Posted on 05/30/2003 9:37:07 AM PDT by jdege
Posted: 5/30/03
by Laura Adelmann
Thisweek Newspapers
Some people have apparently been counting the minutes for Minnesota’s new conceal and carry law to go into effect.
By the stroke of midnight Tuesday, citizens began approaching the Dakota County Sheriff’s office to apply for permits allowing each to carry a concealed gun in public.
“We only accept applications during business hours,” explained Dakota County Sheriff Don Gudmundson, who added that there were about 12 people waiting to get their permit about 20 minutes before offices opened Wednesday morning.
By closing time, Gudmundson reported 82 people had applied for permits in Dakota County.
Gudmundson said the county would have had more applicants, but the inability to get training has created a bottleneck in the system.
To qualify for a permit, applicants must first pass a firearms safety class, like those offered by the National Rifle Association. (More information about classes is listed online at www.nra.org.)
The majority of those in the permit line right away, said Gudmundson, were “middle-aged white guys.”
“I don’t believe any of the people in line are going to need it — I think they have a better chance of winning the Power Ball. But, I am quick to acknowledge that I have no fear of any of those people carrying a gun,” he said.
However, he does have a problem with portions of the law that he said could allow people who have been convicted of disorderly conduct, trespassing or window-peeping of getting a permit.
“I don’t want to hold it forever over their head, but it seems to me somebody could be convicted of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct and get a permit, so I just don’t know about that,” said Gudmundson.
Comparing the new permit holders to rookie cops, Gudmundson predicted most would not carry a concealed weapon beyond the first few weeks of getting their permit, when the novelty wears off.
“I know of no cop in Dakota County who carries a gun off-duty and the reason for it is that guns are cold, they’re hot and they’re heavy, hard to conceal,” he said.
Gun permits could be expected within 20 to 30 working days of the application date.
“At first, just by the sheer numbers of them, we would not be able to issue them any quicker than 30 days,” said Gudmundson.
Laura Adelmann is at dceditor@frontiernet.net.
I am quick to acknowledge that I have no fear of any of those people carrying a gun
Sanity returns.
“I don’t want to hold it forever over their head, but it seems to me somebody could be convicted of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct and get a permit, so I just don’t know about that,” said Gudmundson.
If he thinks that someone who has such a history would be a danger to society, if issued a permit, he shouldn't issue him a permit.
Sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 624.714, subdivision 6, is amended to read:
Subd. 6. [FAILURE TO GRANT GRANTING AND DENIAL OF PERMITS.] (a) The sheriff must, within 30 days after the date of receipt of the application packet described in subdivision 3:
(1) issue the permit to carry;
(2) deny the application for a permit to carry solely on the grounds that the applicant failed to qualify under the criteria described in subdivision 2, paragraph (b); or
(3) deny the application on the grounds that there exists a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit.Sec. 17. Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 624.714, subdivision 12, is amended to read:
Subd. 12. [HEARING UPON DENIAL OR REVOCATION.] (a) Any person aggrieved by denial or revocation of a permit to carry may appeal the denial by petition to the district court having jurisdiction over the county or municipality wherein the notification or denial occurred where the application was submitted. The petition must list the sheriff as the respondent. The district court must hold a hearing at the earliest practicable date and in any event no later than 60 days following the filing of the petition for review. The court may not grant or deny any relief before the completion of the hearing. The record of the hearing must be sealed. The matter shall must be heard de novo without a jury.
(b) The court must issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the issues submitted by the parties. The court must issue its writ of mandamus directing that the permit be issued and order other appropriate relief unless the sheriff establishes by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) that the applicant is disqualified under the criteria described in subdivision 2, paragraph (b); or
(2) that there exists a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit. Incidents of alleged criminal misconduct that are not investigated and documented, and incidents for which the applicant was charged and acquitted, may not be considered.
Yeah, right. If that's true then you need permits even more.
If I can manage to carry concealed in shorts during temps in the 80's than you can carry anywhere anytime. The colder it get's the easier it is to carry.
Am I the only one who doesn't understand this statment? How can the guns be cold and hot at the same time? My P-380 isn't heavy or hard to conceal.
He could have just as easily said, "There weren't any gang-bangers that I could see."
It's the young single women from the inner city who will have the greatest effect.
This poor woman who got shot during the car-jacking Wednesday night: that's my neighborhood. I drove through that intersection about ten minutes before it happened. My friend Dave was following, about ten or fifteen minutes behind me. We were both coming from a meeting at the club, where Dave was proudly showing off the Ruger .357 snubby he'd bought in anticipation of getting his C&C permit.
As it happened, Dave didn't witness the car-jacking. But I have to wonder: if C&C had become law a month earlier, and if instead of two terrified women that guy had encountered a trained, experienced, military vet with a loaded .357 on the seat next to him instead of unloaded, cased, and locked in the trunk of his car...
It makes one wonder.
The scum are looking for people who are vulnerable. If they think there's someone in the area who could be a problem, they'll simply fade back, and try another day.
Still, given the 48-hour mediastorm that's followed -- the car jacking, the armored car holdup, the manhunt, the house-to-house search -- I have to wonder how the papers and TV stations would have covered it if the story was: "RETIRED ARMY VET FOILS ATTEMPTED CARJACKING: NO ONE HURT."
One paragraph at the bottom of page 4 of the Local section, I'm guessing.
Just what would this charge encompass? Thinking dirty thoughts?
609.3451 Criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree.
Subdivision 1. Crime defined. A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree:
(1) if the person engages in nonconsensual sexual contact; or
(2) the person engages in masturbation or lewd exhibition of the genitals in the presence of a minor under the age of 16, knowing or having reason to know the minor is present.
For purposes of this section, "sexual contact" has the meaning given in section 609.341, subdivision 11, paragraph (a), clauses (i) and (iv), but does not include the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the buttocks. Sexual contact also includes the intentional removal or attempted removal of clothing covering the complainant's intimate parts or undergarments, and the nonconsensual touching by the complainant of the actor's intimate parts, effected by the actor, if the action is performed with sexual or aggressive intent.
And...
609.341 Definitions.
Subd. 11. (a) "Sexual contact," for the purposes of sections 609.343, subdivision 1, clauses (a) to (f), and 609.345, subdivision 1, clauses (a) to (e), and (h) to (m), includes any of the following acts committed without the complainant's consent, except in those cases where consent is not a defense, and committed with sexual or aggressive intent:
(i) the intentional touching by the actor of the complainant's intimate parts, or
(ii) the touching by the complainant of the actor's, the complainant's, or another's intimate parts effected by a person in a position of authority, or by coercion, or by inducement if the complainant is under 13 years of age or mentally impaired, or
(iii) the touching by another of the complainant's intimate parts effected by coercion or by a person in a position of authority, or
(iv) in any of the cases above, the touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts.
Hmm. I have been carrying every day for about six years now, except for deliberately short periods when I must travel to uncivilized third world states like California -- an inconvenience I go out of my way to avoid.
I don't carry for novelty, I carry in case I need a gun. I wonder if Sheriff Gudmundson only carries for "novelty"?
Meanwhile, I am sure it's raining bullets in Minnesota just as the Demoratic Farm Labor "experts" predicted.
Then again, their lord and savior Karl Marx predicted the world would become completely Communist and apparently died holding his breath in anticipation. So it's not like these chuds have a track record for accurate predictions.
Here's hoping that every Demorat in Minnesota is holding his/her/its breath in anticipation of all that "cowboy justice" they prophesied would follow CCW permits.
What a bunch of useless idiots.
Neither is my *broomhandle* C96 Mauser- once you're used to it.
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.