Wife's CCW interview with Sheriff


PDA






antsi
September 27, 2007, 11:51 AM
We moved from one IN county to another this year. Two years ago, I got my CCW in Indianapolis, which was essentially a big-city bureaucratic paperwork process. IN is a shall-issue state.

My wife has "been meaning to" get her CCW but just got around to it this year when we moved to a smaller community in IN. Here, the sheriff wants to meet personally with every applicant. There was a three week wait for an appointment, so she just had her meeting today.

She took her certificates from NRA personal protection pistol training to show him, and did a bit of research on IN self defense law in case she got questioned about that.

She said he was friendly, pro-gun-owner, and supportive. He said "It is not my job to judge your motivations for wanting to carry a pistol." He told her that guns are potentially dangerous, but alo potentially life saving and praised her decision to get her CCW. He also praised her decision to get training although it is not required by IN law.

In general she said it was a positive experience. She came back motivated to practice more - not because the Sheriff criticized her or anything, but just because she was impressed by the importance of being proficient as possible.

My wife had our 2-year old son with her, and the Sheriff scored some points by encouraging her to teach him to shoot when he is old enough and generally being attentive to the kid. Outside his office when the interview was over, he took my wife to where she had to do her paperwork and told the people in the office "this little guy will be the youngest citizen we've ever issued a pistol permit to."

I'm glad this went well and glad it had good effects on my wife and her motivation. At the same time I had some reflections on this process and wanted to get feedback from the THR gang.

1) Although I can't see any bad motives here and I'm grateful we have a pro-RKBA CLEO in our community, I can't help reflecting that the Sheriff's policy of meeting all applicants personally could delays the application. However, it did take several weeks to process my application through Indy, and I think it is quite possible that the smaller community buraucracy gets things done quicker than they do in Indy. That has been our experience with other gov't departments since we moved.

2) One of the Sheriff's motivations here might be that his system gets gun owners to meet him and find out that he is a supporter of gun rights. Maybe part of his motivation is electioneering.

3) I think my wife is what most LEOs would consider a "good candidate" for CCW - knowledgeable about guns, has taken training, very sober responsible and law-abiding, we keep our guns in a safe at home, etc. I wonder how the Sheriff handles other kinds of applicants. For example, my personal opinion is that training should not be a legal requirement, but should be strongly recommended. Maybe he takes these meetings as an opportunity to make recommendations like that.

4) + or - having to meet with the Sheriff, I am grateful to live in IN after reading all the "adventures" other folks have with CCW applications (or not even having the option in some places).

5) Also grateful to have such a practical sensible and responsible wife, especially after reading about the "adventures" other people have with their spouses/squeezes.

If you enjoyed reading about "Wife's CCW interview with Sheriff" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
September 27, 2007, 11:56 AM
Interview? WTH?:confused:

By what statutory authority is this being done? Which county is pulling this?

ZeSpectre
September 27, 2007, 12:31 PM
IN is a shall-issue state
That makes this Sheriff's "procedure" a violation. If they ran the background checks and she passed then they had XXX number of days (I believe they say six to eight weeks) to issue her permit or inform her of her denial.

That's XXX number of days...period. Not XXX number of days plus however many the sheriff feels like taking so he can personally approve.

"It is not my job to judge your motivations for wanting to carry a pistol."

In a "shall issue" state it's not just "not his job" but it is probably illegal for him to even hint about that. If she passed the background checks and other specifically listed requirements....she gets her permit. PERIOD. That's what "Shall issue" means and it was instituted to override various LEO, Judges, etc. who felt they were in authority to decide who gets what based on personal bias.

Titan6
September 27, 2007, 12:43 PM
Fascinating. On the one hand good the Sheriff is involved in the community. On the other bad that he is supplanting the law with his on personal take. Probably needs to go.

230RN
September 27, 2007, 12:44 PM
Hmmmmm... I regard it not as a "qualifying" interview, but an opportunity to encourage applicants to get training.... and to teach their kids how to shoot.

Yeah, we shouldn't have to jump through any hoops to bear arms, but that's the way things are for now, and I don't see a problem with the activities as described. I'd vote for that Sheriff.

ZeSpectre
September 27, 2007, 12:46 PM
don't see a problem with the activities as described
You mean except for it being illegal? In "shall-issue" states you don't get to add on requirements like a personal interview. That is simply not how it works!

Houston Tom
September 27, 2007, 12:56 PM
In a rural community it does not surprise me. 20 some years ago when I got my first permit you had to go to the sheriffs office to get it/ apply. the Sherill saw me come in and he personally come over to help me after I told him what I wanted he asked if I was sure I knew how to use the pistol I was going to carry then laughed and said he was sure my grandfather had made sure of that. After filling out the paperwork and handing me my permit, he told me to be carful and not to shoot anybody that did not need shooting, We then discussed the college footbal season and I was on my way. Legal or not that is the way things work in alot of small rural places.

MachIVshooter
September 27, 2007, 12:58 PM
He can ask applicants to interview, but cannot legally mandate such action.

SSN Vet
September 27, 2007, 01:06 PM
supplanting the law

In Maine, if you live in an incorporated town with it's own P.D. The Chief of Police IS the issuing authority. There is no other....he acts as the States agent. If (and only if) you live outside of a town with a P.D. it's off the the State Police Barracks with you. Maines too is a shall issue state, and unless you have checked one of the boxes Yes....you're going to get your permit.

Small town USA is a great place to live and IMHO, a five minute face to face can give the issueing authority a lot more meaningful info. than a stack of paperwork. If the issuing authority wants to put his eyes on your face and your drivers liscence at the same time and observe whether or not you talk to yourself and mumble "I'll kill the $#@@", more power to 'em.

I can't see any problem with the issuing authority wanting to do a face check and explain any questions you have about the law....esp. in a shall issue state that has no training requirement.

Of course, my position assumes that the issueing authority follows the law and signs off on your permit. It's not like the Sherrif is a dictator who accounts to no one. You have legal recourse if you get turned down.

Dave P
September 27, 2007, 01:13 PM
We had to appear in person for county permits years ago. You could argue that this was to keep undesirables from getting permits. Or you could say it was racist.

I think your Sheriff should be commended for being intimately involved, but it is appearantly not legal.

lawson4
September 27, 2007, 01:14 PM
Remember that he is the Police and anything you say to him in an interview may come back to haunt you, if you have to use your gun. As he is acting in an official capacity, (legal interview or not) if you lie to him or misrepresent yourself, you may pay for it later.

lawson4

kludge
September 27, 2007, 01:18 PM
Interview? WTH?

By what statutory authority is this being done? Which county is pulling this?


Exactly what I was thinking.

crankshop1000
September 27, 2007, 01:33 PM
In Michigan (a shall issue state) each county establishes a gun board.The gun board reviews and approves (or denies) all applications. The gun board MAY choose to have a sit down with each applicant if they choose.The process may not unduly delay the issue of a permit to a applicant.

strambo
September 27, 2007, 01:33 PM
Depends on how it's done. I have to go to the SO to get my permit renewed. If the Sheriff was the one doing the paperwork because he wanted to, so what?

If the "interview" is a quasi-requirement...and he says "no" to people not based on the background check, that's not legal in a shall issue state.

Wanting to meet each applicant, but not requiring it is perfectly fine.

pax
September 27, 2007, 01:40 PM
Hmmm, that's an interesting dilemma.

