Concealed Carry Application in the Land of 10,000 Liberals.

USAFNoDak

New member
In the area where I live in MN, there is no way they will grant you a CCW permit, unless you have a job as a armored car guard, or other private security employment.

I was thinking of a plan just to twist the nipples of the Sheriff. I wanted to bounce this off of you folks to get inputs on whether this would be smart or not.

The application asks for all kinds of personal information. Then, you need to provide a reason for wanting a permit to carry a concealded weapon. It doesn't matter, where I am at, they will say that your reason isn't good enough (the problem with "may isssue permit systems"). So here is the reason I was thinking of giving:

Reason: I just wanted to have a permit so that when I carry concealed, you are just as comfortable with it as I am.

Now I would have to not carry concealed for a short period of time as they would at some point get around to "checking me out". But after I had been checked and they found me not carrying, they would probably leave me alone.

Would there be anything illegal about this? After all, I only gave them "a" reason, which they asked for. Maybe we could get this going on a widespread basis. Have all kinds of gun owners go in and do this just to tweak them a little. Is this too cruel or over the top?
 

Lictalon

New member
If you must, for some strange reason, twist the nipples of someone with a badge, could I suggest getting a friend, who does not carry at all, apply for the permit with the above stated reason? Why draw any attention at all to yourself?

And if you want my opinion, there's no point. It won't change anything, and only antagonizes. Why be the irritant?

FWIW
 

pdmoderator

New member
Ticking off a police chief is a good way to find out, very quickly, exactly what a ticked-off police chief can do to you if he feels like it.

(Clue: A friend of mine tweaked a chief's nose once. Result: He jackbooted our whole town. Continues to do it to this day.)

- pdmoderator
 

USAFNoDak

New member
The reasoning behind the desire to tweak, is that the politicians continually state that our CCW law (may issue) is working just fine, and that anyone who needs to carry a concealed weapon can go through the process to get one. But what they don't tell you is, that it won't matter what the reasoning is that you give them on their form they will patently deny you one, at least in the area I live in. In some areas of MN, the CLEO's give them out quite readily.

All I would be doing would be going through the process, legally, but giving them a reason they might not like to hear. But who cares, they won't accept any reason in the first place. Do you understand the frustration. I just believe this would relieve a little pent up hostility on my part while really doing no harm to anyone.

That being said, that is why I came here first. I value the inputs of people on this forum. I wanted to get some feedback before actually going ahead with what is indeed a "stunt", even though no law abiding citizen should have to put up with this. Us law abiding citizens are being "tweaked" constantly, by politicians and the guys with the badges at the top who push the policies. A little revenge would feel pretty good if you don't get into too much hot water.
 

snubby

New member
I agree with several others above that there is NO good purpose served by "tweaking" the LEO chief's nose. It won't help you get a legal CCW permit and will merely highlight your desire (intention?) to carry concealed (legal or not?). A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, when it comes to concealed carry. Just don't let the powers-that-be in on the little secret!
 

Cal4D4

New member
Sounds like good fun EXCEPT:

The politician is buffered from your "protest" by the top end of the police department. The top political end of the PD is buffered from your protest by the front line LEO in the street. Look where the pressure ends up.
 

USAFNoDak

New member
Cal4D4, you are correct. The front line LEO would take the brunt of this and that is not what I want to happen. It was fun to think about, but it is not something I will follow through on.

Thinking cap goes back on. Is there a smiley face with a thinking cap on? It would be appropriate here.
 

Pendragon

New member
Let sleeping dogs lie...

I really think this is a bad idea.

The shall issue nazis are denying you on principle. Corrupt principle, but it is on principle.

The last thing you want to do is draw attention to yourself, especially if you practice XLC (extra-legal-carry).

You should read Jim March's page http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw

We have the exact same situation going on in most of California and there is not much you can do.

You could try moving to another area.

My cousin bought an ATM machine and I was going to do the service on it for him so I would have a legit need for CCW, but it just never worked out (Thieves broke into the mall where the machine was and tied it to a truck - took forever to get it fixed, then they sold it.)

