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.
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.
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.
“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.)
Sheriff Riggenbach acted properly.
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!").
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.
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.
Sheriff didnt follow the law he made up his own.
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.)
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.
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.
Ohio Ping
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.
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?
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.
*Nuremberg
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.
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.