Public Inquiry [Citizen]

[Andy Tyrie]

1. CONTACT INFORMATION

• Full Name: Andy Tyrie
  Phone Number: #394-5986
  E-Mail Address: [email protected]
  Position in Institution (If Applicable): N/A

2. REQUEST INFORMATION

• Detailed information of your request:
  • I would first like to preface this by saying that I am in no way submitting this on behalf of any of the places of which I work, and purely as an individual citizen, and that the email provided, while it is my government-issued email, it is only there as it is the one I use and not as I would like it to be sent to me in any of my Official Job capacities.
    
    I would like two things. First of all, a comment from Deputy Chief Bala on what he meant on his publicly viewable response to a Supreme Court Petition for Judicial Review found Here when he said, "Firearm Licenses are not a right, they are an optional privilege."
    
    And secondly, could the Los Santos Police Department state whether they recognize and adhere to The Constitution of the State of San Andreas, more specifically the 2nd Amendment? if the answer to this is yes could you please elaborate on Deputy Chief Dezzy Bala's Statement?

[Dezzy Bala]

Los Santos Police Department "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

---

• Re: Information Inquiry [Weazel News]
  
  Dear Mr. Tyrie,
  
  As you have asked for a personal response, I would be only too happy to elaborate on my comments in the Supreme Court petition but not just on one specific line, absent any context.
  
  Firearm Licenses are something that any individual who is eligible, may obtain. By meeting the requirements, you receive the privilege which is to be able to legally purchase and possess firearms in the State of San Andreas. The optional part is based on two schools of thought.
  
  One is quite simply, that a firearm license isn't like our freely given healthcare for example, you have to request it and pay for it. If you don't ask for it or you don't pay for it, you don't get the license. The other is that possession of a Firearm License, as you will know from your time in the Los Santos Police Department, is subject to continually upholding the rules and regulations set out by the Firearm Licensing Division. Committing criminal acts is an individual's option, but a consequence of that is you lose your firearm license.
  
  It is not like a driving license, where if your license is suspended, you wait a period of time and then you get the license back, no matter what you did to lose it in the first place. The driving license is a non-optional privilege. Firearms, like the Pilots license, are conditional.
  
  Regarding my position on the Second Amendment, the two points about personal body searches and searches of property were made by the then-Police Commissioners, when Form B and C were first introduced. The only difference now is that it's applicable to anyone with a criminal history, as we simply merged Form B and C into one.
  
  I'd actually argue that, had we omitted those two conditions from the regulations, we would have broken the Second Amendment, as we would have changed something that had already been laid out, absent the authority to do so. We've simply included those conditions as they were already there, there's nothing nefarious in that.
  
  As for the Los Santos Police Department's comment, I assume you are requesting someone other than myself to answer so I'll leave this open for the (Assistant) Chief of Police to answer your second part.
  

  ---

  Respectfully,
  
  Deputy Chief Dezzy Bala
  Bureau Commanding Officer, Administrative Services Bureau
  Los Santos Police Department

[Andy Tyrie]

Deputy Chief Bala, I am very grateful for your response, but I hope you can understand it to me, it only highlights the issue even further, which is cause for this reply. I am unsure if replies are allowed; however, I saw in some others they were posted, and nothing was said about it not being allowed, so I believe it is okay to post it here.

So, you said you wouldn't comment on one specific line as it cut out context; however, you seem to fundamentally not recognize the reasoning behind that line being singled out.

In order to get into the deeper parts of this, I would like to get the simpler thing out of the way. Here, I do not directly, in this inquiry, have a problem specifically with the requirements, as that is something I have full faith in our supreme court dealing with appropriately. If I personally am unhappy with that, I'll bring that up when, or IF, that happens, which I don't see happening. So, my inquiry isn't to do with the original petition but the response and what looks like on the surface level to be your thought process.

You have said multiple times now that a firearms license is a privilege and that is fundamentally and constitutionally incorrect. The second amendment in our constitution states:

2nd Amendment
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Regulations on firearm ownership may be created through law or executive order.
[divbox]

Of this greater quote, I would like to point out a specific part which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," this constitution which is so pivotal to our state outright defines it as a right yet you continually disregard and disrespect it by saying it's a privilege. This is by legal definition, as defined by our constitution, a RIGHT of the citizens of the state of San Andreas.

You are exactly right when you say it is not like a driver's license, healthcare, and pilot's licenses for many reasons. Let's start off with the fact that driver's licenses and pilot's licenses are optional, you are correct on, as are firearms licenses, as you said if you don't ask or pay you don't get it. Healthcare is different, but what both of these have in common, excluding a firearms license and healthcare, is They are not mentioned in the constitution nor are they a right of the citizens.

You, as the head of the Los Santos Police Department's Firearms Licensing Bureau, alongside being a Deputy Chief, more specifically of administration, should, I hope, be very familiar with our constitution, but you don't seem to be, which is worrying. You mention what were then the police commissioners, to which my reply is, times have changed drastically since the signing of the constitution; they are governors. Times have changed very much, and in my opinion, for the general greater good, we must adapt.

