Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:06 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 HCSO: expect 35-40 days now...little upset. 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:18 pm 
In the time out chair
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 36
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:24 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:14 pm
Posts: 203
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:47 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:05 pm
Posts: 199
Location: Twin Cities, MN
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.

_________________
"My name is Shosanna Dreyfus. This is the face of Jewish vengeance."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:08 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:03 am
Posts: 227
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)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:03 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:59 am
Posts: 434
Location: Twin Cities
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.

_________________
“...whoever rescues a single life earns as much merit as though he had rescued the entire world”
-The Talmud

Protect yourself and the ones you love.

NRA Certified Instructor
MADFI Certified Instructor


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:56 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:09 pm
Posts: 965
Location: North Minneapolis
+1 nmat

_________________
It is about Liberty!

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Chris


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:49 pm 
In the time out chair
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 36
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:15 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
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.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:22 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
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.
Yup.

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.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:00 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:28 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Uptown Minneapolis
Pour l'encouragement de d'autres, Joel? :twisted:

(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")

_________________
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960

"Man has the right to deal with his oppressors by devouring their palpitating hearts." - Jean-Paul Marat


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:23 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
chunkstyle wrote:
Pour l'encouragement de d'autres, Joel? :twisted:

Correct.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:23 pm 
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:02 pm
Posts: 818
Location: downtown Mpls
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.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group