At what level do you lose your permit? (Higher than I thought.)

D

DaleA

New member
At what level do you lose your permit? (Higher than I thought.)

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/277286541.html

The article is kind of long. Don’t be fooled by the ads they put in the middle of the article, if you scroll past the ads you’ll find the story continues.

Here’s an article where a Minnesota judge ruled against a sheriff that was trying to pull the gun permit of a somewhat troubled honorably discharged Marine veteran that served in Iraq as a helicopter mechanic.

At one time the man said he thought about killing himself. At another time he said he felt threatened by a police officer investigating his case and was carrying a gun out of fear.

The sheriff petitioned to have the man’s permit revoked but the judge ruled against the sheriff saying the evidence did not rise to the level needed. The judge mentioned that the man had never made a direct threat against anyone.

I kind of always thought that a judge would pretty much always agree to take someone’s permit away if asked by law enforcement for any reason. I see I was wrong.

I sure hope the man finds some solution to his problems and that things work out for him.
 
Without knowing more, it's hard to judge.

Eid contacted the offices of U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar and U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen in March and April this year to complain about how he was being treated at the VA. Concerned about what they regarded as the increasingly threatening tone of his complaints, staffers from both offices contacted U.S. Capitol Police.
Click to expand...

On the face, this echoes the concerns and frustrations of many vets dealing with the VA. He may very well have gotten testy. Klobuchar, who's hardly a friend to gun owners, might have overreacted.

On the other hand, there might have been valid reason to question Eid's mental stability.

As to the central question: what does it take to get a permit revoked? It depends on an individual state's laws. For example, Tennessee has a troubling clause that allows revocation if the permit holder "poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public." Judges in that state have been known to be pretty broad in their interpretation of that (see Leonard Embody).
 
(see Leonard Embody).
Click to expand...

Embody DOES present a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public. That harm is just more likely to be philosophical/legal/political than physical, which is what the statute probably was meant for.

the evidence did not rise to the level needed.
Click to expand...

That's the way it's supposed to be. Who hasn't had their mind wander into some weird and crazy areas when they're daydreaming? Had that 10 second revenge fantasy about popping that jerk you just dealt with in the face? The thoughts this guy had may have been a bit more serious than an idle daydream, but as a society we still prefer to re-act to someone's actions, not thought. The idea of thought policing is pretty distasteful to a lot of people.
 
It's a permit to carry; there's no FOID or the like in MN. If you don't have a permit to carry, you do have to have a state background check to purchase or otherwise receive a transfer of a handgun -- you can get a permit that's valid for a year, or for a one-time purchase, a dealer can also do a background check by phone.
 
All you can really say is that in that place, before that judge, the police did not make a persuasive argument.

There are judges who will revoke a concealed permit for any infraction of law, There are those that will do so without an actual violation of law, if convinced there is a risk.

There are those who require a certain degree of proof, and will not act on someone else's suspicions alone.

It is VERY MUCH a matter of who, what, and where the case involves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top