Florida’s first black bear hunt since 2015 ended Saturday, closing a three-week season that drew sharp criticism from animal advocacy groups despite assurances from state wildlife officials that the population can sustain limited hunting.The hunt began Dec. 6 and concluded Dec. 28. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officials say the hunt was carefully regulated and based on years of conservation and population data.A total of 172 permits were issued through a lottery system. Each permit allowed the harvest of one black bear, setting the maximum number of bears that could be taken during the season, according to FWC.“The Florida black bear population can sustain a hunt,” said Paul Scharnine of the FWC.But opponents argue the hunt could have long-term consequences for the state’s bear population.“This could have long-term detrimental effects on Florida black bears,” said Katrina Shadix, executive director of Bear Warriors United.Shadix said her organization worked throughout the season to stop or limit the hunt. She said dozens of bear advocates applied for permits through the lottery, with more than 40 receiving tags.Bear Warriors United also offered hunters $2,000 in exchange for their permits, an effort aimed at preventing bears from being killed. Shadix said at least 37 people inquired about the proposal.“I had to ask all of the hunters why they weren’t going to kill a bear,” Shadix said. “One simply wanted Christmas presents for his family.”As the season ends, advocacy groups say the fight is not over. Shadix said her organization plans to push for more data on bear populations and prevent another hunt from taking place next year.A lawsuit filed by Bear Warriors United against the FWC is scheduled to go to trial in August in Tallahassee. Shadix said the case will include depositions of FWC officials as the group seeks to block future hunts.FWC officials say they are still compiling data on how many bears were harvested during the season. The agency has not yet released final numbers.
Florida’s first black bear hunt since 2015 ended Saturday, closing a three-week season that drew sharp criticism from animal advocacy groups despite assurances from state wildlife officials that the population can sustain limited hunting.
The hunt began Dec. 6 and concluded Dec. 28. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officials say the hunt was carefully regulated and based on years of conservation and population data.
A total of 172 permits were issued through a lottery system. Each permit allowed the harvest of one black bear, setting the maximum number of bears that could be taken during the season, according to FWC.
“The Florida black bear population can sustain a hunt,” said Paul Scharnine of the FWC.
But opponents argue the hunt could have long-term consequences for the state’s bear population.
“This could have long-term detrimental effects on Florida black bears,” said Katrina Shadix, executive director of Bear Warriors United.
Shadix said her organization worked throughout the season to stop or limit the hunt. She said dozens of bear advocates applied for permits through the lottery, with more than 40 receiving tags.
Bear Warriors United also offered hunters $2,000 in exchange for their permits, an effort aimed at preventing bears from being killed. Shadix said at least 37 people inquired about the proposal.
“I had to ask all of the hunters why they weren’t going to kill a bear,” Shadix said. “One simply wanted Christmas presents for his family.”
As the season ends, advocacy groups say the fight is not over. Shadix said her organization plans to push for more data on bear populations and prevent another hunt from taking place next year.
A lawsuit filed by Bear Warriors United against the FWC is scheduled to go to trial in August in Tallahassee. Shadix said the case will include depositions of FWC officials as the group seeks to block future hunts.
FWC officials say they are still compiling data on how many bears were harvested during the season. The agency has not yet released final numbers.
Wood frames are rising from the ashes of burned-out lots in Pacific Palisades, signaling the start of a new era for the fire-torn community. But down the road in Malibu, the scene is bleak.
Cars wind through a gauntlet of traffic cones and caution tape. Sweeping ocean views are sullied by hollow shells of graffiti-tagged homes and miles of chain-link fencing.
Nearly a year after the Palisades fire, one of Southern California’s most iconic communities is frozen in place.
In Altadena and Pacific Palisades, the two communities hit hardest by the January fires, there are rebuilding permits aplenty. The city of L.A., which is handling most permits in the Palisades, has issued 801 — around 43% of the total applications received, according to data from the state’s rebuilding dashboard. L.A. County, which is handling most permits in Altadena, has issued 577 — around 26% of the total applications received.
So far, Malibu has issued four — about 2% of the total applications received.
“It’s depressing,” said Abe Roy, Malibu resident and professional builder.
In May, Roy was appointed as the city’s first Rebuild Ambassador, a volunteer role created to find solutions to administrative obstacles and speed up the rebuild. He publicly resigned last month, citing frustrations with the slow permitting process.
“If this current pace continues, rebuilding will take way longer than a decade,” he said.
A view of cleared lots and sparse construction after the Palisades fire in the Sunset Mesa neighborhood of eastern Malibu.
(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)
A buyer’s market
In contrast to other California communities, where sprawl and expansion led to skyrocketing populations over the last few decades, Malibu has long embraced “slow growth.” Fewer live there now than when the city was incorporated 34 years ago.
But after roughly 720 Malibu homes burned in the Palisades fire, burned-out lots are sitting empty. Locals are worried that the city may never get fully back on its feet, and property values will suffer. And in a place like Malibu — one of the most expensive markets in the country, where a 10% price drop can mean millions of dollars lost — property values are king.
Of the 160 lots listed this year that are still on the market, 47 have received a price cut.
In the Big Rock neighborhood, a burned lot listed for $1.65 million in September, but that price has already been lowered twice. On Las Flores Beach, an oceanfront parcel hit the market for $3 million in April, but with no takers, relisted for $1.95 million in October.
Roughly 75 lots have sold in Malibu since the fire. But as more homeowners decide to sell instead of rebuild, sales are slowing down — and a buyer’s market is emerging.
“Supply is exceeding demand, and lots are selling anywhere from a 20 to 60% discount,” Roy said. “That’s a premonition for a freefall.”
Roy said the overwhelming majority of residents want to stay and simply replace the home they have. But as applications get kicked back for corrections, and the rebuilding timeline turns from months to years, many are getting discouraged and choosing to sell.
“Remodeling a kitchen or bathroom is onerous for most people. But building a house from the ground up is almost impossible,” Roy said. “After a while, you raise your hand and say, ‘I don’t know how long I can be on this treadmill.’”
Real estate agent Daniel Milstein is currently listing a 3.25-acre lot on a promontory in Carbon Canyon that once held a Mediterranean mansion formerly owned by record producer David Foster. Before the fire, it was listed for $35 million.
After it burned, the lot returned to market at $16 million. But with the slowing market, Milstein is planning to trim the price down to $12 million.
