Sheriff sued after denying gun permit(ohio)

http://www.morningjournalnews.com ^ | 3 9 05 | TOM GIAMBRONI

[freepatriot32]

LISBON - County Sheriff David L. Smith may form a board

to review applications of persons he denied permits to carry concealed weapons. The idea was suggested Wednesday by the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court magistrate presiding over the lawsuit filed by a man whose application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon was denied by Smith.

"I'm the final word but there is a provision in the law that says I can set up a review board to look at denials," he said.

The Mahoning County man, identified in the lawsuit as John Doe, filed a lawsuit against the sheriff last July, asking a judge for an order requiring Smith issue him a concealed carry permit.

This is the only appeal filed to date since the new concealed carry law went into effect last April. The law allows residents to seek permits in adjoining counties.

The law requires applicants to be notified within 45 days whether their application has been approved or denied. The man said in his lawsuit Smith failed to advise him within 45 days that his application had been denied.

When Smith did deny the application, he advised the man in writing it was because the law allows the sheriff to reject an application from someone he considers drug or alcohol dependent.

During the mandatory background checks, Smith said his staff learned that John Doe had five previous DUI convictions. Doe later told him it was more like nine DUIs, but the last one was more than 10 years ago.

Smith said the man claimed to have quit drinking more than 10 years ago but he has no way of knowing that for sure, which is why he denied the application.

Most of the DUIs occurred before the new DUI law went into effect about 10 years ago, which make a fourth DUI conviction in six years a felony offense.

During Wednesday's court hearing, the magistrate suggested Smith create a review board to resolve the dispute. Smith said such a board would possibly consist of a deputy, a private citizen and perhaps an attorney.

The purpose of such a board would be to give the applicant an opportunity to challenge the evidence that resulted in the permit being denied and whether John Doe still has a drinking problem.

Assistant County Prosecutor Nick Barborak said the problem is the law is vague about how to address appeals and even if review boards are allowed.

"It's not real clear what the sheriff can and cannot do," Barborak said. "What remains to be decided is what procedure has to be followed."

The next hearing in John Doe's lawsuit is scheduled for May 2, and Smith expects to have a review board in place by then.

Of the more than 400 permits issued by Smith, less than 10 applications have been turned down.

330-424-9541, ext. 293

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Rebelbase]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless a person has been drunk more than 10 years ago.

[CTOCS]

Under these guidelines, the current President wouldn't be issued a permit either...

[conservativeharleyguy]

Sorry, but I've gotta go w/the Sheriff on this one.

The best and most reliable way to predict someone's future actions is to examine their past performance. I think 5-9 DUI's is sufficient cause for denial.

If he got caught 9 times, then he probably drove drunk hundreds of times. Do you really think it's reasonable to allow someone like that to carry a concealed weapon? At best, he has certainly exhibited a lack of good judgment. At worst, a criminal level of disregard for the law and public safety.

The Sheriff did not deny him right to possess firearms, simply the privilege of carrying them under concealment.

He's got to be able to make an objective decision, and not just rubber-stamp every application that passes over his desk.

If the article is accurate, he's only denied about 2.5% of the applications he's reviewed. It seems to me like he is exercising proper due diligence.

[ikka]

How do you prove a negative? The onus is on the sherriff, not the private citizen, to prove that the citizen does in fact drink. The private citizen doesn't have the burden of proof.

[kittymyrib]

Not true...he quit drinking soon after he turned 40, and he is 58 now. His DUI was 27 years ago...but it was still dragged out right before the 2000 election.

[sr4402]

The law requires applicants to be notified within 45 days whether their application has been approved or denied. The man said in his lawsuit Smith failed to advise him within 45 days that his application had been denied.

Sorry mate, looks like the Sheriff may have blown it, if he missed the 45 day deadline. A review panel should get it now and be expedited since the petitioner apparently was denied due process. The petitioner may lose and that may be an outcome of this process.

