Havegunjoe
Member
With the repeal of our MPPA for the time being our police chiefs have taken this as their opportunity to revert back to their old, I am God, attituted. 
There was a very good piece in the Pioneer Press yesterday that demonstrates this:
If he can't carry a gun, who can?
MARK YOST
If the Minnesota Court of Appeals is having trouble deciding the fate of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act, they should consider the story of Matthew Dirks. The 23-year-old East Side native served 15 months with the Army in Iraq at Baghdad International Airport and Camp Dogwood. Last week, St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington denied him a carry permit.
Dirks' primary job in Iraq was repairing the weapons systems on Bradley Fighting Vehicles. He also stood guard with the M249 light machine gun and .50-caliber heavy machine gun. He has fired the TOW anti-tank missile, the 25 mm cannon on the Bradley, the M-16, thrown grenades and "a few extra bonuses that came with my job," he said in a recent interview. Despite all this experience, he was denied a carry permit under the system the concealed-carry law was designed to replace.
Before MPPA, local law enforcement had unfettered discretion on issuing carry permits. If you mistakenly took the sheriff's parking space one day and ticked him off, he could deny you a permit, no questions asked. If you were the sheriff's buddy but he knew you beat your wife and kids, he could still give you one. It was totally up to him.
The MPPA sought to change that system by establishing a clear set of objective criteria for issuing — and denying — carry permits. Under the MPPA, county sheriffs and chiefs of police were required to issue permits to anyone 21 or older who had completed safety training with a certified instructor and was not banned from having a gun for common-sense reasons like a history of mental illness or a past criminal record.
When he got back from Iraq, Dirks learned that USProtect, a Silver Springs, Md.-based security firm, was hiring guards for the Minnesota Air National Guard Base. Dirks signed up for a training class with John Caile, a certified instructor and the spokesman for Concealed Carry Reform Now, the Minnesota group that is largely credited with successfully lobbying for passage of the MPPA. Not surprisingly, Dirks "passed with flying colors," Caile said.
The first time Dirks went to St. Paul police to fill out a permit application, he was told they were only accepting applications from people who were already employed by a security firm. When he told the clerk he needed the permit to get hired, he was told he couldn't even submit an application.
A few days later Dirks went back and this time was allowed to fill out an application. Last week, he got his rejection letter.
"It is my experience that security companies do not require a person to be in possession of a permit to carry prior to employment," said the letter, which was signed by Harrington. "In fact, security companies regularly assist their new hires as they apply for permits."
"Yes, it is company policy that [prospective employees] have the permit," said Pat Philbin, senior vice president of government relations and communications for USProtect. In fact, it's listed in the qualifications section of the online posting for the Minnesota position (www.usprotect.com/careerUSAF/careerUSAF_Minneapolis.html#Officer).
"If there is a specific company that is requiring you to have a permit before they'll consider hiring you, please provide me with the name and phone number of the company and the name of the company officer whom I can talk to," the letter from Harrington said. A St. Paul police spokeswoman was looking into the issue, but had not yet gotten back to me.
What makes Dirks' ordeal even more frustrating is that he's exactly the kind of person USProtect would like to hire.
"Veterans are clearly on our radar scope; we love to employ them," Philbin said. "They understand the culture and they get along extremely well in our environment."
Clearly, two things should happen as a result of Dirks' ordeal. The Court of Appeals should realize that regardless of its legislative genesis, the MPPA is a far better system than what we had before. And Harrington should give Dirks his permit.
There was a very good piece in the Pioneer Press yesterday that demonstrates this:If he can't carry a gun, who can?
MARK YOST
If the Minnesota Court of Appeals is having trouble deciding the fate of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act, they should consider the story of Matthew Dirks. The 23-year-old East Side native served 15 months with the Army in Iraq at Baghdad International Airport and Camp Dogwood. Last week, St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington denied him a carry permit.
Dirks' primary job in Iraq was repairing the weapons systems on Bradley Fighting Vehicles. He also stood guard with the M249 light machine gun and .50-caliber heavy machine gun. He has fired the TOW anti-tank missile, the 25 mm cannon on the Bradley, the M-16, thrown grenades and "a few extra bonuses that came with my job," he said in a recent interview. Despite all this experience, he was denied a carry permit under the system the concealed-carry law was designed to replace.
Before MPPA, local law enforcement had unfettered discretion on issuing carry permits. If you mistakenly took the sheriff's parking space one day and ticked him off, he could deny you a permit, no questions asked. If you were the sheriff's buddy but he knew you beat your wife and kids, he could still give you one. It was totally up to him.
The MPPA sought to change that system by establishing a clear set of objective criteria for issuing — and denying — carry permits. Under the MPPA, county sheriffs and chiefs of police were required to issue permits to anyone 21 or older who had completed safety training with a certified instructor and was not banned from having a gun for common-sense reasons like a history of mental illness or a past criminal record.
When he got back from Iraq, Dirks learned that USProtect, a Silver Springs, Md.-based security firm, was hiring guards for the Minnesota Air National Guard Base. Dirks signed up for a training class with John Caile, a certified instructor and the spokesman for Concealed Carry Reform Now, the Minnesota group that is largely credited with successfully lobbying for passage of the MPPA. Not surprisingly, Dirks "passed with flying colors," Caile said.
The first time Dirks went to St. Paul police to fill out a permit application, he was told they were only accepting applications from people who were already employed by a security firm. When he told the clerk he needed the permit to get hired, he was told he couldn't even submit an application.
A few days later Dirks went back and this time was allowed to fill out an application. Last week, he got his rejection letter.
"It is my experience that security companies do not require a person to be in possession of a permit to carry prior to employment," said the letter, which was signed by Harrington. "In fact, security companies regularly assist their new hires as they apply for permits."
"Yes, it is company policy that [prospective employees] have the permit," said Pat Philbin, senior vice president of government relations and communications for USProtect. In fact, it's listed in the qualifications section of the online posting for the Minnesota position (www.usprotect.com/careerUSAF/careerUSAF_Minneapolis.html#Officer).
"If there is a specific company that is requiring you to have a permit before they'll consider hiring you, please provide me with the name and phone number of the company and the name of the company officer whom I can talk to," the letter from Harrington said. A St. Paul police spokeswoman was looking into the issue, but had not yet gotten back to me.
What makes Dirks' ordeal even more frustrating is that he's exactly the kind of person USProtect would like to hire.
"Veterans are clearly on our radar scope; we love to employ them," Philbin said. "They understand the culture and they get along extremely well in our environment."
Clearly, two things should happen as a result of Dirks' ordeal. The Court of Appeals should realize that regardless of its legislative genesis, the MPPA is a far better system than what we had before. And Harrington should give Dirks his permit.