Also - do you have any friends who are LEOs? See if they will give you a heads up or put in a word - cant hurt.

Good luck.
 

Dagny

New member
As discussed in other threads:
There are enough laws already on the books for which to find you guilty of a felony that the ticked off chief could nail you on something and take away all your guns for life.

Failing that, if you drive a vehicle his troops could make any trip anywhere a nightmare AND they will eventually nail you on enough stuff to take your license to drive. Then they'll get you for driving without a license.

And then there are even nastier ways - such as planting some drugs in your car or house as they search it for weapons, etc. Then they confiscate your house and vehicle.
 

braindead0

New member
They can simply make your life miserable by pulling you over for a variety of fix-it violations. I know police love to claim that a vehicles license plate isn't properly visible, dirty, mangled..etc..
 

Huntersix

New member
I too live in the Land of 10,000 blissninnies, and the local PD wouldn't even give me the CCW application unless I could show them an employment reason that I needed one.:barf: :barf: Anybody in MN know of a public range besides Oakdale thats open for rifle shooting? I can't find any place close (North metro area) to go shooting.:(


-Six
 

Jeff OTMG

New member
pdmoderator, I would have expected nothing less from a NJ LEO. In my book, collectively, the worst of the bunch. I honestly believe there are more bad ones than good one.

USAFNoDak, you need to talk to Jim March who is fighting a good fight in Calif. It may be illegal for the Sheriff to deny giving you an application. Is it? Have you read the law? Are valid reason for CCW permit issue enumerated in state law? Is a list of persons who have been issued a permit in your county available listing the valid reasons? Are any of them not employment related? Have any of them donated money to the Sheriff's election campaign? His donor list is available. Are any of them social friends of the Sheriff? Do any of them do the same work you do?

A CC permit is very difficult to get in Guam. Now I did some 'smoozing', but still needed a reason. My reason was that I wished to be responsible for my own safety and that a permit was not necessary, provided the Guam PD was willing to guarantee my personal safety at all times on the island.
 

USAFNoDak

New member
HunterSix,

The only place I know of is the Bald Eagle Sportsman's Club, which I believe has a rifle range, although I have to admit I have never been there.
 

USAFNoDak

New member
I have not read the law, and so I am not sure what the "valid" reasons might be. I have been in touch with MCCN (Minnesota Concealed Carry Now) and have donated them some money. They are a good, but small organization, but they seem to know the laws pretty well. I have resolved myself to work with and through them. My job would not warrant CCW. My only need is for my own well being.

But you do have to admit, it is a pretty funny scheme. It's just that the CLEO wouldn't have the same sense of humor that I do, as many of you have pointed out.

Isn't it sad that the govt. can trample on our rights and think nothing of it, but if we would even try this little stunt they would take such great offense as to hassle us and make our lives miserable, even though we have broken no law. (I said when I carry, not that I was going to carry or even that I do). I don't see how this could be fraudulent, as they are the ones asking for the reason, and I would be honoring their request.

I believe I would change it slightly however to: I have come here as a law abiding, responsible citizen. My mere presence here is an indicator, in and of itself, that I am a law abiding and responsible member of the community. My reason for wanting to carry a concealed weapon permit is so that I am legal in the governments eyes, if and when I ever need to carry a concealed weapon for my own safety.
 

Jim March

New member
Allow me to interject :).

I've done a lot more than "tweak" :D.

Go to my page, and pull up the "Expose Project" files. Start reading. You will not BELIEVE some of the crap I've uncovered. The problems go all the way to the office of the state AG.

The comment above about how "they're operating on a wrongful principle, but a principle nonetheless" is probably accurate in some towns, but NOT all. Get at least a list of permitholders for some of the jurisdictions that treat people the worst on CCW. Cross-ref the names against major campaign contributors. Basically, if there's ANY kind of corruption going on in the city/county, it'll be reflected in that analysis. In California, we're finding a high correlation between GENERAL known LEO corruption and crooked/biased/corrupt/racist CCW issuance.

