Wife's CCW interview with Sheriff

[Hutch]

Hutch,
I'm afraid you just aren't getting it.

1) The Sheriff would loose my vote because he -says- he's pro-rights....but his actions are infringing on those rights by adding hoops to jump through. There's a disconnect there.

2) As to creating a "tradition", no thanks, I'll stick to rule of law.

I still believe it. Consider the cost/benefit ratio. Does he gain or ensure more votes from the average CCW applicant than he loses to folks who hold the same views you do? Keep in mind, not many people are as rigid in their beliefs as most of us here. Just because he loses YOUR vote with this approach doesn't mean he's not doing it for that reason.

 

[meef]

I'd've

Now that's one of the most interesting and creative uses of grammar I've seen in a long time.

Maybe ever.

 

[Mannlicher]

all this just gives more reason to skipping the CCW license, and just carrying.

 

[El Tejon]

grampster, yes. Indiana Supreme Court slapped the anti out of the city of Gary, Indiana over hijinks like this. Before that the Indiana Court of Appeals set the Indiana State Police on the right path.

The verify the character relates to the official records, not any sort of interview, tarot cards, or reading of chicken bones with Miss Cleo (pun intended). If the Sheriff is making this an additional requirement to make an application, then we need to contact the County Attorney and advise him of this error. If he fails to correct this, we need to take action.

 

[Hokkmike]

In my state (and county) applicants pick up or request the CWP application from the Sheriff's office. We then fill out the form, provide a picture, pay a fee, and give the names of two locally known references. Once the references are processed, application reviewed, and the check clears the permit is issued. You do have to stop in the office and pick it up. For reason of issue an applicant simply lists "protection".

When I was in college (in the 70's) I went to the Sheriff's office and inquired. (a different place) I was told "If the Sheriff doesn't know you he is not going to issue you a permit." I was too young, stupid, and intimidated to fight it. Times have changed. Now, I would - though I don't have to.

Your Sheriff sounds like a good guy, though he is slowing things down. Now, our Sheriff DOES have to sign the permit and IF HE IS AWAY on vacation or something - YOU have t o wait. Almost seems like the same kind of slow-down.

 

[exar]

I thought it was cool to meet the sheriff. The lady at the counter was being a pain and he came out and shook my hand and joked about how I shouldn't go and shoot up my school ( in college at the time). He asked if I knew anything about guns and then put a check mark on the box that says "LEO recommends approval for permit" which he did not have to do, but it makes it go faster. I even have 2 misdomenor drug convictions and he didn't care at all.

 

[kludge]

Miss Cleo

LOL!

My problem with the whole thing is that the Sheriff is instituting is own little three week "waiting" or "cooling off" period.

He should get slapped for this.

In my last municipality the sign in the lobby clearly showed the days and hours when applications would be accepted (basically the working hours of the clerk), and I had no problem with that at all.

My wife and I were in and out in 10 minutes.



BTW, I am against handgun licences on principle, they do nothing but appease the alarmists, and are a deterrent to people who would rather not go through the hassle who only want to carry once in a great while or go shooting now and again.

(Yes, in IN you are not allowed to "carry" your handgun to the shooting range without a license, even if it is unloaded, stripped, trigger locked, disassembled, in a locked case in the locked trunk of your car... but a minor can! )

 

[exar]

but a minor can!

I've always thought the law in this regard is so wierd and confusing. You can own a handgun at 18 but you can't buy one until your 21

 

[Rumble]

Colt and Hokkmike, my experience was similar. I filled out the app, took a photo, paid the fee, and had my permit by mail 3 days later. I do know, since I asked, that my references were never contacted. But there was no contact with the sheriff.

My wife's experience (in a different county) was even quicker - complete the app, take the photo, and 15 minutes later leave with a permit.

Now that is shall issue.

On topic, though - El Tejon, is the manner in which the law enforcement official verifies the information for accuracy determined by those court cases (i.e., did the case law end up forbidding interviews, or personal meetings)? It sounds like they did.

I'm curious what would happen if someone declined the appointment. It sounds like they'd not get their permit. That would be a problem.

