Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Van Wert vet fights for concealed handgun license (Ohio)
Lima News ^ | June 10, 2013 | GREG SOWINSKI

Posted on 06/11/2013 7:39:17 AM PDT by Deadeye Division

VAN WERT — Persian Gulf War veteran James Redmon was in a different fight Monday, in a courtroom battling for his right to carry a concealed handgun.

He was treated for post-traumatic stress disorder more than six years ago. Van Wert County Sheriff Thomas Riggenbach cited PTSD as the reason he denied Redmon a concealed handgun license in a March 6 letter.

The 44-year-old Redmon said Riggenbach misinterpreted the law and he should get his license.

The matter was argued in a courtroom Monday and as it turns out, there’s a little more to the story.

Redmon was once charged with two felonies, aggravated burglary and aggravated assault. The burglary charge was dropped and he pleaded guilty to the aggravated assault as part of a procedure that allowed him to accept treatment in lieu of conviction. After successfully completing treatment the conviction never was entered so there is no felony on his record that would disqualify him.

Riggenbach said Monday he also took Redmon’s criminal history into consideration when making his decision even though he does not have a conviction.

“I did the right thing based on what the law tells me to do,” Riggenbach said.

But Redmon said there’s more to the 2006 criminal case that is not a conviction.

“I was a combat vet who beat up a drug dealer trying to save someone’s life,” he said.

Redmon said he warned a drug dealer to stay away from someone and was trying to keep that person from using drugs. The dealer did not listen so he kicked in the door to the drug dealer’s house and beat up the dealer.

The sheriff said the criminal history combined with the PTSD was the reason for denial.

“I’m not going to deny a concealed carry license solely on a PTSD issue,” he said. “I took the totality of all the information and circumstances that I had in front of me to make my decision.”

Riggenbach said he follows Ohio law, which says a sheriff “shall issue” a license. The "shall issue" language removes most discretion from sheriffs when issuing a concealed handgun license. He said he’s issued 276 licenses this year since he became sheriff and only has denied two.

The section of the law the sheriff cited in the letter to Redmon deals with whether a person has been committed to a mental health facility or ruled to be incompetent, neither of which apply to Redmon.

Judge Charles Steele of Van Wert Common Pleas Court asked both sides to file written legal arguments. He will make a decision sometime after that, probably in about a month.

In the meantime, Redmon said he will continue to carry a gun openly for all to see, which is legal in Ohio. He has carried that way for the past 14 years, he said.

Redmon said he is not a risk to the public.

“If I’m out on the street with a weapon the public is safer. I’m a trained expert,” he said.

Redmon decided to apply for his concealed handgun license so he could carry a loaded gun in his truck instead of separating the gun from the ammunition every time he drove his pickup truck. Ohio law allows a concealed handgun license holder to carry a loaded gun in the car.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: banglist; ccw; concealedcarry; guncontrol; secondamendment

1 posted on 06/11/2013 7:39:17 AM PDT by Deadeye Division
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

Hmmm, I believe that it was appropriate for the Sheriff to deny the carry permit. The prior lack of judgement on the part of the applicant is concerning enough to send this to a court. That way both sides can make their case.


2 posted on 06/11/2013 7:49:38 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

Ohio sheriffs are a dangerous lot.

He says he took the totality of what was in front of him, but according to the law it was just the PTSD six years earlier.

The sheriff should lose based on the law.


3 posted on 06/11/2013 7:51:13 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

“Hmmm, I believe that it was appropriate for the Sheriff to deny the carry permit.”

You can believe in little green men too if you like, but what the Sheriff did is in direct contradiction to Ohio law.

Sheriff’s do not have such discretion under Ohio law, even though **somtimes** (I’m not suggesting anything related to this matter) it might be appropriate.

The trouble is, more likely than not, discretion gets abused (Hawaii, NY, Kommiefornia, etc.)


4 posted on 06/11/2013 7:55:02 AM PDT by BB62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division
I hope Redmon wins.
Not all "Mental Problems" or past actions should disqualify a person from defending himself.
Especially in light of APA trying to normalize just about everything abnormal while declaring Caffeine Withdrawal a mental disorder.