Example: in Contra Costa County, not only are over 2/3rds of the permitholders members of the Sheriff's personal political club (the "Sheriff's Posse"), and not only are the members of this non-law-enforcement club getting all kinds of "police trappings" such as badges/uniforms/gold stars/oaths of office/etc - the club is top-heavy with real estate developers and related people. Guess what? When you want to build something, you need to file an environmental impact report...everybody knows that. What most DON'T know is that the County Sheriff (at least in Calif) signs off on the traffic analysis and crime impact portions of the report.

In other words, these developers apparantly snuggled up to the Sheriff for reasons having little to do with CCW, but then once they got close scoring a carry permit was easy.

There was a scandal in Sacramento County a few years back on corrupt EIR signoffs from the Sheriff. That Sheriff was also a screwball in terms of CCW. And the Contra Costa sheriff was the Sacto Sheriff's good buddy, and borrowed large chunks of language from the Sacto county CCW policy manual.

In this and similar ways, CCW corruption is a pointer to BROADER corruption issues.

In three years of fighting, including two lawsuits on the subject against my Sheriff and two PDs, I haven't been screwed with in the least. Not so much as a funky search or a threatening phone call. Granted, I hung my guns up when I started, and I push the knife carry laws to the firewall but not beyond (see the "knife law" section of my page!), but if I *had* been packing all this time I wouldn't have had any trouble.

Why?

Because I've gone PUBLIC. Bigtime public :). Website, plus talked it up on every Calif gun-rights online forum there was, and made sure the cops I warred against *knew* it.

I *strongly* recommend the same to anybody!

It's a LOT of fun! It's a massive, complex chess match fought over years...takes patience, and guts, and a determination to *never* back down.

If you're willing to file your state's version of the FOIA seeking CCW data, and then cross-ref that with campaign finance statements, I'll help you publish the results and put it online, if you want. I've started to collect CCW issuance abuse reports from other states, I've got some interesting stuff from Florida prior to the 1987 reforms, from NYC, and from the FEDS - see also the Expose Project portion of my site.

From the "top level", you'll find media reports on how shall-issue isn't a disaster, my knife page (with a brief buyer's guide to top combat folders), much more. The "Practical Guide To Race And Gun Control" contains the latest research on the history of this type of gun control, and how to fight it in court with minority plaintiffs/co-plaintiffs - it's a blueprint to my third lawsuit, to start soon.

Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw
 

Ironbarr

New member
Along with the other reasons here...

When the Legislature & Governor get together this year, and due to massive political pressure for self-defense post 9/11 and a multitude of color-coded alerts, pass shall issue (with the usual exceptions + 1: "Previous 'nipple twisting' is a disqualifier") you're gonna be a bit unhappy.

Back to the drawing board (as you've already indicated).

.
 

Oleg Volk

Staff Alumnus
Having interviewed two of the suburban police chiefs (Hopkins, Edina), I have to say "don't do it." Nothing less than incapacitating them permanently, with the predudice reserved for the convicted parties of the Nuremberg case, would get to them. I am not sure if the Edina chief is constrained by his employers or is a willing evil-doers, but the Hopkins one is definitely an unsavory character who should not be trifled with. Getting him fired, or moving would be better options. Changing the law would be a better option. Waving a red cape in front of the proverbial bull would put you into needless danger. I am pretty sure that the other suburban and Metro chiefs are as despicable.

I moved. It was less satisfying than treating those people to what was coming to them, but more legal and, more pertinently, far safer for me. Since I can't bowman the world, getting on with my life in a friendlier state seemed like a good idea.
 

yorick

New member
I shoot at Gopher in Harris MN, it is not open to the public, but the cost of membership is not prohibitive... there may be a waiting list though.

One of our members does a lot of legislative work and "tweaks" the local politicians as well as LEO's where appropriate (though we have some LEO members too)

Her's the most recent story.....
May 5 Update -- The Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance
(GOCRA) just took exclusive ownership of the corporate names of the two
biggest anti-gun groups in the state: Citizens for a Safer Minnesota and
Citizens for a Safer Minnesota Education Fund.