 

[MT GUNNY]

I wonder what kind of policies I or Most of THRers would have if sheriff of their town???

 

[ZeSpectre]

I still believe it. Consider the cost/benefit ratio. Does he gain or ensure more votes from the average CCW applicant than he loses to folks who hold the same views you do? Keep in mind, not many people are as rigid in their beliefs as most of us here. Just because he loses YOUR vote with this approach doesn't mean he's not doing it for that reason.

You probably have a point, I still think it's wrong. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[jt1]

As I have stated before, The only requirement for CCW should be a concealable weapon. The 2nd amendment seems very clear on this. The BG will carry regardless of the law, leaving the law abiding citizen to be penalized and forced to comply with laws that do nothing to deter criminals that can acquire guns and ammo faster and cheaper (stolen) than we can. Does this Sheriff have a face to face meeting with the criminals carrying illegally? This same misguided logic is eroding our personal freedom with the homeland security issues. The law enforcement and security efforts in this county need to be directed at the folks that are causing the problems (harder to do) rather than trying to solve problems by restricting the rights of law abiding citizen (easy to do) that mostly results in increasing restrictions when the desired results are not achieved.

So my question is what ever happened to the "Shall not be infringed" part?

 

[El Tejon]

jt1, we're with you, but until the day we get these licensing requirements abolished, we have to stay on top of our government to prevent "mission creep."

 

[bulgron]

So my question is what ever happened to the "Shall not be infringed" part?

We're still trying to get the Supreme Court to actually stand up and tell us what that means. Hopefully by this time next year a whole lot of firearm laws are going to come under legal scrutiny, as the entire country stops arguing about whether we even have an individual right to RKBA and instead start to argue about what "reasonable regulation" of that right looks like.

Of course, living in CA, I'll be delighted if a CCW permit system ever becomes available to a normal person such as myself. But the way this state's legislature works, I'll bet we'll go Vermont-style permit-less (by judicial decree) before the powers that be agree to go to a shall-issue permit system.

 

[kludge]

but a minor can!

I've always thought the law in this regard is so wierd and confusing. You can own a handgun at 18 but you can't buy one until your 21

exar,

just to clarify... OK, maybe it's a rant... a minor (under 18 y.o.) can carry a handgun (unloaded, cased) to and from a shooting range if participating in a safety course, marksmanship practice, or hunter safety course, and it also seems to say while hunting...

however adults are not allowed this priveledge in our Great State.

An adult can't legally take his own gun to a handgun safety class without commiting a Class A misdemeanor or felony (w/ prior conviction) unless he/she get a license first!

[/soapbox]

 

[230RN]

I'd've

Now that's one of the most interesting and creative uses of grammar I've seen in a long time.

Maybe ever.

Gee, I use it all the time. It just reflects how "I would have" is usually pronounced.

Anyhow, I really don't think there's a problem with the Sheriff meeting the folks, whether it's for electioneering purposes or not. I'd've probably done that were I the Sheriff of a small county, just 'cause I'd like to meet the folks who are trained. I might be able to recruit some reserve Deputies --and what better time to meet them than on issuance, eh?

But I'd've probably changed the routine to issue first, then request a get-together after I read some of the negative reactions on this thread.

I therefore agree that the request for the interview may have been under the color of his authority, so that nobody would dare refuse, but I think that if that Sheriff is reading this thread, he might change that procedure.

Frankly, I'd've looked forward to meeting him at his request. And with his pro-2A views, I'd've voted for him.

 

[MT GUNNY]

geet yet? na! yant to? auite!

 

[Lew]

Well, looks like the bases are mostly covered. The friendly sheriff of Smalltown, USA is now a power-hungry, anti-gun politician screening CCW applicants for minorities and eccentrics. Watch him now, or he'll steal your guns in the night!

I'll tell you what. I rank pretty high on the distrust/libertarian/anti-Fed/pessimistic/whatever scale. Yet coming from a small town, I get the picture of a right nice fellow, making an effort to be involved with his community.

Sometimes, and believe me I understand, when you've become so disgusted and jaded with any public "servant," like most of us have, it's darn near impossible not to jump the gun and see the lurking evil in everybody. God knows, I need to take a deep breath every once in a while.

