They can't use it against you unless they have a charging document, and charging documents and codes are created by the passing of laws by the Legislature. The charging codes are what prevent them from "using it against you if they want to."
Permit restrictions have changed
- Thread starter ericahls
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
They can't use it against you unless they have a charging document, and charging documents and codes are created by the passing of laws by the Legislature. The charging codes are what prevent them from "using it against you if they want to."
redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
You missed the point completely. Sometimes it seems as if you disagree for the sake of disagreeing. It isn't worth my time. Have a nice day.
By the way there is so much fail in this: "In order to be outside your restrictions, you have to be violating a law" that it is not even worth addressing.
redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
Really? Tell me more about your time working in the criminal justice system....
There is a law for restriction violations so they can charge you with that. Whether it would stick or not is a different question. I have already mentioned this but again you seek to show you know things you don't actually know. When you get your law degree or your badge and cuffs we'd love to hear more. In the meantime and for the sake of the org you ought to avoid giving legal advice about what the police can and cannot charge people with. It is also probably not in the organization's best interest for you to constantly find ways to be combative with members online, especially when you are so often wrong.
HeatSeeker
Ultimate Member
I think they do a disservice to themselves with not making it absolutely clear what they consider a violation and what is not. A good lawyer would argue this and use it for an advantage for his client.
redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
No doubt.
I agree with Boundlessdyad. It was at a hearing I did for my client where SGT Knaub stated on the record that they used the "except where prohibited" language to allow people/businesses to prohibit concealed carry. It doesn't matter that there is no law to allow this. So if you are carrying at our local theater (which has no firearms signs posted on the door) you could be facing a 3 year misdemeanor since you are carrying outside of your restrictions.
As an aside as a result of that hearing (and hopefully my persuasive arguments) the Board ordered the MSP to issue my client a permit with the language "except where prohibited by law." Lo and behold when the permit finally arrived in the mail it said "except where prohibited." More legal action will be forthcoming.
As an aside as a result of that hearing (and hopefully my persuasive arguments) the Board ordered the MSP to issue my client a permit with the language "except where prohibited by law." Lo and behold when the permit finally arrived in the mail it said "except where prohibited." More legal action will be forthcoming.
Color me shocked.
The MSP is certainly pretty comfortable making it a habit of trying to buck the decisions of this board.
Sad situation.
shootin the breeze
Missed it by that much
Color me shocked.
The MSP is certainly pretty comfortable making it a habit of trying to buck the decisions of this board.
Sad situation.
Agree. Don't even think it's worth asking for the new language on my permit (mine says the same thing it's always said). The new language isn't much/any change for the better...
I had thought all along (since around October of last year) that I'd get on the year long waiting list to go in front of them. With the way things have been lately, I think I'll wait. The way things have been going I could end up revoked rather than modified.
In 18 months that is,... going by the current flow of cases.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
I was there and agree with the facts as stated above, and heard Sgt. Knaub's stated reason, but I wouldn't go so far as saying a court would actually interpret and give credence to Sgt. Knaub's "legal opinion" on the validity of the supposed restriction - which again has no basis in actual law. This is more "making it up" as they go. Permit holders shouldn't have this administratively induced cloud hanging over them.
What I think we can all agree on is that this is another example of the MSP LD giving the entire MSP a bad reputation for unreasonably and unnecessarily infringing on a fundamental, Constitutionally enumerated right, and by casting doubt in the minds of the law abiding and trying to criminalize them via intentional ambiguity and vagueness. It's bullsh*t games with peoples' right to self-defense, and stems from a lack of leadership at the very top.
Straightshooter
Ultimate Member
Not so. They removed the "from residence to..." and the "while engaged in fibancial transactions" crap, which was the most restrictive parts in my opinion. It doesn't cost anything to make that phone call. As I said, I got the wording changed on my wife's permit with just a phone call.
These oversights are just Knaub's way of throwing a hissie fit.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
JamesCanby
Active Member
I've taken several instructor classes from him and have assisted in others. Agree: Ben runs excellent classes and we always learn more than the syllabus requires.
redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
I didn't want to call you out but I knew it was your case.
Unfortunately the arresting officer on the side of the road may give credence to the MSP opinion. By the time it gets to a court plenty of damage has been to done the permit holder emotionally and financially.
In this instance I know I am preaching to the choir.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 6,993
I didn't want to call you out but I knew it was your case.
Unfortunately the arresting officer on the side of the road may give credence to the MSP opinion. By the time it gets to a court plenty of damage has been to done the permit holder emotionally and financially.
In this instance I know I am preaching to the choir.
You are absolutely right. The local LEO and prosecutor are agents of the government that can make a permit holders life miserable. You would hope they would channel that energy to real criminals.
The officer on the side of the road is going to know less than the LD. That's the "cloud" the MSP LD (apparently with blessings from above) keeps trying to put permit holders under with restricted business permits. At least that is what Sgt. Knaub basically testified they were trying to doing. BTW, I am not trying to criticize individual members of the LD. For most, I think they have been put in a very awkward positions. Listening to some of the absurd testimony demonstrates that.
To be clear, the legislature created this mess many years ago, the prior administrations exploited it to impose their anti policies, nobody knows what it all means, prior Superintendents created all these special classes of people because otherwise no one could get a permit (except the well connected), and despite more clarity from the courts that the right is fundamental, and covered by the equal protections of the 14th amendment, the current administration appears to be clinging to overly restrictive traditions. Absent clear direction from the leadership regarding "personal protection" (already in the plain language of the statute) the men and women of the LD appear to just be going in circles with business permits and ambiguous restrictions. While it may be hard to blame individual LD staff members, the lack of leadership from the top on this issue is a whole different story.
magnetic1
Active Member
Just emailed them. If I dont get a response tomorrow, Ill call.
Thanks for the heads up.
Just send them a letter on company letterhead requesting the changes, a check for $10 and a new passport photo. Got mine in about a week.
magnetic1
Active Member
Yes, but as Straightshooter said, it doesnt require any $ or new photos. Just a phone call.
Hoping email is good enough too. Simple.
Mine took at least 4 or 5 weeks , so slow . IMHO but I got the restrictions reduced and feel better about carrying and less gray areas .
10.00 company check and letter on co. stationary , passport photo
10.00 company check and letter on co. stationary , passport photo
Last edited:
shootin the breeze
Missed it by that much
Who'd you email, if you don't mind me asking? I haven't had to correspond since my initial permit app in 2013.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
Keep A Low Profile Because Maybe FEMA Will Be Coming For Your Supplies
- Started by Blacksmith101
- Replies: 14
-
-
Scenario Based Training (Hosted by Retired Law Enforcement Professionals) (2 Viewers)- Started by Tactical Shepherd
- Replies: 0
-
-
