joelrosenberg (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} joelrosenberg) wrote,@ 2005-06-12 08:14:00 |
|
Emergency permits
Got an interesting call the other day.
As most regular readers know, Minnesota is a "shall issue" state, in terms of carry permits. What that means is that if somebody meets objective criteria, they shall be issued a carry permit. They have to take training, apply at their local sheriff; it takes up to thirty days from application for the carry permit to arrive.
That's fine, for most folks, who take out carry permits in roughly the same way that most folks get fire insurance on their homes -- it's important, sure, but it's not urgent.
And then there's this [emphasis mine]:
Short form: a sheriff can, if he or she thinks somebody's situation is so risky that waiting for several weeks is dangerous, issue an emergency permit on the spot.
It's completely up to the discretion of the sheriff, and such permits are very, very rare.
I was thinking about that, back in 2003, and it occured to me that somebody in that sort of situation has a whole lot of things to think about -- not a real stretch for me to understand; I got my first carry permit, way back when, because I was getting death threats; been there, done that, and all -- and made an offer.
Got a call the other day from a couple. I'm not going to go into much detail here, as the people involved are entitled to their privacy, and -- as I said, both to them, and to a couple of reporters yesterday -- how much they go public with this is entirely their call. Can't unring a bell, after all. (They decided to give out a carefully-chosen amount of information, and do an interview with both Channel 11 and Channel 9; the Channel 9 piece aired last night. Erring on the safe side, I'm going to give out less significant information here than they did. But I will say that one of them said, on camera, roughly, "If you'd told me a year ago that I'd be getting a gun permit today, I'd have said that you were crazy." We'll get back to that later.)
I can say that they've got some serious risks -- they've been the subject of an ongoing campaign of harrassment, intimidation, and vandalism, and the stakes got raised the other day when the husband was walking down the road, and a car swerved toward him. He was fast, and lucky -- it only hit him in the hand.
Their sheriff -- Mike Ammend, Isanti County -- issued them both emergency carry permits. Which started a clock ticking -- they've got thirty days from issuance to get their training done and their application in, and still leave enough time for the sheriff to do his legally-mandated background check on both of them in order to get their five-year permits. Those of you who have carry permits have probably, from time to time, looked at the expiration date on your permits and felt a bit relieved -- after all, all of you have got at least close to three years before you'll have to arrange to get your refresher course, and go through the whole application process again. Plenty of time to fit that into your lives, including making the time and finding the money.
They took my class yesterday, as I write this. No charge, of course; folks who've got this sort of thing going on in their lives have enough to worry about without coming up with several hundred bucks for training.
Lots of standup folks in the community. Over the past couple of years, I've heard from four other instructor, who have stepped up and said that if I'm unavailable, that I could just send anybody with an emergency permit to them -- they'll train them, too, at no charge. DDB was first to step up, but there have been others. Mark Koscielski has offered to sell anybody in that situation an appropriate firearm at cost (yes, an emergency permit works as a purchase permit), which wasn't necessary in this situation; even before they called me, they'd gone out and purchased appropriate handguns. (And they've got a good gun shop out where they live -- I don't know about cost, but the shop owner recommended precisely the make and model I would have.) They did just fine in class, and at the qualification at Burnsville Pistol Range. Roger Hird -- the owner of the range -- waived their range fees. He was out of .38 ammunition, but another pair of my students was there practicing, and they'd brought along some extra, which they provided.
As to the publicity around it, I'm of two minds. In their case, it's a two-edged sword. Publicity can -- and I hope it does -- persuade their violent stalkers that the risks of continuing this campaign of terroristic threats and violence has now gotten too risky, both in terms of personal safety, and of
attention -- by both police authorities, and the press -- and perhaps they'll simply give it up. On the other side, there's obviously some risks in coming out as a permit holder, something I had to think about some years ago, when I was asked to testify in public hearings at the Senate and House. (I don't have to think about that anymore; I'm, well, kind of out as a permit holder.)
In more general terms, I think it's a teaching moment for other folks. As I said in the book:
It makes much more sense to get a carry permit in advance of a personal safety problem, and keep it current, and then make day-to-day decisions should a threatening situation happen. More on that here. (You'll need the free Adobe reader, or similar software.) The nature of emergencies is, by and large, that you they happen unexpectedly. You can plan for them, of course, and that's kind of the point.
One reporter asked me what I know was a well-intentioned question, roughly, "Do you think that there's anything else somebody in that sort of situation should do, other than getting a gun?" (She's admittedly nervous around firearms, and has never so much as touched one; I hope she'll take the Beginner-to-Carry class.)
Well, of course. There's lots of things that somebody who knows that they're in danger ought to do; getting a carry permit, an appropriate self-defense handgun, training, and practice can easily be a part of what somebody should do, but it's obviously not all of it. If there's a handgun that projects an invincible (or, for that matter, a vincible) protective force field around the owner, I'm unaware of one -- although I'd like one.
"If you'd told me a year ago that I'd be getting a gun permit today, I'd have said that you were crazy."
</blockquote>
Risks change. Which makes more sense?
Being prepared to deal with the risks and not having to? Or not being prepared, and then having to?
Got an interesting call the other day.
As most regular readers know, Minnesota is a "shall issue" state, in terms of carry permits. What that means is that if somebody meets objective criteria, they shall be issued a carry permit. They have to take training, apply at their local sheriff; it takes up to thirty days from application for the carry permit to arrive.