5 posted on 06/11/2013 7:56:40 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division
Evidently just being charged makes you a felon. You don't have to actually be convicted.
6 posted on 06/11/2013 7:59:55 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("Forget it, Jake. It's Eric Holder's people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

Sheriff Riggenbach acted properly.


7 posted on 06/11/2013 8:01:10 AM PDT by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Well this is just stupid.
He has carried that way for the past 14 years

The man has been carrying a loaded firearm and no problems have resulted.
All he wants is a concealed carry for transportation purposes (which only serves to highlight the stupidity in Ohio gun laws).

He has shown himself to not be a threat (except to drug dealers who attempt to hook his friends, and to that I say, "Right on!").

8 posted on 06/11/2013 8:03:36 AM PDT by grobdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Hmmm The law doesn’t matter is your conclusion. ALSO look that the guys history of open CARRY. As far as beating the hell out of a drug dealer being wrong, what did the law do about the dealer? The way the related charges were handled leads to: Hmmm, the guy did a good thing. Too many Libs and too little Street Justice.


9 posted on 06/11/2013 8:06:33 AM PDT by Tuketu (The Dim Platform is splinters bound by crazy glue. We need a solvent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Carry permit = infringement.

If he can’t be trusted on the street with a gun, he can’t be trusted on the street.

Forcing him to remain on the street while denying him, under color of law, a constitutionally-protected means of self-defense, should be regarded as an act of barbarous cruelty on a par with throwing a paralytic into a swimming pool without a flotation device.

IMHO.


10 posted on 06/11/2013 8:23:54 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (It's been over 90 days; time to start on 2014. Carpe GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

Sheriff didnt follow the law he made up his own.


11 posted on 06/11/2013 8:31:05 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Obama's Enemies List - Yes, you are a crook.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol; Deadeye Division
The burglary charge was dropped
Felony #1, never happened, off the table.

the conviction never was entered so there is no felony on his record that would disqualify him.
Felony #2 never happened, off the table. Unless, of course, the sheriff is entitled to rely on some sort of "Star Chamber" record.

After successfully completing [PTSD] treatment
Completion no doubt to the satisfaction of the court and/or the prosecutor. PTSD is off the table unless the sheriff has the authority to override the findings of the court and/or prosecutor.

I’m not going to deny a concealed carry license solely on a PTSD issue…
There is no PTSD issue, but it is good to hear that if there was, you would not rely solely on that point…so what else do you have (other than your apparent bias and perceived power)?

I did the right thing based on what the law tells me to do
The law tells you that you “shall issue”. What have you got to override the law?

Didn't think so, next case. (There ought to be a new Sheriff in town.)

12 posted on 06/11/2013 8:37:52 AM PDT by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." This from a guy who never had a real job and his family starved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

Ohio: Senate Committee to Hear Important Right-to-Carry Confidentiality Legislation this Wednesday

This Wednesday, June 12, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee will hold its first hearing on legislation to further protect the confidentiality of concealed handgun license holders. Senate Bill 60, sponsored by state Senator Joe Uecker (R-14), would permanently protect the confidentiality of concealed handgun license holders throughout the Buckeye State by eliminating the journalist access exception to this information.

SB 60 is a vital step towards ensuring the protection and safety of law-abiding gun owners given the history of journalists who have abused the current system to obtain personal information—including the name, county of residence and date of birth—of license holders in Ohio. This measure affords Ohio carry license holders the same protections that residents in forty states already enjoy due to Right-to-Carry confidentiality laws in place.

This legislation is especially important given recent instances nationally of anti-gun media outlets publishing the names and addresses of carry license holders. Such publications put law-abiding gun owners at risk and jeopardize their safety. Enactment of SB 60 would ensure that this egregious violation of privacy never happens in Ohio.

Please call AND e-mail members of the state Senate Criminal Justice Committee and urge them to support SB 60 this Wednesday.

http://nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/6/ohio-senate-committee-to-hear-important-right-to-carry-confidentiality-legislation-this-wednesday.aspx


13 posted on 06/11/2013 8:42:21 AM PDT by Deadeye Division
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
taxcontrol said: "The prior lack of judgement on the part of the applicant is concerning enough to send this to a court."

