| Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/ |
|
| HCSO: expect 35-40 days now...little upset. http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12590 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | ecrist [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keep in mind, folks, they have 30 days to send the response, not 30 days for you to receive it. I'm not saying they should take all that time, but it's in the statute. |
|
| Author: | djeepp [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ecrist wrote: Keep in mind, folks, they have 30 days to send the response, not 30 days for you to receive it. I'm not saying they should take all that time, but it's in the statute. Can you point that part out? I didn't see anything about postmarking in the statute. |
|
| Author: | Sietch [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
djeepp wrote: ecrist wrote: Keep in mind, folks, they have 30 days to send the response, not 30 days for you to receive it. I'm not saying they should take all that time, but it's in the statute. Can you point that part out? I didn't see anything about postmarking in the statute. With the crisis over and me all chipper with permit in hand, I can think about it. 624.714, Sub.6 b) Failure of the sheriff to notify the applicant of the denial of the application within 30 days after the date of receipt of the application packet constitutes issuance of the permit to carry and the sheriff must promptly fulfill the requirements under paragraph (c). See it doesn't stipulate sending something through the post. It could just as well be smoke signals. Nor does it end the issuing authority's responsibility after mailing it out, if they choose to notify in that way. If a Sheriff has to serve someone with papers, he has to place them in a person's possession. He can't just mail it. The permit's a little different, sure. But if someone calls the issuing authority and reports that they have not received it (card, denial, at least some news) when they ought to have, then the applicant has not been informed and the Sheriff is still responsible. |
|
| Author: | 12smile [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
David Gross and Joe Olson (Kimberman) wrote the law....any behind the scenes anectdote they want to share about the inclusion of the "constitutes issuance" clause... It's my impression that the anti's didn't want to meet the proponents of Carry Reform half way so the pro-gun guys wrote the law and it has little smart-ass things in it like that and the fact that the Sheriff must pay legal expenses for a reversal of denial. How unusual is it for a state's carry law to mandate issuance in the absence of a prompt denial...I hear guys from gun friendly states waiting months for their permits. I'M CARRYING ON DAY 30. (RENEWAL) |
|
| Author: | nmat [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
12smile wrote: ...so the pro-gun guys wrote the law and it has little smart-ass things in it like that and the fact that the Sheriff must pay legal expenses for a reversal of denial. This isn't a "smart-ass" thing at all! It makes perfect sense to me. This permit is supposed to be for anyone and everyone that is not legally prohibited from obtaining one. There is already enough of a financial hurdle to jump through in order to get it (firearm, holsters, belt, practice/carry ammo, the cost of the class, and the cost of the application). There is NO reason that a law abiding citizen who should have been granted their PTC in the first place, should have to cough up the legal fees to fight an un-just denial. Keep in mind that if the decision of the sheriff is not overturned, the individual still has to pay the legal fees. This is, I'm sure, a step taken to ensure that the counties don't simply deny everyone without getting a spanking once they do. Unfortunately some counties understand this better than others. |
|
| Author: | Moby Clarke [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
+1 nmat |
|
| Author: | ecrist [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sietch wrote: djeepp wrote: ecrist wrote: Keep in mind, folks, they have 30 days to send the response, not 30 days for you to receive it. I'm not saying they should take all that time, but it's in the statute. Can you point that part out? I didn't see anything about postmarking in the statute. 624.714, Sub.6 b) Failure of the sheriff to notify the applicant of the denial of the application within 30 days after the date of receipt of the application packet constitutes issuance of the permit to carry and the sheriff must promptly fulfill the requirements under paragraph (c). See it doesn't stipulate sending something through the post. It could just as well be smoke signals. Nor does it end the issuing authority's responsibility after mailing it out, if they choose to notify in that way. If a Sheriff has to serve someone with papers, he has to place them in a person's possession. He can't just mail it. Now we're playing the semantics game. Since I'm not trying to be difficult and trying to play nice, I'm happy if they send the permit on day 30. Sure, I'll carry with the app starting day 31, but the permit (or denial) is on it's way. Some of the games people play I find to be childish and on the order of picking nits. I will correct my previous post and add 'As I read the statute,' but my interpretation stands. I won't say where, but I work in a limited capacity for one of the metro SOs and there is a lot of bureaucracy in *everything* that happens. As has been said, it's hard for them to get out of their own way, more times than not. Showing a bit of patience and understanding goes a long way in showing one's maturity. |
|
| Author: | Andrew Rothman [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nah. They had 30 days to do 10 minutes of database checking: that's my patience window. After day 31, they're into the "flouting the law" portion of the timeline, and they can go fuck themselves. Strong language to follow. ecrist wrote: Showing a bit of patience and understanding goes a long way in showing one's maturity. |
|
| Author: | joelr [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
nmat wrote: 12smile wrote: ...so the pro-gun guys wrote the law and it has little smart-ass things in it like that and the fact that the Sheriff must pay legal expenses for a reversal of denial. This isn't a "smart-ass" thing at all! It makes perfect sense to me. This permit is supposed to be for anyone and everyone that is not legally prohibited from obtaining one. There is already enough of a financial hurdle to jump through in order to get it (firearm, holsters, belt, practice/carry ammo, the cost of the class, and the cost of the application). There is NO reason that a law abiding citizen who should have been granted their PTC in the first place, should have to cough up the legal fees to fight an un-just denial. Keep in mind that if the decision of the sheriff is not overturned, the individual still has to pay the legal fees. This is, I'm sure, a step taken to ensure that the counties don't simply deny everyone without getting a spanking once they do. Unfortunately some counties understand this better than others. What we don't know -- technically -- yet is whether or not a failure to hand over the permit after day 30 is a "constructive denial," in which case the sheriff pays the legal fees for getting him to do his job. I think we need a test case, at some point, but that's another issue for another day, and I'd kind of like to pick the sheriff to be the Guest of Honor for that little party fairly carefully -- might as well embarrass <s>Fletcher</s> somebody who needs embarrassment on other issues, as well, and is <s>Fletcher</s> politically vulnerable. |
|
| Author: | chunkstyle [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pour l'encouragement de d'autres, Joel? 
(For those of you not familiar with this minutiae of history, when a battalion in Napoleon's army was mutinying, rather than conducting a major investigation as to who started it, the officers would just select a few soldiers to be shot, "for the encouragement of the others", which is how it would be listed on the death roll. Usually, the grave would then be marked, "Mort pour France" or "Mort pour l'Republique") |
|
| Author: | joelr [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
chunkstyle wrote: Pour l'encouragement de d'autres, Joel? |
|
| Author: | SethB [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It reads to me as though failure to deny by day 30 constitutes issuance; and the sheriff is then required to "promptly" issue the physical permit. So I'd say he gets another week or two, not seeing any legal definition of the quoted term. |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|