One of my great joys on Sunday is to crack open the paper and have a nice, long and leisurely read. Today, though, there was nothing pleasant about this headline.
Appeals of denied permits get guns into questionable hands
Senior Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Toni Beitz said the reason for some reversals is that the carry-permit law puts a high burden on a sheriff to prove that someone shouldn't be issued a permit. Under the carry-permit statute, for example, criminal allegations that are not investigated and documented aren't grounds for denial.
"The statute is very limited as to what evidence the sheriff can look at. He's got a very short period of time, and there's only a very narrow room for him to use discretion," Beitz said. "That was the big shift when it used to be in the hands of chiefs of police. They had a lot of discretion to look at maybe whatever they wanted to look at."
Interesting. So, the gun lobby, who was spent the last couple of years screaming at the top of their lungs about gun walking, is now essentially doing the same thing. In their fervent zeal over their warped interpretation of the second amendment, 299 people who have a criminal history get to have guns in my home state.
Perhaps they should heed their own warnings about laws and unintended consequences.
5 comments:
Nice reporting - "criminal history" doesn't mean felony convictions, just whatever a cop thinks about you.
I guess you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty" either.
Seriously, is there any right you are ready to trash the moment someone wails about how butthurt they are by it?
"Not investigated", "not documented", huh? Basically, that means it was so fucking trivial no one bothered to make a note on a log? And that's reason to deny?
How about, "Because I feel like it, but mostly because he's black"? You do realize that's a what "may issue" laws really were in the South and big cities, don't you?
And you compare that to purposely giving guns to Mexican drug cartels? You are as dishonest a little shit as I've ever run across. What a despicable little scum-weasel you are.
Permits were also issued to men who committed assaults and acts of domestic violence who plead down to lesser (non-felony) charges.
As you should probably know, domestic abusers frequently get their victims to recant the charges (because they're often the breadwinner and the victim doesn't have another source of income). A police chief who knows the circumstances could reasonably deny the permit because he knows the real situation, and prevent a murder.
For some crazy reason, domestic abusers feel much freer to commit murder with a gun than they do with their bare hands, bats, hammers, and even knives. Just ask Oscar Pistorius or Jovan Belcher.
Oh, wait. You can't ask Jovan Belcher, because after he killed his girlfriend he committed suicide in front of his coach.
It's really amazing how conservatives are all for giving prosecutors, judges and the police a free hand to go after drug abusers and illegal immigrants, allowing them to use illegally obtained evidence in court, but when it comes to preventing gun crimes -- even when committed by those same drug abusers and illegal immigrants -- it's all about prior restraint and innocent until proven guilty.
These laws should be written so that even misdemeanor acts of violence can be used to deny gun permits. It's the slippery slope of escalating violence, after all. The laws should also be written to allow someone denied a permit to get a hearing in court should they feel the police chief is unfairly denying them a permit. It's possible to give the police greater discretion in such matters, as long as citizens have recourse should they be treated unfairly.
If people don't want hurdles placed in the way of them getting guns, they should restrain their tempers and avoid beating their wives.
These laws should be written so that even misdemeanor acts of violence can be used to deny gun permits.
Would you reverse the consideration, such that non-violent felons don't lose their right?
Or is it a one-way ratchet, choking off in ever tighter restrictions?
Permits were also issued to men who committed assaults and acts of domestic violence who plead down to lesser (non-felony) charges.
The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104–208,[1] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)[2]) is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence.
Even misdemeanor domestic violence prohibits firearms possession.
Post a Comment