“The property is worth a lot more, but the nuances of building here and the limited permits issued have led to a setback in the market,” he said. “The value will be higher down the road, but there’s a discount for buyers right now.”
Milstein added that the buyer pool is limited to people who can afford to park their money for a while — three years, six years, maybe more. For those hoping to build a house right away, Malibu isn’t an option.
But Milstein said that’s by design.
“Malibu is stringent on permits. But that’s where the value is,” Milstein said. “It’s exclusive. And those that understand that value will be very happy with their property values down the road.”
In the meantime, locals who lost homes are stuck in limbo.
Permit trouble
The choice of whether to sell or stay has been well-documented over the last year, with homeowners in Altadena and Pacific Palisades speaking out about their decision-making process.
But Malibu locals — permit-less and facing rebuild timelines significantly longer than their fellow rebuilding communities — are a bit more circumspect. The Times reached out to over a dozen homeowners with lots on the market, but none wanted to publicly participate in the story.
One homeowner, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution from neighbors or the city, called the past few months “a nightmare.”
“I have friends a few miles east in Pacific Palisades who are starting to build already. I submitted my applications in the spring, the same time as them, but it still hasn’t gotten approved,” said the homeowner, whose Malibu home burned down in January.
The homeowner planned to rebuild the same house that was there before, but their application was sent back because the plans didn’t comply with FEMA’s updated flood elevation standards, which require many rebuilt oceanfront homes to sit higher above the sand.
It’s a snag that several have run into over the past year. One local, whose house survived but sustained smoke damage, told Fox 11 that he may be forced to demolish the property in order to comply with the heightened elevation standards.
Comedian and podcaster Adam Carolla has emerged as a face of the frustration building in Malibu, vlogging about the bleak state of the city. He claims that Malibu is emphasizing the wrong things in its requirements for rebuilding.
Carolla visited a construction site on the beach that was installing 30 caissons six stories deep into the ground. Between the caissons, the seawall and retaining wall, the crew estimated it would cost $2 million to $3 million to install the foundation.
“It’s totally unnecessary. The former structure that was there lasted 75 years, and the tide didn’t get it, the fire did,” Carolla said. “If telephone poles sunk into the soil worked for 75 years, why do we need to build Hitler’s bunker under the sand?”
Carolla said it’s a symptom of the larger trend across L.A. that he regularly complains about: regulations and over-engineering bogging development down to the point where no one can afford to build.
Real estate agent Jason Ventress said the strict rules are limiting the buyer pool for his latest listing, a $12.5-million burned lot spanning half an acre on the ocean.
“The city is bogged down by confusion and interpretations of newly implemented laws that are being contested,” Ventress said.
In addition to the FEMA height requirements, he pointed to Malibu’s new septic standards, which requires rebuilders to replace existing septic systems with onsite wastewater treatment systems, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to install.
Ventress, a fire victim himself dealing with a daunting rebuild, credited the Malibu Rebuild Center as a helpful resource to locals who lost their homes. Opened in March, it serves as a one-stop shop for both homeowners and contractors to ask questions and get help submitting applications.
Yolanda Bundy, who runs the center under her role as Community Development Director, said of the 720 families impacted by the fire, 585 have visited.
Bundy said it’s a necessary resource, since building in Malibu — a land of eroding cliffs and rising sea levels — is trickier than building in the flat lots found in Altadena and parts of the Palisades. She said 50% of burned homes were on the water, and 30% were on steep slopes.
“These homes require septic systems, sea walls, retaining walls and complex foundations. Those come with restrictions,” Bundy said.
Acknowledging the slow pace of permits, Bundy’s team has launched a handful of strategies aimed at streamlining the approval process, highlighting the changes at an Oct. 15 City Council meeting.
According to Bundy, one of the biggest reasons for applications getting bogged down is architectural plans missing necessary notes and numbers. So the city created templates that architects can use to avoid corrections.
The city also trimmed the 12-step application intake procedure down to six steps and beefed up its staff, hiring a case manager to serve as a bridge between staff and homeowners.
Despite only four building permits being issued, Bundy said the collective rebuild is further along than the number suggests. Applications have to pass through two phases: the planning and entitlement phase, and the building and safety review phase. Bundy said half of the roughly 160 applications have passed through planning, but are still waiting to get through the building phase.
“It’s an oversimplification to say that we’re not making any progress compared to L.A.,” Bundy said. “Families are frustrated, but I want every family to know we’re doing our best to get them home.”
Lost identity
As rebuilds get costlier, locals are getting concerned that by the time Malibu eventually gets back on its feet, it won’t feel the same. Lifelong residences will be replaced by Airbnbs, development groups and deep-pocketed foreign buyers with enough time and money to navigate the laborious permit process.
Two brothers from New Zealand bought up $65 million worth of burned-out lots on the beach this year. Ventress said he’s fielding interest from a Canadian development group and a Miami hedge fund for his oceanfront listing.
Milstein said he’s noticed a surge in interest from Europe, Canada and Asia, and roughly a third of his inquiries this year have come from international networks such as private banks and wealth managers.
“There’s fear that Malibu’s identity will change, and that might fuel folks to move as well,” Roy said. “It might not be the Malibu we loved for years, where the bartender knows your drink and you see your neighbors at the local restaurants.”
But Roy said the city should welcome all buyers, international or not. He spoke with the New Zealand duo and said he supports their vision of adding housing.
“People selling lots are in dire straits. They don’t care whether offers come from international buyers or not,” he said. “As long as those people are believing in the future of Malibu and willing to invest.”
Voices across Malibu say the only solution is issuing permits quicker so fire victims want to come back.
“Malibu is a way of life. Most of us are doing our darndest to maintain that way of life,” Ventress said. Seconds later, while driving down Pacific Coast Highway, he passed a naked man walking down the beach.
“He’s got a metal detector or something…no wait, it’s a golf club!” he exclaimed over the phone. “Right now, it’s the wild, wild west out here.”
PORTLAND, Ore. – The Portland City Council on Wednesday unanimously approved a set of temporary code suspensions aimed at streamlining the city’s permitting process for development projects that add to or alter existing buildings.
The changes, set to take effect Oct. 24, will remain in place through Jan. 1, 2029. They do not apply to new construction.
City officials say the move will help reduce permitting delays, support small businesses, and boost housing and economic development.
