(OH) Sheriff sued after denying gun permit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good point. While I don't see any other solution, I don't nessecarily agree that DUI is even a crime. After all, I have not actually injured anyone.
RIGHT... And I can take my AR15 out in the driveway, empty a 30 round magazine between the neighbors' houses, and as long as those bullets haven't actually injured anyone, it shouldn't be a crime, huh?
 
The Ohio gumbmint law is vauge.

Granted I subscribe to " shall not be infringed" and give that more weight than what a Sheriff 'thinks'.

I do have have "permission papers" - AR res, Non res FL. I am sure happy my behavior before March 27, 1984 was not held against me - that is the day I took MY last drink, attended MY first AA meeting.

Granted I did a lot of "good" stuff with RKBA, teaching shooters back in " the day" - The last damn near 21 years I have been able to be more Productive in not only RKBA, new shooters - but a host of other things.

I've smelled the brimstone, seen the gates of hell - I might be a bit biased about my attitudes.
 
NINE fuking DUIs?! That is a serious criminal record, indicative of a pattern. One or two 10 years ago, ok, fine. NINE?!?!

He clearly did not know how to handle his alcahol. Alcaholism is a disease, as that Sherrif, I would need clear and convincing evidence he has cured himself of that disease.

The last one was at least ten years ago. The ones before that were even longer ago.

That was before people got up in arms about drunk driving.

Back then as long as no one got hurt, or unless you were really, really drunk, it wasn't considered a serious crime.

Times and opinions have changed since then. It's now considered a much more serious crime.

Maybe this guy was a serious alcoholic, or maybe he was just horribly irresponsible.

That was 10 years ago.

The Sheriff is also on shaky ground with his assertion that the CHL law (BH 12) allows him to deny this guy a permit.

The law states that:

Sec. 2923.13. (A) Unless relieved from disability as provided in section 2923.14 of the Revised Code, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordinance, if any of the following apply:
...
(4) The person is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a cronic alcoholic.
...
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of having weapons while under disability.

No where in the law does it say that being addicted to alcohol is a reason to deny a CHL application.

The Sheriff should either charge the man with having weapons while under disability, or issue him his permit.

The law does not give the Sheriff discretion on if the person should have a permit.

"When Smith did deny the application, he advised the man in writing it was because the law allows the sheriff to reject an application from someone he considers drug or alcohol dependent."

The law simply has no such provision. The law may be confusing overall, but the reasons for which a Sheriff may deny a permit really aren't that complicated. Alcoholism simply isn't listed among them. Drug addiction isn't even listed among them.

Being arrested for a felony related to drugs or alcohol is among them.

Arrest him, or issue the permit.

John Doe will likely win this one, but it may take an appeal. THe law also provides for Mr. Doe's court costs being paid by the Sheriff's office once he wins, which is likely why Mr. Doe is pressing the issue in that County rather than simply reapplying in an adjacent county.

Sheriffs, just like everyone else, need to follow the law.
 
One of the classic arguments advanced by alcoholics.

Physiologically, what you claim is impossible. Alcohol does not sharpen any senses nor increase the speed of any reflexes. What it does is dull your perceptions sufficiently that impaired reflexes appear faster.

Bad combination.

I drive faster laps in Grand Tourismo to a certin point of intoxication. No I'm not going to try it in a real car :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top