Sheriff: Uncomfortable with 50-75 gun permits

[47of74]

Source: Dubuque Telegraph Herald

Dubuque County Sheriff Don Vrotsos said Monday that he felt uncomfortable with between about 50 and 75 individuals who have been issued gun permits since changes to the carry-law took effect Jan. 1, taking the power away from the sheriff to deny a request.

Vrtosos said the worry comes from a variety of reasons, including his inability to deny individuals with past mental health issues.

“That person can go up a dozen times (for treatment) over the last five years and we can’t do anything about it,” he told the supervisors during a work session involving a possible weapons ban on county properties. “We still have to sign that permit. There is some legitimate reasons why they should be denied and we don’t have the discretion really anymore to do that.”

Read more: http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=308943

---

He's talking about how he lost discretion when Iowa became a "shall issue" state.

[sharesunited]

1. Sheriff, if you are uncomfortable with those issuances

then publish the names and addresses of the winners of those permits so that we can watch them very very carefully. If we think any of them are "not quite right," we will let the public know.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharesunited]

3. Come on, he is a custodian of criminal records and has favored access to them.

He is a person legislatures themselves have deemed an appropriate gatekeeper.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. You mention criminal records when OP quotes mental health issues.

"Vrtosos said the worry comes from a variety of reasons, including his inability to deny individuals with past mental health issues (emphasis mine).

Where do criminal records come into play here? Your argument is that since he has access to criminal records, he should be the final arbiter of whose permit gets issued. You seem to be trying to walk on both sides of the street. His argument seems to be that he's worried about a person's past mental health issues, yet you use the issue of criminal records to make the argument that he's the guy who should make the decision.

[boppers]

6. Mentally ill people frequently wind up with police records.

When a person is arrested for disorderly behavior, and placed under observation, that shows up. When they make death threats, that shows up. When they're accused, but not arrested or charged, that shows up. No "criminal record" in many cases (no judge, no sentencing, etc.), but there's still a record.

Whether or not a Sheriff is professionally capable of making a mental health judgement call is worth considering, but if somebody has a history of calls being made over domestic disturbances at their house, adding a concealed carry permit to the mix probably isn't a good idea.

Side note: Kokopelli and Cherokee? Interesting combination.

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. Not every mentally unstable person winds up with a criminal record.

I would add that a Sheriff should never have access to a person's medical records, IMO. For that reason, I would argue that a Sheriff shouldn't be the final arbiter of who can be trusted to carry a weapon in public.

You are the only person who noticed the disconnect between the kokopelli and my Cherokee heritage. I can say that safely because you know how DU is... make a mistake of some sort and you're gonna get jumped most times, especially if it's a cultural one. I adopted it because it's readily identifiable as something many understand to be a "Native American" (for want of a better term) symbol. I actually have a kokopelli tatooed on my right shin.

Crap I forgot to mention that I just changed my avatar in honor of the fact that BASEBALL SEASON is coming soon... not soon enough in my opinion.

Go Dodgers!

[boppers]

10. Sheriff's do it here in Oregon.

The only past issues IIRC, were teabaggers who liked to show up at political events and get in people's faces, who were subsequently unhappy to learn that the law enforcement community frowned upon that...

I don't know about "final arbiter", but I don't think a medical doctor (who didn't know about somebody's legal history) would be any better. It seems like there would be a rational solution, or, as some states have decided, just let anybody carry until there's strong legal grounds to ban them (like, a felony, where they kill 6 people at a political event).

I had noticed the kokopelli thing a day or two ago, and didn't say anything.... but my guess was pretty much accurate. I personally find it rather hilarious when used as a generic symbol, especially in questionable contexts (say, as a motif at an abortion clinic, or rape crisis center).

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. How about a panel composed of LEO's and Medical Professionals?

Those from the different fields can cast a vote without having to justify to the other why they voted a certain way, and the only requirement should be that the ONLY reason NOT to issue the permit is some kind of past problem either criminally or mentally. By that I mean ANY kind of past criminal violation or ANY kind of past mental health issue.

I don't see the kokopelli as a generic symbol at all. I don't see a huge distinction between tribes. All are Native Americans, and ALL were fucked royally by the arrival of white Europeans.

There isdocumentation of a similar figure showing up in the southeast hundreds of years after the first known appearance of those in the southwest, so I don't feel out of line adopting it as a personal symbol due to the fact that I have Great Grandparents who are listed on the Dawes Rolls; Toolie Catron and Hester Flute. All Indians (that's how my relatives on the reservation in Tahlequah, OK self-identify) are from the same tribe in my mind, and that's pretty much how the white Europeans treated them anyway.

[boppers]

15. A panel might make sense.

Just pondering some possible downsides... for example, would "ANY kind of past mental health issue" include garden variety depression, after their younger brother died, when the person was a teenager?

By generic, I mean along these lines:
http://www.kokopellistore.com/

In Arizona it's used to the point of being a meaningless motif.

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. I wouldn't be averse to having a mental health professional voting one way or another due to

the time period and seriousness of the issue. The same with the LE professionals deciding that a misdemeanor committed as a young adult after a certain time period has passed. Remember, I'd leave the issue in the hands of those two professions and not require them to justify their decision.

I understand completely what you mean now about the generic kokopelli thing. Hell, I live in an area known as Big Bear. I love the area and plan to stay here for the rest of my life but damn; if I never see another wooden bear carved with a chainsaw I'll die a happier man than I would have otherwise.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Hardly.

I have a question or two for you. Do you believe that the Preamble to the Constitution has any binding legal standing? If your answer is yes, then what definition do you give the phrase "the people" as it's written in the Preamble? Do you take "the people" to mean some kind of government entity, like a militia, or regular everyday citizens?