The four suspended requirements are:
Street tree planting (Title 11): Temporarily waives street tree planting requirements for additions and alterations valued over $25,000 — except where sidewalk improvements are already required.
Frontage improvements (Title 17): Suspends sidewalk and curb ramp upgrades for most alterations to existing buildings, unless those changes increase daily trips to the site. Schools and hospitals are excluded.
Seismic evaluation (Title 24): Pauses the requirement for seismic reports on pre-1974 buildings undergoing alterations worth more than $362,000.
Zoning code upgrades (Title 33): Extends an existing pause on requirements like bike parking and landscaping upgrades to all projects — not just housing — through 2029.
The suspensions will apply to building permits currently in review or inspection that have not yet received final inspection. Applicants may need to revise existing applications to take advantage of the new rules.
The suspensions are the first in a series of proposals from the Code Alignment Project, which launched in 2024 to eliminate bureaucratic overlap and improve permitting services. City staff are expected to propose additional reforms in the coming months.
When Khalilah Few opened her salon, Creative Crowns Collective, in 2023, she didn’t think her business savvy would put her at odds with the local government. But two years later, she now finds herself in a legal battle with Clayton County, Georgia.
After outgrowing her original studio space, Few signed a two-year lease for a new salon housed in an old barbershop in Jonesboro, a city in Clayton County, in March. She invested over $30,000 into the property and applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in April to open her salon. Despite meeting the legal requirements for a permit, the Clayton County Zoning Advisory Board and the Board of Commissioners denied Few’s application in July.
Instead of the law, county officials cited a “saturation” of similar businesses in a 5-mile radius, arguing the salon would not “grow Clayton County smartly.” Commissioner DeMont Davis, whose fourth district includes the new location of the salon, even noted that Few’s plan “does align” with the county’s economic development plan but still voted against it, saying Few’s business was “just in the wrong area.”
Few has filed a lawsuit against Clayton County, alleging violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Georgia Constitution. Jessica Bigbie, an attorney at the Institute for Justice (I.J.), which is representing Few, tells Reason that “nothing in the ordinance or the law says anything about smart growth being a basis to deny a permit.”
Throughout the process, Few says county staff gave “vague” responses when asked about requirements and reasons for denial. She tells Reason the first time she heard about “oversaturation” was when she attended her meeting with the zoning advisory board. “What’s frustrating and infuriating about this process is I asked questions, I directly asked, ‘What are some reasons that this application can be denied?’” She says, she “wanted to be prepared.”
Clayton County officials did not respond to Reason‘s request for comment.
Few’s hurdles can be traced back to 2024, when Clayton County amended its municipal code and designated District 4, where the proposed salon is located, as a General Business Zoning District with a Business Corridor Overlay District. This overlay permits some businesses to open without a CUP while requiring one for others. Personal service establishments, such as dry cleaners or watch repair shops, typically do not require a CUP, whereas hair salons do.
The county’s CUP criteria for District 4 appear arbitrary, as they treat similar businesses unevenly. Day cares and dance/music schools are permitted, but gyms and places of worship are conditional. Counterintuitively, even potentially hazardous companies, such as research labs, are permitted.
To get a CUP, applicants must meet with the Technical Review Committee, community residents, and the Zoning Advisory Group, then attend a final hearing before the County Board of Commissioners. The board considers the application’s proper filing, the Zoning Advisory Group’s recommendation, compliance with permit conditions, and consistency with the ordinance’s purpose and intent. They also weigh the benefits against potential harm to properties or the county and can impose reasonable conditions to ensure public health, safety, and welfare.
Few’s salon met the permit conditions, and she provided county staff and the commissioners with not only her application but a presentation detailing her alignment with the county’s 2039 comprehensive development plan as well as Davis’ stated economic priorities. She also had “over 50 letters of support,” yet none of that mattered. “I think you have a fabulous business,” said Davis. “You have a fabulous personality, and I love what you bring, and you actually hurt my heart right now, but we’ve got to deny,” he added.
“The Board of Commissioners concedes that the salon fits the plan; it’s a good business, she’s doing the right thing, she is just not doing it where they want her to do it,” says Bigbie. “The government shouldn’t be stopping legitimate businesses from opening to stop them from competing with others.”
Clayton County officials have denied several other potential salon owners a CUP since the passage of the 2024 ordinance. Lea Bakam, who owned LeNa Braiding, tells Reason she was denied a CUP on June 17 after spending “more than $35,000” fixing up a salon in Clayton County. Like Few, Bakam presented the board of commissioners with her business plan and letters of support. Yet, in denying the permit, Davis again noted that the area was “extremely saturated with salons.”
The Georgia Supreme Court has already ruled, in Raffesnber v. Jackson (2023), that it is a violation of due process rights when governments restrict the pursuit of “lawful occupation of their choosing free from unreasonable government interference.” I.J. prevailed in a similar case in Fulton County, Georgia—Diagne v. City of South Fulton(2024)—in which the Fulton County Superior Court struck down the town’s attempt to block Awa Diagne from opening a salon. The court found that the county’s denial of a permit ran “contrary to Georgia’s long history of constitutional jurisprudence.”
Few has filed for an interlocutory injunction to continue working while her court case is pending. Clayton County must respond to her lawsuit by September 18.
California’s beaches are public, but on the sands of Malibu, one billionaire has been accused of stealing a slice of paradise — or at least a few scoops of it — for himself.
A lawsuit filed last week alleges that Mark Attanasio, billionaire businessman and owner of the Milwaukee Brewers baseball team, has been using excavators to dig up sand from Broad Beach and carry it back to his house as part of an ongoing construction project.
“This case is about a private property owner using a public beach as their own personal sandbox and the disturbing conversion of a public natural resource (i.e., sand from Broad Beach) for a nearby homeowner’s personal, private use,” the lawsuit says.
The suit was filed by Attanasio’s next-door neighbor James Kohlberg, son of Jerome Kohlberg, who founded the global investment company Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Kohlberg’s lawyers accuse Attanasio’s construction team, JILK Heavy Construction, of operating enormous excavators in tidal zones, leaking oils and exposing local marine life to potentially hazardous byproducts. The suit alleges that the construction restricted public access to the entirety of the beach.
Attanasio bought the Broad Beach home for $23 million in 2007. A decade later, he picked up the neighboring property, an empty lot, for $6.6 million.