The point being that legal processes must be followed, unlike what the Supreme Court just did in it's recent death penalty case.

[Rebelbase]

There's also the concept of redemption.

There have been no DUI's in 10 years.

Points on a license come off in 3 years.

Probation from criminal offenses usually don't run longer than 5 years.

Statute of limitations for a lot of crimes is only 7 years.

The constitutional right of this man to adequately provide for his self defense shouldn't be infringed upon, let alone be the decision of one man. "High Sheriffs" have been known to bend the law to suit their own ideologies and beliefs.

I know convicted felons are prohibited from owning guns, but that is another argument altogether.

[ARCADIA]

The best and most reliable way to predict someone's future actions is to examine their past performance.

His past performance over the last ten years does not support your conclusion.

[OldEagle]

"Sorry, but I've gotta go w/the Sheriff on this one."

Not necessarily. I don't know the man or the sheriff, but when I drank, I was "elegible" for more than nine DUI's. I just never got caught. But people can change for a lot of reasons.I haven't had a drink in more than twenty-five years.

The sheriff should check the applicant's recent history.

[Lazamataz]

Sorry, but I've gotta go w/the Sheriff on this one. The best and most reliable way to predict someone's future actions is to examine their past performance.

I agree. Therefore, since the man hasn't been drunk in 10 years, give him his permit.

[technochick99]

Smith said the man claimed to have quit drinking more than 10 years ago but he has no way of knowing that for sure, which is why he denied the application.

People change, and grow. He paid for his crimes under the laws at the time. Why should he continue to be punished for his past?

[JimRed]

The onus is on the sherriff, not the private citizen, to prove that the citizen does in fact drink.

The prior DUIs prove that, and only the fact that he has not been caught for ten years is evidence that he is not drinking. There should be an appeal process for cases like this.

In our county obtaining a carry permit requires that you prove your need to carry to the Sheriff. I have no figures to prove it, but have heard that almost all applications are denied.

[OldEagle]

I have second thoughts on this. If the sheriff really believes the man still drinks, he should revoke his drivers license.

[green iguana]

So you think 9 DUIs, with the last one about 10 years ago is the same as one DUI over 25 years ago? I gotta go with the sheriff on this one - no permit until the man proves he's no longer a drunk. Which it sounds like he'll get the chance to do.

[CTOCS]

My intent was to point out the arbitrariness of the process.

Here in Virginia, the legislature established the guidelines for concealed carry. It was not left to the whim and fancy of one individual on any given day.

[conservativeharleyguy]

We don't know that he hasn't BEEN drunk in the last 10 years, just that he hasn't been caught DRIVING drunk in 10 years. Maybe they (finally) took his license. Most states have laws prohibiting guns in alcohol establishments, because guns and alcohol don't mix (alcohol and pretty much anything that involves judgment don't mix, like....driving).

Do you think maybe that there's more here than meets the eye?

If the Sheriff didn't follow the rules, that's another issue, but I still think this is the last guy I would want walking around w/a pistol under his jacket.

Do you really think the CCW process should just be rubber stamped for anyone who just WANTS to have one?

PS, Are you guys the same folks who holler "Foul" when Hillary Clinton (boo, hiss!!!) proposes letting felons vote (another of her colossally stupid ideas)? Can't have it both ways ("he's paid his debt", "what about the last ten years", etc...).

My bottom line is that there are always going to people, who by the choices they have made in their lives, are going to be prohibited from exercising some of the privileges that other more circumspect and diligent citizens enjoy.

That's just the way it is. If you screw up, "sin loi", suck it up and drive on. If society cuts you off from something, that's called "consequence", and you learn to live w/it and shouldn't go whining to a judge when you don't get your way.

[JoeSixPack1]

Do you really think the CCW process should just be rubber stamped for anyone who just WANTS to have one?

Constitutionally, YES.

[DaoPian]

I agree, clear and transparent guidelines are essential. Who vets the Sherrif in that county?