Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless a person has been drunk more than 10 years ago.
Under these guidelines, the current President wouldn't be issued a permit either...
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.
I have second thoughts on this. If the sheriff really believes the man still drinks, he should revoke his drivers license.
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 ~
"I'm the final word..."
"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.
wow. and to think I used to smoke. I'm afraid what they
might do to me.
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.