I'm thinking about when I applied for my shall-issue permit from a small town sherriff's office. Very friendly folks behind the counter, no problems there. Seems to me that it wouldn't have been unlikely for the fellow who actually was signing my paper to come out & shake my hand ... if it was during an election cycle. Don't think I'd've been happy with having to make an appointment to shake his hand though.

Anyway, from the way the interview was described, it sure does not sound nefarious. Congratulations to your wife on her new permit. May she use it every day and never need it!

pax

antsi
September 27, 2007, 01:43 PM
-------quote--------
In "shall-issue" states you don't get to add on requirements like a personal interview. That is simply not how it works!
---------------------

I'm divided. I can certainly see this point of view.

Technically I don't know if the interview is "required." I think the way they asked my wife was "would you be willing to meet with the Sheriff? He likes to meet personally with pistol permit applicants."

I realize that is potentially sticky too, because no matter how politely phrased, a "personal request" from your community's CLEO carries more than just a hint of authority behind it. It's not like your neighbor inviting you over to watch the football game.

My wife is a good judge of character (other than one very disastrous error in judgement which should be obvious to all ;) ) and she had a good take on the guy. I trust her in this case that the current Sheriff is a decent guy doing this for decent reasons and not trying to obstruct our RKBA processes.

However, I do see the potential for abuse if we got a nanny-state weenie in the office, doing ostensibly the same thing, but tweaking it for obstructionist purposes.

ABBOBERG
September 27, 2007, 01:52 PM
In St.Paul, MN, a few weeks after filling out the permit application, I received an appointment in the mail. It was two weeks out. I then met with a deputy and he asked me about why I was applying. I told him it was for self-defense if I had to go into the bad areas at night (he seemed so nice - I didn't want to tell him it was none of his business). He also reviewed my qualification target (shot in the dark) and complimented me on my score. I thought the process took too long.

The Wiry Irishman
September 27, 2007, 01:55 PM
When my friend got his IN CCW in his bitty little county, the Sheriff handled it personally, as well, probably just for something to do. When my friend paid, the sheriff gave him a hand-written receipt that read "Han Gun Permit." (that's no typo on my part, and my friend still has that receipt 4 years later) Depending on how backwater the county is, it could just be a sheriff trying to live in Andy Griffith's Mayberry. Heck, the county my friend got his permit in has a town whose motto is "The Mayberry of the Midwest."

Geno
September 27, 2007, 02:12 PM
As I read the posts, I found myself agreeing on the surface, yet deep inside I was simultaneously repulsed by how our RKBA society has been reduced to getting big brother's approval to exercise our rights. I know I am preaching to the choir, but, all the same...regarding the following points, this is what I feel:

1) Although I can't see any bad motives here and I'm grateful we have a pro-RKBA CLEO in our community, I can't help reflecting that the Sheriff's policy of meeting all applicants personally could delays the application.

Sheriff's policy?! That's bass-ackwards. Used to be the sheriff had to go to the people for supports.

2) One of the Sheriff's motivations here might be that his system gets gun owners to meet him and find out that he is a supporter of gun rights. Maybe part of his motivation is electioneering.

If he isn’t a supporter of the Constitution, he doesn't belong in that office.

3) I think my wife is what most LEOs would consider a "good candidate" for CCW - knowledgeable about guns, has taken training, very sober responsible and law-abiding, we keep our guns in a safe at home, etc

RKBA isn't about candidate...it smacks of sheeple.

4) + or - having to meet with the Sheriff, I am grateful to live in IN after reading all the "adventures" other folks have with CCW applications (or not even having the option in some places).

Because we fit the mold of good and compliant people...not too many tattoos, no piercings..strike down yet one more right...free expression.

5) Also grateful to have such a practical sensible and responsible wife, especially after reading about the "adventures" other people have with their spouses/squeezes.

Number 5 is none of my business. We marry whom we love and we live with the consequences of, or the benefits of that decision. Good on you that you have both communicated the importance of RKBA!

Again, I do not intend to say that this is what I think of the original poster. That is not my point at all. My point is that I see these same danged thoughts in my OWN mind! That's wrong! And it repulses me that I think this way! It is not what my founding Fathers intended. It makes me so very appreciative to be a member of The High Road where we can appreciate each other’s experiences.

Thank-you for sharing this very personal thoughts!

Doc2005

SSN Vet
September 27, 2007, 02:37 PM
could just be a sheriff trying to live in Andy Griffith's Mayberry. Heck, the county my friend got his permit in has a town whose motto is "The Mayberry of the Midwest."

base on your post, it doesn't sound like he's "trying" to live in Mayberry.

you city slickers need to get out more often.

There are many, many Mayberry's out there.....sucking it up paying their taxes to underwrite one urban failure after another so the city slickers can live some place with a "night life".

Small town USA is the BEST town in the USA.

BobMcG
September 27, 2007, 02:53 PM
What happens to the applicants in your area (OP) when a not so friendly (toward RKBA) sheriff gets elected and wants to follow the same procedure?

antsi
September 27, 2007, 02:59 PM
-----quote-------
RKBA isn't about candidate...it smacks of sheeple.

Because we fit the mold of good and compliant people...not too many tattoos, no piercings..strike down yet one more right...free expression.
-----------------

I know, I have the same concerns. That's what I was getting at when I was wondering how the Sheriff would have dealt with a "less ideal" CCW candidate. He was very nice to my wife, but then again, she's the kind of person a Sheriff is going to be inclined to be nice to. If she had a bunch of tatoos and wierd piercings and radical political messages printed on her shirt, she might not have gotten the same kind reception.

Then again, maybe he would have been just as nice to my hypothetical goth hippie counterculture wife. I don't know this guy and it definitely isn't fair for me to prejudge him based on what I imagine he might do in a hypothetical situation. From all the evidence we have, he is a perfectly decent pleasant guy trying to serve his community as best he knows how.

bulgron
September 27, 2007, 03:10 PM
This sounds like a tough problem to handle. On the one hand, positive interaction with LEO is always a good thing. On the other hand, administrative abuse is always a definite concern, especially when it comes to RKBA.

By going along with what is apparently a questionable activity, the public gives their de-facto stamp of approval on that activity. Left unguarded, over the years this sort of thing can obtain the force of law, and then subsequently become a barrier to exercising a right.

See this excellent essay on slippery slopes (it's long) to see what I mean:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html

From that essay, this passage seems relevant (the essay speaks to England's experience, by the way):


When the safe storage requirement was introduced for rifles and handguns in the 1930s, it was enforced in a reasonable manner by the police. Leaving one's handgun on the front porch was not acceptable; keeping it on a dark closet shelf was perfectly fine. Similarly, in the few United States jurisdictions that have imposed storage requirements in recent years, the law is usually enforced in a reasonable manner--at least for now.

From the 1930s through the 1960s, the security requirement simply meant that Firearms Certificate holders were told of their responsibility for secure storage. Starting in the early 1970s, the police began performing home inspections as part of the Firearms Certificate issuance in order to assess the applicant's security.[108] After the 1996 Dunblane shootings, some police forces began performing spot checks on persons who already held Firearms Certificates. Apparently the home searches were done to make sure that the firearms really were locked up.