Mark Attanasio bought this Malibu parcel for $6.6 million in 2017 but never developed it.
(Mac Hayward)
In March, the Brewers owner obtained permits to repair a damaged section of seawall, according to the lawsuit. In June and July, excavators allegedly began dragging sand from the beach onto his private property and also left gasoline residue in the water and sand.
Attanasio’s attorney, Kenneth Ehrlich, said his client’s company, 2XMD Partners LLC, has acted in 100% compliance with all of its permits.
“2XMD is in the midst of a fully-permitted emergency repair of the property to protect it from ocean forces. It has secured all permits necessary for the repairs from the City of Malibu and LA County as well as thoroughly vetted all contractors and sub-contractors involved in the project,” Ehrlich wrote in a statement.
The lawsuit, which accuses Attanasio of public nuisance, private nuisance and violation of the California Coastal Act, calls for a stop to the construction, for the sand to be replaced and for fines to be issued.
The disputed stretch of sand sits just east of Lechuza Point in Broad Beach, a hyper-exclusive enclave where celebrities and business tycoons spend tens of millions of dollars for homes right on the water.
Over the years, the beach has been battered by violent storms and high tides, leading to significant sand depletion. In 2015, high-profile residents including Dustin Hoffman, Ray Romano and Pierce Brosnan committed to a $31-million restoration project to bolster the beach’s sand.
In the last few decades, Malibu has emerged as one of the priciest pockets in the country. Earlier this year, Oakley founder James Jannard sold his home there for $210 million — the priciest home sale in California history.
During that time, as the ultra-wealthy cram bigger and bigger homes into Malibu’s rugged mountains and along coveted beaches, the community has become the centerpiece of a debate over development vs. preservation and the government’s role in maintaining California’s natural beauty.
Jasmine Richardson had been struggling with methamphetamine and fentanyl addiction for more than a decade, but she got sober after completing a six-month program at the Teen Project’s Freehab center on Sunland Boulevard in Sun Valley.
That was right around Thanksgiving last year, and it was the first time the 33-year-old had been clean in years. Still, she wasn’t ready to leave the Freehab just yet; homeless since 2020, she wanted to spend at least a year in the 74-bed rehab facility before finding temporary housing. Then she hoped to move her teenage son up to L.A. to live with her, and to pursue her dream of becoming a veterinarian tech.
All of that was cut short Dec. 4, when the Los Angeles City Fire Department shut down the facility over what it said were building and fire code violations, officials said. The group of 43 women, whose ranks included survivors of human trafficking, substance abuse and homelessness, had a few hours to pack up their belongings and find a new place to stay.
Richardson’s mother, Janet Dooley, picked her up from Freehab and brought her back to Dooley’s home in Huntington Beach. Eight days later, Dooley found her daughter dead from an overdose of meth and fentanyl.
Jasmine Richardson when she was attending middle school in Montana in the 2000s.
(Janet Dooley)
“I believe that if the place hadn’t closed,” Dooley said, “she’d still be alive today.”
More than six months after the closure, questions about why it was forced to shut down are at the forefront of a lawsuit filed by the Teen Project, the nonprofit that operated the Freehab, against A&E Development Co., the facility’s landlord. The nonprofit alleges that A&E breached its lease and failed to maintain conditions that adhered to building codes, regulations, permits and ordinances, resulting in the rehab’s shutdown.
The organization is seeking at least $5 million in damages.
On a GoFundMe page created to raise money for a new treatment facility, the Teen Project blamed its landlord’s “refusal to ensure building’s upkeep” and the Fire Department’s “unwillingness to compromise, and exerting their power, even if it cost our girls their lives.”
According to safety violation notices from the L.A. City Fire Department obtained by The Times, the Freehab had been ordered multiple times since at least September to get a fire permit to operate a residential care facility, hire fire watch personnel, install automatic fire sprinklers throughout the building and obtain a valid permit for the fire door connecting the Freehab and the adjacent building.
The organization was notified via both email and mailed letters addressed to the Sun Valley facility, according to the notices.
The alleged safety issues apparently go back even further. According to Fox 11, LAFD Assistant Fire Chief Kristine Larson told the Freehab’s staff in December: “In 2020, this building was required to have sprinklers, and it does not have sprinklers; therefore, it is unsafe to be occupied for overnight use.”
Lauri Burns, executive officer of the Teen Project, said via email that she found out about the alleged violations a week before the closure.
“They said they weren’t shutting us down and they would give us ample time to fix things, and then they returned one week later and shut us down without notice,” Burns added.
Burns said after learning about the violations, the Freehab complied with nearly all of the requirements and paid around $7,000 a week to have a fire watch on-site at all hours. She said they weren’t able to install sprinklers because that process would take at least a month and require permits and inspections.
Case manager Priscilla Nunez helps put together items in the dining area of the new Teen Project facility in April in Van Nuys.
(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)
In its Jan. 31 lawsuit, the Teen Project alleges that A&E failed to address rat and maggot infestations at the Freehab, ignored unauthorized trailers and homelessness in the Freehab’s shared parking lot and didn’t repay the Teen Project for replacing HVAC systems and other amenities.
Because of A&E’s “inability to provide a useable/safe space to lease for its intended purpose,” the lawsuit states, the Freehab was forced to shut down.
“The residents under The Teen Project’s care were traumatically displaced from their safety net, and horrifically resulted in the relapse and death of a young woman only a few days later,” according to the lawsuit.
In court papers, A&E disavowed responsibility for the shuttering of the Freehab, saying “the facts and the law are clear that the A&E is not responsible for ensuring the Premises could be used as a rehab facility.” A&E argued that the Teen Project “voluntarily vacated” the Freehab after the Fire Department and the California Department of Health Care Services revoked permits to operate the rehab facility.
After the Freehab’s shutdown, A&E said, it received a notice from the Teen Project demanding that A&E bring the Freehab up to code. But according to A&E, the lease required it to fix problems only if they were raised within six months of the start of the lease. The Teen Project terminated its lease on Jan. 19 after the conditions to operate the Freehab weren’t met.
The LAFD said in a Dec. 5 statement after the Freehab’s closure that the agency “will continue to provide guidance to the building owner and lessee regarding required compliance with the fire violations and change-of-use permits to ensure the safety and security of the tenants and the property.”
