From the articles I've seen, he was said to be confrontational once the authorities showed up. That's the excuse for pulling his permit.

Also mentioned by his side is that he called 911 as soon as practical after being in a live fire self-defense incident and it was two days, yes two days, before they arrived at his house.

He had taken care to not disturb shell casings and any other evidence, from his side of the story.

I guess we'll have to wait to see how things shake out.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
From the articles I've seen, he was said to be confrontational once the authorities showed up.

Also mentioned is that he called 911 as soon as practical after being in a live fire self-defense incident and it was two days, yes two days, before they arrived at his house.

He had taken care to not disturb shell casings and any other evidence, from his side of the story.

I guess we'll have to wait to see how things shake out.

LA law enforcement was one of the first dpeartemtns nationally to require body cameras on officers. Will be interesting to see, (if such happens) how this happened. The excuse given is he yelled at officers. A raised voice isn't reason for the revoking so, seeing what more comes of this.

Below is usage agreement statement for CCL by LASO:
Concealed Carry Weapons Permit Terms of Use Agreeme

You do need to cooperate and surrender your firearm for the investigation however, you gotta lawyer-up and not get too mouthy.

Is his permit revoked, or just suspended?

That LASO terms of use document indicates that a CCW permit is suspended while the holder is under investigation for violation of a law, and then can be reinstated after the investigation.

It also indicates that a CCW will be automatically revoked if the person "impedes or interferes with any peace officer".

So based on what's come out already:

Best case scenario seems to be that his CCW is temporarily suspended under the first provision while they sort through what happened, and then will be reinstated. Pretty shitty to suspend a victim's CCW right after being victimized, but as mentioned in an earlier post, it's basically the same as any LEO involved in an on-duty shooting having to surrender their weapon and go on leave while the incident is investigated.

Worst case scenario seems to be that the responding LAPD officer got butthurt by the guy being mouthy and cried to LASO that he was impeding/interfering, resulting in an automatic revocation.

Or something else. There's always the possibility/likelihood that we don't have the whole story, and there's more to it.

A few more details, but no explanation to why his permit was suspended.

...In a statement to KTLA, the sheriff’s department said the California Department of Justice “establishes guidelines” for concealed carry weapons permits (CCW) and that “the Sheriff’s Department must follow the DOJ parameters in accordance with the law.”

LASD did not provide a specific reason for why Ricci’s concealed carry permit was suspended.

According to Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization led by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the California city or county that issued the license must revoke it if they are notified by the state DOJ or determine that “a license holder is legally prohibited from possessing firearms or that the licensee has become a disqualified person.”

In its statement to KTLA, the sheriff’s department did say that Ricci’s CCW may immediately be reinstated as long as he has followed all the required policies, such as “proper notifications” and “use of [a] properly documented weapon.”

“The DOJ has been notified and there are avenues for Mr. Ricci to re-apply for his permit,” LASD’s statement said. “We have been in contact with the Ricci family and have been providing information to them about CCW protocols and guidelines in an effort to ensure their Second Amendment rights are protected...”

Complete article:

https://ktla.com/news/local-ne...ry-permit-suspended/

quote:

...and it was two days, yes two days, before they arrived at his house.

Sweet Jeebus!

I might have had an "attitude" as well if it took two days to show up after something like this...

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

...and it was two days, yes two days, before they arrived at his house.

Sweet Jeebus!

FWIW, that conflicts with this news report from Nov 6:

...Neighbors called 911 and officers arrived a short time later but could not find the robbers, a Los Angeles Police Department spokesperson told KTLA...

Complete report:

https://ktla.com/news/local-ne...re-would-be-robbers/

Sounds like the fog of war, LA style.
We'll have to wait a bit to see what comes out of all this.

Thanks Sigmund. So the Youtube clickbait about the "LAPD Sheriff's Office" having "revoked" his CCW permit turns out to be doubly wrong... This is my shocked face.

It was the LA County Sheriff's Office, and it appears to only be suspended (per standard terms), with the ability to be reinstated once they determine he followed the guidelines.

I have a LEO source not directly involved but close enough to say that it was because he went on the offensive. Instead of engaging the threat until they disappeared, he didn't quickly disengage and went on the hunt.

