MN: Sheriff protests CCW

[greyhound]

County sheriff signs gun permits ‘under protest’

By MIKE MITCHELSON
Staff Writer

(Created 9/4/03 9:05:00 AM) Local Headlines



Frank’s use of ‘subrecuso’ next to signature is legal, county’s top attorney says

STILLWATER — For Washington County residents applying for concealed-carry permits, $100 is buys evidence of their sheriff’s disapproval.

Since the Minnesota Personal Protection Act became law on May 28, Sheriff Jim Frank has signed each permit not only with his name, but with “subrecuso†— a Latin word meaning “under protest†— and the County Attorney’s Office has said he has every right to do it.

“I’m protesting the fact that I’m forced to sign and issue those permits to people that I don’t feel should be getting them,†he said.

Frank’s opposition to the new legislation, which loosens restrictions for the issuance of concealed-carry permits, is well documented. In June, he submitted an editorial to area papers — including the Gazette and the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

“I am (concerned) about the sheer number of new guns that will be in circulation,†he wrote. “There will now be more guns for people to kill people with. I am not talking about road rage or out-of-control sports fans. I am talking about children who get their hands on permit holders’ guns. I am talking about heavy-duty criminals who steal permit holders’ guns. I am talking about those “unloaded†permit holders’ guns that will kill people. I am talking about suicides that will be committed by permit holder’s guns.

“The vast majority of new permit holders didn’t have a need to carry a gun before the law changed. What changed except the law? Please spend a lot of time thinking and weighing the options. Your life and others depend on it. I will make the prediction that more lives will be taken than those saved under this new law.â€

Not surprisingly, there have been complaints about his action.

“One person thought I had desecrated their permit,†he said. “Other people think that I shouldn’t be allowed to ... express my opinion to the gun law on an official document, but that’s not what this is. ... As much as I protest the law, (this) protest is that I have to put my name down giving someone a permit to carry a gun around, which I think is a pretty serious matter.â€

Gun owners irritated with the added commentary on their new permits have complained to County Attorney Doug Johnson, but to no avail. Permit regulations say nothing about what can be written on the document, he said.

Although it is a county document, Johnson said, “But the statute does not say ‘this is what a gun document looks like. Each sheriff can design their own. And that is what Sheriff Frank has done. ... What he is required to do is issue a valid permit to those who are eligible for them and he is doing that.â€

Johnson said he received an e-mail from a permit holder who wrote that they had contacted the State Attorney General’s Office. The Attorney General’s Office did not respond to phone messages by press time today.

Frank maintains the majority of Washington County residents support his position on the gun law. Gun enthusiasts, in this case, have “twisted†his current signature protest.

“I have said publicly that I think the gun legislation is poorly done,†he said. “But the other part, what I’m really protesting is the fact that ... I am required to issue these permits and put my name to something I don’t think is the right thing to do. But I’m under law — mandated — to put my name on it. So that’s reallywhere I’m coming from.â€


• • • •
I've asked this before, but how in the h**l did they get CCW passed in Minnesota? This stuff sounds like it should be coming from MD, NJ, or CA!!!

 

[foghornl]

Saw this story on www.keepandbeararms.com earlier today, along with an e-mail link to the High Sheriff himeslf. Sent a note from my KABA e-mail, but don't have a reply yet.

Here is the closing paragraph from the KABA article, along with the High Sheriff's e-maill addy:

Email Sheriff Frank at [email protected] to ask him why he's protesting a human right protected by the Constitution of the United States, a document he presumably swore to defend.

edited to attemp fixing my crummy typing...

 

[Henry Bowman]

Fine. Bring it on. I welcome the day that my right to CCW is recognized in Ohio, whether it is under protest (all the better that the goverment fear the people) or with subtext in any dead language.

 

[Carlos]

Our dear sheriff is an elected official who swore to uphold the law. Now, he's making a fool of himself by protesting a law he swore to uphold.

He should be recalled and ridden out of town on a rail!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I sent the sheriff a nice little email. Less than two minutes later, I get a response from "Sheriff Sheriff" - a blank page "auto-reply". LMAO

He's obviously getting some heat from concerned gunowners and had IT install some blocking technology. I doubt this guy has the guts to reply.

 

[mpthole]

I think this is the same sheriff who described permit applicants as "soft, white men". I grew up in Washington Cty, MN - don't live there anymore - but really hope this clown gets the boot in the next election.