“The California Department of Health Care Services is responsible for ensuring this type of facility is in compliance with the fire code and questions regarding the status of this facility’s license to operate should be directed to them,” according to the statement. “They are also responsible for rehousing any displaced residents.”
LAFD spokesperson Karla Tovar said that a fire code change in 2020 required sprinklers in the type of building that housed the Freehab. The alleged violations were found during a fire inspection and “much research was done with many other agencies before the facility was closed,” she said.
In response to the Teen Project’s allegation that LAFD’s actions somehow contributed to the overdose death of one of the Freehab’s clients, Tovar said in an emailed statement:
“The LAFD is committed to preserving life, protecting property, and safeguarding our communities. Ensuring that buildings operate according to fire and life safety regulations is a matter we take seriously for residents, patrons, employees, and owners.”
A spokesperson from the California Department of Health Care Services confirmed that the Freehab was deemed noncompliant with the fire code. The agency said it was able to get 32 of the 43 women into other treatment centers across L.A. However, Richardson told them she wanted to go home to be with her son, her mother said.
The Teen Project, whose name was born out of “teenagers exiting foster care to homelessness and trafficking,” according to Burns, opened a new facility in June called the Van Nuys Sanctuary. At least 10 of the women who stayed at the Freehab reached out and asked if they could get a spot at the new center, according to Teen Project program director Melissa Coons.
“They have a safe place to be and we really try to make this place look like a home versus an institution,” she said. “We’re really excited to get back to helping the girls in the community.”
Richardson’s problems began in middle school, when she became depressed and started self-medicating with marijuana, Dooley said. It snowballed after she turned 18, when her father died and she later turned to meth. Richardson, her ex-boyfriend and her son lived with Dooley until well into the pandemic, when Dooley said she had to evict them.
Yesenia Sanchez was in the Teen Project program for substance abuse and now works as a cook at the new facility.
(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)
“Things got worse and worse, and I had to get them out because I couldn’t live like that,” Dooley added.
After the Freehab closed, Richardson didn’t know what to do. According to her mother, she thought about going to a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. She texted employees from the Teen Project to see if she could get into temporary housing.
On Dec. 11, Dooley dropped Richardson off near the courthouse to handle a legal matter but didn’t hear from her for a few hours. Richardson came home late and said she had been with friends. Dooley got up for work around 3 a.m., and when she came home five hours later, she discovered that Richardson had overdosed.
“Jasmine was incredibly upset and scared” when the Freehab closed, Coons said. “Originally, she wanted to stay with us for a year, and she never really wavered from that.”
Tom Wolf, a recovering fentanyl and heroin addict who founded the Pacific Alliance for Prevention and Recovery, said that structure and routine are especially important in early recovery. Significant emotional events, such as a death in the family, job loss or a breakup can result in relapse.
“These folks were displaced, and even if they were offered shelter or housing in another program, they were displaced from friendships, the support systems and the structure of that specific program,” he said. “If you take all of those things away at once from someone after years of homelessness, it would be easy to go back onto the street and buy fentanyl for $5 and relapse.”
Yesenia Sanchez, 31, struggled with addiction to alcohol, but she has been sober for more than two years after completing the Freehab’s six-month program. She started out as an intern in the kitchen before becoming a full-time cook at the facility.
She wasn’t working the day the Freehab was forced to shut down, but once she heard about the closure, she scrambled to help the women find other places to stay. Some of them, she said, had to go back to living on the streets.
“That was really hard because those were the girls we were helping every day, and we just didn’t have enough time,” she said.
Casey Anderson, another former Freehab client, relapsed almost immediately after the facility closed down. Anderson first started abusing Ritalin as a teenager before getting addicted to meth. She was homeless for more than a year and slept in various parks in Lancaster before deciding she needed to get help.
Casey Anderson outside her sponsor’s home in Simi Valley.
(Michael Blackshire / Los Angeles Times)
Anderson started living at the Freehab in June 2023 and was two weeks away from completing her program when the facility closed.
“It was heartbreaking,” she said. “We all felt safe. We all felt like we had a place to go and then all of a sudden, it was taken from us.”
Anderson didn’t think she would need to go into another program after the Freehab’s closure. Instead, she reverted to living with her parents in Lancaster and quickly got hooked on drugs again. In early April, she contacted one of the program directors from the Teen Project to get on the waiting list for the new Van Nuys facility, where she moved June 6. There were eight women in the program as of June 25.
She is sober again and is hoping to get back to pursuing her dream of becoming a preschool teacher. In the meantime, she recently got a job working as a registered alcohol and drug technician.
“I thought I was ready to leave, but I wasn’t,” Anderson said. “I only had two weeks left, but it turns out I actually needed more. I probably would’ve known that if we had more time to work on it.”
Open carry is legal in North Carolina without a permit if you are at least 18 years old and have no felony convictions, according to Raleigh-based Manning Law Firm.
File photo by DAVID PULLIAM
The Kansas City Star
Concealed carry permits allow North Carolina residents to transport firearms on their person and in their vehicles. But what if you don’t have a permit?
Open carry is legal in North Carolina without a permit if you are at least 18 years old and have no felony convictions, according to Raleigh-based Manning Law Firm.
State law also includes rules on driving with a firearm in your vehicle without a permit. Here’s what to know about open carry while traveling in North Carolina.
Can you open carry in your vehicle in NC?
North Carolina law allows gun owners without concealed carry permits to transport firearms in their vehicles, but the weapons must be displayed openly, visible and readily seen, according to Charlotte-based law firm Randall & Stump.
However, state law allows those without concealed carry permits to store weapons in the trunk, since they wouldn’t be within reach of anyone in the vehicle.
“If you’re driving a vehicle with access to the trunk area, like an SUV or van, your weapon must be securely locked away in a container,” the firm says.
What is the penalty for concealing a gun inside a vehicle in NC?
First-time offenders convicted of illegally concealing a weapon without a permit could be charged with a Class 2 misdemeanor, which comes with up to 60 days in jail and a fine, according to Randall & Stump.
Any subsequent offense could result in a felony conviction, punishable by up to 39 months in prison depending on criminal history, the firm says.
Can you fly with a gun in NC?
People over the age of 18 can fly with firearms and ammunition, but they must be unloaded and in a locked, hard-sided container. They can only be transported in checked baggage, according to the Transportation Security Administration.
