Miami Herald
Bobby Timmons, executive director of the Alabama Sheriffs Association, said he's fielded more questions from law enforcement about pistol permits for those in that age group than any other topic since the law took effect Aug. 1.
"Everybody in the world wants to know about this," he said.
Timmons said people that age have always been able to apply for pistol permits in Alabama. But many sheriffs never processed the applications if they thought a person was too immature to carry a concealed weapon.
"Before we said, 'Get the hell out of this office. I'm not giving you a permit,'" Timmons said.
Under the new law, sheriffs can't ignore an application and must process it within 30 days.
If they deny it, they must give the applicant a written explanation using guidelines in the new law. Then the applicant can appeal to district court, and a judge must rule within 30 days whether to grant the permit.
Assuming the applicant passes a mandatory criminal background check, the new law allows a sheriff to reject the application if there is reasonable suspicion the person may use the weapon unlawfully or in a manner that would endanger the applicant or others.
The law sets out 11 reasons the sheriff may consider. Most focus on the person having an involuntary commitment to a hospital or other facility for mental health or drug problems. But one says a sheriff can reject the request when the applicant causes "justifiable concern for public safety."
Butler County Sheriff Kenny Harden said he used to get one or two young people under 21 seeking a pistol permit each year, and he denied most of them. "Ninety percent are not mature enough to be out there with a gun," he said.
But he said he had three come in the first week the law was in effect, including one on the first day.
You mean in Alabama an adult is mostly an adult? This sounds like the sour grapes often heard when a state adopts a shall issue permit system. The same thing happened in Minnesota. And here the predictions of blood in the streets was disproven by actual hard data that showed that permit holders were much more law abiding than the general population.
ReplyDeleteGovernment officials tend to hate giving up power. Especially discretionary power.
First of all, permit holders are not more law-abiding than the general population. That's based on faulty data. Secondly, 18-year-olds are not mature enough to responsibly handle firearms, especially in Alabama where they enjoy the lowest IQs and poorest education system in the country - or was that Mississippi leaving Alabama in second place?
Delete"First of all", Mike is a paid anti-gun troll and hater of the American Constitution. He posts hundreds of hate speach articles every month. Secondly Alabama residents are no less mature, intelligent or educated than any other state. And to stereotype 18 year olds as unable too handle firearms properly heaps hatred on the many groups that properly educate young people in firearm safety and marksmanship, ie. the Boy Scouts, church youth groups, sport shooting groups including the US Olympic Committee, NRA shooting and hunting programs and more importantly the millions of current and past members of the military - most of whome join at 18.
DeleteSo how old should you be to enlist in the Army?
DeleteMike,
DeleteWhen Minnesota passed the legislation for a shall issue permit system, included in it was tasking the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to publish an annual report about the permit system.
The report includes data about how many permits were applied for, approved, denied, and information about any appeals of a denial. They also document permits suspended or revoked, and criminal activity by permit holders.
I would invite you to look over these reports and perhaps share why you think the data is faulty.
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/Pages/firearms.aspx
"Secondly, 18-year-olds are not mature enough to responsibly handle firearms, especially in Alabama where they enjoy the lowest IQs and poorest education system in the country - or was that Mississippi leaving Alabama in second place?"
DeleteIf that were the case, then why are these young adults permitted to buy rifles and shotguns? Or serve in the military? If adults aren't expected to behave responsibly and aren't held accountable, then should it be a surprise when many don't step up. Plus, if a large percentage of adults aren't prepared to take on the responsibilities of such a status, then who's fault is it? Theirs? Or the people that prepared them. This should be fixed, not accepted.
Which data set if faulty? Each states study? University studies? Federal studies? DOJ studies? If you have proof of faulty data, please present it.
DeleteMost humorous comment of the day goes to Wolfdad.
Delete"Secondly Alabama residents are no less mature, intelligent or educated than any other state."
ss, I continually post stories of folks who misuse guns who may have been concealed carry permit holders. Some of them certainly are - no one is checking.
DeleteWhen laws and attitudes are as lax as they are concerning gun misuse, many permit holders get away with incidents that should disqualify them but don't.
As japete mentioned, how could the general public be compared to concealed carry permit holders? How could you say the general public commits more disqualifying offenses when they don't even own guns and the permit holders do? It makes no sense.
You keep asserting faulty data, but you bring nothing to the table to disprove the studies out there or to say what the full data truly is. So no, You're the one talking out of your ass, and we're the ones looking at the comparisons of criminal convictions with permit holder lists, and those show lower rates of criminality.
DeleteAs for your comments about Alabamans, they remind me of various racist lines about how negroes shouldn't have the right to vote, or most of them shouldn't, because they're poorly educated and have inherently lower IQ's. And on top of that, ewww, they're black--just like ewwww they're from the South!
When you go this far across the line, it's actually humorous to see how racist you sound.
Ssgmarkcr showed you who is checking- the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. And they publish their results for you to see. Did you look?
DeleteThat Japete line is very telling of your attitudes. The only bad someone can do is with a gun? Really?
"I continually post stories of folks who misuse guns who may have been concealed carry permit holders. Some of them certainly are - no one is checking."
DeleteActually, you have been shown that many of them ARE NOT, but you keep counting them. You have also been told HOW the government does check and find violators, both those who are disqualified for committing a crime like this and those who are disqualified by other offenses like nonpayment of child support. However, you ignore this evidence in favor of your own ideas.
"When laws and attitudes are as lax as they are concerning gun misuse, many permit holders get away with incidents that should disqualify them but don't."
