In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
MI: TC man to appeal denial of concealed gun permi
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
TC man to appeal denial of concealed gun permit
- Board said there was 'clear and convincing' evidence that applicant poses a danger
By PATRICK SULLIVAN
Record-Eagle staff writer
TRAVERSE CITY - An applicant for a concealed weapon permit who was rejected because police had been called to his home eight times over the past year is appealing the denial.
The appeal could help better define when a county gun board can refuse to issue a permit under the state's 13-month-old "shall issue" concealed weapon law, at least for Grand Traverse, Antrim and Leelanau counties, where a circuit court judge will rule on the case.
Grand Traverse County's gun board voted 2-0-1 to deny a request for a permit from Traverse City resident Dan Carroll Hollyday at its monthly meeting in July.
Hollyday is the eleventh applicant to be denied but he is the first to appeal. The gun board has issued 546 concealed weapons permits since July 2001, when the law took effect.
The law allows all citizens over 21 to receive a concealed weapons permit if they have completed a gun safety course unless they have been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors or have a history of mental illness.
Grand Traverse County Sheriff Scott Fewins, who along with state police Lt. Mark Stewart voted against Hollyday, said he took a "better-safe-than-sorry" approach to Hollyday's application.
"How can I, in good faith, look the public in the face and say I let this man have a permit?" Fewins said.
Fewins and Stewart rejected the application under a clause in the law that allows a denial if there is "clear and convincing" evidence that an applicant poses a danger to themselves or others.
In a letter to Hollyday, Fewins supported the denial by outlining the eight times police have been called to his home to respond to domestic disputes since May of 2001 when Hollyday lived in Manton.
In the most recent case in June, police in Traverse City reported that Hollyday's wife told them he had assaulted her and that she had a red mark on her arm where Hollyday had allegedly grabbed her, Fewins said.
Charges were never filed in that incident or in any of the other incidents that caused police to visit Hollyday's home. Hollyday denies that he ever assaulted his wife and he said that contacts with police were the result of a contentious divorce.
If Hollyday would have been convicted of domestic violence, the gun board would have had clear guidelines with which to deny Hollyday's application - an applicant who has been convicted of domestic violence in the past eight years may not receive a permit.
But in Hollyday's case, the law is murky.
"There's nothing in the law that says we have the right to do this denial," Fewins said. "All we had to work with that day is we took a look at the totality of everything. Does it really fit what the law says? The answer is no."
Firearms instructor Mark Radcliffe, the third member of the gun board, abstained from voting in Hollyday's case, saying his vote would not have changed the outcome.
He said he would have voted to let Hollyday have a permit.
"Under the law he could have had his permit, but when you're outvoted two to one, it doesn't make a difference," Radcliffe said.
Hollyday, who said he applied for a permit over a specific personal protection concern, said he didn't expect to get a permit and he does not resent the gun board's decision.
"I don't blame them one little bit for denying me," he said. "I wasn't expecting to get one."
Fewins said he believes a circuit court ruling on the question will give the gun board some guidance in how to evaluate a borderline case like Hollyday's, even though such cases are rare.
Attorney and gun rights activist David Bieganowski said he is watching the case because he believes gun boards should have good reason when they use what he refers to as the "weasel clause" - so called because he believes the clause enables gun boards to "weasel out of" issuing permits.
"Clear and convincing evidence is a high standard and this guy has never been convicted of anything," Bieganowski said. "It's supposed to be a way out, but it's not supposed to be used lightly."
But Bieganowski, who teaches gun safety classes and attends most gun board meetings in Grand Traverse County, said he does not know all of the facts of Hollyday's case.
"This is not the one I'd want to take to appeal because it is not a clear-cut case one way or another," he said.
The Grand Traverse Prosecutor's office will represent the gun board on appeal. Prosecutor Dennis LaBelle said his office is still reviewing the facts in the case.
Hollyday said he intends to represent himself. No hearing date has been set.