Not only are those wonderful names for new organizations that would
truly make Minnesota safer -- by enlarging gun rights, not destroying
them -- the anti-gunners who spent a lot of time, money and energy
building up those names can no longer use them. Nor can they use signs,
stationery or other materials using those names.

That shut down the groups’ operations at a political convention this
weekend and promises to give a great deal of grief to the groups, their
officers, and their contributors.

Further, anyone who has contributed in the last three years to the IRS
501(c)(3) tax-deductible CSM Education Fund may have to file an amended tax
return -- including American For Safe Government Andrew McKelvey and his
personal anti-gun group, a heavy contributor to anti-gunners across the
country.

The Minnesota anti-gun organizations had failed to file their annual
non-profit corporation registration so their corporations had been
automatically dissolved by the Secretary of State's Office. That terminated
the existence of their corporate entities and made the business names
available for the taking.

GOCRA took the name of the lobbying organization by incorporating a
new subsidiary corporation with the now-available former name of the anti-
gun group. That required only a one page fill-in-the-blank form available
from the Secretary of State's Office and a $135 filing fee. The form was
downloaded from the SOS web page.

The gun organization also got the name of the anti-gunner's tax-
deductible foundation by forming another corporation which they intend to
qualify under Internal Revenue Code Sec. 501(c)(3).

While they were at it, the pro-gun group reserved for 12 months other
names they thought the anti-gunners might want to adopt (which costs less
than incorporating).

The founders of GOCRA, David Gross and Joe Olson, both lawyers,
were close friends and allies on the NRA Board until we were purged in the
post-Heston era. But they’re very much still in the fight; I attended an
meeting with Joe and other grass roots activists last week during the Reno
NRA meetings.

Joe and David discovered this opportunity by visiting the Minnesota
Secretary of State's web site and checking into whether their own
corporations and those of the anti-gunners were in good standing. It didn't
hurt that Joe is a law professor who specializes in corporate and tax law.

Neither of the anti-gunner's former corporations were in good
standing; both were listed as "inactive" for they hadn't filed their annual
registration for several years. The Secretary of State's on-line list of
dissolved corporations, which only went back 2 years, showed that the anti-
gun lobbying arm had been automatically dissolved 2 weeks ago.

The educational fund appeared to have lapsed even earlier so our
guys called up the corporations division at the SOS office and asked. Sure
enough, that corporation had been automatically dissolved 3 years ago.
Friday morning GOCRA filed the short-form Articles of Incorporation of two
new corporations with those names.

Bang, the names were theirs.

The Minnesota Secretary of State's office routinely sends out pre-
printed annual report forms to all corporations, so some anti-gunner
dropped the ball. Big time.

As good citizens should do, the IRS was notified that the anti-
gunner's tax exempt entity didn't exist and hadn't existed for three years.
For those tax years, it owes taxes on all its contributions and on the
grants from HCI, AGS, etc. Its individual and corporate donors who
deducted their contributions will have to file amended returns deleting
those so-called "charitable" deductions and paying additional taxes.

The anti-gun group compounded their problems by engaging in a neat
little trick, as explained on their web site, of taking ALL contributions
above their $35 a year dues, automatically shifting the remainder to the
tax-deductible fund, and issuing a tax deduction receipt. If they had only
paid as much attention to the filing of their annual forms . . ..

How would your club or organization like to have to notify all of
your contributors of this situation? Better check your own organization's
status immediately -- although very few gun groups have formed (c)(3)
charitable organizations.

The two new pro-gun corporations served the anti-gunners with
written demands to cease and desist from using the new corporations'
business names on stationary, pamphlets, web sites, etc.

They did this as soon as possible after incorporating. That just
happened to be at this weekend's state Democrat-Farmer-Labor Convention.
After a while, the anti-gun group packed up their booth and left.

Not bad for 3 days work. My hat's off to Joe and David.

As my friends pointed out in an email: "Most states have non-
profit corporations statutes with annual registration reguirements and
automatic dissolution after some period. An opportunity like this could
exist in any state. Get on the state web page this afternoon (it's on
24/7)."

Can't tell what you might find. Guerilla warfare can be fun.

Drop him an email at legislative@grrc.org
 
Top