Can you explain why the burden is on the citizen rather than on the Sheriff? Why wouldn't it be a legal burden on the Sheriff to prove lack of qualification rather than the reverse? Which of your rights would you allow a Sheriff to deny, requiring YOU to sue in order to exercise them?

The Sheriff should be required to issue the license and then spend the tax-payers money to prove that the license should be revoked, certainly not the other way around.

14 posted on 06/11/2013 9:29:59 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division; ADemocratNoMore; Akron Al; arbee4bush; agrace; ATOMIC_PUNK; Badeye; ...

Ohio Ping


15 posted on 06/11/2013 10:12:09 AM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BB62; William Tell; frog in a pot; ExGeeEye; Tuketu; grobdriver

Half a dozen of you have taken issue with my comments about believing the Sheriff to be correct in denying the permit.

Under Ohio law (ORC 2923.125) it reads in part:

The applicant has not been adjudicated as a mental defective, has not been committed to any mental institution, is not under adjudication of mental incompetence, has not been found by a court to be a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order, and is not an involuntary patient other than one who is a patient only for purposes of observation. As used in this division, “mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order” and “patient” have the same meanings as in section 5122.01 of the Revised Code

Note that there is NO TIME LIMIT contained within this section. Further, having a judge tell you that you have to attend counseling ... is very close to having a court finding you mentally ill and in this case, violent. If this does not directly cross the line, it is dangerously close.

So, the sheriff decided to deny the permit and thus involve the courts per the appeals process stated in the LAW.

(to wit)
If a sheriff denies an application under this section because the applicant does not satisfy the criteria described in division (D)(1) of this section, the sheriff shall specify the grounds for the denial in a written notice to the applicant. The applicant may appeal the denial pursuant to section 119.12 of the Revised Code in the county served by the sheriff who denied the application.

In summary, the Sheriff looked at this and had enough concerns and enough legal ambiguity involved in this case to want a BINDING (lawyers opinions are not binding) legal decision as to the issue of the CCW in this case.

I see nothing wrong with this action. The sheriffs actions are allowed under the law. The LAW allows the sheriff to express his concerns, and the applicant to express their justification for allowing the issue. The appeals process acts as a second set of eyes in this case.


16 posted on 06/11/2013 10:32:34 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
taxcontrol said: "I see nothing wrong with this action."

I asked you why the legal burden is on the citizen rather than the Sheriff.

If this man's family is attacked by violent criminals, will you be there to defend him and his? How many classifications of second-class citizen do you intend to permit?

17 posted on 06/11/2013 11:19:47 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Ohio law as cited is in violation of the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

That it has not been overturned, repealed, nullified, whatever is at best an oversight which must be corrected.

If it falls to We The People to correct it, the Nuremburg Defense will not avail.

In the meantime it behooves Ohio LEOs to ignore it as much as possible.


18 posted on 06/11/2013 11:44:44 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (It's been over 90 days; time to start on 2014. Carpe GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

*Nuremberg


19 posted on 06/11/2013 11:45:22 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (It's been over 90 days; time to start on 2014. Carpe GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

The reason that the legal burden is on the citizen is because that is the way that the law is written and the courts have ruled.

As the law is written:

There is no burden to carry openly
There is an additional burden on citizens who wish to carry concealed.

You may disagree but that is the current state of Ohio law.

As part of that burden, the citizen is required to show competence and meet other criteria. One of those additional criteria is to be free of any mental illness. Given the past violent history and the judgement entered, the citizen in this case may or may not qualify UNDER THE LAW.

Given this state of ambiguity, the sheriff denied the permit which then allows the applicant to go before a judge and make the binding legal determination as to this applicants status.


20 posted on 06/11/2013 12:53:57 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

Not picking a fight here and certainly not defending the laws of another state. However, I would like your answers to the following questions:

Would you say that citizens in jail or prison should be allowed to carry concealed?

Would you say that citizens who have been ruled insane and are in a mental ward should be allowed to carry concealed?

Would you say that citizens on parole should be allowed?

How about the mental patients who are out patients or under the care of doctors?

When does a convict have his 2nd amendment rights restored? How soon after serving their sentence are they allowed to carry?

When does a former mental patient have their 2nd amendment rights restored?


21 posted on 06/11/2013 1:05:40 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
No, problem: I've been thinking about this for years and the questions are very easily answered.