That's fine, for most folks, who take out carry permits in roughly the same way that most folks get fire insurance on their homes -- it's important, sure, but it's not urgent.
And then there's this [emphasis mine]:
Subd. 11a. Emergency issuance of permits. A sheriff may immediately issue an emergency permit to a person if the sheriff determines that the person is in an emergency situation that may constitute an immediate risk to the safety of the person or someone residing in the person's household. A person seeking an emergency permit must complete an application form and must sign an affidavit describing the emergency situation. An emergency permit applicant does not need to provide evidence of training. An emergency permit is valid for 30 days, may not be renewed, and may be revoked without a hearing. No fee may be charged for an emergency permit. An emergency permit holder may seek a regular permit under subdivision 3 and is subject to the other applicable provisions of this section.
Short form: a sheriff can, if he or she thinks somebody's situation is so risky that waiting for several weeks is dangerous, issue an emergency permit on the spot.
It's completely up to the discretion of the sheriff, and such permits are very, very rare.
I was thinking about that, back in 2003, and it occured to me that somebody in that sort of situation has a whole lot of things to think about -- not a real stretch for me to understand; I got my first carry permit, way back when, because I was getting death threats; been there, done that, and all -- and made an offer.
Got a call the other day from a couple. I'm not going to go into much detail here, as the people involved are entitled to their privacy, and -- as I said, both to them, and to a couple of reporters yesterday -- how much they go public with this is entirely their call. Can't unring a bell, after all. (They decided to give out a carefully-chosen amount of information, and do an interview with both Channel 11 and Channel 9; the Channel 9 piece aired last night. Erring on the safe side, I'm going to give out less significant information here than they did. But I will say that one of them said, on camera, roughly, "If you'd told me a year ago that I'd be getting a gun permit today, I'd have said that you were crazy." We'll get back to that later.)
I can say that they've got some serious risks -- they've been the subject of an ongoing campaign of harrassment, intimidation, and vandalism, and the stakes got raised the other day when the husband was walking down the road, and a car swerved toward him. He was fast, and lucky -- it only hit him in the hand.
Their sheriff -- Mike Ammend, Isanti County -- issued them both emergency carry permits. Which started a clock ticking -- they've got thirty days from issuance to get their training done and their application in, and still leave enough time for the sheriff to do his legally-mandated background check on both of them in order to get their five-year permits. Those of you who have carry permits have probably, from time to time, looked at the expiration date on your permits and felt a bit relieved -- after all, all of you have got at least close to three years before you'll have to arrange to get your refresher course, and go through the whole application process again. Plenty of time to fit that into your lives, including making the time and finding the money.
They took my class yesterday, as I write this. No charge, of course; folks who've got this sort of thing going on in their lives have enough to worry about without coming up with several hundred bucks for training.
Lots of standup folks in the community. Over the past couple of years, I've heard from four other instructor, who have stepped up and said that if I'm unavailable, that I could just send anybody with an emergency permit to them -- they'll train them, too, at no charge. DDB was first to step up, but there have been others. Mark Koscielski has offered to sell anybody in that situation an appropriate firearm at cost (yes, an emergency permit works as a purchase permit), which wasn't necessary in this situation; even before they called me, they'd gone out and purchased appropriate handguns. (And they've got a good gun shop out where they live -- I don't know about cost, but the shop owner recommended precisely the make and model I would have.) They did just fine in class, and at the qualification at Burnsville Pistol Range. Roger Hird -- the owner of the range -- waived their range fees. He was out of .38 ammunition, but another pair of my students was there practicing, and they'd brought along some extra, which they provided.
As to the publicity around it, I'm of two minds. In their case, it's a two-edged sword. Publicity can -- and I hope it does -- persuade their violent stalkers that the risks of continuing this campaign of terroristic threats and violence has now gotten too risky, both in terms of personal safety, and of
attention -- by both police authorities, and the press -- and perhaps they'll simply give it up. On the other side, there's obviously some risks in coming out as a permit holder, something I had to think about some years ago, when I was asked to testify in public hearings at the Senate and House. (I don't have to think about that anymore; I'm, well, kind of out as a permit holder.)
In more general terms, I think it's a teaching moment for other folks. As I said in the book:
It makes much more sense to get a carry permit in advance of a personal safety problem, and keep it current, and then make day-to-day decisions should a threatening situation happen. More on that here. (You'll need the free Adobe reader, or similar software.) The nature of emergencies is, by and large, that you they happen unexpectedly. You can plan for them, of course, and that's kind of the point.
One reporter asked me what I know was a well-intentioned question, roughly, "Do you think that there's anything else somebody in that sort of situation should do, other than getting a gun?" (She's admittedly nervous around firearms, and has never so much as touched one; I hope she'll take the Beginner-to-Carry class.)
Well, of course. There's lots of things that somebody who knows that they're in danger ought to do; getting a carry permit, an appropriate self-defense handgun, training, and practice can easily be a part of what somebody should do, but it's obviously not all of it. If there's a handgun that projects an invincible (or, for that matter, a vincible) protective force field around the owner, I'm unaware of one -- although I'd like one.
"If you'd told me a year ago that I'd be getting a gun permit today, I'd have said that you were crazy."
</blockquote>
Risks change. Which makes more sense?
Being prepared to deal with the risks and not having to? Or not being prepared, and then having to?
It's a matter of personal choice, and I hope people make wise ones.