** edited - whoops, my bad. Thanks greyhound for clearing that up. **

 

[greyhound]

'Soft, white guys'

By law, officials can't reveal the identities of those applying for or receiving handgun permits, but Dakota County Sheriff Don Gudmunson has sized them up.

"They're soft white guys," he said. "They look in the mirror and see they're out of shape and think they need a gun to protect themselves. But they're living in an area where they have nothing to fear."

In Scott County, just west of Dakota, Sheriff Dave Menden has a different appraisal. "I've talked to quite a few of them," he said. "They're damn good citizens. We have nothing to worry about from them."

Washington County Sheriff Jim Frank noted that of 283 applicants to his office, only 12 have been women. He has issued 223 permits, for the highest acceptance rate so far in the Twin Cities, but he's doing it grudgingly.

Under his stamped signature on the permits are the words "sub recuso," Latin for "under protest," he said. He disagrees with the new law, saying it has forced him to issue permits to 11 people with arrest or misdemeanor records not specified in the statute as grounds for denial.

"I think the law worked fine before," when authorities had broad discretion to deny permits, Frank said. "I think there's going to be more harm than good to come from this."

Nearly 7,000 Minnesotans have voiced agreement with that sentiment by signing petitions for repeal of the new law, said Rep. Nora Slawik, DFL-Maplewood. She, along with other legislators and local officials, will hold a repeal rally at 3:15 p.m. today in Central Park in Eagan, one of the places where permitted handguns can't be banned.

"I get petitions every day in the mail," Slawik said. "They are from all over the place, all walks of people, companies and citizens, top of the state to the bottom of the state. People are nervous."

The law gives sheriffs 30 days to act on permit applications, and many of them have used nearly all of it. Almost no permits were mailed out in the Twin Cities until last week.

"We wanted to give people and businesses the whole 30 days to understand the new law and establish policy for their property," said Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher. "But we should have a 21-day turnaround going forward."

Fletcher has stuck to a policy of scheduling appointments to file handgun permit applications, although he said that with filings now down to 20 a day, "if people walked in, they'd be seen."

Anoka County, however, stopped requiring appointments when scheduling started backing up into July. "That wasn't reasonable," said sheriff's Lt. Ron Bouley. "It didn't look right."

The county hired some retired officers to speed up processing, and the backlog was quickly resolved, Bouley said. Now about 25 permit-seekers are showing up each day. "It's slowly dwindled from about 80 a day at first," he said.

Hennepin County had 222 applicants on May 28, the day the law took effect, 42 of them standing in line when the Government Center opened at 8:30 a.m. In the first two weeks, 883 applied, and it took eight staff members working full time to handle the paperwork, said Rosenn Campagnoli, spokeswoman for Sheriff Pat McGowan.

"It's an enormous change for us," she added. Already McGowan has issued 580 permits, compared with six in all of 2002. More permits than that were issued in the county last year, but under the old law, most applications in Hennepin County and other urban areas were handled by city police chiefs. Now only sheriffs have permit authority.

Inconsistencies in past

In the past, the number of handgun permits issued in different parts of the state generally reflected the opinions of local police chiefs and sheriffs on the issue of armed self-defense for citizens.

In the Twin Cities area, "it was pretty widely known that unless you needed a permit for work you weren't going to get one," said Washington County chief deputy Steve Pott.

But Itasca Sheriff Medure said he "took at face value" claims of personal safety hazards to warrant carrying handguns. He denied not one of 1,140 applications last year. In the past month, however, only five have applied, he said.

Applicants have been such "honest, law-abiding citizens" that only about a dozen permits were revoked in 28 years in Itasca County because of misconduct, Medure said. He also estimated that 95 percent of the county's permitholders never carried guns.

Gudmundson thinks he knows why.

"They're cold or hot, heavy, hard to conceal and they're downright dangerous," he said. In his 25 years as sheriff of Fillmore and Dakota counties and police chief of Lakeville, he added, he has never carried a gun off-duty.

"I've never been in a situation where I've needed it," he said. "I tell the people applying for permits that they have about as much chance of needing a gun as they do of winning the Gopher Lotto. And if that happens, they have as much chance of using it correctly as of winning the Powerball."




Seems like there's a lot of "city vs. country" going on here...

