume that Los Angeles County Sheriff processes concealed carry license applications 250 days per year. If all of those people applied immediately, the County would have to process 1,200 applications per day to handle everyone in one year. Even if we allowed the county 5 years to process all applications, they would still have to process 240 applications per day.

    I cannot begin to imagine that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office can process 240 concealed carry license applications per day, every day. Remember, each license requires a background check, finger printing, personal interview, and mental health exam. Unless the Sheriff hires dozens of staff to process these applications, it could easily be a decade or longer before everyone who wants a concealed carry license in Los Angeles County actually gets one.

    This is why our rights must never be contingent upon applications and government approval. Poor staffing resources alone can result in a de facto ban. And any bets whether applicants can move to the front of the line (thus avoiding a 10 year wait) after a campaign donation?

    I think I smell another lawsuit coming …

      • And this helps exactly how? The sheriffs seem to be interpreting it as a decision within 90 days of the interview, which of course you cannot schedule. I think Sheriff Gore said they were scheduling 4 interviews a day–they have been hit with an avalanche of apps already that they cannot process any time in the next six months. Yes, another lawsuit. I think Illinois has a similar issue.

    • I can’t locate the data any more, but after the Peruta decision I ran into the carry license data by county in CA. I recall noticing that the relative number of permits was about one third of a percent in Sacramento County, which went shall issue at some point in the past due a lawsuit. So, it is perhaps premature to predict the demand level at 3 percent, especially right from the beginning.

      In any, case, Peruta can still be appealed. The legal eagles at Calguns seem convinced it is pretty much a done deal at this point, but I keep wondering if they really know.

      • Dave357,

        Your 0.3% license rate in Sacramento County is an interesting observation. I imagine the steep price involved impacts that significantly compared to the national average … although Los Angeles County would have the same steep price. Even if we assume 0.3% of the population will apply, that still requires the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office to process 30,000 applications. And if they wanted to push those out within 5 years, they would have to process 24 applicants per day. I think even that would be next to impossible given that the Sheriff’s office has to personally interview each applicant.

        • Certainly they issue more than 24 drivers licenses per day in LA County. All it takes is manpower, and the application fees are supposed to pay for the manpower.

      • For 2013, the total percentage of CCWs statewide was 0.1%. The very small mountain counties have high rates–but that high rate is skewed by the fact that nobody lives in those place. For example, Alpine county has an 8% rate–which is all of 9 permits for a little over 1000 residents. But Sacramento, which has had virtual shall issue for a number of years (and has issues with interview backlogs) is 0.266%. I would guess–yes, guess–that a normalized rate for the state if all counties are shall issue would be closer to 1-2%.

  12. Mr. Lutze, a sheriff and a supporter of Mr. Tanaka, says “the issuance of Concealed Carry Permits throughout California is not an issue of a privilege but of a right” …

    Yet, to exercise this “right” ordinary people must be treated like a criminal, a mental patient and a job applicant all in one.

    I think you do not understand the concept of a “right” Mr. Lutze, nor do you, Mr. Tanaka.

  13. This is stupid. Under CA law a psychological evaluation CAN be required. But if so, it must be by the same service that screens deputies/officers for employment, cannot cost over $150.

    Up until last year only one County (AFAIK) required this. Most did not, whether they were virtually shall issue or very restrictive. It sounds like he is anticipating not being able to use good cause anymore to discriminate, and perhaps sees the danger of trying to use the good moral clause for the same. So add costs and times to discourage.

    • I found a source that indicates a typical person pays the state $500 for a concealed carry license in California. Would these “mandatory” mental health evaluations costing $150 be on top of that? This sounds like a poll tax to me.

      • Unless counties are charging illegal fees, that would seem to include the psych eval. and the cost of training. The fees are set by state statute. There is an application fee, with “livescan” fees (fingerprinting and NICS) on top of that (and which vary by location). That totals roughly $150. Add the psych eval and you are up to $300. And then you have to take the required training, which is provided by private businesses who set their own prices. Around here its about $160-175, but I assume it is higher in the south state. Plus the cost of ammo for the training–which varies a lot. Assume no more than 200 rounds, as it is more of a gun safety that a handgun accuracy type of training. Some counties (San Diego for one) require that you pass a gun qualification, the details of which I do not have, and other counties require nothing more than the class.

  14. “It is irresponsible of us to force residents to prove they are entitled to a right that was granted to them under the Constitution.”

    1) The Constitution does not “grant” rights, you are born with them.
    2) You are STILL forcing residents to “prove they are entitled to a right”. You have only ceased to dismiss the claimed right out of hand.
    3) Shall not be infringed, still means shall not be infringed.

  15. First time in my life I can think of a situation where I have to have a mental health exam prior to going to a government office to get a service

  16. He won’t get elected. Rank and file hate him. He’s also one of those closet anti-gun types. Blocked a Patrol Rifle Program for Deputies…etc. List goes on.

    • And if what I’ve read is true, he was the guy who was responsible for reviewing–and of course denying–CCW applications under Sheriff Baca. So he is well versed in “Just say no.”

  17. “Of the 10 million residents currently residing in Los Angeles County, only a few hundred WELL CONNECTED individuals have been issued a CCW permit.”

    They left something out, I fixed it, no worries.

  18. Mr Tanaka is running for a political office in LA. This looks like a talking point to make seem reasonable to the typical proglibtard LIV voter base while sending a message to those with the $$$ to help: MAIG and the rest. The antidote is the truth like the practical reality is this is going to be so time consuming and expensive as to constitute a ban on any but the rich and well connected. Just as its already been so in LA and SF where only Hollywood insiders and folks like Sen Feinstein have been approved. Thats the meme that needs to be repeated to remind voters how Those Who Think They Know Whats Best For The Rest Of Us treat their slaves on the liberal plantation.

