"Shall Issue" Inconsistency

[armedpolak]

According to this:

http://standeyo.com/News_Files/Firearms/right.to.carry.html

NC is a "shall issue" state. According to this:

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Default.aspx

To quote: "When the sheriff shall have fully satisfied himself as to the good moral character of the applicant...", "A permit is valid for the purchase of only one handgun. To obtain another handgun, an applicant must procure another permit and must convince the issuing authority that he needs more than one handgun."

So how about it? The second source sure makes it sound like police in, say, Raleigh, could just kinna sort of say, eeeeee, you don't seam like a nice guy... denied!!!

Please point me to a reliable source of information, or correct me if I'm interpreting the "shall issue" wrong. Doesn't "shall issue" mean that police ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT DENY ME CCW PERMIT as long as I am: us citizen, state resident, not convictions/arrests, few hours of gun training. Yes ???

 

[armedpolak]

And...

...and most states have nothing to say when I'm purchasing a hand gun, right? Only CCW they issue permits, right?

 

[Frandy]

It's county by county and indeed, the sheriff can deny you a permit if he has "good cause." My experience with both Democratic and Republican sheriffs in Wake County is that "good cause" means that you don't pass muster against the federal or state requirements.

http://www.grnc.org/firearms.htm#eligible

And...

...and most states have nothing to say when I'm purchasing a hand gun, right? Only CCW they issue permits, right?

Not sure what you're asking here... The above is for purchasing a handgun.

 

[itgoesboom]

You have to have permission from a Police Officer in order to purchase a handgun in NC?

WOW. Just wow.

I wouldn't have expected that.

I.G.B.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Issueing authorities generally won't play games with the "good cause/good moral character" clauses lest it be deemed "infringement of a civil right under the color of law.", unless they know they've got a really good leg to stand on.

In order to use these clauses, they generally have to lean on other statutes that can be reasonably associated with "bad character", (ie, violations/convictions) and must also show consistency of application, both within their own unit,("we always reject people with 20 parking tickets!") and also show that their practice is consistent with other units under the same jurisdiction. ("and so does everyone else!")

It's not a game they're interested in playing, as it can easily lead to bad juju for them.

 

[kel]

Issueing authorities generally won't play games with the "good cause/good moral character" clauses lest it be deemed "infringement of a civil right under the color of law.", unless they know they've got a really good leg to stand on.

Not in MA, they will deny for any reason or no reason at all.
Can't speak for the specific language in other states, but they also seems to do it regularly in California, NY, and NJ.

 

[ArmedBear]

Issueing authorities generally won't play games with the "good cause/good moral character" clauses lest it be deemed "infringement of a civil right under the color of law.", unless they know they've got a really good leg to stand on.

Not here in California. Here, it's "whatever the Sheriff feels like." In my county, the Sheriff doesn't feel like issuing CCW permits. In the next county north, he feels like it a lot more often. Next few counties? Forget it. But the next county? De facto shall issue.

We need CCW reform, but too many Californians are scared that gangbangers will suddenly start shooting each other if they can just carry guns around. Oh wait...

 

[geekWithA.45]

In MA and CA, the OVERALL structure of the law is NOT "shall issue".

It is structured as MAY issue, where the discretion is statuatorily placed in the issuing authority's hands.

Counterexample: CT is structured as MAY issue de jure, but SHALL issue de facto.

NJ isn't even structured as MAY issue, it's actually structured more like "might issue in the face of an imminent, verifiable threat, maybe, if you live long enough to make it through the application process."

SHALL issue states have some weasel clauses too, but they are otherwise bound up by the rest of the law's overall structure.


Sigh.

I guess I should have explicitly caveated my statement to the scope of shall issue states. I thought that would be implied by the context of the thread, which was discussing weasel phrases in shall issue laws.

 

[Bruce333]

You're confusing 2 different Statutes.

Shall issue is for the Concealed Carry Permit. Take an approved class, pay the fee, fingerprints, pass background check and they have to give you a permit.