Your part of if you had omitted the regulations you believe you would have broken the second amendment which makes me question your interpretation of not only the Constitution but the word "Created" It specifically states that they may not be created but removing them, to my interpretation, is not unconstitutional however that again is the job of the supreme court to define i believe "created" is simple to define.

And finally, the point that was brought up to me by someone else before any of these changes were even close to being thought about quite some time ago, yes during the time in which our constitution wasn't written, the regulations put in place would've upon first look been okay. The difference comes when the constitution was signed; that is the point in which FLD are tasked with ensuring they are in alignment with it as I said above it cannot be created so I have an added question now which is did you guys prior to the signing of the constitution have "federal executive authority" to impose them regulations because if not then the constitution would consider them invalid as you need to do so via law or executive order unless as defined in the "Preamble" section of the constitution you had "federal executive authority" which then carried over I would suggest if you would like to add any regulations that you go through the correct channels which are either executive order or through your law review committee appointed representative which is another RIGHT which is given in the constitution specifically to the Los Santos Police Department among other departments.

One more thing I would like to add is something that I did work on in an official capacity, but is all very publicly available. In the past, some officers and command officers, at that, decided to try and enforce an outdated piece of the penal code against some members of Weazel News. While it is within their right to do so, as they are tasked with enforcing the law, this got to what I've heard solely from the public, a pretty extreme level, with some arguments happening with some very high-level government officials. This then prompted a bill in the House of Representatives, which has since been debated and voted upon, and is now at the desk of the Board of Governors. I do hope you take that situation as something to learn from and realize that things can be outdated and active at the same time and do the genuine good to fix these things through the correct channels, which, as I said, you guys have a perfectly good channel which has been utilized twice this congress out of 12 meetings. Please don't try to play power games, as many like to call it, just be considerate and take the amount of backlash you've received as a suggestion to reflect on it and better it, rather than up your guard and play defense. Thank You Deputy Chief!

[Dezzy Bala]

Los Santos Police Department "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

---

• Re: Information Inquiry [Weazel News]
  
  Dear Mr. Tyrie,
  
  At the end of the day, I’m just a police, not a law maker and as a police, I do what I’m told. Whether that’s the penal code or a higher authority.
  
  The simple fact is that these regulations were made by a higher authority. Since you want to split hairs about what they are called, the same people that are called Governors now are the ones who were called Police Commissioners at the time of pushing through the change to regulations. Irregardless of what they are called, they are the ones with the authority and the budget.
  
  Since you’ve taken the liberty of explaining my job, I’ll add that my job is also to follow orders. While you might be concerned about this, I have received no communication from any higher authority that it is an issue. If that comes, we change. If it doesn’t, we don’t.
  
  That’s not to dismiss your concerns but at the same time, if we opened up applications today, there would a huge amount of criminal record firearm applications. It occurs somewhat to me that, while you might be concerned, the people who this would be applicable to, don’t have those concerns or at the very least have not voiced them.
  
  Their concern is being able to get themselves a firearms license and we’ve reorganised the system to allow them to do that. Changing the Form B and C is huge but unfortunately, it’s being held up opening now by these complaints. The experience I have in my job means that you don’t open Pandora’s Box if you are not sure of the outcome if you do.
  
  So, until the Governor’s Office either assures me we are good to proceed or tells me to change those regulations, the public firearm applications will have to remain closed.
  
  Everything gets overcomplicated these days, so simply put, we will wait for a decision from the decision makers. It makes no difference to me personally whether or not the regulations stay or go, but I do not possess the authority to change them either negatively or positively as once again, my job is to follow orders.
  

  ---

  Respectfully,
  
  Deputy Chief Dezzy Bala
  Bureau Commanding Officer, Administrative Services Bureau
  Los Santos Police Department

[Andy Tyrie]

I wanna start this off by asking, would you be open to a sit down with myself and possibly others to actually get these questions answered, either in a public setting or with members of the news there? I just simply would like to get to the root of this.

Again, I have some prefacing to do before getting into this response. From your reply, it seems you have shut down and disregarded nearly all of my reply, not even commenting on it, and from my side, the only reason for this is because you have taken my actions and words as hostility when that simply isn't the case. I am just a very enthusiastic and well-knowledge individual, speaking with someone who continually disrespects the highest power in the land – OUR CONSTITUTION.

Due to the responses I have seen recently, it appears you have not read the Constitution, nor do you understand it. So, I will make it very clear on how the power and authority goes. Article II | Foundation and Powers of the Board of Governors. THIS DOCUMENT, CALLED THE CONSTITUTION, NOT ONLY GIVES THE CITIZENS RIGHTS BUT GIVES SPECIFIC GROUPS POWERS. These include others, such as the Judicial Branch, for example, to which I dearly hope you recognize. But the most important group, in my opinion for this situtation, that it gives power to is the BOARD OF GOVERNORS. If you recognize the power and authority of the Board of Governors, why do you not recognize the RIGHTS of the people, which are given by the same document with the same power? It is mind-blowing that you can't fathom this, and it makes me ask the questions to which I would genuinely like answers if you would be so kind as to give me the Privilege of a response. These are "Have you read the Constitution?" and "Do you understand the Constitution?".

