More from Sussex County

[Blk97F150]

This place is sounding more and more like Surry County.... :uhoh:

From a VCDL.org email alert:

--------------------------------------------------
SUSSEX COUNT SHERIFF’S EXTRA-LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT (CHP) APPLICANTS

If you live in Sussex county, are either applying for, or renewing, a CHP (or if you know somebody that is), and you are told that you must meet with the Sheriff, DECLINE to do so.

Currently, the Sussex Circuit Court Clerk, Gary Williams, is sending CHP applicants to see Sheriff Bell, who not only photographs them (!), but also interviews them!!

Both of those actions are totally illegal under Virginia law and it appears that the Sheriff won’t run a background check on anyone who doesn’t comply!

VCDL has notified Mr. Williams, that, by law, he has to issue a temporary permit to any CHP applicant who has not received their 5-year CHP within 45 days. It doesn’t matter whether the Sheriff has run a background check or not.

VCDL has long held that people shouldn’t need to have a permit to carry a concealed handgun, much less need a background check to do so. So if the Sheriff wants people to get permits and carry without a background check, that’s up to him.

That said, if the 90-day temporary permit runs out without a 5-year CHP being issued, then VCDL will escalate its legal efforts accordingly. A writ of Mandamus can be issued against the Clerk, the Judge, and the Sheriff. All we need is someone to be a plaintiff because they did not get their 5-year permit in 45-days and VCDL will fight the legal battle at NO cost to you.

If you live in Sussex, let me know if any of these apply to you (even if you don’t want to be our plaintiff):

* it has been over 45 days since you applied for your CHP and you don’t have either the 5-year permit or a temporary permit

* You had a temporary permit that ran out after 90 days and still don’t have your 5-year permit

* You have been told by the Circuit Court Clerk after 5/12/14 to see the Sheriff while applying for your CHP

* The Sheriff or his deputies have tried to photograph you or interview you when applying for your CHP

VCDL HAS SENT A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST TO THE SHERIFF

When a government entity collects private information on citizens, there are both state and federal laws that dictate how that information is to be stored and protected. VCDL has sent Sheriff Bell a Freedom of Information Act request for copies of policies and procedures related to the storage and protection of photographs, interview notes, etc. that the Sheriff has unlawfully taken of CHP applicants over the years.

I will keep everyone apprised as our battle with Sussex county progresses.

 

[peter nap]

Is Sussex County above the law? It's starting to look like they think they are. In April they passed a noise ordinance that included Firearms noise. By their own admission that was in response to Virginia passing Sunday Hunting and not allowing the Counties to decide the issue themselves,

Now VCDL has discovered that they are violating procedure in issuing Concealed Handgun Permits.The law is ver... See More


I'll be there on Thursday about their Noise Ordinance, to hand deliver FOIA's and will ask about the CHP procedure as well.

 

[peter nap]

I don't know if anyone is going for the Board Meeting Thursday but if you do, they have them in the General district courthouse so ....No Guns.

 

[2a4all]

This place is sounding more and more like Surry County.... :uhoh:

From a VCDL.org email alert:

--------------------------------------------------
SUSSEX COUNT SHERIFF’S EXTRA-LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT (CHP) APPLICANTS

If you live in Sussex county, are either applying for, or renewing, a CHP (or if you know somebody that is), and you are told that you must meet with the Sheriff, DECLINE to do so.

Currently, the Sussex Circuit Court Clerk, Gary Williams, is sending CHP applicants to see Sheriff Bell, who not only photographs them (!), but also interviews them!!

Both of those actions are totally illegal under Virginia law and it appears that the Sheriff won’t run a background check on anyone who doesn’t comply!


I will keep everyone apprised as our battle with Sussex county progresses.

AFAIK, the sheriff is free to interview an applicant for a CHP as part of his background investigation, but if he's refusing to do a background check because the applicant won't consent to be photographed, then this sounds like extortion! (Before asking for a cite that allows the interview, can anyone cite a prohibition of same?)

 

[TFred]

AFAIK, the sheriff is free to interview an applicant for a CHP as part of his background investigation, but if he's refusing to do a background check because the applicant won't consent to be photographed, then this sounds like extortion! (Before asking for a cite that allows the interview, can anyone cite a prohibition of same?)

No need to cite a prohibition. The code clearly says what the process is, and what information is allowed to be requested, and it even includes the prohibition on even ASKING for information that is not cited. Asking a person to submit to a personal interview is not in the required list of information, and therefore, it is illegal to do so.

TFred

 

[Grapeshot]

No need to cite a prohibition. The code clearly says what the process is, and what information is allowed to be requested, and it even includes the prohibition on even ASKING for information that is not cited. Asking a person to submit to a personal interview is not in the required list of information, and therefore, it is illegal to do so.

TFred

Agreed - No photograph, no interview, no asking for either. Period. Exclamation point!

It is a violation of statute so to do = illegal.

 

[2a4all]

No need to cite a prohibition. The code clearly says what the process is, and what information is allowed to be requested, and it even includes the prohibition on even ASKING for information that is not cited. Asking a person to submit to a personal interview is not in the required list of information, and therefore, it is illegal to do so.

TFred

Do I think that the sheriff is being a bit high-handed here? Yes. But...

18.2-308.02. Application for a concealed handgun permit; Virginia resident or domiciliary.
A. No information or documentation other than that which is allowed on the application in accordance with this section may be requested or required by the clerk or the court.

The Sheriff is neither the Clerk nor the Court, and is independent of both.

E. An application is deemed complete when all information required to be furnished by the applicant, including the fee for a concealed handgun permit as set forth in § 18.2-308.03, is delivered to and received by the clerk of court before or concomitant with the conduct of a state or national criminal history records check.

18.2-308.04. Processing of the application and issuance of a concealed handgun permit.
B. Upon receipt of the completed application, the court shall consult with either the sheriff or police department of the county or city and receive a report from the Central Criminal Records Exchange.

Are there two things required here? A consultation and a CCRE report? Perhaps so.

D. A court may authorize the clerk to issue concealed handgun permits, without judicial review, to applicants who have submitted complete applications, for whom the criminal history records check does not indicate a disqualification and, after consulting with either the sheriff or police department of the county or city, about which application there are no outstanding questions or issues.

How should the sheriff determine if there are no outstanding questions or issues? His hands are not tied here.

As long as he (the sheriff) gets all this done within the allotted time frame, what's the problem?

 

[peter nap]

I had to think about this for a while. I did talk to the clerk and know how his office is handling it but I haven't talked to the Sheriff. To be honest, I'm taking my cue from VCDL's response to Chesterfield where Philip said it was a hunting issue and not a 2nd Amendment thing.

I am involved in the noise ordinance because it's a hunting issue and while VCDL has given it lip service because it prohibits shooting in general......they haven't taken a stance on the hunting aspect.

They are being proactive in the CHP policy and they are the CHP folks, so it's in good hands. :uhoh:

No pun intended but....I don't have a dog in that fight. I assume there is a VCDL member there that complained but I didn't think they had any members in the sticks. :lol:

 

[skidmark]

Do I think that the sheriff is being a bit high-handed here? Yes. But...

18.2-308.02. Application for a concealed handgun permit; Virginia resident or domiciliary.
A. No information or documentation other than that which is allowed on the application in accordance with this section may be requested or required by the clerk or the court.

The Sheriff is neither the Clerk nor the Court, and is independent of both.

But he is answerable to the Code of Virginia.

E. An application is deemed complete when all information required to be furnished by the applicant, including the fee for a concealed handgun permit as set forth in § 18.2-308.03, is delivered to and received by the clerk of court before or concomitant with the conduct of a state or national criminal history records check.

Notice that the requirement is information derived from a state or national criminal history records check. Nothing more.

18.2-308.04. Processing of the application and issuance of a concealed handgun permit.
B. Upon receipt of the completed application, the court shall consult with either the sheriff or police department of the county or city and receive a report from the Central Criminal Records Exchange.

Are there two things required here? A consultation and a CCRE report? Perhaps so.

D. A court may authorize the clerk to issue concealed handgun permits, without judicial review, to applicants who have submitted complete applications, for whom the criminal history records check does not indicate a disqualification and, after consulting with either the sheriff or police department of the county or city, about which application there are no outstanding questions or issues.

The Clerk is free to consult with the Sheriff or PD all they want. The Sheriff or PD is free to provide all the information they know abouty the applicant that does not show up on a criminal history records check that would suggest (note carefully that word) the applicant may otherwise be unqualified to receive a CHP. But eventually they are going to have to provide documentation that the applicant is disqualified as per the reasons enumerated in the Code.

How should the sheriff determine if there are no outstanding questions or issues? His hands are not tied here.

You are misreading the Code. It is the Clerk who determines if there are no outstanding questions or issues. Questions like did certain prior criminal convictions occur lomg ago enough that they are no long a disqualifier? Issues like did the applicant's check clear the bank?

As long as he (the sheriff) gets all this done within the allotted time frame, what's the problem?

Actually, the Sheriff has no timeframe in which do initiate, let alone complete, the criminal history records check. The clerk is the one under the gun (so to speak) regarding a deadline to act.

And just to repeat it so there is no question about it - if the Sheriff has information about an applicant not available from a criminal history records check that suggests the applicant is disqualified as per the enumerated reasons, the Sheriff is free to submit documentation of the alleged disqualification. But being a smartazz, or a member of the opposing political party (or even a Communist), or having a daddy/mommy who was an ax-murderer, is not a disqualification.

As for the Sheriff interviewing applicants? What qualifications/licenses does the Sheriff posses to determine anything that might impinge on the qualification/disqualification of an applicant? They are most likely not a qualified MH clinician, and even if they had the degrees and licenses and certifications since they are not acting as one professionally anything they might think/say would be considered unsupported opinion. Virginia, unlike some other states, does not have a "good moral character" qualification any more. See the preceeding paragraph for some of the reasons why that is so.

The Sheriff can wish and desire and hope to interview CHP applicants, but CHP applicants have no obligation to submit to being interviewed. Further, refusal to submit to an interview is not an enumerated disqualification, so if the applicant tells the Sheriff to go pound sand there is nothing the ASheriff can do about it in regards to the CHP application process.

stay safe.

 

[2a4all]

But he is answerable to the Code of Virginia.

E. An application is deemed complete when all information required to be furnished by the applicant, including the fee for a concealed handgun permit as set forth in § 18.2-308.03, is delivered to and received by the clerk of court before or concomitant with the conduct of a state or national criminal history records check.

Notice that the requirement is information derived from a state or national criminal history records check. Nothing more.

18.2-308.04. Processing of the application and issuance of a concealed handgun permit.
B. Upon receipt of the completed application, the court shall consult with either the sheriff or police department of the county or city and receive a report from the Central Criminal Records Exchange.



The Clerk is free to consult with the Sheriff or PD all they want. The Sheriff or PD is free to provide all the information they know abouty the applicant that does not show up on a criminal history records check that would suggest (note carefully that word) the applicant may otherwise be unqualified to receive a CHP. But eventually they are going to have to provide documentation that the applicant is disqualified as per the reasons enumerated in the Code.

We all know that NICS contains errors. The Sheriff's due diligence could be useful to a wrongly identified individual and perhaps avoid a wrongful denial, ore tenus, etc.



You are misreading the Code. It is the Clerk who determines if there are no outstanding questions or issues. Questions like did certain prior criminal convictions occur lomg ago enough that they are no long a disqualifier? Issues like did the applicant's check clear the bank?

Misreading? Or just differently than you? I don't see the clerk as solely burdened.

Actually, the Sheriff has no timeframe in which do initiate, let alone complete, the criminal history records check. The clerk is the one under the gun (so to speak) regarding a deadline to act.

And the Clerk has a path to follow if this time frame is not met (issue temporary permit).

And just to repeat it so there is no question about it - if the Sheriff has information about an applicant not available from a criminal history records check that suggests the applicant is disqualified as per the enumerated reasons, the Sheriff is free to submit documentation of the alleged disqualification. But being a smartazz, or a member of the opposing political party (or even a Communist), or having a daddy/mommy who was an ax-murderer, is not a disqualification.

As for the Sheriff interviewing applicants? What qualifications/licenses does the Sheriff posses to determine anything that might impinge on the qualification/disqualification of an applicant? They are most likely not a qualified MH clinician, and even if they had the degrees and licenses and certifications since they are not acting as one professionally anything they might think/say would be considered unsupported opinion. Virginia, unlike some other states, does not have a "good moral character" qualification any more. See the preceeding paragraph for some of the reasons why that is so.

Doesn't need any of these. Based on personal knowledge, s/he might be trying to clear up a NICS discrepancy, i.e. "NICS says you're a MH risk. Is this person actually you?". Sheriffs/PDs don't have to do this, but they are not prohibited. In this case, the Sheriff would be serving his constituents. Some might use this as a premise for a fishing expedition.

The Sheriff can wish and desire and hope to interview CHP applicants, but CHP applicants have no obligation to submit to being interviewed. Further, refusal to submit to an interview is not an enumerated disqualification, so if the applicant tells the Sheriff to go pound sand there is nothing the ASheriff can do about it in regards to the CHP application process.

As I said in my original post, I think he's being high-handed. I've also heard that he consulted with the judge about his authority to do this, and was told that he could, as did his his predecessor.

stay safe.

My responses are interleaved with Skid's statements.

 

[peter nap]

In Sussex it is sent to the Commonwealths Attorney for their approval after the Sheriff approves (Their recorded words not mine) before it goes back to the Clerk.

 

[Blk97F150]

In Sussex it is sent to the Commonwealths Attorney for their approval after the Sheriff approves (Their recorded words not mine) before it goes back to the Clerk.

So... did you manage to keep a straight face when you heard that? :lol:

 

[Grapeshot]

Also consider that Virginia is a Dillon Rule state. That which the legislature has not authorized ain't up for grabs.

"What is the Dillon Rule?

The Dillon Rule is used in interpreting law when there is a question of whether or not a local government has a certain power. Lawyers call it the rule of statutory construction.

Dillon's Rule construes grants of power to localities very narrowly. The bottom law is -- if there is a question about a local government's power or authority, then the local government does NOT receive the benefit of the doubt. Under Dillon's Rule, one must assume the local government does NOT have the power in question."

http://www.patobannon.com/frequently-asked-questions/what-is-the-dillon-rule

 

[peter nap]

Went to Sussex and they voted to eliminate item 5 (Firearms) You probably still won't be able to hunt at night. It's a pretty county and that's the only nice thing I can think of saying. The Sheriff reminds me of fat Albert, the board hasn't a clue about running the county with the exception of one Supervisor and the County Administrator wears Blue Suede Shoes....Small turnout of hunters but there had been some behind the scenes work and I think most knew what the result would be.