Would you say that citizens in jail or prison should be allowed to carry concealed?

No; depending on whether they are awaiting trial or sentencing, or are serving their sentences, they are either in protective or punitive custody. The state is responsible for their safety.

Would you say that citizens who have been ruled insane and are in a mental ward should be allowed to carry concealed?

No; they are in protective custody. The state is responsible for their safety.

Would you say that citizens on parole should be allowed?

Yes. They have been released onto the street, and the state is no longer responsible for their safety. If you can't trust a parolee with a Constitutionally-protected means of self-defense, best not to parole him.

How about the mental patients who are out patients or under the care of doctors?

Yes. They are free to be on the street, and the state is not responsible for their safety. If you can't trust an outpatient with a Constitutionally-protected means of self-defense, best change his status to inpatient.

When does a convict have his 2nd amendment rights restored?

In my view of the Constitution, upon release. If you don't think a person is ging to be trustable with self-defense tools after n years, consider sentencing him to n+1 years. Repeat until you think he will be trustable with self-defense tools, and administer that sentence.

How soon after serving their sentence are they allowed to carry?

That same day. Indeed, a prisoner who legally owned a gun when arrested should have it returned along with his watch, belt, shoelaces etc.

When does a former mental patient have their 2nd amendment rights restored?

Immediately upon being released from custodial care.

22 posted on 06/11/2013 1:34:28 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (It's been over 90 days; time to start on 2014. Carpe GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

There are no felonies on his record. The Sheriff is wrong. sounds like some small town politics.


23 posted on 06/11/2013 1:37:15 PM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Sheriff Riggenbach acted properly.

Under what statute of the law? What felony conviction does Redmon have on his record? None! If I tell people that you assaulted and raped me, even if you're never convicted, should your RIGHTS be taken away just because you were arrested for it?

24 posted on 06/11/2013 1:57:22 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

It would seem that you base your opinions on the “custodial care” fulcrum. I understand that position but disagree with it for several reasons.

A prisoner who is on parole, is still serving their sentence. Parole is a half way measure where the prisoner is still subject to the orders of the State. By definition, the person is not permitted to fully manage their own affairs. Thus my fulcrum is unrestricted responsibility.

Likewise, a mental patient who is under supervised care, be it within a hospital or required regular visits to a doctor, is also not able to fully manage their own affairs.

When the prisoner is no longer on parole or the mental patient no longer under REQUIRED care, then I believe that their 2nd Amendment rights should be restored.


25 posted on 06/11/2013 2:01:24 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
I repeat myself: putting a person on the street, while denying him an otherwise lawful means of self-defense, should be considered as cruel as throwing a paralytic in a pool without a life jacket. It just should not be done.
26 posted on 06/11/2013 2:28:42 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (It's been over 90 days; time to start on 2014. Carpe GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

It’s all well and good that he fought the Mudslimes; however, the man had a criminal record.

I have a permit because (a) I too served in the military and (b) I have NO criminal record.


27 posted on 06/11/2013 2:35:23 PM PDT by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

“I believe that it was appropriate for the Sheriff to deny the carry permit. The prior lack of judgement on the part of the applicant is concerning enough...”

Hey, for cryin’ out loud, he beat up a drug dealer trying to protect a friend from the dealer...he should have gotten a medal. If it were your offspring and a drug dealer was after him/her, Just walk away and let him do it, eh...


28 posted on 06/11/2013 2:48:17 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea

See post #16

Are we a nation of laws?
Do we expect people to obey our laws?


29 posted on 06/11/2013 2:52:32 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Thank you for your detailed response.

I responded to your statement,
The prior lack of judgement on the part of the applicant is concerning enough to send this to a court.
IMO there is no basis for finding any lack of judgment by applicant, and it doesn’t appear any of a criminal nature was found by the criminal court.

What may be more likely is the court concluded the beatdown, while justified, was a bit too much due to applicants PTSD and thus it encouraged him to seek therapy.

IMO the law you cite does not seem relevant. Even if it was relevant, the sheriff stated, most likely in open court and after he wrote the letter, that he would not deny on the basis of PTSD alone, and he doesn't have anything else.