Patrick Sullivan is the reporter for crime, courts and public safety. He can be reached at (231) 933-1478, or at psullivan@record-eagle.com
http://www.record-eagle.com/2002/aug/20guns.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
- Board said there was 'clear and convincing' evidence that applicant poses a danger
By PATRICK SULLIVAN
Record-Eagle staff writer
TRAVERSE CITY - An applicant for a concealed weapon permit who was rejected because police had been called to his home eight times over the past year is appealing the denial.
The appeal could help better define when a county gun board can refuse to issue a permit under the state's 13-month-old "shall issue" concealed weapon law, at least for Grand Traverse, Antrim and Leelanau counties, where a circuit court judge will rule on the case.
Grand Traverse County's gun board voted 2-0-1 to deny a request for a permit from Traverse City resident Dan Carroll Hollyday at its monthly meeting in July.
Hollyday is the eleventh applicant to be denied but he is the first to appeal. The gun board has issued 546 concealed weapons permits since July 2001, when the law took effect.
The law allows all citizens over 21 to receive a concealed weapons permit if they have completed a gun safety course unless they have been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors or have a history of mental illness.
Grand Traverse County Sheriff Scott Fewins, who along with state police Lt. Mark Stewart voted against Hollyday, said he took a "better-safe-than-sorry" approach to Hollyday's application.
"How can I, in good faith, look the public in the face and say I let this man have a permit?" Fewins said.
Fewins and Stewart rejected the application under a clause in the law that allows a denial if there is "clear and convincing" evidence that an applicant poses a danger to themselves or others.
In a letter to Hollyday, Fewins supported the denial by outlining the eight times police have been called to his home to respond to domestic disputes since May of 2001 when Hollyday lived in Manton.
In the most recent case in June, police in Traverse City reported that Hollyday's wife told them he had assaulted her and that she had a red mark on her arm where Hollyday had allegedly grabbed her, Fewins said.
Charges were never filed in that incident or in any of the other incidents that caused police to visit Hollyday's home. Hollyday denies that he ever assaulted his wife and he said that contacts with police were the result of a contentious divorce.
If Hollyday would have been convicted of domestic violence, the gun board would have had clear guidelines with which to deny Hollyday's application - an applicant who has been convicted of domestic violence in the past eight years may not receive a permit.
But in Hollyday's case, the law is murky.
"There's nothing in the law that says we have the right to do this denial," Fewins said. "All we had to work with that day is we took a look at the totality of everything. Does it really fit what the law says? The answer is no."
Firearms instructor Mark Radcliffe, the third member of the gun board, abstained from voting in Hollyday's case, saying his vote would not have changed the outcome.
He said he would have voted to let Hollyday have a permit.
"Under the law he could have had his permit, but when you're outvoted two to one, it doesn't make a difference," Radcliffe said.
Hollyday, who said he applied for a permit over a specific personal protection concern, said he didn't expect to get a permit and he does not resent the gun board's decision.
"I don't blame them one little bit for denying me," he said. "I wasn't expecting to get one."
Fewins said he believes a circuit court ruling on the question will give the gun board some guidance in how to evaluate a borderline case like Hollyday's, even though such cases are rare.
Attorney and gun rights activist David Bieganowski said he is watching the case because he believes gun boards should have good reason when they use what he refers to as the "weasel clause" - so called because he believes the clause enables gun boards to "weasel out of" issuing permits.
"Clear and convincing evidence is a high standard and this guy has never been convicted of anything," Bieganowski said. "It's supposed to be a way out, but it's not supposed to be used lightly."
But Bieganowski, who teaches gun safety classes and attends most gun board meetings in Grand Traverse County, said he does not know all of the facts of Hollyday's case.
"This is not the one I'd want to take to appeal because it is not a clear-cut case one way or another," he said.
The Grand Traverse Prosecutor's office will represent the gun board on appeal. Prosecutor Dennis LaBelle said his office is still reviewing the facts in the case.
Hollyday said he intends to represent himself. No hearing date has been set.