You keep saying this, but you have not provided any credible evidence or arguments about permit holders keeping their permits after committing legally disqualifying acts. Instead, you postulate wild, unproven, and often sometimes disproved, conspiracy theories and offer rantings about how, if you had your way, all sorts of things would be disqualifying offenses, and so you count those in this number of people getting away with things that "should" disqualify them.
"As japete mentioned, how could the general public be compared to concealed carry permit holders? How could you say the general public commits more disqualifying offenses when they don't even own guns and the permit holders do? It makes no sense."
Ah, diving into Joan's deep well of nonsense, eh?
1. Permit holders are not the only ones with guns--plenty of people in the rest of the population have them and are capable of committing crimes with them.
2. Disqualifying offenses can be committed with a gun, or without one, so gun ownership doesn't even matter.
Your ultimate argument falls apart. Sorry.
Mike,
DeletePlease refer to my reply to Japete. The report also covers crimes committed by permit holders whether they used their firearm in the commission of the crime or not. And they do detail the difference in the report.
An 18 year old isn't mature enough to carry a handgun?? Really? Tell that to all the 17 year olds in the marine corps.
DeleteMikeb, your bigotry is showing again, and it's disgusting. You should put it away now.
ReplyDeleteYou have no evidence to support your claims about IQ or about carry license holders. In fact, with regard to the latter, you've been shown plenty of evidence to the contrary.
I have no doubt that you weren't mature enough at eighteen to carry or even own a firearm. Under a discretionary system, you wouldn't qualify today. But here's the point: Government discretion must be strictly limited. It's subject to far too much abuse.
These are eighteen year olds with no criminal or mental health record. What do we call them? Oh, yes, adults with citizenship rights.
25 should be the minimum age for military service, voting and gun ownership. How's that?
DeleteDiscretionary systems are typically found to be unconstitutional, especially when they grant a sheriff, mayor, or other bureaucrat discretion as to whether or not to issue a permit to exercise some area of protected speech.
DeleteMike doesn't just want discretionary permitting of the exercise of some aspects of protected Second Amendment rights, like carry, but of the right itself.
Shameful.
Wow, we're up from 21, just like I predicted! Soon, you'll only be an adult when you're 30.
DeleteMikeb, haven't you learned by now that I favor liberty?
DeleteHow about we have a discretionary system for voting? Give me the power to question anyone applying for a voter ID. If I'm not satisfied with the answers, I get to reject to applicant.
DeleteThis sound good to you?
Off topic, but if Dog Gone's still coming around, I wonder what her take is on the ruling that New York City's stop and frisk policy is a violation of civil rights.
ReplyDeletePermit holders who shoot other people or are involved in crime are not more law abiding than people who don't shoot other people or get involved in gun crimes. That is pretty simple logic. You can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun or a permit to carry.
ReplyDeleteJoan, can you REALLY not see that you did not offer a logical argument there?
DeleteYour statement:
People who X are not more law abiding than people who do not X.
You cannot X unless you have a gun.
These are two assertions that cannot even form a logical argument without additional information.
Plus, they miss the entire point in question:
The ratio of "Permit holders who X" to "All Permit holders" is smaller than the ratio of "General Population members who X" to "The General Population"
Please, try to stay on topic rather than spouting non sequiturs.
So there are no violent crimes without a gun?
Delete"Permit holders who shoot other people or are involved in crime are not more law abiding than people who don't shoot other people or get involved in gun crimes."
DeleteJapete, you're adding variables to my statement. I started with two variables in my statement, permit holders and non permit holders. My assertion was that permit holders are more law abiding as a group than those who don't have carry permits.
You added the variables:
1. Permit holders who shoot other people. (documented in the report)
2. Permit holders involved in crime. (also documented in the report)
3. People who don't shoot other people (this group includes permit holders not in first two groups you added)
The data sets are pretty clear. Crimes committed by permit holders compared to crimes committed by everyone else. Since currently there are just under 115,000, the math would be pretty easy.
But there are more than eight million of us, and the vast majority of us don't commit crimes, including illegal homicide. You just can't wrap your brain around that fact, I take it.
Delete"The vast majority" is not good enough. The "small minority" is too much. The proportions would be positively affected with minor improvements in the qualifying procedures.
DeleteMikeb, stop lying. You know your proposals are not merely minor improvements. You also know that the data available show that license holders are less criminal than the general population. Don't repeat this nonsense about how no one is checking. You know that's false.
DeleteTo eliminate the 1% committing crimes (or whatever the data shows the small percentage is) we must eliminate 50-75% of permit holders...Right. That's a wonderfully tailor made solution!
DeleteIt's a typical leftist solution. In that point of view, someone who goes to the doctor for an ingrown toe nail needs to start chemo immediately.
DeleteWe wouldn't want the people in charge of our safety, law enforcement, to actually, you know, make decisions on who is safe to be armed, would we?
ReplyDeleteBaldr,
DeleteShall issue permit laws are a response to the misuse of discretionary powers by law enforcement and state government. In may issue permit systems, who gets a permit is determined by the local government so it all depends on where you live. An example of this is California where some jurisdictions only allow the politically connected, while in others its de facto shall issue.
In response to these misuses, the shall issue permit system gives everyone the same access to a permit using predetermined requirements and restrictions.
We wouldn't want law enforcement to make decisions about the exercise of our rights, no. Or do you favor a police state?
DeleteConsidering the history of racist cops, police abuses of power, cops who are incompetent with weapons, cops who overreact to situations, etc. etc., no, puny god, we don't trust them to make such decisions on this or any other right.
DeleteCall him an ettin. He certainly is not one of the gods he profanes.
Delete"An 18 year old isn't mature enough to carry a handgun?? Really? Tell that to all the 17 year olds in the marine corps."
ReplyDelete18-Year-olds who haven't been through the Parris Island training are not mature enough to carry a handgun.