Gun owners must also declare their firearms or ammunition when checking their bags at the ticket counter, the TSA says.
What is the penalty for carrying a loaded gun through TSA?
If TSA finds you have a loaded gun in the airport, “you will be charged with a crime and face civil fines,” says law firm Randall & Stump.
“Also, if you have an unloaded gun that is not stored and transported properly, you will face charges and civil fines.”
Fines range from a few hundred dollars for BB guns and flare pistols to nearly $10,000 for any type of loaded firearm (or unloaded with accessible ammunition).
You could also be fined between $650 and $2,610 for firearms that are not stored properly inside your luggage.
Ask the North Carolina Service Journalism Team
Have a question about your community you’d like answered? Or maybe a tip or story idea you’d like to share? The service journalism teams at The News & Observer and The Charlotte Observer want to hear from you.
Related stories from Charlotte Observer
Evan Moore is a service journalism reporter for the Charlotte Observer. He grew up in Denver, North Carolina, where he previously worked as a reporter for the Denver Citizen, and is a UNC Charlotte graduate.
Environmental activists have opened a new front in their long-running fight against a company that pipes water from the San Bernardino Mountains and bottles it for sale as Arrowhead brand bottled water.
In a petition to the state, several environmental groups and local activists called for an investigation by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, arguing that the company BlueTriton Brands is harming wildlife habitat and species by extracting water that would otherwise flow in Strawberry Creek.
Those who oppose the taking of water from San Bernardino National Forest want the state agency to assess the environmental effects and uphold protections under state law, said Rachel Doughty, a lawyer for the environmental nonprofit Story of Stuff Project.
“They’ve dewatered the creek,” Doughty said.
If the company weren’t siphoning water in its network of pipes, she said, Strawberry Creek “would be habitat for endangered species, it would be providing a downstream water supply, it would support fish, and it can’t do any of those things without water.”
The coalition of environmental groups and activists said in their May 13 petition that the state agency should demand the company apply for an authorization — called a streambed alteration agreement — for its pipes and other infrastructure, and should examine whether the ongoing diversion of water violates state environmental laws.
The groups said the company’s taking of water has “caused the extirpation of native species and the destruction of riparian habitat — clearcut harm to the public trust.” They urged the state to “take all appropriate enforcement action.”
Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.
Activists who have been trying to shut down the company’s bottled water pipeline made their appeal to the wildlife agency eight months after the State Water Resources Control Board voted to order the company to halt its “unauthorized diversions” of water from springs in the San Bernardino Mountains.
State officials determined the company has been unlawfully diverting water without valid water rights. But BlueTriton Brands sued to challenge that decision in Fresno County Superior Court, arguing the process was rife with problems and that the company is entitled to the water.
A spokesperson for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife said the agency has received the petition and is evaluating it.
BlueTriton Brands responded to the petition in an email.
“Responsible and proactive water stewardship is central to everything we do. We’re proud of the work we’ve done and continue to do in Strawberry Canyon, studying, reporting, and managing our operations to help protect the land and natural resources,” the company said. “We will continue to operate in compliance with all state and federal laws.”
The company also said it will “partner with people in our communities, governments, policy makers, businesses, and consumers to sustainably protect and shape our shared future.”
But Steve Loe, a retired biologist who previously worked for the San Bernardino National Forest, said the state should require the company to stop taking water from the creek and the ecosystem.
“The stream has been completely dried up by BlueTriton, and BlueTriton needs to put some water back in the stream to meet state and federal requirements,” Loe said. “Restoring water back to Strawberry Creek will make a huge difference in the watershed for all of the plant and animal species.”
Restoring water to the habitat would help endangered bird species such as the southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo, he said, as well as other species including the mountain yellow-legged frog and southern rubber boa.
He said a flowing creek could also support the return of native fish species, such as Santa Ana speckled dace.
In the petition, Loe and others cited historical records describing the springs and the creek nearly a century ago, including field notes and reports from W.P. Rowe, an engineer who surveyed the watershed starting in 1929.
Rowe wrote that Strawberry Creek flowed on the south slope of the San Bernardino Mountains from a “source at a group of springs” and flowed in a canyon filled with “alder, sycamore, dogwood and cedar trees together with ferns and thimble berry bushes.”
Loe said the records show that before the water was tapped for bottling, the stream was flowing and supported a thriving riparian habitat, which is now largely dry.
“It’s public water,” Loe said. “And the public has a right to push for its protection.”
“I want water back in the creek this summer,” he said.
In the decision that is being argued in court, the state water board ordered the company to stop taking water for bottling from most of its water-collection tunnels and boreholes in the mountains north of San Bernardino.
Records show about 158 acre-feet, or 51 million gallons, flowed through the company’s network of pipes in 2022.
The system of 4-inch steel pipes collects water that flows from various sites on the steep mountainside above the creek.
The pipeline runs to a roadside tank, and some of the water is hauled away on trucks to be bottled and sold as Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water.
Local activists have campaigned for years calling for state and federal authorities to shut down the bottled water pipeline. Controversy over the use of water from the national forest erupted after a 2015 investigation by the Desert Sun revealed that the U.S. Forest Service was allowing Nestlé to continue siphoning water using a permit that listed 1988 as the expiration date.
The Forest Service subsequently began a review of Nestlé’s permit, and in 2018 granted a new permit for up to five years. The revelations about Nestlé piping water out of the national forest sparked an outpouring of opposition and prompted several complaints to California regulators questioning the company’s water rights claims, which led to the state’s investigation.
BlueTriton Brands took over the bottled water business in 2021 when Nestlé’s North American bottled water division was purchased by private-equity firm One Rock Capital Partners and investment firm Metropoulos & Co.
BlueTriton and prior owners of the business have for years had a federal “special-use” permit allowing them to use the pipeline and other water infrastructure in the San Bernardino National Forest.
The Forest Service has been charging an annual permit fee, currently $2,500 per year. There has been no fee for using the water.
BlueTriton’s 2018 permit expired in August, and the company has submitted an application to renew the permit, which Forest Service officials are reviewing, said Gustavo Bahena, a spokesperson for the San Bernardino National Forest.
“Because Blue Triton had a timely request for renewal of the permit, the current permit remains in effect… until the Forest renders a decision on their new request,” Bahena said in an email.