That's a little tough to accept because he was at the end of his entrance way to his door and how does he know that the bad guys aren't just standing there around the corner ready to reengage once he turns his back to open the front door? My guess is that there is quite a bit more footage we haven't seen and it will show him running around his property to try to reengage them again.

Bad guys are almost always cowards and scatter at the sound of gunfire so they were gone. Did he go out in the street to look for them in their getaway car with his drawn gun? Don't know but having it yanked for yelling isn't correct. One of the Terms and Conditions is that he surrender his gun if requested and somewhere I believe I read he later admitted to not turning it over when asked but eventually did.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Thanks Sigmund. So the Youtube clickbait about the "LAPD Sheriff's Office" having "revoked" his CCW permit turns out to be doubly wrong... This is my shocked face.

It was the LA County Sheriff's Office, and it appears to only be suspended (per standard terms), with the ability to be reinstated once they determine he followed the guidelines.

So, guilty until proven innocent. Doesn't seem right either.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I have a LEO source not directly involved but close enough to say that it was because he went on the offensive. Instead of engaging the threat until they disappeared, he didn't quickly disengage and went on the hunt.

That's a little tough to accept because he was at the end of his entrance way to his door and how does he know that the bad guys aren't just standing there around the corner ready to reengage once he turns his back to open the front door? My guess is that there is quite a bit more footage we haven't seen and it will show him running around his property to try to reengage them again.

Bad guys are almost always cowards and scatter at the sound of gunfire so they were gone. Did he go out in the street to look for them in their getaway car with his drawn gun? Don't know but having it yanked for yelling isn't correct. One of the Terms and Conditions is that he surrender his gun if requested and somewhere I believe I read he later admitted to not turning it over when asked but eventually did.

It's still bullshit unless he was out and about shooting up the neighborhood aimlessly, otherwise looking for these scum is fair game, IMO.

I don't think it's wrong of him to pursue those guys within the confines of his walkway and driveway. Taking shelter by his vehicle after the initial shots shouldn't be construed as "hunting."

I think securing the perimeter and making sure the pukes are gone is SOP and good practice. The threat did not end merely because the first guy fled the front door step.

What is interesting is that the man defended himself on HIS property, a permit is not needed. So why does this become a concealed carry issue?

The answer- because it is fucking California.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
So, guilty until proven innocent. Doesn't seem right either.

It is the same policy that most LE departments use when their officers are involved in a shooting.

They take their gun and put them on Administrative Leave

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I have a LEO source not directly involved but close enough to say that it was because he went on the offensive. Instead of engaging the threat until they disappeared, he didn't quickly disengage and went on the hunt.

That's a little tough to accept because he was at the end of his entrance way to his door and how does he know that the bad guys aren't just standing there around the corner ready to reengage once he turns his back to open the front door? My guess is that there is quite a bit more footage we haven't seen and it will show him running around his property to try to reengage them again.

Bad guys are almost always cowards and scatter at the sound of gunfire so they were gone. Did he go out in the street to look for them in their getaway car with his drawn gun? Don't know but having it yanked for yelling isn't correct. One of the Terms and Conditions is that he surrender his gun if requested and somewhere I believe I read he later admitted to not turning it over when asked but eventually did.

I've heard similar amongst LEO chatter, however in the Noir interview, he said he refused to give-up his firearm to police, citing the fear of retaliation.
- Anyone familiar with CCW in CA knows that any incident where your firearm is used, you have to give it up and you'll likely not get it back citing the need to retain for investigation and evidence, hence why you max-out the number of guns listed on your license and you don't list tricked-out guns.
- This brings up, why is there a three-guns limit necessary
- AND, brings up another issue regarding the withholding of evidence

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
I've heard similar amongst LEO chatter, however in the Noir interview, he said he refused to give-up his firearm to police, citing the fear of retaliation.

