Posted on 06/01/2004 12:45:33 PM PDT by jdege
BY LISA DONOVAN
Pioneer Press
One threatened a co-worker. Another was convicted of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct. Still another made threats with a firearm.
Each of them went to their county sheriff in the last year and applied for a permit to carry a handgun in public. Each was denied. And each appealed the decision and won, according to gun-permit statistics released by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
So, now those people can carry a gun under the state's year-old law that allows law-abiding people to carry a gun in public. Depending on who's talking, this handful of people represents a flaw in the law or proof that the system is working by rooting out potential problems and figuring out whether they, indeed, are a risk.
"A person who has a tendency to strike out, now that person has a permit to carry a loaded weapon in public," said Kate Havelin, an opponent of the law and chapter president for the Twin Cities Million Mom March.
"How is that making us safer? How is this making Minnesota safer?" she said. "Threatening a co-worker? Criminal sexual conduct? Someone who commits terroristic threats with a gun? This is stupid. This law is really a bad idea."
John Caile, head of Conceal Carry Reform Now!, which lobbied for the law, said that's flawed logic.
"If the most they can come up with, out of 22,000 permits, is a handful of people who were denied permits and, upon appeal, were given permits — that's just ridiculous."
The state's data privacy laws prohibit law enforcement from releasing the name of anyone who applies for a permit, receives one or is denied. The information released by the state also does not detail the crimes the applicant was convicted of or whether a judge later expunged the case, Caile said.
"Whether I like it or not, if they really are a problem, they probably will carry that gun and be a problem anyway," he said.
According to the law, an applicant can be denied if he has been convicted of a serious crime, such as domestic assault, or if the sheriff believes "there is a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit."
An applicant can appeal that denial first through the sheriff's office and then through the district court where the permit would be issued.
Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher said his office has denied a higher percentage of permit requests — 3 percent — compared with the statewide average of 1 percent. Of the 70 permits the sheriff's office denied in the law's first year, 18 of the applicants appealed the decision and were granted permits.
"In most cases, it was because their previous offenses had been expunged by the courts," Fletcher said.
ONLINE
To look at the law, visit www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/624/714.html.
The state's data privacy laws prohibit law enforcement from releasing the name of anyone who applies for a permit, receives one or is denied. The information released by the state also does not detail the crimes the applicant was convicted of or whether a judge later expunged the case...
In other words, we know nothing about the cases except that a judge looked at the facts and decided that there not sufficient evidence to "clearly and convincingly" establish that there was a likelyhood that they'd be a danger to society.
BTW - John Caile isn't head of CCRN, he's the Communication Director.
Lovely how the Million Moron March only cares about crime when it can further their agenda.
ping ccw
So, in other words, these were first-time offenders who kept their records clean after one mistake. They have no legal conviction as a result. But the expunged conviction should have a bearing on their right to bear arms.
What part of "expunged" do the gun grabbers not understand here?
Under the new law? No idea.
But if the sheriff loses, he's supposed to pay the appellant's legal fees.
Some have been slow in doing that.
"How is that making us safer? How is this making Minnesota safer?" she said. "Threatening a co-worker? Criminal sexual conduct? Someone who commits terroristic threats with a gun? This is stupid. This law is really a bad idea."
Comments like these get by in the press so often, it's like no one ever heard of FBI crime statistics. They get to keep scaring people that we're much less safe since CCW reform, and they never get called to show their numbers.
But the expunged conviction should have a bearing on their right to bear arms.
Yep, it should. And under the law it does.
It's evidence that can be considered in judging whether the applicant has a history that indicates that he is likely to be a danger.
But by itself? If there's one expunged conviction followed by years of exemplary behavior?
If you have no record, or have a felony record, there's no subjective determination to make. You get a permit or you do not get a permit - there's no room for discretion.
If you have a record of misdemeanor convictions, or simply of charges filed and dropped, there's a subjective decision necessary to judge whether that record indicates a likelyhood of violence in the future. This necessitates an exercise of discretion.
The new law gives that discretion to the sheriff, but the sheriff has the burden of proof on appeal.
Wait a couple of years and see what both the permit holders and denied/appealed/issued permit holders true results are before going overboard.
Fair enough, but consider that FReepers don't normally consider the judiciary to be a uniform bastion of proper judgement and common sense ....
In 2001, there were 19 - none involving a firearm.
In 2002, there were 11 - none involving a firearm.
In 2003, there were 2 - one involving a firearm. (A lunatic shot his brother's car, trying to keep his brother from tearing up his garden wall - he pled guilty to reckless discharge and had his permit revoked.)
No, but the burden of proof is on the sheriff, the standard of evidence is reasonably high, and it's better than having the decisions made by appointed police chiefs.
Fifth degree? Is that for stuff like snapping a girl's bra in the high school hallway?
Assault in the Fifth Degree is:
Acting with intent to cause fear of injury in another.
Attempting to cause injury in another.
Causing injury in another, except that causing "substantial" injury is third degree assault, and the definition of "substantial" includes temporary disfigurement or impairment. So it's only fifth degree if you do not leave your attacker with visible bruises or a temporary limp.
So a swing and a miss?
"Someone who commits terroristic threats with a gun?"
Note how the anti slipped "terroristic threat" sound bite into her diatribe.
The other is:
Minn. Stat. 609.713 Terroristic threats.
Subd. 3. (a) Whoever displays, exhibits, brandishes, or otherwise employs a replica firearm or a BB gun in a threatening manner, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year and one day or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both, if, in doing so, the person either:
(1) causes or attempts to cause terror in another person; or
(2) acts in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror in another person.
I'm not sure what "acting in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror in another person by displaying, exhibiting, brandishing, or otherwise employing a replica firearm or BB gun in a threatening manner" would consist of.
Given what some of the hoplophobes are frightened by, it may not be much.
Subdivision 1. Whoever threatens, directly or indirectly, to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, vehicle or facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in a reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. As used in this subdivision, "crime of violence" has the meaning given "violent crime" in section 609.1095, subdivision 1, paragraph (d).
Subd. 2. Whoever communicates to another with purpose to terrorize another or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, that explosives or an explosive device or any incendiary device is present at a named place or location, whether or not the same is in fact present, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
Lumping all three under the same title can make an idiot seem like a dedicated terrorist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.