The air's so thin this High up, don't you know?

 

[Soybomb]

Well, looks like the bases are mostly covered. The friendly sheriff of Smalltown, USA is now a power-hungry, anti-gun politician screening CCW applicants for minorities and eccentrics. Watch him now, or he'll steal your guns in the night!

I'll tell you what. I rank pretty high on the distrust/libertarian/anti-Fed/pessimistic/whatever scale. Yet coming from a small town, I get the picture of a right nice fellow, making an effort to be involved with his community.

He may be the nicest guy in the world and have the most pure intentions ever but can you argue that the end result is that he is turning the end what should be a speedy right into what appears to be a privilege and introducing delays along the way? Gun laws don't have to have sinister motives or a evil anti behind them to have harmful side effects. Just because those gun laws are well intentioned doesn't mean we should be any less apathetic about how they will effect us. People generally realize this with the 1st amendment and aren't apologists about laws harmful to it. You don't hear people say "but it only harms the 1st amendment a little and they mean well, lets just take this." Lets give the 2nd amendment the respect it deserves and not accept infringement on it in all cases, malicious intent or otherwise.

 

[Skirmisher]

My son and his family live in a very small town in Indiana. Several years ago, my daughter-in-law went to the police dept in town to get her PPL. The chief asked her why she wanted one. She replied. "I'm 4'8", weigh 98 pounds, and am female." The chief just smiled and said, "Good enough" and helped her fill out the paperwork.

 

[peacemaker45]

In Ohio, when I went for my CHL, it was through the sheriff's office. The troublesome bit was that I had to pick the permit packet up from the Phantom Lieutenant. Guy was never in. Finally though, I caught him, and got the packet. Handed it in, and waited for the checks to be completed. Then I recieved an appointment to meet with him again for pictures, a chat, and the final issuance of the permit. That went off without a hitch. It was the six attempts to get the packet in the first place that were irritating. Same thing happened to my dad when he went for his.

~~~Mat

 

[TEDDY]

wild rant

what are you all ranting about?sure you can turn the sheriff in for the interview.but wait till you drive a little over the speed limit or some other thing.he can say your unfit and have you go to court or were ever you have to go to appeal.
AND IN THE FIRST PLACE THE CONSTITUTION GARANTIES YOUR RIGHT TO BE ARMED.SO THE WHOLE GAME IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.WE ARE SLOWLY GAINING OUR RIGHTS BACK AND YOU WANT TO STIR THE POT.
try being in a state like mass where the police decied there are to many pemits issue so you dont get renewed.I moved 900 miles to get away and bought 90 acreas so I would have privacy and could shoot.

------:banghead:------

 

[ZeSpectre]

WE ARE SLOWLY GAINING OUR RIGHTS BACK AND YOU WANT TO STIR THE POT

Teddy, Stirring the pot is how we've been re-gaining our rights. This I know first hand (as does almost any other VCDL member).

 

[Mannix]

What's the time limit on issuing permits in IN? I see no problem with him wanting to meet with applicants so long as it's optional(Like, come in and meet with me, or I can wait the full period allowed by law to issue your permit).

If he won't issue without a meeting, then there's a problem. If not, well, it's legal, though definitely less than ideal(Maybe one day all the states will be like VT and AK ).

 

[frogger42]

Agree or not, it is NOT illegal.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but it is clear that according to Indiana state law, what this Sheriff is doing is perfectly legal.

The officer to whom the application is made shall conduct an investigation into the applicant's official records and verify thereby the applicant's character and reputation, and shall in addition verify for accuracy the information contained in the application, and shall forward this information together with the officer's recommendation for approval or disapproval and one (1) set of legible and classifiable fingerprints of the applicant to the superintendent.
(d) The superintendent may make whatever further investigation the superintendent deems necessary. Whenever disapproval is recommended, the officer to whom the application is made shall provide the superintendent and the applicant with the officer's complete and specific reasons, in writing, for the recommendation of disapproval.

...but don't take my word for it. Here is the link so you can read the entire law yourself.

http://www.state.in.us/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/ch2.html