Wife's CCW interview with Sheriff

[ZeSpectre]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ZeSpectre]

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]

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]

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 He sure knows what to say to keep himself out of trouble.

 

[MaterDei]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?