On the other hand, do you believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't confer any kind of rights whatsoever, but merely limits the power of the government?

[sharesunited]

11. The People are the Commonwealth. The governed whose consent was originally sought.

The framers did not fully appreciate the depths of depravity to which they were referring when they spoke of the People.

You know the expression It Takes All Kinds?

Well our bounds of governance need to ride that shitstorm very goddamn closely.

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. I don't even know how to answer that ramble.

You failed to answer whether you see the Bill of Rights as conferring rights or limiting government power though.

[sharesunited]

16. To the extent it confers rights it limits power. But it needs to respond to today's reality.

If it doesn't, then the Fourth Amendment protection only extends to how sophisticated technology becomes to detect criminality without probable cause.

If it doesn't, then the Second Amendment protects the widespread availability of technology which gives any individual the power to terminate the rights of one or more individuals literally within seconds-- completely and capriciously.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. I have to disagree. The bill of rights confers no rights whatsoever, conversely it limits the

rights of the government.

Here's what I mean...

First Amendment: "shall make no law"

Second Amendment: "shall not be infringed"

Third Amendment: "No soldier shall... without consent of the owner"

Fourth Amendment: "shall not be violated"

Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... nor shall any person... nor shall be compelled... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." While this might be construed as conferring a right, I see it as limiting the government's power in criminal prosecutions.

Seventh Amendment: "no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States"

Eighth Amendment: "shall not be required"

Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Holy Moley, consider THAT in the context of trying to say the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee individuals the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[customerserviceguy]

4. Clearly, the legislature and governor of Iowa

have made that decision, probably because of arbitrary decisions by sheriffs who didn't get enough campaign contributions, or whatever.

Any discussion of this law should be accompanied by comparing the murders in Iowa with that of other places with more restrictive laws.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

As you can see, Iowa's pretty low on the list. Interesting thing about that 2009 chart, Vermont, with permissive gun laws, has zero firearms murders for the year.

[Skittles]

12. thank the NRA

:puke:

[old mark]

17. I was refused a license many years ago because I had long hair...

I have no sympathy for the sheriff's "discomfort"...He should follow the law.


mark

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply

Do this, don't do that...
Can't you read the sign?

[old mark]

22. Actually, the Sheriff told me hisownself...Now that I am bald I have no problem...nt

[diveguy]

21. I live in a shall issue state.

the laws says that the sheriff or judge shall issue a permit unless they know that the person cannot legally receive that permit.

It is against the law ( federal ) for someone with mental health issues to purchase or possess firearms. So, if the sheriff knows an applicant has issues, why give it to them.

[melm00se]

23. It appears that there might be some confusion

regarding what "shall issue" means.

there are 4 kinds of states as it relates to firearm licensing (especially as it relates to handguns and concealed carry permits: unrestricted, shall issue, may issue and no issue.

Unrestricted: that's exactly the way it sounds. If you want to buy a handgun, all you have to do is prove you are a resident of that state and of legal age (a driver's license will do) and you can buy a pistol, stick it in your belt at the small of your back and away you go.

Shall Issue: Shall issue states are ones that require that the sheriff issue a permit unless the applicant fails one, or more, clearly defined criteria. For example, in NC (a shall issue state), the sheriff can deny issuing you a pistol permit (or a concealed carry permit) if you have a DUI conviction. In NC, "shall issue" laws were passed to overcome some of the earlier weapons laws that date from the Jim Crow era. The applications used to require at least one person, of "good moral" character (read: white) to vouch for another's "good moral character" (again read: white). Exactly what was defined as "good moral character" varied from county to county so you had situations were a white guy, with a long list of criminal behavior, could get a pistol and a black man, with no criminal history and background, couldn't.

May-Issue: These states allow for sheriffs (or other issuing authorities) to deny the issuance of a weapons permit for purely subjective reasons (even if the applicant meets all the requirements).

No issue: This is exactly the way it sounds: the state will not issue a pistol permit (usually concealed carry) at all.

Here is a map that shows the various statuses:



"Shall issue" states cannot, capriciously, deny a pistol permit. If, as the above sheriff claims, these folks failed one or more of the hurdles placed in front of the applicant, then he is under no pressure to issue a permit. If, OTOH, they pass all the hurdles, he can't deny a permit for such nebulous reasons as "I don't like his looks" or "he lives in a high crime area".

A little bit of my experience with 2 of these situations:

I lived in NYS (a "may issue" state) for 30+ years and I took all the required classes, got fingerprinted, filled out the voluminous amounts of paperwork and submitted for a pistol permit (for target shooting...no concealed carry just the right to purchase a handgun and the ability to transport it to and from the firing range) and was, after 2 years of waiting, denied. No reason given, just a nice form letter stating that my application was denied. I called a few friends of mine (one of which was the son of a state judge) and found out that in my county the you could get a permit was to have some political pull within the county and/or have a job that required a handgun (security guard etc). I was advised to appeal the ruling and my buddies father would speak for me with the signing judge. 3 years later, after I had moved, my appeal came up on the docket. Needless to say, I didn't make the appearance. As to a concealed carry permit? good luck. a full concealed carry permit requires that you get a regular permit, then a limited concealed permit and then, finally, a full concealed permit.

I moved to NC (a "shall issue" state). I applied for a pistol purchase permit. $25, 1 form, an NCIC check and 5 days later I picked up my permit. My concealed carry permit is currently pending with the county: I passed the classroom component, proved my competency with a handgun, got fingerprinted (that took most of the day) and paid my fee. The state, so far, has requested:

My medical records (insurance company called to verify I asked for this)
My credit
My driving record
and, I assume, any criminal record(s) I might have (which is none).

If everything runs true to form, I should have my permit at about the 60 day (out of the 90 day maximum) mark.