If the law you cite is the law the sheriff set out in his letter, then it is probably going to work out well for applicant. Discounting, of course, legal fees and loss of a lot of personal time.

30 posted on 06/11/2013 3:25:54 PM PDT by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." This from a guy who never had a real job and his family starved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

There is a lot of room here to argue applicant does not have a criminal record (at least insofar as we know from this article).

But I do think “MudSlimes” is descriptive!


31 posted on 06/11/2013 3:31:43 PM PDT by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." This from a guy who never had a real job and his family starved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

Allow me to point out that he was NOT “encouraged to seek therapy”. In fact he was sentence to attend therapy in lieu of conviction / going to jail. That is not a voluntary legal outcome. This is an “I got caught doing something that I should not have, and in order to avoid some jail time, I will do XXXXX.” The court gave him some grace, I suspect due to the nature of the drug dealer, and cut him some slack.

Not quite a commitment as mentally ill but enough of a question that the Sheriff was not willing to grant the license based upon what little data (application plus background check) that was available to the Sheriff. So the Sheriff took advantage of the safety valve set forth in the law by denying the application and then the applicant has his day in court. This strikes me as the wise course of action.

Sheriff says why not, Applicant says why it should, Judge decides. You may be right. It may very well go for the applicant. If that is the case, I see it as a win/win. Sheriff is off the hook and has no blame for issuing the license and the Applicant gets his CCW.


32 posted on 06/11/2013 4:15:25 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Yes, we are a nation of laws.

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution.

Any purported law which violates the Constitution, or any amendment thereto, is no law at all.

Were it otherwise, I’m sure somebody somewhere would like to re-establish chattel slavery in violation of the 13th Amendment.


33 posted on 06/11/2013 6:42:51 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (It's been over 90 days; time to start on 2014. Carpe GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
procedure that allowed him to accept treatment in lieu of conviction. After successfully completing treatment the conviction never was entered so there is no felony on his record that would disqualify him.

What about that statement do you not understand? NO FELONY on his record!!!! Therefore, he has every right to have a permit!!!!!

34 posted on 06/11/2013 7:25:39 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
OK, if it makes you feel better, replace "encouraged" with "persuaded" - no doubt in large part upon his attorney's recommendation. It was an agreement, not a sentencing and that is likely why there is no conviction of record.

Not quite a commitment as mentally ill...thank you, then the cited statutory language doesn't seem at all applicable.

but enough of a question... My money says the sheriff fabricated the question to make life difficult for someone the sheriff was 1) uncomfortable with and 2), who insisted on carrying open in the sheriff’s town.

Sheriff probably didn’t like the fact this openly armed applicant thought he could take the law into his own hands. But that should be the sheriff’s problem and not the applicant’s

It's been fun, you can have the last word.

35 posted on 06/11/2013 7:51:55 PM PDT by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." This from a guy who never had a real job and his family starved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

You forgot the simple fact that all gun or weapon legislation is forbidden by the 2nd amendment. (shall not infringe)

You have a deficiency that should disqualify you from voting.


36 posted on 06/11/2013 8:17:53 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

If one takes an absolute approach to the 2nd amendment, then prisoners should be allowed to own firearms.


37 posted on 06/12/2013 8:30:31 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

I am of the opinion that the Sheriff does not want the decision to come back and haunt him. That could be done in two ways. First, during elections either pro or con. And second, if there ever is a shooting, with today’s litigious society, he could be sued.


38 posted on 06/12/2013 8:34:16 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
I think the reason that your comments concern me is that I am from Kalifornia. It is the LAW in Kalifornia that you don't get a permit to carry unless the Sheriff believes you have "good cause".

It is the LAW in Kalifornia that you can't carry a loaded handgun openly. It is the LAW in Kalifornia that you can't purchase a handgun unless the manufacturer has paid thousands of dollars to the state in order to prove that the handgun is "NOT UNSAFE".

It is the LAW in Kalifornia that you may not purchase a center-fire semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine which has a pistol grip on it.

Unfortunately, Kalifornia doesn't recognize that it is the LAW that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

No citizen should have to prove ANYTHING to law enforcement in order to be able to carry a firearm. The nonsensical attempt to deny firearms to those with prior convictions has justified the mandate for serial numbers on firearms and for every registration scheme invented by the anti-gunners. NONE OF THIS would have been acceptable to our Founders.

