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.
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?
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.
There are no felonies on his record. The Sheriff is wrong. sounds like some small town politics.
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?
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.
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.
“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...
See post #16
Are we a nation of laws?
Do we expect people to obey our laws?
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.
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!
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.
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.
What about that statement do you not understand? NO FELONY on his record!!!! Therefore, he has every right to have a permit!!!!!
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.
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.
If one takes an absolute approach to the 2nd amendment, then prisoners should be allowed to own firearms.
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.
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.
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.