Other groups that are petitioning the state include Save Our Forest Assn., Center for Biological Diversity, the local chapter of the Sierra Club, Southern California Native Freshwater Fauna Working Group and the Tri-County Conservation League.
Amanda Frye, an activist who has taken a leading role in the campaign, said she thinks the Forest Service is failing to uphold its responsibility to manage public land and resources.
“We still have a dry creek,” Frye said.
“Something’s got to change,” she said. “We have the right to have these resources protected.”
Newsletter
Toward a more sustainable California
Get Boiling Point, our newsletter exploring climate change, energy and the environment, and become part of the conversation — and the solution.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
They come in packs. They’re often crunchy. They’re chameleons: a downward-facing dog one moment, a cobra or child the next. (What versatility!) They do handstands and breathe peacefully. And we can’t have any of that.
At least, not on public land. By “they,” I’m referring to the world of yogis. And by “we,” I mean the city of San Diego, which revised its municipal code in March to prevent groups of four or more people engaged in commercial recreational activities—yoga, fitness classes, dog training, etc.—from convening in public spaces without a permit.
Law enforcement officers are zeroing in on rogue gatherings, breaking up beachside classes before they begin and issuing tickets to the teachers. And despite the city’s emphasis on “commercial” activities, park rangers are also busting those groups who meet with no cost of admission. “It’s really tragic that the city would take away the opportunity to come to a class for free, to be outside in a public park, and to enjoy nature,” Amy Baack, a yoga instructor, told San Diego’s KGTV station. And despite what might be the gut reaction here—”Just get a permit!”—it appears the city isn’t making that easy: “We are perfectly willing and ready to get a permit,” Baack added, “if the city would allow it.”
The law was originally tailored to target permitless food vendors. Reasonable people can and should debate the necessity or utility of preventing people from buying hot dogs from someone without a stamp of approval from government bureaucrats. But it would seem even more questionable to apply that concept to people who voluntarily meet by the water to do some stretching. Conjuring safety concerns there requires an active imagination.
Indeed, San Diego says the core issue at stake is safety. Officials expanded the code, which went into effect March 29, “to ensure these public spaces remain safe and accessible,” a city spokesperson said in a statement. What danger these groups pose while transitioning from, say, bridge pose to wheel pose remains unclear.
The idea that the code provision ensures accessibility, meanwhile, is richly ironic, as it explicitly excludes from access those taxpaying San Diegans who have the audacity to work out with other people sans a permit. That they have gathered together as opposed to separately, or to do a specific activity as opposed to something nebulous, should not suddenly necessitate approval from the government.
Whether or not the rule will survive is up in the air: An attorney for a group of yoga instructors on Friday served a cease-and-desist letter to city officials. Whatever the case, it’s an example of the government implementing a solution in search of a problem, which didn’t actually exist until city leaders created it.
A new California law barring licensed gun holders from carrying their firearms in many public places has once again been blocked — meaning it cannot be enforced — as legal challenges proceed in federal court.
The law bars concealed-carry permit holders and those with open-carry permits in more rural parts of the state from carrying their firearms into spaces that California lawmakers deemed “sensitive.”
The prohibited places include anywhere that sells and serves liquor; on public transportation and in many parking lots; at public gatherings, special events, parks, playgrounds, stadiums, arenas, casinos, medical facilities, religious and financial institutions; and in any other private commercial spaces where the owners have not explicitly posted a sign allowing guns.
Challengers to the law argue the list is so long that it essentially precludes them from leaving their homes with their weapons and makes their permits worthless — and diminishes their ability to defend themselves in public, a right that they say is guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. (People without permits, who are not party to the lawsuit, generally cannot carry firearms anywhere in public in California.)
However, on Saturday, another 9th Circuit appellate panel issued its own order reversing the administrative panel and restoring the lower court’s judgment while the proceedings continue.
The latest order, issued by a court clerk without the names of the judges listed, puts the state law on ice once more as the case proceeds. The 9th Circuit appellate panel will be considering the state’s appeal, including during arguments in April.
A spokesperson in the office of Gov. Gavin Newsom called the latest decision “dangerous” in a statement, saying it “puts the lives of Californians on the line.”
“We won’t stop working to defend our decades of progress on gun safety in our state,” the spokesperson said.
Chuck Michel, an attorney for the gun holders suing the state over the law, applauded the ruling and said it preserves “the status quo” for responsible gun owners.
“Had this new law taken effect, it would reverse decades of allowing vetted and licensed [concealed-carry weapon] holders (but not the general public) to carry in places where the need for self-defense can be most acute,” Michel wrote in a statement.
“So the politicians’ ploy to get around the 2nd Amendment has been stopped for now,” he said. “Now we will focus on stopping it for good.”
The legal battle is one of many playing out in courts across the country in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen in 2022.
In Bruen, the high court held that strict limits on concealed-carry permits in states such as New York and California amounted to unconstitutional restraints on people’s 2nd Amendment right to self-defense.
The court also held that gun laws that aren’t deeply rooted in American history, or analogous to some historical law, are generally unconstitutional. Some gun laws — like those that have traditionally barred guns in sensitive places such as schools and courtrooms — remained valid, the court noted.
Last year, California lawmakers passed SB 2 in response to the Bruen decision and several mass shootings, including in Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park. Lawmakers argued that the bill, sponsored by state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank), was permissible under the Bruen decision because it simply extended the list of places deemed sensitive under California law.
Gun holders sued in response, and won a victory on Dec. 20 when U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an injunction.
Carney, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote that SB 2’s “coverage is sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.” He said SB 2 clearly clashed with the Bruen decision, and an injunction blocking it was warranted because the gun holders were likely to win their case against the state and would suffer “irreparable harm” if they weren’t allowed to carry their firearms in the meantime.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office appealed and asked for a stay to allow the state’s law to go into effect while the court case continued. An administrative panel of the 9th Circuit granted that stay, but now, with Saturday’s order, the law is once more blocked while the case proceeds.
A New York City man is facing several years in prison after killing someone who’d broken into his apartment.
But perhaps most interesting is that, at his arraignment last month, prosecutors did not dispute that LaShawn Craig acted in self-defense when he fatally shot Timothy Jones. Instead, they hit Craig with several charges related to the criminal possession of a weapon, because he did not have a license for the handgun he used to protect himself.