The Purchase Permit (for handguns only) is a different set of Statutes (left over from the Jim Crow law days). The intent of the purchase permit system was to keep "undesirables" (non-Good ole boys, if you get my drift) from buying handguns. With NICS and the CCW option, the Purchase Permit system really could be done away with. I've heard that in some Counties you can get the permit on the same day you apply, within minutes even. Also a Concealed Carry Permit bypasses the whole thing (walk into a store, show your CCW and buy a handgun, no waiting/no limit on number of guns).

 

[Jim March]

See, there's a few such leftover discretionary gun laws in the south. This permit purchase system in NC is one, the Alabama "discretionary according to the law, shall-issue in practice" CCW system is another. (The NRA records the latter as shall-issue while the Brady Zombies and the like call it may-issue. Each in their own way, both are right but practically the NRA is "more right".)

The deal is, EVERYBODY involved knows that these laws have a racist history and if they're in any glimmer of a fashion used in that way they'll be toast. The laws themselves that is. The cops administering these systems are being smart, they're using them only as a "last ditch measure" to keep a bad apple away from a gun. By and large that's fine.

In California, New York, Mass, Iowa, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Hawaii, they *pretend* that there's no racist past to these laws, pretend smugly that those states don't have racist histories to speak of (coughBSalertcough). So to varying degrees, they abuse these laws in a fashion that wouldn't last a red second in the South today. The minority CCW issuance rates in NY state, NYC itself (separate laws), Mass and Calif are all WAY screwed up from the demographics, by literally orders of magnatude more than the racial disparities in CCW issuance in shall-issue states in general and southern shall-issue states as well.

Mind you, there are STILL disparities. In Texas a black is about 50% less likely to have CCW than a white...they make up 10% of the population, 5% of the permitholders. The difference is in part "cultural", part due to higher rates of prior convictions and we can have a long discussion of the past and present causes. Hint: it's not genetic.

But the disparity in California is just out-of-control worse than that for black and Latino and other minorities. It would shock me if black CCW holders make up more than .05% or something like it of California's packin' population of about 40,000. Most of the disparity is due to radically low issuance rates in the areas blacks live; in some cases sheriffs will issue CCW to the portions of the county with fewer blacks but not in the high-minority-population towns.

 

[atlctyslkr]

Just my humble oppinion but if anywhere in the process a human is allowed to make a decision it's not shall issue. Most states have some law enforcment officer or judge somewhere in the process. It should be like getting a drivers license. Imagine passing the written test, the road test, and eye exam, and then being told "we don't feel you would be a good driver so we are denying you application."

I hear that Florida is about the most cut and dry process. Take a class, fill out some forms, send in fingerprint cards, pass the check and that's it.

 

[gezzer]

NH is easy go to selecmans office fill out the form pay 10 bucks in about 4-5 days go pick it up. No STINKIN classes Photo's or prints. Good for 4 years. Real shall issue is great.

 

[Saevar]

NC's CCW law is much the same. Take your class, file your application, pass your background check, pick up your permit. It is shall issue. The sheriff is operating exactly like the DMV examiner does in the driver's license process.

The purchase permit "good moral character" requirement is.... well.. to be frank, nonsense. In Wake county, at least. I made my application and recieved my purchase permits and the only person I interacted with was the clerk in the records office. The only actions she took were to inquire how she could help me, hand me the forms, and verify the date. At no point was my moral character being inspected. I did actually see the sheriff. When he was walking by with some of his friends. I assume he was coming back from lunch.

The good moral character clause is, at worst, an annoyance. It can't actually prevent you from purchasing a handgun. If your purchase permits are denied on moral grounds, you may have a case. However, the sheriff is technically following the law. Of course, you submit your carry permit application, where there is no discretion. After you have your carry permit, you show it to FFLs at time of purchase and walk out with your handgun.

Do I think the purchase permit process should exist? No. But as far as my firearms ownership worries go, this little item is very far down the list. Just above the worry that my handgun is going to float off the nightstand, aim itself at me, and pull its own trigger while I sleep. Would I support legislation to dump the purchase permit laws? In a heartbeat, as long as there wasn't some obnoxious additions.

 

[toivo]

NY State is definitely "discretion of the sheriff," not matter what the law reads. I'm mostly a shotgun and rimfire rifle shooter and I don't have a pistol permit; I've been told by friends to get one now if I want one because the current sheriff of my county is a "shall issue" kind of guy but will most likely be retiring after this term.