 

[jimpeel]

I am talking about children who get their hands on permit holders’ guns. I am talking about heavy-duty criminals who steal permit holders’ guns. I am talking about those “unloaded†permit holders’ guns that will kill people. I am talking about suicides that will be committed by permit holder’s guns.

Yeah, just like they have in the other 43 states.

Anti-firearms types spend their entire existence pondering "what if" scenarios. Sometimes -- like a thousand monkeys pounding a thousand typewriters will eventually write a novel -- their dire predictions will finally come true in a single instance over a great length of time. They will then say emphatically "See? I told you so; didn't I? Huh? Huh? Didn't I? Huh?"

 

[Standing Wolf]

To give credit where credit's due: Minnesota's small band of leftist extremists is the single loudest bunch of anti-Second Amendment bigots in the country.

 

[tyme]

[blockquote]I am talking about children who get their hands on permit holders’ guns.[/blockquote]
What does this have to do with whether they're permit holders and whether they carry firearms? Someone's using a "guns are bad unless they're locked up" philosophy to try to marginalize ccw.
[blockquote]As much as I protest the law, (this) protest is that I have to put my name down giving someone a permit to carry a gun around, which I think is a pretty serious matter.†[/blockquote]
Jim Frank loses points for speaking easily twistable words. He's right. No signature or permit should be required.

Let criminals beware: Mr. Gudmunson, the Dakota County Sheriff, doesn't carry a firearm off-duty. Why in the world would a LEO announce that to the world... neuron deficiency? Does he have no mortal enemies?

 

[Waitone]

Seems to me those who oppose shall-issue CCH laws have to reach far and wide to come up with reasons for not issuing.

Perhaps THR could provide an anti-gun public service to those who oppose shall-issue laws. Instead of having them think and thrash around for excuses, perhaps we could create a list of excuses. Then when pontificating before media or opining in print they could pull out THR's handy list of excuses and use them instead of wasting all that time and brain power coming up with what already exists. A few examples to get started;

1>don't do it for the children
2>It'll be like Dodge City
3>Blood will flow in the streets
4>Criminals will take the guns and use them on the permit holders
5>LE will be killed by the bushel
6>LE opposes citizens arming themselves
7>More guns on the streets means more killing
8>What if a CCH holder goes ape and massacres everyone around
9>Who will save the children
10>The streets will no longer be safe.

With such a list, all the anti's got to do to make a cogent argument is to select an appropriate chesnut.

"I oppose shall-issue CCH laws because of 1, 3, 7, and 8."

Fast, efficient, compact and saves oxygen. Best of all the anti's don't have to think. Just pick off the argument and write the number down.

 

[repsychler]

Jim Frank:
“I’m protesting the fact that I’m forced to sign and issue those permits to people that I don’t feel should be getting them,†he said.

That's a crock. He doesn't have to sign diddly. He can deny every one just like he used to do. Of course when his "feelings" that these people shouldn't be getting permits are found to be a baseless load of crap in a court of law, he'll have to pay the lawyer bills for those he wrongly denied.

Greyhound:
I've asked this before, but how in the h**l did they get CCW passed in Minnesota?

Because the ideas of this politician (He sure as heck isn't a cop) do not match the ideas of most of us. As I've heard others explain, there's a small percentage of us that are very pro-RKBA, and there's a small percentage that are very anti. The vast majority are in the middle, and once we were able to get them to see the light and realize what a load of crap the anti's were shoveling, we got shall issue passed.

I think the politics in Minnesota are heading in the right direction, but the extreme left minority is very vocal, especially now that they are headed downhill.

 

[Futo Inu]

Ahh, go cry little baby, cry. Massive idjit.

 

[goalie]

Does anyone else see the irony in the "what if the children get ahold of the permit holder's gun" argument, or is it just me? Let's look at this situation with some logic and reason. If the concern is that children at home will have access to the firearms of their parents, shouldn't those people support conceal and carry? Think about it, if the parent is carrying concealed, the firearm is not even at home for the "child" to "find" and become a Darwin statistic with, it is in mommy or daddy's holster or pocket. Seeing that the carry law in Minnesota in no way changes who can buy a handgun, allowing the owners to exercise personal physical control over said handgun seems like it would take away from number of opportunities afforded to the "children" to "find" it and be possessed by it's inate, mind-bending evil rays.