One of the few things you did say is that if you were to open the applications up, there would be a huge number of criminal record firearm applicants. So once again, I am left thinking, do you understand what I'm actually saying? I am not saying give them to everyone and anyone, no matter what. I am saying instead of trying to be the top and change these yourself, propose these changes to the relevant people, which, as I said before, is the House of Representatives or the Board of Governors. You said you have gone to the board of governors, so that while is the lesser of the two, I would like to see. I appreciate you at least took it to the proper channels.

I have spoken with many people about your previous response, to which nobody understands what you mean when you say I'm splitting hairs. This is not what I'm doing. I'm bringing up the highest law of our land and what they call them, just like they define Chief Justice, Associate Justice, Attorney General, Director of the Defenders Office, and Speaker of the House, to name a few. Not for what a constitutional right it is, as said in the constitution, a right for the citizens to bear arms.

I do not believe I explained your job quite simply because I am unable. I described some very simple things, one of which was your titles, and the second of which is the people on the scene at Weazel, which was now that I think of it, a Commander and The Commanding Officer of Firearms Licensing, which again causes worry that the same issues that happened will transpire yet again. I am deeply saddened to hear that you, as a deputy chief, only follow orders, especially one who has been decorated. If you are just following orders, why have you been so decorated? This is not meant to attack you, but to question if you truly believe that, how have you got to where you are today? Because I believe you do so much more than that and do, for the most part, genuinely believe you are a good man and good at your job. I just believe the Constitution and the constitutional errors here have flown entirely over your head, which genuinely worries me.

When you said, "I have received no communication from any higher authority that it is an issue," I am telling you right now, as of this moment, that the paper that gives THE GOVERNORS their power stated that this is a constitutional right and the only way it can be infringed.

You said, "while you might be concerned, the people who this would be applicable to don’t have those concerns or, at the very least, have not voiced them." THIS IS OUTRIGHT DESPICABLE. I am a citizen of the state and am raising how you are breaching our rights. THIS IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO ME, UNLESS YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE MY CITIZENSHIP.

In your statement about Pandora's box, I hope I have misheard you in what I've read, but does this mean that when you are informed of a possible problem, you don't even do the basic due diligence to check if there is an issue there simply because you are unsure of what the outcome is?

I will also say that the powers given to the governors on this subject are clear. If you did not have "federal executive authority" prior to the signing of the constitution, they will not only have to assure you, but also to create an executive order or for yourselves to pass it through the House of Representatives, yet another group given power via the constitution and the only group given the power to amend our constitution.

I would like to say I appreciate that you recognize and state that this is not only a complicated matter but an overcomplicated one for yourself to deal with.

So, a few cut-and-dry questions. If you could please answer these:

1. Do you recognize the Constitution?
2. Do you recognize the Constitution as being the ultimate law of the land?
3. Do you adhere to the Constitution?
4. Do you recognize the 2nd amendment?
5. Do you adhere to the 2nd amendment?
6. Do you recognize that the right to bear arms is, in fact, a RIGHT, not just a PRIVILEGE?
7. Why have you continually disrespected our constitution in your responses to me? Has it just been simple ignorance of the topic?
8. Have you read the Constitution?
9. Do you understand the Constitution?
10. Do you recognize the Board of Governors' power and authority?
11. Do you recognize that their power is given through the Constitution?
12. Did FLD, prior to the signing of the constitution, have "federal executive authority"?

.

[Elena Flores]

Los Santos Police Department "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

---

• Re: Public Inquiry [Citizen]
  
  This line of communication will hereby be closed. While we value communication with the public and the press and encourage an open forum and a healthy debate, we do not condone the use of such a forum to be used beyond its intended purposes to actively attempt to subject any Department employee to intense direct questioning on their personal stances. Similarly, we do not condone the manner in which those submitting an inquiry were spoken to by a Deputy Chief.
  
  The official correspondence of both parties will be reviewed by the Office of the Chief of Police, and where applicable, action will be taken to ensure that no future problems arise, referencing in particular the statements made in an official forum by the Los Santos Police Department.
  
  The Department recognizes the right to bear arms as established per the Constitution and wishes not to infringe on that. The Firearms Licensing Division further recognizes that and the weapon licenses issued thereby are as much of a right as the right to bear arms.
  
  The policies which were raised as a concern in the initial inquiry, the response to which prompted the petition with the Supreme Court, and subsequently the response by a Deputy Chief and this inquiry, may seem like they conflict with this directly, but it is important to recognize that these policies were set forth by the Board of Governors upon the creation of Form C.
  
  Nevertheless, these policies are now also under further review pending the Board of Governors.
  
  Thank you for your time.
  

  ---

  Respectfully,
  
  Assistant Chief Elena Blake
  Los Santos Police Department