Patrick Sullivan is the reporter for crime, courts and public safety. He can be reached at (231) 933-1478, or at psullivan@record-eagle.com
http://www.record-eagle.com/2002/aug/20guns.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Email This Story
Print This Story
Aug 19, 2002 6:54 pm US/Eastern
BOSTON (AP) -- The number of active firearms licenses in Massachusetts has plummeted in the four years since the state adopted one of the toughest gun control laws in the country.
There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998. By June, that number was down to just 200,000, in large part because the new law abolished lifetime licenses.
Another key provision of the 1998 law has been less successful.
The law set fines of between $500 and $5,000 for anyone caught with a gun and an expired license but failed to establish a way to enforce the fine.
A bill that would have allowed police to issue citations stalled in the House. The bill would also have allowed district attorneys to initiate criminal complaints and then have those complaints converted to civil fines by the court.
Gun owners have criticized the gun law, saying it puts up unnecessary legal barriers, creates additional fees and unfairly punishes people for past mistakes.
"You are doing this to discourage people from getting licenses. You are doing it to give police more discretion. And you are doing it to raise money, plain and simple," said Michael Yacino, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League. "It's got nothing to do with fighting crime."
The law tightened regulations on two types of guns licenses: firearms identification cards and so-called "licenses to carry."
In 1998, there were nearly 1.3 million active "FID" cards. By June, that number was done to just 63,542.
The number of people with licenses to carry is also down.
When the law was enacted, there were 170,825 active licenses, with about 68,000 of those set to expire in January. Since then, 136,118 licenses to carry have been issued.
Officials say there are several reasons for the drop.
FID cards used to be issued for life but now must be renewed every four years at a cost of $25.
Many of those who still had FID cards either moved out of state, no longer wanted them, or died, officials said.
The law also requires fresh background checks every four years, which can block some from renewing their licenses.
"You weed out the clutter," said Sen. Cheryl Jacques, D-Needham, author of the 1998 law. "Instead of a big pile of FID cards that don't connect to anyone, we have law enforcement knowing whose licenses are current."
The law bars anyone convicted of assault and battery, a violent misdemeanor in Massachusetts, from obtaining a license to carry.
That portion of the law prompted a Beacon Hill battle earlier this summer, when the House approved a bill allowing some citizens convicted of violent misdemeanors to carry concealed guns. The Senate did not act on the bill.
An FID card allows a person to buy, possess and carry rifles or shotguns, mace and pepper spray. All FID cards issued before the 1998 law expired in 2000 if they were not renewed.
There are two kinds of "Licenses to Carry." The Class A license allows a person to buy, possess and carry firearms, including large capacity firearms. The Class B license allows the purchase, possession and carrying of non-large capacity firearms.
Under the old law, licenses to carry expired on a person's birthday "not less than four years, but not more than five years from the date of issue." Under the new law that is rolled back to three to four years.
The state has taken steps to ensure gun owners know they are required to renew their licenses, but Yacino said the effort hasn't been effective.
"I can't tell you how many people come up to me and show me an FID card and say 'you mean this isn't good anymore?"' Yacino said.
(Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
http://wbz4.com/news/StoryFolder/story_443139345_html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Associated Press, 8/19/2002 19:13
Here are the communities with the most active gun licenses, including firearms identification cards and so-called ''licenses to carry'':
1. Boston (4,559)
2. Springfield (3,866)
3. Worcester (3,422)
4. Westfield (2,480)
5. Pittsfield (2,478)
6. Chicopee (2,466)
7. Plymouth (2,308)
8. Taunton (2,148)
9. Quincy (1,950)
10. Brockton (1,844)
11. New Bedford (1,843)
12. Agawam (1,759)
13. Fall River (1,674)
14. Dartmouth (1,634)
15. Barnstable (1,619)
16. Haverhill (1,581)
17. Lowell (1,505)
18. Lynn (1,496)
19. Attleboro (1,428)
20. Middleboro (1,427)
21. West Springfield (1,423)
22. Peabody (1,385)
23. Waltham (1,384)
24. Medford (1,364)
25. Framingham (1,348)
Source: House Post Audit and Oversight Bureau.
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/231/region/Communities_with_the_highest_n:.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878