Chief Bratton needed a permit because when he became Chief of LAPD he was not a sworn California peace officer legally entitled to carry a firearm. Bratton got a CCW, despite the fact that his "good cause" justification for needing a CCW was completely inadequate under LAPD's current standards as applied to ordinary citizens.CCW permits issued to police chief (can you say politician?) for reasons that would get the rest of us laughed at. I would think this blatant cronyism would be reason to review the stupid "May Issue" clause in the CA concealed carry law.
Bratton's CCW application asserts that because he is Chief of Police "he is required to be armed." This is flatly false. No law requires a Chief of Police to be armed, and a Chief of Police, who does not patrol in the field, need not be. Bratton's other justification is that he "is a public figure." The application does not even claim that he has actually been threatened - only that he could be a target. Being a potential target has never been recognized as "good cause" by the LAPD. If that is the criteria for "good cause," then every celebrity in the city has "good cause" to obtain a CCW. But these celebrity CCW applications are routinely denied.
The rule of law is supposed to apply to everyone equally. Apparently in L.A. it is who you are that determines what rights you have.
Or as the Claremont Institute says:
You shouldn't have to be a celebrity to be allowed to protect yourself or your family from violent criminals. As the leader of the brave men and women whose motto is "to protect and to serve," Chief Bratton should be among the first to ensure the natural right of self defense to Angelenos. He should issue a CCW permit to any law-abiding and mentally sound adult Angeleno who requests one. Some California police jurisdictions have issued permits this way for years without incident. Why can't Los Angeles?[via KABA]