Parliament never granted the police home inspection authority, nor did Parliament enact legislation saying that a hardened safe is the only acceptable storage method. However, that is what the police in many jurisdictions require anyway. In fact, many gun owners who bought safes that the police said were acceptable are now being forced to buy new safes because the local police have arbitrarily changed the standards. In many districts, an "acceptable safe" is now one that can withstand a half-hour attack by a burglar who arrives with a full set of safe-opening tools.

Sometimes the police require the purchase of two safes: the first one for the gun and the second one for separate storage of ammunition. A Briton (p.424)buying a low-powered, 5 rimfire rifle may have to spend 100 on a safe. Likewise, a person with five handguns (before the 1997 ban) might have been ordered to add a 1000 electronic security system.[109] Added to the cost of the illegal requirement for hardened safes is the escalating cost of Firearms or Shotgun Certificates. Home inspections are expensive for the police, and thus the cost of Firearms Certificates or Shotgun Certificates has been raised again and again, far above the rate of inflation, in order to cover the costs of the intrusive inspections, as well as the cost of many gross inefficiencies in police processing of applications.[110] The net effect of the heavy security costs is to reduce legal gun ownership by the less wealthy classes, as in the days of Henry VIII, Charles I, who was later beheaded during the English Civil War, and James II, who was driven out of the country by the Glorious Revolution.


You see, it starts with the police doing "reasonable things" that no one questions, and a few decades later the reasonable has become unreasonable and a right is lost forever.

If it had been me, I would have met with the sheriff, but I would have taken the time to question him thoroughly on the purpose of the interview, and to make sure he understood it isn't supportable under the law.

The trick is to do this in such a way as to not make the guy mad.

But I think it has to be done anyway.

Templar223
September 27, 2007, 03:10 PM
The High Road...

Sometimes I wonder if it's more like the "The High and Mighty Road".

Here's a sheriff who meets with an applicant personally, gives them a pep talk on the importance of things, and issues a permit.

And people here are ready to castigate him - looking for a problem. It's just like several THR members castigated me for "helping" the anti's by selling them $2300 worth of mostly rusty, all effectively junk guns at a gun "buy back" in Chicago a couple of months ago. I'm surprised they didn't label those kids who shot the ammunition we bought with that money at an NRA Youth Shooting Camp as supporting anti-gun endeavors as well.

Me, I'd be pleased to have had a sit-down with the Sheriff to talk if my state had shall issue. He might be a good guy to know in general and certainly if I ever had to use my safety rescue tool.

Seems a lot of folks on this site like to go about looking to make mountains out of molehills while ignoring the real hills and mountains all around them on the horizon.

John

txgho1911
September 27, 2007, 04:11 PM
No fault to find in the sheriff IMO. The application has a place to put reason or purpose.

ZeSpectre
September 27, 2007, 04:45 PM
The application has a place to put reason or purpose
Ours don't (VA).
We're a SHALL ISSUE state. If you pass the criminal background checks you get a CCW. You don't need to give a reason.

Templar223, I'm not castigating the Sheriff but the road to hell...good intentions, all that. If the Sheriff wanted a friendly chat that's fine, but that should have absolutely no bearing on the permit. Better tactic, issue the permit and include an invitation for the new CCW holder to come in for a chat. No chance of the situation being misunderstood or abused as the CCW carrier already would have their permit.

Seems a lot of folks on this site like to go about looking to make mountains out of molehills while ignoring the real hills and mountains all around them on the horizon.

And some of us have had to fight tooth and nail to regain rights (or pull up stakes and move) after such "innocent" interactions set precedent and began the slide down the slippery slope. It's easier to take corrective action while it's a molehill, once it's a mountain you may not be ABLE to fix it.

bulgron
September 27, 2007, 05:10 PM
And some of us have had to fight tooth and nail to regain rights (or pull up stakes and move) after such "innocent" interactions set precedent and began the slide down the slippery slope. It's easier to take corrective action while it's a molehill, once it's a mountain you may not be ABLE to fix it.


Exactly. If you know anything about the situation here in CA, you know that we're fighting tooth and nail just to hang on to the firearm rights that we currently have. The gun grabbers take every opportunity to advance their agenda. No move on their part is innocent, no matter how slight.

It tends to make you a bit of a hard case about firearm rights, after a while.

Where it comes to gun rights, I no longer think there's any such thing as a molehill. They're all mountains.

Never relax your guard.

taliv
September 27, 2007, 05:15 PM
Sometimes I wonder if it's more like the "The High and Mighty Road".

zing!


i think it's a good thing he's doing

jlrhiner
September 27, 2007, 05:30 PM
Mixed views on this one. When MO confirmed her citizens right to carry concealed, I took a group to the training class. (Wife, sister, friends and their wives). When the time came to renew, I did mine without incident. (Jefferson County) My sister had to meet with her county sherrif. (Reynolds County) I think I'll call her and see how that went.

Jim

35Rem
September 27, 2007, 05:31 PM
I'd vote for that Sheriff.
BINGO!!!! That's why he did it, sheriff are elected, no? He's pressin' the flesh, making his name and face known.

kludge
September 27, 2007, 06:13 PM
No fault to find in the sheriff IMO. The application has a place to put reason or purpose.

By law a "proper reason" is "defense of oneself or of the state of Indiana"

Every time I've applied the nice lady told me to write "personal protection".

I'm trying to decide if next time I should be a wiseacre and write "defense of myself or of the state of Indiana" or if that would get me tagged as a kook.

I find no big fault with him either, and perhaps in some small communities there is no one else to do it (though it's hard to believe that there isn't a clerk in every Sheriff's Dept), but the law does say apply to the "police chief" or "sheriff". And if he/she personally takes the responsiblity so be it, it's his/hers to have, and I don't even have a problem with him scheduling a time for her to come in, I'm glad he's managing his time, but a "meeting" or an "interview" just seems odd to me, but legally it is the Sheriffs job to ascertain that the person is who (s)he says (s)he is.

Of course the positive outcome is that the meeting was friendly and positive, and since I don't know who this is I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has the best interests of his county in mind.

The fact that the meeting was scheduled three weeks out is cause for concern though... what if this lady had moved in after leaving an abusive realtionship, pehaps she needs a permit asap or doesn't want to discuss her affairs outside of attouney/client priveledge. I certainly don't, even though have no bad history, and I certainly wouldn't want anything I said or didn't say to be construed as relevant if perchance I might need to defend my life some day.

tinygnat219
September 27, 2007, 06:42 PM
This may be ok with this Sheriff, but maybe not the next. The next might use the precedent established under the previous Sheriff to start denying the permits. Not good.

dav
September 27, 2007, 07:04 PM
I have to agree with ZeSpectre.

If he wants to meet AFTER the permit is issued, no problem.

If he makes it even LOOK like the personal meeting is necessary in order to receive the permit, not acceptable.

A lot of people here like the saying "concealed means concealed".

Well, "Shall Issue" means "Shall Issue". Not with hoops to jump through.

ZeSpectre
September 27, 2007, 08:48 PM
Just a P.S.
Part of the reason I'm a little touchy on this subject is that Arlington, VA tried to add a few hoops for me to jump through as well when I got my CCW. Thank God I was well informed on my rights, AND had good support from the VCDL with regards to proper procedure or the games would probably have gone on for quite a while.

txgho1911
September 27, 2007, 10:57 PM
This is just another reason the licensing or permitting laws in place in so many states are at the root a bad thing.
If bad guys where promised a ticket to grave for acting bad and everyone else minded their business and personal security and carried a piece as easily as a belt.
I would say Vermont or Alaska level of carry recognition could work.
Any ex-bad actor not in jail should be able to defend themselves. Acting badly should hurt fast and severe.