  19. Is Mrs Clinton along with Pelosi and feinstein and nut case bxer going to be drug tested? We have a right to knw how impared these low lives are as I think boxer is on some heavy medications and Mrs Bi Polar clinton needs to be placed in a straight jacket where she can no longer order the kiling of American citizens

  20. Is Mrs Clinton along with Pelosi and feinstein and nut case boxer going to be drug tested? We have a right to know how impaired these low lives are as I think boxer is on some heavy medications and Mrs Bi Polar clinton needs to be placed in a straight jacket where she can no longer order the killing of American citizen

  21. WHEN he’s elected Sheriff!!?

    I think he means IF he’s elected sheriff. I mean elections still serve a function even in LA county. Right? . . . Guys?

  22. “need for caution when allowing”
    They still don’t get this constitution thing:
    The government is the thing that gets allowed to do things, and specificly not allowed to do others.
    (quarter troops and all)

  23. I hope this guys wins the election. I know this all sounds like nonsense to those who live in free states, but in a slave state this is a breath of fresh air.

  24. L.A. County resident checking in. I live in a pretty nice upper-middle class suburb about 40 minutes north of LA. Tanaka’s people came to my house (a female sheriff and a female DOC officer). They weren’t expecting many questions but I kept them there for 10-15 minutes chatting with them and asking them questions. Carry permit was one of the first brought up. They also claimed he will abide by the law and not make it up as they go like Baca and Beck do. I was pretty happy with our conversation, ended up getting a couple stickers and may volunteer for his campaign. I believe he is our best hope for sheriff. He’s also garnered much support from standing sheriffs in other counties and many city council members from around the county. I will say that I don’t necessarily agree with the mental evaluation, but if you’ve ever hung out on Sunset, you might be slightly enthused that it’s a requirement. IDK, one of those “not in my house” kind of things. So far, Tanaka is getting my vote.

  25. “….In accordance with the law, each citizen who applies for a Concealed Carry Weapons Permit in Los Angeles County for the purpose of self-defense will still undergo a county-sanctioned application process including background checks, department interviews, firearm qualifications, education training and a mental health evaluation.”

    Assuming the Sheriff has no one to conduct department interviews, firearm qualifications, educational training and mental health evaluations, I would like to see how much a CCW permit APPLICATION would cost….you may have to pay for that whole process upfront as you may still be rejected at some point. If the County is in charge of this, I bet it would cost the CCW applicant $500+. Not to mention there could be a backlog of…say 2,500 people?

    Mr. Tanaka, talking about your ideas is one thing, actual realization of your ideas is another…..

  26. LEOs above all people should be subject to mental health examinations. Also, people who choose to remain defenseless because of their hoplophobia should see a real good psychiatrist.

  27. Remind me Blade Runner where Harrison Ford plays Rick Deckard trys walk out be Blade Runner again his old boss remind him your cop or little people. He realize he has no chose.

  28. From the article: “It is irresponsible of us to force residents to prove they are entitled to a right that was granted to them under the Constitution.”

    I beg to differ. That right is granted to me by God. The Constitution merely recognizes it.

  29. If you have to ask permission and get a note from a government employee…IT IS NOT A RIGHT..guaranteed by the Constitution…which by the way does not grant you ANY rights It just guarantees rights that you as a human already have…..and yes arms is a means of self defense that is your rights from birth….imho

  30. Ya we support the 2nd Amendment BUT….we don’t want to but are forced to it’s a Right (damn it) but we will still deny you cause only police and gangs should have guns cause we said so but we respect your privledge I mean Rights (not) and we will do everything in our power to keep
    you from carrying or even having a gun if elected sheriff!

  31. “Allowing good and legally qualified citizens to possess a CCW Permit is a reasonable step for Los Angeles and the State of California,”

    “Good?”

    What does “good” mean in your world Mr. Undersheriff people who have to obey you?

    “Qualified”

    The Constitution is our qualification, Mr. Tanaka.

  32. Paul Tanaka….??
    Known member of secret police gang the Lynwood Vikings?

    Unless you’re a cop, he doesnt give a rats ass about your rights…..

  33. I have asked Paul Tanaka a question on Facebook. This is a copy of our chat.

    Dwight Mann: I am undecided who I am going to for and endorse for Sheriff. If I had a question for Mr.Tanaka. It is well known in the past in order to get a CCW in Los Angeles County, You needed to be a “Friend Of Baca” in order to successfully get through the process and get one. My question is this, with the recent Federal ruling what is your position on allowing citizens in the county getting CCW’s?

    Paul Tanaka: As you may know, the 9th Circuit ruling is being contested and it would not be appropriate to make major changes at this point. The bottom line is, some candidates may be talking big about giving away CCW’s to garner support, but it is too premature to go that far and its telling people what they want to hear without the authority to follow thru. Sorry if that’s not exactly what you wanted to hear, but I will always be straight forward and honest.

    Dwight Mann: Do you think it should take a court ruling for a honest citizen to get one though?

    • Paul Tanaka: No…I think we may have more in common than you think…I just don’t think its the right thing to do to issue hundreds of thousands of CCW in Los Angeles

      • “I just don’t think its the right thing to do to issue hundreds of thousands of CCW in Los Angeles”

        True – the right thing to do would be to throw out all of the unconstitutional antigun laws.

  34. This is a bunch of bs shouldnt matter who is in charge of LA County fact of the matter >> 2nd amendment gives us all the right. Cubby123 you nailed it.

    • “2nd amendment gives us all the right.”

      NO! NO! NO!!!

      The 2nd Amendment doesn’t “give” anybody anything. They are not its or the regime’s to give. Your rights are inherent – “endowed by their creator.” You “earned” the right to self-defense by surviving four million years of evolution and being born human.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *