One Good Reason for "May Issue"

[mikeb302000]

The gun-rights folks keep saying that "may issue" programs for approving CCW permits are abused by the local police. In some cases this may be true, however the complainers always omit an obvious advantage to the "may issue" policy.

When a juvenile offender, like http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/10/washington-13-year-old-boy-shoots-dad.html">our most recent one in Washington, reaches the age of 21 and applies for a Concealed Carry permit he may very well qualify. Some of the worst, violent juvenile offenders have no convictions as an adult when applying for their permit. The local law enforcement is very familiar with these young people, who should be denied the permit for obvious reasons.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[FBaggins]

1. It's the same "good reason" for getting rid of "innocent until proven guilty"

IOW, it isn't a reason at all.

There are plenty of cases where "local law enforcement is very familiar" with a crime, but can't prove it to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Shall we give them discretion to decide when someone needs to stay in jail (or even be executed)?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[mikeb302000]

16. no, but we should defintely give them a say in CCW permits nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Only by *requiring* they enter disqualifying information into the NICS database.

Anything else is an invitation to corruption. Another poster has already mentioned Lee Baca, and his habit of making his
campaign contributors "special deputies" (or some such bullshit) so they could get CCW permits.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. "I'd like a cogent defense of the supposed virtues of 'may-issue' laws."

One of my better posts, if I may say so:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=302907#303419

As far as I can tell, they are:

They keep power and money flowing toward the authority figure responsible for issuing permits, and keep people with
unpopular ethnic backgrounds from legally carrying concealed handguns.

[FBaggins]

19. A "say" as long as there's no denial authority involved.

If they're aware of something that state legislators didn't consider when setting the must-issue guidelines, then I suppose you could give them an ability to appeal to a court.

But they absolutely should not have the ability to deny the application absent such an exception.

The point you're missing by moving on from a simple "no" is that the principle is the same. We live in a nation that would rather see ten guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man. We also don't leave personal rights up to some individual's judgement because someone somewhere might slip through a crack in the existing system.

[gejohnston]

3. depending on state law

if convicted, that will say on his public record. Local law enforcement would not know him unless you are talking about sparsely populated areas like where I am from.
Some cases may be true? How about NYC and LA County? Definitely true.

In 1999, Baca established a special reserves program. According to the Los Angeles Times, the program was designed to cater to celebrities, executives, star athletes and other "notable persons." Some members of the Sheriff's Department said they were worried that the program would be abused, particularly by those seeking a backdoor way to secure a concealed weapons permit in Los Angeles County.<6>
Within a month of Baca swearing in his first new celebrity reserve deputies, one of his recruits, Scott Zacky, had been suspended and relieved of duty for brandishing a firearm in a confrontation outside his Bel-Air home. The program would eventually be suspended.<7> Less than six months later, another member of the special celebrity reserve unit was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of international money laundering. No well-known celebrities joined the program, and less than 20 little-known wealthy individuals actually participated. It was suspended in November, 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Baca

of course, my rant about Don Imus and Aerosmith in NYC is easy to find.

[pipoman]

4. There is no good reason for may issue

people should have the same rights regardless if Joe Arapio likes their skin color or not. Equal protection and all that. Some people are fine with allowing for privileged people to determine, based on their prejudices, who gets rights and who doesn't...reasonable doubt and due process are so 1700's.

[-..__...]

5. Or, one more good reason to try certain juvenile offenders as adults.

WRT to the cited case... not enough facts are given to say which legal avenue should be pursued.

[FBaggins]

6. Or at least have some offenses retained in records beyond age 18. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Child offenders...

...are offenders. Everyone should be charged the same. I can not think of a crime where the victim is less damaged because the assailant is under 18. Those murdered are no less dead due to the perp's age. Those raped are no less raped.

If you plead not guilty by reason of mental defect, the outcome of the trial should be the same. Violent offenders NEVER get to buy, own or carry weapons. Yes that includes those who are mentally defective, whether permanent or short term. All violent individuals should be locked up and become eligible for release upon death or when you are able to PROVE you are not a danger to anyone.

[krispos42]

7. It's up to the state legislatures.

I would assume it is possible for a juvenile convict to have his records expunged upon reaching majority, yet also have his or her name on the same "do not issue" list as adult convicts or mentally ill. Officers who had to deal with him in the future would know he couldn't get a firearm OR a permit, although they wouldn't know why.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. "He may very well qualify". Monkeys 'may' fly out of your ass as well.

Quit making up bullshit. Of course he would be disqualified. Washington state only allows you to vacate certain NON VIOLENT convictions.

Expungement is not an option for violent crimes, nor a "crime against a person". They can't even seal a class A offense committed by a minor for 5 years after the sentence is served and a probationary period of five years in the general populace post-release. (2 years for B-C violations)

RCW 9.94a.640 and RCW 13.50.050

Good fucking job, genius. Making up something out of nothing.


May-issue has a solid history of nepotism, favoritism, racism, and a bunch of other shit. If you aren't friends with the mayor or police chief, or you aren't obscenely rich, chances are good you're not getting a permit. Pretty much amounts to class warfare. Nice to see you on the wrong side.

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Man DU needs an upvote system. +1000.

May issue gets you the kind of government where people with money and connections get what they want.

It is extraordinarily unprogressive.

[Remmah2]

9. I got my permit in June.

The bastards cheated me out of a month.

[SteveM]

10. ME! I was "issued" on May 3, 1948!

Problem: If the idea of "sealed records" are to have any meaning, then LEO cannot "abuse" the process by keeping an informal record then at that "very familiar" moment, letting it out to prevent a gun being issued; in fact, some "violent juvenile" could seek redress on that basis -- unless you wish the may-issue schemes to be further corrupted by squatting all over the 5th Amendment's due process clause.

[ileus]

13. Write your congressman.

[rl6214]

14. The King has a congressman?

Shouldn't he just petition The Pope?

Besides, as an admitted illegal gun owner, even may issue won't help him out.

[ileus]

15. shouldn't he have one of these and this to prevent his guns from falling in the wrong hands?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

20. If any of that were actually true...

...you may have a point. Since it isnt, you dont. As usual, more lies, conjecture and blogspam from the king...