News - Sheriff cracking down on gun permits - sacbee.com

From the Sacramento Bee:

Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness has revoked concealed weapon permits of a gubernatorial appointee and a state parole official while also vowing to overhaul permit record keeping, both in the wake of a Bee investigation.

Syd, at the Snub Nose Press.

The sheriff's office noted that both public officials for had been cited for driving under the influence (DUI), found that they had Concealed Carry Permits (CCP), and yanked their carry licenses.

McGinness said he canceled both permits because the holders displayed questionable judgment.

"Generally, a DUI conviction on your record should be presumed to be a disqualifier," for a concealed gun permit, he said.

The Sheriff's Department can allow people to carry a loaded gun if they have "good moral character" and prove they have "good cause" for needing a gun, according to state law. But the state grants leeway to local law enforcement in determining which applicants fit those definitions.

I think this was an appropriate action. Possession of a CCP (known in Oregon, under technically different legislative action as a Conceal Handgun License, or CHL) implies that the recipient is trusted to demonstrate responsible judgment under all circumstances. In these cases, the possession of a handgun was not a factor in the violation; however, the violation of law serves to demonstrate that the licensee was not morally or legally responsible.

Holding CCP bearers to a higher standard seems entirely appropriate, in this litigious society.

However, the state law obviously is less inclusive than a 'shall issue' standard. To continue from the previous quote:

The Sheriff's Department can allow people to carry a loaded gun if they have "good moral character" and prove they have "good cause" for needing a gun, according to state law. But the state grants leeway to local law enforcement in determining which applicants fit those definitions.

Despite that, The Bee's investigation found a number of questionable calls, including permits granted for such needs as carrying a lot of money or wearing expensive jewelry. A bounty hunter received a concealed weapon permit even though he had been accused of domestic violence and had been subject to a temporary restraining order – although he was never convicted of a crime.

[Ed: emphasis added]

...

The Bee's review found that [former Sacramento County Sheriff] Blanas had issued a concealed weapon permit to a campaign contributor who bought a vacation home with him and to a couple who contributed cash and liquor to his campaigns, who were allowed to complete their gun training at the department's officer-only range.

In a 'shall issue' state, such as Oregon, patrimony and political contributions are not considered. If a citizen here can show that he is of good moral (and legal) character, with certain other restrictions, and can provide signed testaments to that effect and proof of hangun training, the county 'shall issue' the permit. That is, there is no requirement to establish a 'need' to carry a concealed weapon. That 'need' clause is rife with possibilities to abuse, and is not necessary. In a free society, an honest citizen should not be required to state the circumstances under which he 'needs' to carry a weapon. The very fact of rampant predation in all 50 states should suffice. More, the 2nd amendment supports the 'shall issue' clause.

Compare this to the 'need' to vote, and the ways in which voter qualification laws have historically been abused in the interest of preventing the Negro vote.

We don't have to establish a 'need' to vote, or to possess the right to defend ourselves; those rights are acknowledged in the Constitution.

In 1964, while a college student (under 21 years of age!), I applied for and was 'granted' a Concealed Carry License by a sheriff in Oregon on the grounds that I worked in the summer months as a traveling salesman, carrying cash. My 'need' was, in fact, legitimate. But I traveled 12 months of the year, and my 'need' was as great as a student traveling between college and my parental home on weekends ... but I couldn't get a license to carry without demonstrating that the possible risk of theft was a legitimate justification for the ability to defend myself.

I found that irksome 44 years ago, and resented that the State required me to acquiesce to the concept that the 'need' to protect my employer's money was more important than my 'need to protect my private person.

I resent it still.