Soybomb
September 27, 2007, 11:18 PM
Sometimes I wonder if it's more like the "The High and Mighty Road".

Here's a sheriff who meets with an applicant personally, gives them a pep talk on the importance of things, and issues a permit.

And people here are ready to castigate him - looking for a problem.
And sometimes I think this is the "'eh I don't really mind gun control entirely" road.

I imagine the sheriff has the best of intentions but many of us don't support additional roadblocks to the rkba just because some means well. No one should need to wait weeks for an appointment with a law enforcement official for the right to carry nor feel obligated to meet with them, or too intimidated by the prospect of having to do so to apply.

Waitone
September 27, 2007, 11:46 PM
I don't see why the righteous amongst us is flapping around so much. We have a federal government that routinely does not enforce existing laws We have state, local and city governments which routinely instituted policy without benefit of legislative authority. I see no collective outrage is these cases. Why get hot and bothered over a county in Indiana? Buck up, people. Selective outrage benefits no one. Get exercised over all examples of governmental fiat or just accept it when you see it.

Sylvan-Forge
September 28, 2007, 01:01 AM
Here, the sheriff wants to meet personally with every applicant

There was a three week wait for an appointment

Indiana is a "shall issue" state

:scrutiny:

ZeSpectre
September 28, 2007, 07:09 AM
I don't see why the righteous amongst us is flapping around so much. We have a federal government that routinely does not enforce existing laws We have state, local and city governments which routinely instituted policy without benefit of legislative authority. I see no collective outrage is these cases. Why get hot and bothered over a county in Indiana? Buck up, people. Selective outrage benefits no one. Get exercised over all examples of governmental fiat or just accept it when you see it.

Waitone,
So your recommended course of action is what, kick back and have another beer 'cause survivor is on in 15 minutes?

As for "selective outrage", nobody can fight every battle, there's just too many and it'd wear anyone out. So that doesn't mean you just quit responding to everything (it's simply not an "all or nothing" kind of situation) and it especially doesn't mean you shouldn't point out injustice when you see it when someone posts on a place like THR and is ASKING for opinions about something that has happened.

007,
Good summary of why I think it's screwy in IN.

Bily Lovec
September 28, 2007, 07:33 AM
lighten up, francis (s) :-)


you should be estatic you have a hands on sherriff, and personally, Id be campaigning for the dude every election....

thinks positive, people...

ServiceSoon
September 28, 2007, 07:43 AM
You don't need to give a reason.

Actually, you have to fill out a reason on the state form.

He can ask applicants to interview, but cannot legally mandate such action.

+1 Although I could see how this could go bad. The majority of people will comply with request from authority and will not question them. It appears that they issue the permits after you meet with the CLEO, which is wrong IMO. Was the law vilolated? Was the permit issued within the time frame described in Indiana statutue?

He said "It is not my job to judge your motivations for wanting to carry a pistol."

Then why interview them at all :scrutiny: He sure knows what to say to keep himself out of trouble.

MaterDei
September 28, 2007, 07:46 AM
Based upon Indiana state law I would argue that:

1) The sheriff has a right to interview applicants, and
2) Indiana is not truly 'shall issue'. It is shall issue only IF the superintendent deems that you have the right reason and the appropriate character and reputation.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar47/ch2.html

from 35-47-2-3...

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.
(e) If it appears to the superintendent that the applicant:
(1) has a proper reason for carrying a handgun;
(2) is of good character and reputation;
(3) is a proper person to be licensed; and
(4) is:
(A) a citizen of the United States; or
(B) not a citizen of the United States but is allowed to carry a firearm in the United States under federal law;

The wording on this legislation has slippery slope written all over it in my opinion. Indiana might, in practice, be shall issue today but this legislation would allow for some serious restrictions should the political climate change in Indiana.

From 35-47-2-5

The superintendent may suspend or revoke any license issued under this chapter if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person's license should be suspended or revoked.

El Tejon
September 28, 2007, 08:03 AM
1) The Sheriff has no right to do this. He can look at one's criminal record ("official records"), or lack thereof, but he has no statutory basis to do these interviews.

2) Indiana is a shall issue state by judicial decision. The City of Gary learned this lesson to the tune of over a million dollars.

This is bad and it needs to stop.

Don Gwinn
September 28, 2007, 08:09 AM
Again, it woud be a good idea to think about what happens when a "candidate" who doesn't impress the sheriff shows up for his "interview." Does he get the same service the lady in the OP got?

What if the "candidate" who has passed all the background checks is a black guy with dreads? What if he's a scruffy white kid who looks like he lives in a trailer park? Remember, to get that far, he's already passed the background checks and is legally entitled to the permit.

That's what's bothering people, so let's just say it.

MaterDei
September 28, 2007, 08:13 AM
1) The Sheriff has no right to do this. He can look at one's criminal record ("official records"), or lack thereof, but he has no statutory basis to do these interviews.

Sure he does. He has the duty to VERIFY the character and reputation as well as to VERIFY that the reason given is appropriate. Where does it say that an interview is not allowed?

ZeSpectre
September 28, 2007, 09:35 AM
He has the duty to VERIFY the character and reputation

BZZZZZT WRONG, but thanks for playing.
In a SHALL ISSUE state, "character" and "reputation" DO NOT MATTER (Justice is blind and all that). All that matters is
1) Do you have a criminal record that disqualifies you.
2) Do you have a mental health record that disqualifies you.
3) Can you prove residence.

That's it, that's all, no more.

Anything else added takes you into "personal opinion" and THAT is EXACTLY what "Shall Issue" is supposed to prevent.

Play it any other way and it won't be long before some local potentates go back to issuing to their "good old boys" club as a special favor and declining others (read-anyone they don't like) for any "reason" they care to give.

Geez people, this sort of thing is the (re)start of what we've been fighting against since the Jim Crow laws! Doesn't ANYONE read any history any more???

Hutch
September 28, 2007, 09:49 AM
Guys, this is all about being re-elected. A bit of a PITA for the applicant, but consider: This procedure is THIS sheriff's invention. He gets to glad-hand and kiss up new residents and people coming of age. If they are applying for a CCW permit, then they're likely pro-gun, and the sheriff's comments become a GREAT reason to keep him in office. If he ever retires, the next sheriff may continue the tradition, if he's pro-gun, or abandon it altogether if he's anti-gun. Even if he's anti-gun, he can't hold up the process.

This sheriff is a political genius.

ZeSpectre
September 28, 2007, 10:14 AM
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.

Colt
September 28, 2007, 10:35 AM
In a SHALL ISSUE state, "character" and "reputation" DO NOT MATTER

You sure about that? I live in a shall-issue state, PA. I had to provide 2 character references on my application, and the references had to live in the same county as me. It wasn't a problem, I'd been living in the county for about 3 years. But suppose I'd just moved in from another county. Wouldn't a Sheriff like this be a benefit to me?

I agree that the permit ought to be issued without an interview. But I don't see any harm in the Sheriff asking to have a little chat when I pick it up.

Personally, I think this guy is electioneering AND gathering as much information about his county's CCW'ers as possible. Not only did he let the OP know that he himself was pro-gun, but he can also tell any non-gun owners that he always makes a point of meeting each applicant, sort of hedging his bets for re-election should one of the CCWers get involved in a wrongful shoot. i.e. - he did all he could while staying within the bounds of the law.

If they'd asked me to set up a meeting, I would have insisted on them first issuing my permit, and then letting them know when I'd be by to get it. If the Sheriff made the time to meet me when I came in, great. If not, maybe some other time.

grampster
September 28, 2007, 10:36 AM
If the statute that MaterDei posted is the current one in Indiana, it appears sufficiently vague so as to empower the "Superintendent" (Sheriff?) to conduct an interview or make sweeping judgments based upon very subjective things imho. I does not specifically say "interview", but d) seems to provide a sweeping statement of empowerment.

El T,
Did a court in Indiana rule otherwise? It seems that is what you are saying?

Hutch
September 28, 2007, 10:42 AM
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
September 28, 2007, 10:51 AM
I'd've:scrutiny:

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

Maybe ever.

Mannlicher
September 28, 2007, 11:02 AM
all this just gives more reason to skipping the CCW license, and just carrying.

El Tejon
September 28, 2007, 11:08 AM
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
September 28, 2007, 11:13 AM
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
September 28, 2007, 11:40 AM
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
September 28, 2007, 12:14 PM
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! :uhoh: :barf: :mad:)

exar
September 28, 2007, 01:13 PM
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:confused::confused:

Rumble
September 28, 2007, 01:37 PM
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
September 28, 2007, 02:22 PM
I wonder what kind of policies I or Most of THRers would have if sheriff of their town???

ZeSpectre
September 28, 2007, 03:20 PM
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
September 28, 2007, 03:31 PM
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
September 28, 2007, 04:11 PM
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
September 28, 2007, 04:16 PM
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
September 28, 2007, 09:30 PM
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
September 29, 2007, 07:20 AM
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
October 2, 2007, 12:17 AM
geet yet? na! yant to? auite!

Lew
October 2, 2007, 02:37 AM
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
October 2, 2007, 04:08 AM
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
October 2, 2007, 09:15 AM
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.:D

Mat, not doormat
October 2, 2007, 12:21 PM
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
October 2, 2007, 02:19 PM
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.

:uhoh:---:confused:---:banghead:----:cuss:--:neener:

ZeSpectre
October 2, 2007, 02:24 PM
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
October 2, 2007, 02:32 PM
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 :D).

frogger42
October 2, 2007, 04:10 PM
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

Templar223
October 2, 2007, 06:01 PM
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.

http://www.state.in.us/legislative/i.../ar47/ch2.html



All of The High and Mighty Roaders have been wailing and gnashing computer keys for three pages only to have someone inject a law citation into the discussion.

Frogger, you just put a wet blanket on all of that righteous indignation, didn't you?

Here's a tip for you THMRs. Instead of sitting at your keyboard looking for a fight over some non-issue, why don't you actually step back from the keyboard and do something concrete to either 1) promote the cause constructively or 2) improve your safety and skill using guns.

John

Polishrifleman
October 2, 2007, 06:50 PM
I couldn't get the link to work sp here it is again plus the chapter: I think Templar is refering to Section D although I can't see a definition of superintendent.

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

IC 35-47-2-3
Application for license to carry handgun; procedure
Sec. 3. (a) A person desiring a license to carry a handgun shall apply:
(1) to the chief of police or corresponding law enforcement officer of the municipality in which the applicant resides;
(2) if that municipality has no such officer, or if the applicant does not reside in a municipality, to the sheriff of the county in which the applicant resides after the applicant has obtained an application form prescribed by the superintendent; or
(3) if the applicant is a resident of another state and has a regular place of business or employment in Indiana, to the sheriff of the county in which the applicant has a regular place of business or employment.
The superintendent and local law enforcement agencies shall allow an applicant desiring to obtain or renew a license to carry a handgun to submit an application electronically under this chapter if funds are available to establish and maintain an electronic application system.
(b) The law enforcement agency which accepts an application for a handgun license shall collect the following application fees:
(1) From a person applying for a four (4) year handgun license, a ten dollar ($10) application fee, five dollars ($5) of which shall be refunded if the license is not issued.
(2) From a person applying for a lifetime handgun license who does not currently possess a valid Indiana handgun license, a fifty dollar ($50) application fee, thirty dollars ($30) of which shall be refunded if the license is not issued.
(3) From a person applying for a lifetime handgun license who currently possesses a valid Indiana handgun license, a forty dollar ($40) application fee, thirty dollars ($30) of which shall be refunded if the license is not issued.
Except as provided in subsection (h), the fee shall be deposited into the law enforcement agency's firearms training fund or other appropriate training activities fund and used by the agency to train law enforcement officers in the proper use of firearms or in other law enforcement duties, or to purchase firearms or firearm related equipment, or both for the law enforcement officers employed by the law enforcement agency. The state board of accounts shall establish rules for the proper accounting and expenditure of funds collected under this subsection.
(c) The officer to whom the application is made shall ascertain the applicant's name, full address, length of residence in the community, whether the applicant's residence is located within the limits of any city or town, the applicant's occupation, place of business or employment, criminal record, if any, and convictions (minor traffic offenses excepted), age, race, sex, nationality, date of birth, citizenship, height, weight, build, color of hair, color of eyes, scars and marks, whether the applicant has previously held an Indiana license to carry a handgun and, if so, the serial number of the license and year issued, whether the applicant's license has ever been
suspended or revoked, and if so, the year and reason for the suspension or revocation, and the applicant's reason for desiring a license. 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.
(e) If it appears to the superintendent that the applicant:
(1) has a proper reason for carrying a handgun;
(2) is of good character and reputation;
(3) is a proper person to be licensed; and
(4) is:
(A) a citizen of the United States; or
(B) not a citizen of the United States but is allowed to carry a firearm in the United States under federal law;
the superintendent shall issue to the applicant a qualified or an unlimited license to carry any handgun lawfully possessed by the applicant. The original license shall be delivered to the licensee. A copy shall be delivered to the officer to whom the application for license was made. A copy shall be retained by the superintendent for at least four (4) years in the case of a four (4) year license. The superintendent may adopt guidelines to establish a records retention policy for a lifetime license. A four (4) year license shall be valid for a period of four (4) years from the date of issue. A lifetime license is valid for the life of the individual receiving the license. The license of police officers, sheriffs or their deputies, and law enforcement officers of the United States government who have been honorably retired by a lawfully created pension board or its equivalent after twenty (20) or more years of service, shall be valid for the life of these individuals. However, a lifetime license is automatically revoked if the license holder does not remain a proper person.
(f) At the time a license is issued and delivered to a licensee under subsection (e), the superintendent shall include with the license information concerning handgun safety rules that:
(1) neither opposes nor supports an individual's right to bear arms; and
(2) is:
(A) recommended by a nonprofit educational organization that is dedicated to providing education on safe handling and use of firearms;
(B) prepared by the state police department; and


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) approved by the superintendent.
The superintendent may not deny a license under this section because the information required under this subsection is unavailable at the time the superintendent would otherwise issue a license. The state police department may accept private donations or grants to defray the cost of printing and mailing the information required under this subsection.
(g) A license to carry a handgun shall not be issued to any person who:
(1) has been convicted of a felony;
(2) has had a license to carry a handgun suspended, unless the person's license has been reinstated;
(3) is under eighteen (18) years of age;
(4) is under twenty-three (23) years of age if the person has been adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult; or
(5) has been arrested for a Class A or Class B felony, or any other felony that was committed while armed with a deadly weapon or that involved the use of violence, if a court has found probable cause to believe that the person committed the offense charged.
In the case of an arrest under subdivision (5), a license to carry a handgun may be issued to a person who has been acquitted of the specific offense charged or if the charges for the specific offense are dismissed. The superintendent shall prescribe all forms to be used in connection with the administration of this chapter.
(h) If the law enforcement agency that charges a fee under subsection (b) is a city or town law enforcement agency, the fee shall be deposited in the law enforcement continuing education fund established under IC 5-2-8-2.
(i) If a person who holds a valid license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter:
(1) changes the person's name;
(2) changes the person's address; or
(3) experiences a change, including an arrest or a conviction, that may affect the person's status as a proper person (as defined in IC 35-47-1-7) or otherwise disqualify the person from holding a license;
the person shall, not later than thirty (30) days after the date of a change described under subdivision (3), and not later than sixty (60) days after the date of the change described under subdivision (1) or (2), notify the superintendent, in writing, of the event described under subdivision (3) or, in the case of a change under subdivision (1) or (2), the person's new name or new address.
(j) The state police shall indicate on the form for a license to carry a handgun the notification requirements of subsection (i).
(k) The state police department shall adopt rules under IC 4-22-2 to implement an electronic application system under subsection (a). Rules adopted under this section must require the superintendent to keep on file one (1) set of classifiable and legible fingerprints from

El Tejon
October 2, 2007, 07:29 PM
Frogger, again, no. The Sheriff is attempting to add requirements to the application process. "[R]ecords" in the portion you highlight means records; it does not mean interview, campaign contribution, psychic reading, or tarot cards. The Sheriff verifies the records thereby and passes the application along to the State Police.

The Superintendent is the head of the State Police. He is not the Sheriff.

A subjective interview would transform the mandatory issuance of LTCH into a discretionary application subject to a myriad of concerns (e.g., race, sexuality, religion, political party affiliation, donation to a political campaign, inter alia). Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (discretion cannot be allowed as it transforms RKBA from right into administrative privilege). As well, this interview requirement opens the door to all kinds of liability for the unit of government (county, or city). The Indiana Supreme Court is very clear about local agencies attempting to add on requirements or flat out refusing to comply with the license to carry statute--i.e. it's a big no-no and subjects a locality to big fat lawsuits. Kellog v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 1990) (Court holds that liberty and property interest in right to carry).

Templar, what the Sheriff is doing cannot be allowed to stand as government will always steal if we do not protest. The citation Frogger provides does not permit the Sheriff to conduct interviews (he can check records and verify thereby). What's wrong with indignation, especially if righteous? :confused:

BTW, THMRers have had a direct hand in changing many laws for the better, holding the feet of politicians, policicrats, bureaucrats, and media to the fire, and ensuring that the RKBA is respected.:)

Griff
October 2, 2007, 08:57 PM
Back when I was a youngster in Indiana we called what this sherrif is doing "common sense", and now folks whine and complain that its missing in our country. You just can't please some people. Still, I find it more than a little ironic that the more vocal Liberaterian-types among you are all bound up in justifying more red tape, regardless of the source. :banghead:

jaholder1971
October 2, 2007, 09:50 PM
Here in KS we have shall-issue as well.

When I turned in the application the receptionist called the Sheriff who came out and we discussed the application.

The subject was less the reasons for the CCW but to make certain everything needed for the permit was all in order. In my case, this "interview" was a good thing as the application I downloaded from the State AG's office didn't contain the cover letter, without which the AG's office would reject the application.

Sheesh, some of y'all must see Jackboots behind every tree stump the way you carry on here...

El Tejon
October 2, 2007, 10:35 PM
Or . . . we were just paying attention in Civics class in high school.:D

elkhuntingfool
October 2, 2007, 10:52 PM
The High Road...

Sometimes I wonder if it's more like the "The High and Mighty Road".

Here's a sheriff who meets with an applicant personally, gives them a pep talk on the importance of things, and issues a permit.

And people here are ready to castigate him - looking for a problem. It's just like several THR members castigated me for "helping" the anti's by selling them $2300 worth of mostly rusty, all effectively junk guns at a gun "buy back" in Chicago a couple of months ago. I'm surprised they didn't label those kids who shot the ammunition we bought with that money at an NRA Youth Shooting Camp as supporting anti-gun endeavors as well.

Me, I'd be pleased to have had a sit-down with the Sheriff to talk if my state had shall issue. He might be a good guy to know in general and certainly if I ever had to use my safety rescue tool.

Seems a lot of folks on this site like to go about looking to make mountains out of molehills while ignoring the real hills and mountains all around them on the horizon.

John

I could not have typed that any better. Especially the last paragraph!

Good job!

mek42
October 3, 2007, 09:40 PM
Maybe there are fewer "Shall Issue" states out there than folks seem to think they are. I recently obtained a PA non-resident carry license and needed to go to a second county's Sheriff Office because the first only issues non-res carry licenses to the two NY counties adjacent to the county in question. This, surely, is not shall issue. After reading some of the PA carry license laws (in vain hopes of finding the PA where am I not legal to carry list) there are more references to "may issue" than "shall issue".

I am starting to think that many of the states thought of as "Shall Issue" are really "May Issue" but with very liberal rates of issue (using liberal in the dictionary sense).

In regards to the OP, many posters seem to have not carefully read the following part of the OP's OP:


Here, the sheriff wants to meet personally with every applicant.


This statement in no way, shape or form implies that such a meeting will be cause for denial.

koja48
October 3, 2007, 11:18 PM
IMHO, his interest, demeanor, and personal direction are commendable, but he should do it after the fact & at your convenience, not his. Sorry, but rule of law is "rule of law." That being said, congrats to your bride & heed the Sheriff's advice.

koja48
October 3, 2007, 11:32 PM
So be it . . . I for one, am fiercely protective of the 2nd Amendment and/or CCW rights. If some choose to ignore or look kindly upon "seemingly minor" attempts to infringe upon these rights, that is their option, but to do so threatens the rights of all . . . "You passed the written & practical driver's license exam . . . you can apply for your license AFTER the Sheriff/Police Chief/Ranking Local State Patrol Officer interviews you . . . " I respect all of those entities (and I was a deputy), but unless the law specifies such an interview, it is outside of the requirements.

El Tejon
October 4, 2007, 08:20 AM
koja, it's not the rule of law!

Autolycus
October 4, 2007, 09:12 AM
Explain that to an anti-gunner like Templar223 who feel that we should be subject to an interview and only if the government deems us worthy should we be given permission to bear arms.

Guess some people just dont understand what "...shall not be infringed," means anymore.

El Tejon
October 4, 2007, 09:26 AM
We keep fighting for a rule of law, not a rule of men.

goon
October 4, 2007, 12:49 PM
I don't really see what the issue is. I didn't actually have to meet with the Sheriff to get my permit but the paperwork did have to be submitted to him. Then I had to go in to his office to get my photo taken for it (the secretaries took care of that). The whole process from dropping the paperwork off to getting the little card in the mail saying I could come and get my picture taken for it took about 2 weeks with about a half hour in the office to finish the whole thing up. The renewal was even faster than that.
No, this is not some conspiracy to limit my right to defend myself. The sheriff's office in my hometown is directly across the street from a large sporting goods store and people carry guns from there to their cars or just carry there every day. I literally left that store on my 21st birthday with a handgun and then crossed the street to get the application for the permit (stopping at my car first to drop the gun off). Realistically, you'd have to look long and hard to find a more gun friendly area than this.
Technically, any permit at all is an infringement on the 2nd. But here in the real world we're stuck with what we're stuck with.
Until all gunowners are ready to stage a nationwide sit in on all the courthouses all at once and overrun their capacity to print out permits, this is how its going to stay.
Unless we let it get worse.
Personally, I'm thankful that PA (and many other states) have been able to see past the lunacy that governs some states and continue to MOSTLY respect the rights of her citizens.
An idealist would argue that my attitude is part of the problem (I would have done this once myself). But living in the real world has just about beaten all the idealism out of me.

El Tejon
October 4, 2007, 12:53 PM
goon, does PA law allow for a photo then?

The fuss is that the Sheriff here is acting without statutory authority, adding his own requirements. Going beyond the law is the rule of man, not the rule of law. We (well, some of us) object.:)

HonorsDaddy
October 4, 2007, 01:24 PM
If there is neither authority nor requirement for these interviews by statute, then quite simply, this Sheriff needs to be removed from office. Period, end of discussion.

It astonishes me how many members of this board see no problem with restrictions, infringements and state intimidation on our right to be armed. It disgusts me to realize those members are supposedly my "allies" in this fight.

koja48
October 4, 2007, 08:06 PM
Thanks, El . . . I stand corrected. Now to play devil's advocate . . .

So, midway thru a 3-week wait for an unauthorized interview and during which time a person could have been legally exercising the right to carry concealed since they had satisfied all mandated requirements. . . said person is set upon & harmed by a bad guy with a knife when having a means to defend his/her self likely would have effectively neutralized the situation. I have a problem with this ramification of infringement, also.

goon
October 4, 2007, 08:20 PM
Sorry you're disgusted with me. If you prefer to think of me as not being your ally that's your business.
I do have question for you though: Do you carry? If so, do you have a valid permit? IIRC, only two states actually follow the constitution and respect the right to carry without a permit.
So my point is that if you have a permit then you are also going along with an infringement on the 2nd. Actually, the fees you pay are probably going to provide monetary support to keep these laws in place.

BTW - I think the photo is required for the permit in PA. It looks like a driver's liscense.

It is unconstitutional and I paid $25 for five years worth of exercising my right to carry. I don't like it, but I would like it a whole lot less if I needed that gun and used it and then spent the rest of my life making large rocks into smaller ones and getting tattoos from my new cellmate. Its an infringement but a guy has to live.

Soybomb
October 4, 2007, 11:05 PM
Unless we let it get worse.
I'm thoroughly confused. You say we shouldn't let things get worse but you also say you don't see the big deal in a sheriff arbitrarily complicating and delaying the issuance of permits beyond the law. It seems like the real message you have is to just take whatever we can get and shut up. Why not insist that the sheriff follow the law since thats what we've worked hard to get already?

goon
October 5, 2007, 04:00 AM
What if starting a fight where one doesn't need to be started is a way of making things worse?

He didn't say that it took any longer to get the permit because of this interview (mine took 2 weeks but I have heard of longer waits than that) and we don't know if his wife would have been denied even if she had been having a bad hair day or something. The interview was a positive interaction and his wife potentially just established a solid working relationship with a pro-gun sheriff. From what the original poster said, we don't even know if a law has actually even been broken. Actually, according to this, it seems to me like the Sheriff may have been doing exactly what the law requires of him (at least maybe as he understood it).
(c) The officer to whom the application is made shall ascertain the applicant's name, full address, length of residence in the community... scars and marks, whether the applicant has previously held an Indiana license to carry a handgun and, if so, the serial number of the license and year issued, whether the applicant's license has ever been suspended or revoked, and if so, the year and reason for the suspension or revocation, and the applicant's reason for desiring a license. 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.


As someone pointed out above, the Sheriff probably isn't a superintendent. But he is an officer and an officer needs to gather this information as part of the application process. Right?
Yes, it sounds kind of excessive when you could just fill out a form but from what I understand after reading this, it seems like he is doing what he gets paid to do (and we do love it when our elected officials actually do that, don't we?).

Also,
Sec. 6. (a) Every initial application for any license under this chapter shall be granted or rejected within sixty (60) days after the application is filed. (IC 35-47-2-6).
I'm not a lawyer but to me it looks like the three week wait is pretty much legal.


While we are on the subject, I feel that just the act of having to obtain a permit from the state to exercise your right to protect yourself is unconstitutional as are NFA 34 and GCA 68.
But it really doesn't matter because if you were to break one of those unconstitutional laws you would still be branded as a deranged militia nut and spend the rest of your days swapping jailhouse tattoos with your cellmate. Sure, there would be gunowners who would disagree with what happened to you and you might even get your name printed in American Rifleman, but it really wouldn't matter. You would be forgotten in a few days and still be locked in a cage for the rest of your life.

Some of you refer to "rule of law" but what is so great about that? After reading over that little peice of the indiana code, I personally think that law is pretty lousy.
First, any permit IS an infringement. You can't PERMIT someone to do something that the US Constitution recognizes (not grants, but RECOGNIZES) as a right because that implies that you also have the authority to deny it. No such authority can possibly exist under any law anywhere in the US (except maybe a reservation, maybe?) because the Constitution is the final word. If it ain't constitutional, it ain't supposed to stand. Period. End of discussion.
In theory...
But in the real world that isn't exactly how its done. (Yes, it bothers me just as much as it bothers you.)
Second, the money from the permits goes to buy guns and training for the police. Sure, the police need guns and training. But why are gunowers funding it? Its been a couple semesters since I read the constitution but I don't remember it being in there anywhere that anyone who wants to bear arms has to first finance the police so that said police can also bear arms. But hey, that's the "rule of law" for you.
Quite frankly, about the only good thing about this law is that it does get people in indiana some way to carry a handgun for defense without risking a 5 year stay in the grey bar hotel. (Not great but it sure beats doing prison time for keeping someone from carjacking you, doesn't it?)

If you guys want to support rule of law I'm on board. But lets start with the real law (AKA The Constitution). Until you are ready to do that (meaning committed to nothing short of a total victory and repeal of every anti-gun law everywhere in the US, able to finance that victory, willing to risk AND LOSE everything you have to see that goal accomplished, and you have the backing of enough citizens who give a damn to make that happen), all you are really doing is making yourself feel like you are doing something.

Again, I ask how many of you guys who disagree with me have CCW permits?
By paying for a permit to carry, you have in effect changed your right to bear arms into a privledge that the state can revoke any time it wants to. You have paid money and supported a law that helps strip just a little bit more authority away from the constitution.
Not that I'm criticizing you. I also did the exact same thing and I know it. I knew it when I paid the money. But here in the real world, if you want to be able to carry a gun to defend yourself and your loved ones, you had better be ready to jump through the hoops.
I did it and it took me two weeks and change to be able to carry. Others have had shorter or longer waits (three weeks in this case). And yes, during that three week period you are defenseless and pretty much at the mercy of anyone who wants to murder or rape you.
And that is thanks to "the rule of law".

Our solution? Write and call your reps and join some pro-gun organizations, etc, etc (we all know what the "solution" is). But I guess I'm kind of pessimistic about it. If anything, the situation with guns is probably more likely to get worse than it is to get better.

So to answer your question, I guess saying "if we let it get worse" was probably not a good way to put it. It will probably just get worse IN SPITE of our best efforts to prevent it.

Anyhow, I've spent too long typing all of this already and I don't want to argue with people that I really am on the same side of the fence with. If you disagree with me, more power to you. At least they haven't found a way to make you buy a permit to exercise that right. Yet.


Good night.

koja48
October 5, 2007, 05:31 PM
Then get on the same side of the fence . . . "extra" " is "extra" whether it is within, before, or after the legal requirements . . . the speed limit is 35 in ideal conditions, not the speed a traffic officer personally "feels" it should be. If the law/procedure is inadequate, go through proper channels to address & change it; don't interject your own requirements. I don't make the rules, I don't even like all of the rules; I do, however comply with them. Those in a position of authority should do no less. Plain and simple, no matter how "well-intentioned" the Chief was, no matter how much he wanted to "connect with the community," his approach is an INFRINGEMENT on law-abiding gun-owners' rights, period! Now, if I moved my fence every year, "infringing" upon your property several inches at a time, at what point would you object? When I controlled the majority of your yard? Think about it . . .

Soybomb
October 5, 2007, 06:41 PM
What if starting a fight where one doesn't need to be started is a way of making things worse?
How do you feel that making the sheriff follow the law would make it worse?

While we are on the subject, I feel that just the act of having to obtain a permit from the state to exercise your right to protect yourself is unconstitutional as are NFA 34 and GCA 68.
Great that makes two of us, lets get started by being sure that people don't make carrying firearms even harder than what is allow by law.
He didn't say that it took any longer to get the permit because of this interview (mine took 2 weeks but I have heard of longer waits than that) and we don't know if his wife would have been denied even if she had been having a bad hair day or something. The interview was a positive interaction and his wife potentially just established a solid working relationship with a pro-gun sheriff.
It might not have, but really how is that relevant? The sheriff is passing this meeting off as a step required to get a permit when it is not. I don't want people who would otherwise get permits skipping it because they think its going to be a hassle. It has a chilling effect and needs to be stopped.

From what the original poster said, we don't even know if a law has actually even been broken. Actually, according to this, it seems to me like the Sheriff may have been doing exactly what the law requires of him (at least maybe as he understood it).
Read El Tejon's posts.

Our solution? Write and call your reps and join some pro-gun organizations, etc, etc (we all know what the "solution" is). But I guess I'm kind of pessimistic about it. If anything, the situation with guns is probably more likely to get worse than it is to get better.
Through actions like that we're able to work closer toward restoring the rights everyone should have under the 2nd amendment. If you don't care about the little steps that are made along the way and aren't willing to make people respect the exisiting positive laws you dont even have a chance of seeing your larger goals reached. Many people have worked very hard to help establish good carry laws, you should demand their work and your rights be respected even if it isn't the total end goal yet.

If you disagree with me, more power to you.
I can't help but be a little passionate about this. We don't have a chance if gun owners aren't willing to speak up for their rights and even on this forum we have a ton of gun owners who don't seem to really care and even support gun control themselves. When we start taking whatever is given to us after we've already established more than that, its over.

koja48
October 5, 2007, 08:19 PM
Amen. Thank you.

Oh, and Goon . . . "What if starting a fight where one doesn't need to be started" . . . IF a BG initiates an offensive action, the intended "victim" didn't start the fight . . . and making the leap of faith that the "intended victim" is rational, law-abiding, and able to defend his/her self in a manner that neutralizes the threat . . . let's say, by being in possession of and proficient with a legally-carried handgun . . . said individual may likely be "intended," but not a "victim." The case you described suggests a "nutcase" who shouldn't possess anything more lethal than an eraser, which, by the way, are the types of folks whose history & criminal records the CCW background checks are intended to identify. I sincerely doubt that the Chief/Sheriff, no matter how well-meaning, would id this as effectively in casual conversation as would a formal background check. It appears as if "(d) The superintendent" has deemed "further investigation" . . . "necessary" for EVERYONE who applies for a concealed-carry permit in his jurisdiction. I will continue with my "chest puffery," Templar, while you continue to let the "rest of us" defend YOUR rights.

goon
October 5, 2007, 09:26 PM
Koja48 - Did you read my post at all?
Did you miss the part where I said that I am all for having guns around? (hence my willingness to jump through all the hoops that the "rule of law" requires of me if I want to exercise my right to bear arms). You want to talk about INFRINGEMENT? We deal with them every time we pay the fee for the background check or fill out paperwork for a PERMIT that ALLOWS us to exercise the little bit that is left of our right.
What part of filling out a form and paying money to be able to defend yourself doesn't seem like an infringement to you?
We are on the same side of the fence - You just don't seem to realize it.

And The case I describe doesn't really involve any nutcases at all. It is how I feel about guns. The 2nd recognizes a right that God pretty much created us with. Animals have claws and teeth, humans have brains that they use to make tools (like spears, swords, and guns). Basic law of nature IMO.
Anyhow, the founders were a fairly sharp bunch of guys so they made sure they got that on paper.
But in 2001 when I applied for my first permit, that right was already pretty much a memory. GCA 68 and NFA 34 got started on chewing away at it long before I was even born and it bothers me. I would love to make those laws go away. Not because I really want a machine gun or anything, just because it is my right to have one if I want to. And that right is being infringed every single minute that you, me, or anyone else is required to jump through hoops or pay a tax to own one. Its the same story with a permit - its an infringement just to require us to fill out the paperwork. But that is the rule of law, isn't it?
So say you decide to exercise the right as it was intended to be. That would get you locked up in a cage, wouldn't it?
But would it make you a nut just to want the rights you are supposed to have?

Soybomb - I have read El Tejon's posts. I will concede that he may have a better idea about what is going on in Indiana because he apparently does live there. But from reading the actual laws it appears to me that the sheriff isn't even breaking a law. If El Tejon is a constitutional lawyer and he says that there is a case here, then I guess his opinion counts for more than mine. But after doing my own research online it seems that the case he is speaking about in Gary, Indiana was far different from this (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/kellogg_v_gary.txt). They were actually keeping people from even applying for permits in that case (from what I can find anyhow) whereas this guy is gathering information. This may even be a way of expediting the process (beauracracies are not known for their efficiency). I don't see how looking into it could cause any harm but does it really make sense to jump to a conclusion and accuse a gun friendly LEO of breaking a law?

BTW - We have already been pretty much taking what is given to us for about 70 years, starting with NFA 34. We do it every day by complying with laws that we despise and know are unconstitutional. I'm not advocating that we break them though. We are all too busy with college, jobs, mortgages, kids, car payments, and all the other things that go along with life to really deal with it. But I do feel the need to point out that we do compromise all the time, and that in the real world, there really isn't a very effective alternative to that.

Anyhow ladies and gents, I kind of wish I hadn't gotten in on this because all I managed to do was fan a fire and get myself right in the middle of it.
Have fun with this one: I think I'll stick to the less heated discussions from now on.
Keep your powder dry.

koja48
October 5, 2007, 09:45 PM
You want to talk about INFRINGEMENT?

Difficult to do much about past infringement, but am adverse to present/future infringements such as that described in the original post. I wish you well, Goon.

If you enjoyed reading about "Wife's CCW interview with Sheriff" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!