Denied my CHP

[1000ydshooter]

imported post

Today i found out i denied my chp application here in isle of wight county.I have been a resident in the county for 39yrs,minor criminal record (A couple bounced checks about 10yrs ago,and 3 speeding tickets.) what i want to know is what can i do to protest this.i have requested a face to face with the sheriff as it was a letter of no recomendation to the judge that caused it.Any other ideas as how to proceede.

 

[ProShooter]

imported post

You can request an Ore Tenus hearing. Call the Clerk's Office to find out the procedure for filing that.

 

[wylde007]

imported post

18.2-308(L)

Any person denied a permit to carry a concealed handgun under the provisions of this section may present a petition for review to the Court of Appeals. The petition for review shall be filed within 60 days of the expiration of the time for requesting an ore tenus hearing pursuant to subsection I, or if an ore tenus hearing is requested, within 60 days of the entry of the final order of the circuit court following the hearing. The petition shall be accompanied by a copy of the original papers filed in the circuit court, including a copy of the order of the circuit court denying the permit. Subject to the provisions of subsection B of § 17.1-410, the decision of the Court of Appeals or judge shall be final. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the decision to deny the permit is reversed upon appeal, taxable costs incurred by the person shall be paid by the Commonwealth.

 

[1000ydshooter]

imported post

Thanks guys thats a start let me see how my sit down with the sheriff goes then work from there.

 

[ProShooter]

imported post

1000ydshooter wrote:

Thanks guys thats a start let me see how my sit down with the sheriff goes then work from there.

What did his letter say?

 

[1000ydshooter]

imported post

I Quote "A review of the applicants criminal records indicates he has several charges,indicating he has a history of ignoring the laws of the commomwealth."

"i am therefore reluctant to recommend that he be given a permit to carry a concealed weapon."

 

[Thundar]

imported post

There are very few things a Sheriff can say that would cause denial of a CHP.

Sheriffmay have gotten a bogus hit on a background check???

Your clock is ticking ask for a hearing and FOIA the Sheriff.

 

[wylde007]

imported post

That does not sound like a reasonable cause for denial. The Sheriff saying that he is "reluctant" should not imply that he does not.

Traffic offenses and non-violent misdemeanors, regardless of the volume, should not (are not?) lawful extent to deny.

 

[1000ydshooter]

imported post

Thats what i was thinking as well had spme identity theft a few years back.got it cleared up on my State police record.ill keep ya'll posted.

 

[Stafford_1911]

imported post

Who the hell cares what the Sheriff thinks?

Paragraph E of 18.2-308 is extremely specific. Unless you fall into one of the 20 disqualifications the permit should have been issued!

I still find myself wondering how many people are denied for no good reason and just give in.

Good luck….

 

[Repeater]

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

That does not sound like a reasonable cause for denial. The Sheriff saying that he is "reluctant" should not imply that he does not.

Traffic offenses and non-violent misdemeanors, regardless of the volume, should not (are not?) lawful extent to deny.

The problem here stems from subdivsion E13 of Code § 18.2-308:

An individual who the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, based on specific acts by the applicant, is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth may submit to the court a sworn written statement indicating that, in the opinion of such sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth, based upon a disqualifying conviction or upon the specific acts set forth in the statement, the applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The statement of the sheriff, chief of police, or the attorney for the Commonwealth shall be based upon personal knowledge of such individual or of a deputy sheriff, police officer, or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth of the specific acts, or upon a written statement made under oath before a notary public of a competent person having personal knowledge of the specific acts.

What a mess. The ideal remedy is to repeal that subdivision altogether. An alternative, attempted before, is to limit the damage to the previous 3 to 5 years.

 

[ProShooter]

imported post

1000ydshooter wrote:

I Quote "A review of the applicants criminal records indicates he has several charges,indicating he has a history of ignoring the laws of the commomwealth."

"i am therefore reluctant to recommend that he be given a permit to carry a concealed weapon."

Tell him that you weren't looking to carry a concealed weapon. Only a concealed handgun!

and besides, I dont see how his letter satisfies the requirement of "An individual who the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, based on specific acts by the applicant, is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others"

This letter stems from some bad check and driving offenses?.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

1000ydshooter wrote:

I Quote "A review of the applicants criminal records indicates he has several charges,indicating he has a history of ignoring the laws of the commomwealth."

"i am therefore reluctant to recommend that he be given a permit to carry a concealed weapon."

It is not up to him to "recommend" anything.

He is to approve or disapproved based on the law.

File for Ore Tenus soonest.

Yata hey

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

That does not sound like a reasonable cause for denial. The Sheriff saying that he is "reluctant" should not imply that he does not.

Traffic offenses and non-violent misdemeanors, regardless of the volume, should not (are not?) lawful extent to deny.

Yes, I beleive that is true. IIRC it is SHALL ISSUE with certain restrictions for denial. Misdemeanors are not one of them unless you have had more than a certain number in the last three or five years. You'll have to look it up in 18.2-308. I'm quite sure they cannot deny you based on what you have told us.

