Posted on 03/11/2005 4:33:33 AM PST by 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
It does suck to be on the wrong side of society's standards. A return to the State of Nature would be fun for awhile, but I think it might get old.
I find it ironic that of the people I know who used to drink, they have a hard time getting health insurance, etc., even though many of them haven't touched a drop of alcohol for a decade or more. Some of them never had a DUI, but because they dealt with something they thought to be a problem (successfully), they have been branded with the onus of being an "alcoholic", and according to the treatment industry, will never be fully 'cured'.
In the meantime, people who pour down a six-pack or more every night are considered 'normal' and have no such restrictions.
It is hard to prove you do not do something, but if the guy can show that he has quit drinking for 10 years, and that he has, in fact, dealt with whatever problems he had (and normally exercises good judgement) why not issue the permit?
IMHO, the first sign of good judgement, albeit a tardy one, was getting help/quitting drinking after the DUIs.
Hell, I used to crap in diapers, but then I got potty trained. People can and do grow up.
I do think the Sherrif is right to open the matter to review, however, rather than just take the guy's word for it.
I agree but if the last one was 10 years ago, I'd say he's solved his problem and can be considered a responsible citizen.
Looks like I'm a bit torn on this one. The guy seeking the permit appears to have dried-out by now, but someone who has collected nine DUI/DWI convictions isn't exactly an alcohol-consuming amateur. He could still be sauced 95% of the time and just not driving his car around. You have to work at it to create a criminal record like that.
At the same time, the Sheriff doesn't appear to be abusing his power. The fact-of-the-matter is that the VAST majority of people who apply for the CCW receive it. Don't even get me going on whether permits should be needed or not...that is for another thread. If you're a decent, sober resident of the county in this narrative, you would probably secure your CCW with ease.
I've heard of stories in certain places where an anti-RKBA Chief of Police has "misplaced" separate applications for the same person SIX DIFFERENT TIMES in an effort to enact his own small-scale gun control measures. My family encouraged this person to contact the State Attorney General to report this ongoing abuse. This particular Chief of Police likely rejects the vast majority of requests that cross his desk. If the Sheriff in this story behaved in similar fashion, I would support further review...but that doesn't appear to be the case according to the statistics.
~ Blue Jays ~
We have no such requirement, but there was a place on the form which asked for the reason you wanted a concealed weapons permit. As night falls early around here in winter (high latitude) and a loaded firearm must be secured at night if you have no permit, and at the time I had no vehicle with a trunk or glove box, I put down 'convenience', along with self-defense. Tough to argue that, as I decide what is convenient for me.
"I'm the final word..."
Are you one of those "cops are always right" people?
There's nothing in the Second Amernment about drinking. Especially when the last one was more than a decade ago.
Using yours and the sheriff's reasoning, Gen. Grant would have been disarmed for drinking and the North could have lost the Civil War.
Get rid of ALL gun control...period.
And never ever trust LEO to do the right thing. If we let them decide, they'd have us all disarmed. CCW laws are always opposed by LEO and the National Assn of Police Chiefs.
The JBT boot lickers amaze me. Sucj good lil' Germans they are.
The right to keep and bear arms is a God-given civil right. The government cannot "allow" it.
Very good point. Didn't even think of that.
"because the law allows the sheriff to reject an application from someone he considers drug or alcohol dependent. "
That portion of the law sure seems like a lawsuit magnet. A sheriff is in no way, shape, or form a licensed mental health or medical professional capable of determining such a status.
In any case, the boy is entitled to a due process in a court of law. The sheriffs opinion is not even close to being Due Process.
The more important question is how does someone get away with 9 DUIs? Who allowed John Doe to drive ever again after the first one?
The sheriff's opinion is due process if the state legislature has delegated discretionary authority to him. Now he is receiving his appeal, as the law permits. Due process is not "a result from legal procedure that you like", it is "getting to participate in legal procedure at all".
Not having a permit won't stop him from carrying concealed.
wow. and to think I used to smoke. I'm afraid what they
might do to me.
That is due process for ya.... lets all drink up
Jeez! Now this is a Gordian knot!!
I first read this thinking "ah ha! Another anti-gun cop going to town on innocent citizens, but further reading just shows what a tricky situation it is for the chief.
If he has truly given up alcohol, and can prove it by AA attendance records and maybe a check of the bars he formerly hung out in, then there is no reason for him to have the permit.
On the other hand, would I want someone like Ted Kennedy, who didn't even get arrested for killing a woman while driving drunk, having a gun? No siree! If either is driving drunk, they are at the wheel of a bigger "bullet" than anything one can put in a pistol! Thank God the bloviating senior Senator from Massachusetts is chauferred from bar to bar!
I guess I have to err on the side of the Constitution and grant him the permit, unless there is some definitive reason to do otherwise. There are plenty of people that drink and don't drive, or are just mean bastards, that we probably would prefer didn't have a weapon, but they will. That is life. One would hope that if drunk, his aim will suck, or a sober, law abiding person would act in self defense with their own weapon if he were in a drunken rampage. As someone once said, "an armed society is a polite society."
There is no such thing as a perfectly safe society, no matter how many laws you pass to that effect.
Discretion should be taken out of the hands of the local LEOs and codified at the state level. If you meet this, this, this and this, you get your license.
There shouldn't be anybody that has authority to deny someone from carrying a concealed weapon based on personal beliefs.
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.