Posted on 02/15/2005 12:34:25 PM PST by Rakkasan1
If the Minnesota Court of Appeals is having trouble deciding the fate of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act, they should consider the story of Matthew Dirks. The 23-year-old East Side native served 15 months with the Army in Iraq at Baghdad International Airport and Camp Dogwood. Last week, St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington denied him a carry permit. Dirks' primary job in Iraq was repairing the weapons systems on Bradley Fighting Vehicles. He also stood guard with the M249 light machine gun and .50-caliber heavy machine gun. He has fired the TOW anti-tank missile, the 25 mm cannon on the Bradley, the M-16, thrown grenades and "a few extra bonuses that came with my job," he said in a recent interview. Despite all this experience, he was denied a carry permit under the system the concealed-carry law was designed to replace.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
Given his familiarity with REAL assault weapons, they probably consider him a danger to the community.
outrageous.
this is why "shall issue" is absolutely necessary in all CCW legislation.
---gee whiz---sense on the pages of a Minnehaha urban newspaper--!!!
Yost is a welcome breath of common sense to a mostly illogical paper board
ping
What's the reason he was denied? I don't want to "register" at another stupid newspaper to read an article.
Sorry, I forgot that Minnesota was the Paul Wellstone state.
What's that supposed to mean? Since he's fired military weapons as part of his national service, he's a danger to the community?
I am sure that it is sarcasm.
I would suppose that someone used the duty to protect themselves and their "band of brothers" would not accept the illegitimate and illegal oppression of some local thug/tyrant.
That would be a benefit to the community and a hazard to the thugs and tyrant wannabees.
I think he's being facetious.
No, I don't think he's a danger to his community. However, I'll bet a liberal judge in Minnesota and a police chief appointed by a Democratic mayor think so...
used to be.
he's DEAD.we'll soon have 2 republican senators.
Sorry, I need to cut back on my coffee intake. I think it's messing with my sarcasm detector.
sorry. I'm gettin' lazy.
bang,bang.
Ever heard of sarcasm?
This in a state where Jesse Ventura was allowed to pack heat.
What's the reason he was denied?
Well the primary reason is that the Chief is an asshole who doesn't want to give out permits.
Remember - Minnesota passed a shall-issue law, and it was in force for over a year. It was set aside by a district judge last July, and the appeals decision will be out within the next couple of months.
A lot of chiefs and sheriffs are being more reasonable about issuing than they used to be. The St. Paul Chief is not.
The old law required that an applicant demonstrate an "occupational or personal safety" need. In Minneapolis and St. Paul being chased down the street by a guy with a bloody axe wasn't a personal safety need. Outstate having to travel to Minneapolis or St. Paul was.
But this case triggers on occupational need. The firm this guy wants to work for requires a permit as a condition of employment. The Chief won't issue because he doesn't work for them yet.
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.