On November 17, Craig, who has no criminal history, was standing outside his building talking to a neighbor when he heard his home alarm go off. After returning to his residence, he found Jones—wearing a mask and gloves—who, after Craig ordered him to leave, reached into his pocket. (It was later determined that he had a Taser.) Craig then fired several shots, after which he called 911.
Law enforcement reportedly labeled the shooting a “justified homicide.” While obviously a tragic situation, that’s clearly the correct decision. Which also makes the government’s choice to prosecute him for criminal possession of a weapon, a violent felony, all the more preposterous. Put differently, Craig should spend years in prison, law enforcement says, not because he used his weapon improperly, but because he used it without first jumping through the barriers—which are both time consuming and financially burdensome—required to register a gun with the government.
Craig is far from the first such defendant. This past summer, Charles Foehner, an elderly New York City man, shot a man attempting to mug him. Soon after, he learned that prosecutors would seek to have him die in prison. But it wasn’t because he hadn’t acted in self-defense. He had, the proof of which was caught on video. It was because police searched his apartment after the shooting and found that only some of his weapons were licensed with the government.
Jones, whom Craig killed, reportedly had over 20 prior arrests for grand larceny, robbery, and domestic violence, among other convictions; Cody Gonzalez, whom Foehner killed, had at least 15 prior arrests. Neither Craig nor Foehner has a criminal record. And yet Foehner, if convicted on all charges, would go to prison for far longer than Gonzalez would have had he survived.
Opposition to New York’s gun licensing scheme has, refreshingly, attracted some strange bedfellows. The 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruenparalyzed parts of New York’s restrictive licensing rules governing concealed carry. Among those cheering that result: progressive attorneys.
The year prior, The Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, The Bronx Defenders, and Brooklyn Defender Services submitted an amicus brief, asking the high court to incapacitate New York’s approach to concealed carry. As I wrote in June:
They offered several case studies centered around people whose lives were similarly upended. Among them were Benjamin Prosser and Sam Little, who had both been victims of violent crimes and who are now considered “violent felons” in the eyes of the state simply for carrying a firearm without the mandated government approval. Little, a single father who had previously been slashed in the face, was separated from his family while he served his sentence at the Vernon C. Bain Center, a notorious jail that floats on the East River. The conviction destroyed his nascent career, with the Department of Education rescinding its offer of employment.
Now LaShawn Craig will have to add his name to the unenviable list of people who used his gun to protect his life and was prosecuted for it anyway.
Two armed men in masks charged at Vince Ricci just as he was walking to his front door, one pointing a handgun at his chest. Video shows Ricci dropping his keys and a to-go drink and, in seconds, pulling a handgun from his waist and shooting as the men ran away.
In interviews and videos, he said he wasn’t just trying to protect himself but also his wife and 5-month-old daughter, who were inside the house. Now the 37-year-old says his concealed weapon permit has been suspended, making him vulnerable and unable to protect his family.
In short order, Ricci became a poster child for 2nd Amendment advocates and conservative figures. On Friday, he appeared on Fox News‘ “The Ingraham Angle.”On Saturday, he was featured in a video for the National Rifle Assn. in which he criticizes California Democratic elected figures including Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón and “leftist gun grabbers.”
Gascón and California have been common targets of criticism for conservative pundits, with claims of increased crime and violence, even though statistics show violent crime has declined citywide compared with last year.
One Texas lawmaker suggested, on social media, that Ricci find a real estate agent and move to Texas.
“They would rather leave me out there to dry and let my family become a statistic,” Ricci said in the NRA video, which has been viewed more than 60,000 times.
What’s unclear is why Ricci’s concealed carry weapon permit, also known as a CCW, was suspended in the first place.
According to the LAPD — which stressed on social media that the department had neither issued nor revoked Ricci’s permit — the attempted robbery occurred at about 7:30 p.m. in the 400 block of Plymouth Boulevard.
That’s when one of two individuals in dark clothing and masks ran toward him as he stood at his front door and pointed a gun. Ricci quickly armed himself and, according to home security video, shot at the fleeing suspect at least six times.
Ricci was not injured, and police said it was unclear whether the assailants were injured from the gunfire. The two people who jumped over a wall into Ricci’s home, and a third man believed to be a driver, are still at large, according to an LAPD news release of the incident.
In an emailed statement, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that Ricci’s permit, which the department issued, had been suspended but added that the department had been in contact with him and his family about permit protocols.
“There are avenues for Mr. Ricci to re-apply for his permit,” the statement reads. “The CCW permit may be immediately reinstated as long as the permit holder has also followed all required CCW policies (i.e. proper notifications, use of properly documented weapon, etc.).”
The statement does not give a specific reason why the permit was suspended, or when, only that “the Sheriff’s Department must follow the DOJ parameters in accordance with the law.”
“We recognize that this incident was extremely traumatic and startling for the Ricci family, and we hope the individuals responsible for this crime are arrested and held accountable,” the statement from the Sheriff’s Department reads.
Ricci did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In his video for the NRA, Ricci also does not specify a reason, only that, “as a result of that night, the California government has temporarily suspended my ability to conceal carry.”
On Friday, Ricci was interviewed by Fox News conservative commentator Laura Ingraham but did not answer why the permit was suspended.
Instead, Colin Noir, a gun rights activist and a prominent and popular commentator for the NRA, stepped in instead.
“What’s the reason?” Ingraham asked.
“I mean, I think it’s pretty blatant what the reason is,” Noir said. “California has had a notorious reputation for being anti-gun and being anti- anybody carrying a firearm unless you’re part of the government somehow.”
Also on Fox News, Ricci was quoted as saying he was told the permit was revoked because of him “yelling” at LAPD officers who were investigating the robbery and shooting three days after it happened.
Neither the Sheriff’s Department nor an LAPD spokesperson responded to The Times’ questions regarding Ricci’s allegation that the permit was revoked because he yelled or otherwise criticized the investigation.
In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that added new limitations around carrying firearms in public. For example, according to the bill, people legally carrying a firearm must carry the permit, not impede an officer in their duty, and must display the license and the listed firearm to police “for the purpose of inspecting the firearm.”
On Fox News, Ricci said he has one handgun, a Glock, registered as his concealed carry weapon, but he never thought he’d have to use it.
“I acquired it the right way, they granted me the right to carry, now they’re stripping me with the men at large that were looking for me,” he said. “The sheriff’s attempt now at coming after me is petty.”