If that's true, it's a lot more than "yelling at officers"

quote:

- Anyone familiar with CCW in CA knows that any incident where your firearm is used, you have to give it up

You acknowledge this when you're issued your CCW

quote:

- AND, brings up another issue regarding the withholding of evidence

That would automatically be grounds for revoking your CCW

None of the above means you can't have/own another gun. It just means you can't legally conceal carry it outside your home/property

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:
None of the above means you can't have/own another gun. It just means you can't legally conceal carry it outside your home/property

His interview was going good and he comes across as being pretty sound in his rights and beliefs; then it starts to get a bit odd when he starts describing his interaction with responding officers. He goes into describing his agitation with the police, his badgering the station captain to begin an investigation, his refusal to give-up his pistol (go to 30:00 mark) and then telling the police to leave...perhaps GTFO.

I'll need to re-listen to it but, towards the end (as he describes it) it sounds like he started to loose his composure with the cops and may have landed himself into some unnecessarily warmer water than he thought and understands, resulting in the revoking of his permit.

quote:

...his agitation with the police, his badgering the station captain to begin an investigation, his refusal to give-up his pistol (go to 30:00 mark) and then telling the police to leave...perhaps GTFO.

So...you're saying he became a Karen

I am not a lawyer or a cop but I’ve have had an “intimate” relationship with cops for almost 30 years. YMMV, but here is my take on it…

Over the years, I’ve drawn my carry piece about three times to a “low ready” and have presented, aimed, and tracked once. They guy who through a projectile at my car than approached me with a tire iron while stopped at a light where I had no exit path changed his mind real quick once he stared down the barrel of my 6” Vent rib SS Dan Wesson .357.

As he ran away from the fight he wanted to start, he told me he was going to call the cops. I doubted him and since I was “technically” carrying illegally at the time, I wasn’t about to call them. Being the “pre-cellphone” era, I wasn’t real concerned about any of the witnesses (who scattered once the light went green if not before) calling it in either.

I figured if the cops showed up to ask me questions I would tell them it was unloaded. Not surprisingly, they never came to ask.

Three of these four instances were when I lived in California (actually one of the low ready ones was on the road literally during my move out of the state)


Thankfully law enforcement was never involved in any of these incidents. What I do know is if you have an incident where you rightfully use your firearm and the cops do show up - cooperate (to a point), but get a lawyer to advise you and be your spokesperson to the authorities.

EVERY question a cop asks is meant to justify a charge or help to prove a potential charge. Even on a traffic stop. “Where are you headed” seems innocuous, until they claim that your alleged speeding was because you were on your way to work and running late.

While the answers to those questions may end up “clearing” you or in someone making a decision not to charge, that is more of a happy coincidence and I wouldn’t go into being questioned expecting that outcome just by being open, honest, and forthright while believing in the “system”


Be polite, be thoughtful, protect YOUR interests. Your obligation is to your wife, family, etc and those who depend on you. It is their duty to their job, you are not obligated to do anything (not required by law of course) to make it easier for them to do their job.



You use a gun, even legally - it is most likely going to be taken away. Sounds like if this guy refused to turn it over he was unreasonable and a tool.

Watching the vid, I had questions about his choice to blindly fire shots to a clearly retreating suspect. That could come back to haunt him. “Pursuing” the suspects could be argued as trying ensure they really fled, but chasing AND firing may negate a “reasonable defense” claim in many jurisdictions.


My most carried gun is a P365. Chosen in part for affordability and easily replaced if needed (I have 3-4 of them at last count ) After that is a P320, of which I also have more than one. The time to get “extra” or “replacement” guns is BEFORE you have to use your carry gun. If you use it and they take it, you might have a bit of a wait to legally get a replacement.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
,,,
then it starts to get a bit odd when he starts describing his interaction with responding officers.

He goes into describing his agitation with the police, his badgering the station captain to begin an investigation, his refusal to give-up his pistol

.. it sounds like he started to loose his composure with the cops and may have landed himself into some unnecessarily warmer water than he thought and understands, resulting in the revoking of his permit.

I did listen to this more than once.

Still sounds like PD apathy, inexperience that set him off ... justifiably .

He got no response (initially) to any investigation.

In this particular case it sound more like political jealousy that they could and will retaliate to criticism.

Bottom-line this was injustice, everyone knows it.

Let the (whichever) office responsible come out, make a statement and be accountable.
Not just say they did it > because we could.