DO NOTunderestimate the desire of some judges to turn you down for anything they can, even if the law does NOT allow them to. The judge is hoping you DON'T KNOW THE LAW.

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

Here you go, 18.2-308 E7, this is a list of people who are to be denied, one of the conditions is:

7. An individual who has been convicted of two or more misdemeanors within the five-year period immediately preceding the application, if one of the misdemeanors was a Class 1 misdemeanor, but the judge shall have the discretion to deny a permit for two or more misdemeanors that are not Class 1. Traffic infractions and misdemeanors set forth in Title 46.2 shall not be considered for purposes of this disqualification.


Since your infractions were more than five years ago they CANNOT deny you. But you're going to have to fight them.Give them a black eye for me :^). I'm not sure if you can go directly to the judge or not or just bring this up with the Sheriff, he might be able to get it corrected for you. Quote this section to him.

 

[TFred]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

Here you go, 18.2-308 E7, this is a list of people who are to be denied, one of the conditions is:

7. An individual who has been convicted of two or more misdemeanors within the five-year period immediately preceding the application, if one of the misdemeanors was a Class 1 misdemeanor, but the judge shall have the discretion to deny a permit for two or more misdemeanors that are not Class 1. Traffic infractions and misdemeanors set forth in Title 46.2 shall not be considered for purposes of this disqualification.

Since your infractions were more than five years ago they CANNOT deny you. But you're going to have to fight them.Give them a black eye for me :^). I'm not sure if you can go directly to the judge or not or just bring this up with the Sheriff, he might be able to get it corrected for you. Quote this section to him.

JMHO, but it is the sheriff who is up to no good here. He needs to be "outed" and corrected by the appropriate authorities. He appears to be on a power kick, and that has no place in public service.

TFred

 

[Mike]

imported post

1000ydshooter wrote:

Thanks guys thats a start let me see how my sit down with the sheriff goes then work from there.

I'm not sure this is a good idea - why don;t you star by goin gto the courthosue and getting a compelte copy of your CHP file, letter and all.

 

[virginiatuck]

imported post

Repeater wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

That does not sound like a reasonable cause for denial. The Sheriff saying that he is "reluctant" should not imply that he does not.

Traffic offenses and non-violent misdemeanors, regardless of the volume, should not (are not?) lawful extent to deny.

The problem here stems from subdivsion E13 of Code § 18.2-308:

An individual who the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, based on specific acts by the applicant, is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth may submit to the court a sworn written statement indicating that, in the opinion of such sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth, based upon a disqualifying conviction or upon the specific acts set forth in the statement, the applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The statement of the sheriff, chief of police, or the attorney for the Commonwealth shall be based upon personal knowledge of such individual or of a deputy sheriff, police officer, or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth of the specific acts, or upon a written statement made under oath before a notary public of a competent person having personal knowledge of the specific acts.

Another key point in that subsection is that the sworn statement must be based upon "personal knowledge" of the individual or of the specific acts. I take that to mean that the official or competent person can not base his statement merely on information obtained from the background check. He'd have had to be personally involved in the crime (as perpetrator or victim), investigation, arrest, or conviction.

I could be mis-interpreting that subsection, though...

 

[Mike]

imported post

Repeater wrote:

the specific acts set forth in the statement, the applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The statement of the sheriff, chief of police, or the attorney for the Commonwealth shall be based upon personal knowledge of such individual or of a deputy sheriff, police officer, or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth of the specific acts, or upon a written statement made under oath before a notary public of a competent person having personal knowledge of the specific acts.

If the statement does not cvomply with the above, the letter should not be relevant to the judges decision - I recommend you get a lawyer from your area to represent you at ore tenus and consider paying for a stenogrpgher to make a record of the hearing for possible appeal purposes

 

[Repeater]

imported post

virginiatuck wrote:

Repeater wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

That does not sound like a reasonable cause for denial. The Sheriff saying that he is "reluctant" should not imply that he does not.

Traffic offenses and non-violent misdemeanors, regardless of the volume, should not (are not?) lawful extent to deny.

The problem here stems from subdivsion E13 of Code § 18.2-308:

An individual who the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, based on specific acts by the applicant, is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth may submit to the court a sworn written statement indicating that, in the opinion of such sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth, based upon a disqualifying conviction or upon the specific acts set forth in the statement, the applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The statement of the sheriff, chief of police, or the attorney for the Commonwealth shall be based upon personal knowledge of such individual or of a deputy sheriff, police officer, or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth of the specific acts, or upon a written statement made under oath before a notary public of a competent person having personal knowledge of the specific acts.

Another key point in that subsection is that the sworn statement must be based upon "personal knowledge" of the individual or of the specific acts. I take that to mean that the official or competent person can not base his statement merely on information obtained from the background check. He'd have had to be personally involved in the crime (as perpetrator or victim), investigation, arrest, or conviction.

I could be mis-interpreting that subsection, though...

It is supposed to exclude Hearsay testimony. At least, that's the theory.