39 posted on 06/12/2013 11:16:27 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Obviously your arguments are all intended to be facetious
40 posted on 06/12/2013 11:40:51 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
No, they are meant to be hyperbole to point out the absurdity of the arguement that any laws regarding guns are an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
41 posted on 06/12/2013 12:40:11 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

No, they are ment to be hyperbole to point out the absurdity of the arguement that any laws regarding guns are an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.


42 posted on 06/12/2013 12:40:53 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

You simply don’t like truth.


43 posted on 06/12/2013 3:48:46 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

“Note that there is NO TIME LIMIT contained within this section. Further, having a judge tell you that you have to attend counseling ... is very close to having a court finding you mentally ill and in this case, violent. If this does not directly cross the line, it is dangerously close.”

So, being forced to attend counseling is “dangerously close” to being declared mentally ill?? Give me a break!

Bottom line, the Sheriff might have done what he thought was right, but HE’S NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.


44 posted on 06/26/2013 7:58:22 PM PDT by BB62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BB62
So, being forced to attend counseling is “dangerously close” to being declared mentally ill?? Give me a break!

Yes. You see, there is a difference and a SIGNIFICANT importance attached to when a Judge says - either be convicted of a crime or instead of being convicted, seek psychiatric counseling.

If we look at two extremes, voluntarily seeking counseling and the opposite of being forcibly institutionalized; then being forced to seek counseling instead of going to jail falls somewhere in between. After all, going to jail is a form of institutionalization. It falls into a grey area.

The law that the Sheriff followed, allows a safety valve in this situation. It allows the Sheriff, who might be of the opinion that the application should be denied for metal health issues, to deny the application. This then allows the applicant to go before a judge and have his case heard. It allows the Judge to settle the issue where both are able to present facts to support their case.

45 posted on 06/27/2013 8:54:18 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Delphos man wins court battle to get CCW license

Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:44 am | Updated: 9:45 am, Thu Aug 22, 2013.

By GREG SOWINSKI 419-993-2090 gsowinski@limanews.com

VAN WERT – A man who sued the Van Wert County Sheriff after he was refused a concealed carry license has won his case.

Sheriff Tom Riggenbach said Thursday he issued James Redmon of Delphos a concealed carry license after Van Wert County Common Pleas Judge Charles Steele ruled in Redmon’s favor.

Redmon was treated for post-traumatic stress disorder more than six years ago. Riggenbach cited PTSD as the reason he denied the 44-year-old Redmon the CCW license in a March 6 letter.

http://www.limaohio.com/news/local_news/article_ef3c13fa-0b30-11e3-9508-001a4bcf6878.html


46 posted on 08/22/2013 8:01:33 AM PDT by Deadeye Division
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division; ADemocratNoMore; Akron Al; arbee4bush; agrace; ATOMIC_PUNK; Badeye; ...

Update: Thanks Deadeye Division

Delphos man wins court battle to get CCW license

Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:44 am | Updated: 9:45 am, Thu Aug 22, 2013.

By GREG SOWINSKI 419-993-2090 gsowinski@limanews.com

VAN WERT – A man who sued the Van Wert County Sheriff after he was refused a concealed carry license has won his case.

Sheriff Tom Riggenbach said Thursday he issued James Redmon of Delphos a concealed carry license after Van Wert County Common Pleas Judge Charles Steele ruled in Redmon’s favor.

Redmon was treated for post-traumatic stress disorder more than six years ago. Riggenbach cited PTSD as the reason he denied the 44-year-old Redmon the CCW license in a March 6 letter.

http://www.limaohio.com/news/local_news/article_ef3c13fa-0b30-11e3-9508-001a4bcf6878.html


47 posted on 08/22/2013 2:04:43 PM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

“The law that the Sheriff followed”??

Maybe you can tell us what law that is?

The Sheriff didn’t follow the law - that’s why the applicant got his license.


48 posted on 09/13/2013 8:31:36 PM PDT by BB62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BB62

See post #16


49 posted on 09/14/2013 3:00:38 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Again, you are wrong.


50 posted on 09/23/2013 8:02:17 AM PDT by BB62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson