[Sven]

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/6180375.htm

Some 217 Washington County residents are getting an extra message with their new permit to carry a handgun in public.

Beneath the stamped name of Sheriff James J. Frank are the words "sub recuso," Latin for "under protest."

It sums up his attitude toward the new state-mandated permit process, a job overseen by each of the state's 87 sheriffs. By law they must give gun permits to any law-abiding citizen who wants one.

"I've got to do it but I don't think it's the right thing to do," Frank said. "I just hope those guns, now that people are taking advantage of this, don't end up being their demise instead of their protection."

---

We would hate to have citizens able to defend for themselves, wouldn't we Sherrif?

[MonkeyMan]

Maybe someone could bring charges of willfully defacing a public document, or some such.:evil:

[Bruce H]

Maybe in the next election they should show him unemployment.

[Sven]

Bruininks proposes gun ban on U campuses
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3959056.html

Defying the state's new gun law, University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks will ask the Board of Regents next month to approve a policy barring weapons from all campuses and from Gopher sports events.

He said this week that the proposed policy, which would prohibit even people with permits from carrying handguns on campus or at a venue such as the Metrodome when school teams are playing, is "common sense."

"Our university community has always assumed that handguns and other weapons had no place in our classes, libraries, labs, student unions and at other sponsored activities," Bruininks said. "Given these considerations, we felt that a policy addressing the possession of weapons on campus is the best course of action for the University of Minnesota."

[El Tejon]

Hey, Sheriff, if you are so concerned about guns being used against their owners, TURN IN YOURS and defend yourself with a Krispy Kreme you bucket of goo!:fire:

[dandean316]

As for the above link I didn't like the fact they used college shootings in a story about CCW - like they are related. I mean linking law abiding CCW holders with shootings is just crazy. If anything, the shooting should be reason to allow CCW on campuses. Anyway, I emailed the writer of the story and her response is as follows after my email:

MY EMAIL:
>>> Dan <dandean316@yahoo.com> 06/27/03 07:34AM >>>
Good morning
I read your story about the U banning guns on campus
with great interest this morning. Especially
interesting was the shooting that have happened on
college campuses over the years.

Thing is, you failed to mention if any of these people
were concealed carry permit holders. In addition, you
failed to mention that at the Virginia law school
shooting, the criminal was stopped by students who ran
to their cars, got their guns and told the guy to stop
shooting or they'll shoot back. Funny how shootings
seem to happen where the good guys can't carry.

Linking campus shootings with legal carry permit
holders is irresponsible. Maybe you didn't mean it
that way, but I'm sure your readers will take it that
way. Or was that the point?

HER RESPONSE:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We talked about whether we should include the national information for
the very reason you mentioned, and then decided we should. College
campuses have been a a bit of a magnet for spree shootings, and we
thought it worth mentioning.
Thanks for your note,
MJ

[Hkmp5sd]

Some perverse logic there. then decided we should. College campuses have been a a bit of a magnet for spree shootings
She has to mention the shooting because campuses are magnets, yet agrees with complete ban on CCW weapons on campus, and then fails to mention that civilians with their own guns stopped a previous shooting spree.

Is her goal making the place safe for students or safe for deranged murderers?

[Sven]

Folks: write the author with your feelings.

[foghornl]

bucket of goo!

El Tejon, you are waaaaaay to kind. I would cerainly support showing said bucket of goo the joys of being in the unemployment line....

Providing, of course that replacement is not a bigger bucket of goo...:barf:

[Glamdring]

I kind of like the idea of the sherriff documenting his disagreement that way. He is standing up for his beliefs. In a couple of years after the people here in MN find out what being a Shall Issue state is really like, you have to realize the media has not provided a positive perspective on the issue, he will have to do some tap dancing. :D

I do take exception to people insulting someone (the sheriff) who has strong beliefs and is willing to state them publicly. If the sheriff was protesting anti gun stuff the same way you would be saying he was great. Do you honestly judge people based only on if they agree with you or not?

Maybe it is just my personal beliefs that one should be courteous, but I thought this was The High Road. Not to mention name calling really doesn't help convince people.

One thing I have learned in conflict resolution, is that it is a lot easier for someone to change their position if both parties respect each other. You can admit your wrong a lot easier if you were simply convinced your position was incorrect, less face is lost that way.

Not to mention it is a good use of the Golden Rule. I have been wrong at least once or twice :rolleyes:
Okay more than once or twice :D

I really want as many people on my side of the RKBA debate as possible.

[DJJ]

What's that quote? "Let them hate, as long as they fear"? Let him protest, as long as he signs it.

[Standing Wolf]

"I've got to do it but I don't think it's the right thing to do," Frank said.

Minnesota's leftist extremists are the biggest bunch of sore losers and cry babies I've ever heard of.

[Sven]

It's certainly better than Sherrifs saying "I shouldn't do this, so don't tell anyone I gave you this".

-

More on the MN front:

Burnsville City Council members want gun law repealed or amended
http://www.thisweek-online.com/2003/June/20bvgunlaw.html

Posted: 6/20/03

by John Gessner
Thisweek Newspapers

The Burnsville City Council passed a resolution June 16 calling on the Minnesota Legislature to repeal the new concealed-carry handgun law.

If legislators won’t repeal it, they should amend the law to allow cities to prohibit permit holders from carrying guns on city property, the resolution said.

The council also passed a firearms policy that prohibits city employees (except sworn peace officers) from carrying guns while on duty. The policy extends to city volunteers, consultants and contractors, as well as people renting city buildings and facilities.

[snip]

It’s wrong that the legislation allows guns to be banned from state and federal buildings but not city buildings, said Council Member Liz Workman.

“I just don’t understand why (state legislators) feel the need to be protected from their own legislation, but cities are hung out there,” she said.


----

'Waaaaah... we want to be able to make exceptions to the law, too. It's not faiiiiir'

[Jim March]

I'm glad I'm not in that state.

The temptation to write "sub recuso" on some toilet paper, "use" it, and tape it to his department HQ front door at midnight would be nigh overwhelming.

:rolleyes:

[SteelyDan]

The reaction here is even a little surprising to a jaded resident like me. You would almost think we had decriminalized murder or something. A number of cities, counties, universities are unlawfully adopting ordinances that would prohibit what the new law clearly allows. This just exemplifies the "we're above the law" attitude that is so prevelant among local government units in this state. There are still two or three or four somewhat biased articles about the new law in the local papers every week. There will definitely be some interesting battles when the legislature reconvenes next January.

[fallingblock]

The Left has run Minnesota their way for so long they are incensed at the passage of this CCW legislation.

Take the time to write to these people, every misguided and hoplophobic one of them, and make your points POLITELY but firmly.:)

Tell them how they are in error with the hysteria and remind them that 34 other states haven't had the problems they fear....we mustn't let them feel that their message is going to a totally receptive audience.

Put some friction on their spin:D

[Frohickey]

"I've got to do it but I don't think it's the right thing to do," Frank said. "I just hope those guns, now that people are taking advantage of this, don't end up being their demise instead of their protection."

I think that maybe Sheriff Frank should not be armed as well. So that his service weapon doesn't end up being his demise, instead of his protection.

You are a little civil servant. We are not serfs for you to lord over, even if you do hold the job title 'Sheriff'.

[Byron Quick]

The sheriff does NOT have to sign these CCW's. He can always resign if the job requires that he violate his beliefs. That's if he believes in the concept of personal honor, of course. If he doesn't, he can sign "under protest.":barf:

[jsalcedo]

Yeah, what would happen if we went to our jobs and wrote "sub recuso"
on every memo, report and email.

Thats right.

You would be writing "sub recuso" on your friggin unemployment application.

.

[goalie]

The problem I see is if, God forbid, you ever end up using deadly force and your permit becomes evidence. I can see it now:

"ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, even this man's permit was issued under protest........blah blah blah."

No, if I lived in that county and my permit had the words "under protest" written under the signature, I would sue. The law is VERY clear in Minnesota as to EXACTLY what is to be on the permit, and "under protest" is not on that list.

[Delmar]

So, Buford T. Justice has not have the intestinal fortitude to sound off in English?
Wonder what harassment orders he is giving the department when they stop a legal CCW holder?
It's a shame nobody consulted King Donut-us Maximus as to the conditions of his personal fiefdom:rolleyes:
It is my fervent hope that this lump of goose turd finds himself in a hopeless situation with a pack of bad guys and he gets his bacon saved by some CCW holders-boy, are they gonna be mad when they find out who they saved:scrutiny:

[Smoke]

The sheriff does NOT have to sign these CCW's. He can always resign if the job requires that he violate his beliefs

I think this is the best course of action. After all, isn't he sworn to uphold the law? Every law, not just the ones he agrees with.

Does he write sub recuso whenever he charges a dope smoker?

[Waitone]

Hey Sheriff Franks! I feel your pain. I too am forced to obey laws I disapprove of. Why, I even pay taxes I disapprove of. Fact is if I attach a tea bag to my federal return I can get find even though it is a pathetic attempt at protest.

Buck up, man. You are in the executive branch of government. You were told by your bosses in the legislative branch to do something you obviously disapprove of. Do you job or quit.

I have to do lots of things I consider distasteful by I just do it. With a little character building you too can do distasteful jobs.

Hint: cleaning out cat litter boxes is good practice.