Monday, October 1, 2007

Gary got his gun permit


This is the long-winded and long-awaited follow-up to my visit with Dr. Richard Boohar’s University of Nebraska honors class, Deciding Right and Wrong. I told this story to the students, and let them know that I expected Gary (who had just applied) would indeed be getting his concealed handgun permit within a few weeks. My question to them was whether I should or should not tell this story. We discussed the pros and cons, and in the end, they strongly believed that I should let it rip.

Blogging about concealed handguns is a sure way to attract a lot of spirited comments. I’m taking the plunge anyway, because I think this could provide some insight to some citizens on my discomfort, and because a group of really smart University of Nebraska students felt it was my obligation to do so.

Although I was not in favor of concealed carry, neither was I greatly worried about it. My opposition wasn’t based on fear that permit holders would run amok (the vast majority of perfectly law-abiding citizens) so much as it was on the knowledge that the law was a Swiss cheese of loopholes that would poorly define “law-abiding.” A few pretty untrustworthy people would end up with permits. They would use these in various ways—presenting them as ID when cashing a check, impressing people they meet socially, and who knows what else.

The Virginia Tech shootings exposed one of the glaring loopholes in firearms laws I have testified about during the past 15 years: the law does not effectively prevent some people with serious mental illnesses from obtaining permits or walking into a gun shop and buying a Glock and a Walther.

The second loophole in our State and Federal law is the nature of the criminal convictions that prevent a citizen from obtaining a firearm or a concealed carry permit. Here are some crimes that are not included on the list: stalking, violating a protection order, impersonating a police officer. Conversely, felony convictions such as rolling back an odometer disqualify one from a permit. Plea bargaining contributes to the problem—some people with frightening criminal records have only misdemeanor convictions because the most favorable plea agreements inevitably seem to go to the most prolific criminals, who come to the table with lots of cards to deal.

Gary is the best example I have, so far--though he's not the only one. It’s illegal for me to identify a concealed carry permit holder, so I’ll use the name “Gary.” He’s quite real, though, and he has a newly-minted Nebraska concealed handgun permit. He was convicted of the following crimes:
  • impersonating a police officer
  • violating a protection order
  • possession of methamphetamine
  • possession of alprazolam
  • possession of marijuana,
  • possession of drug paraphernalia
  • possession of illegal fireworks.
The first two, impersonating a police officer and violating a protection order, do not prohibit a person from receiving a concealed carry permit. I might also note that his protection order conviction was a plea bargain—he pleaded guilty to one count, while four other counts were dismissed. The felony drug conviction would ordinarily prevent a person from receiving a concealed handgun permit, but in 2006, he received a pardon. The Nebraska Board of Pardons (the Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General) granted a pardon, effectively erasing his convictions and restoring his gun rights.

Long before he sought the pardon, Gary had appealed his 1994 drug conviction to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. He lost. When I read their 1997 decision containing a short synopsis of the factual basis of the conviction, I was quite surprised that a pardon was granted.

Gary was stopped by a Nebraska State Patrol trooper for a traffic violation on the Interstate. He was wearing a pistol in a shoulder holder, and the trooper also spotted a bogus badge laying on his console. It turns out that Gary, a State employee at the time, apparently had acquired his own “badge”, custom made, with his employing agencies name engraved upon it. Gary worked for an agency which has no badges. The trooper recalled hearing that this same individual had previously used his “badge” to gain access to a Garth Brooks concert at the Devaney Sports Center, claiming that he was on an investigative mission for his employer.

After the Interstate stop, Gary’s car was searched. The troopers found methamphetamine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and another illegal pharmaceutical drug. This was all located in his car, along with a stun gun, several pistols, a shotgun, and a semi-automatic rifle. Interestingly, when Gary was convicted of impersonating a police officer in 1992, the case involved him approaching a carload of teenagers at 48th St. and Madison Ave. in Lincoln, waving a badge, demanding their registration and lecturing them about a traffic infraction.

Gary now has a Nebraska Concealed Handgun Permit, which no doubt will make a nice accessory to go along with his badges.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just curious chief is it easy for just anyone to go and get a pardon? And does a pardon erase your whole felony record or just the one you are aquiring about?

Tom Casady said...

I don't really know how easy or difficult it is. I was pretty surprised by this one, because of the "tough on crime" stance of a couple members of the Board of Pardons--even though the convictions are more than ten years ago.

It looks to me from the application posted at the Board of Pardons's web site that the applicant has to specify the convictions for which he or she seeks a pardon.

Unknown said...

While I agree with you that the Nebraska Concealed Handgun Permit Act is a jumbled mess, this sounds like a problem with the Pardons Board.

Anonymous said...

This is so much of a redundant topic that I nearly feel asleep while reading this. Sorry Chief D- on this one :(
brbk

Anonymous said...

How does rolling back a spedometer disqualify and applicant?

Isn't impersonating an officer a felony?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Gary is the type that would carry a concealed weapon regardless if he had a permit or not.

Maybe the Board of Pardons needs some new faces? Maybe people who would hold people like Gary accountable?

Tom Casady said...

Rolling back an odometer is a felony. Impersonating a police officer is a misdemeanor. Go figure. Lots of other bizarre examples exist.

Gary probably would carry a gun, if he is so inclined, permit or not--as he has in the past. Now he gets to carry that fancy Nebraska Concealed Handgun Permit around, and flip it out when he wants--which is probably why he wants it in the first place.

I suspect the Board of Pardons either didn't have the full story of his conviction (even though the details are pretty easy to find in the Court of Appeals decision) or they just weren't thinking, at that point in time, about the ramifications of excusing this kind of crime. Who knows.

I make no editorial comment on this case. I've done plenty of that in the past as the issue was under debate. It's the law, now, and I'm just laying out the information about this particular result.

Anonymous said...

Chief:

Doesn't the ATF 478.143 (8) requirements include "stalking" as a crime that prohibits the sale of firearms to a person? If that is the case, "Gary" cannot legally own a gun.

I do agree "Gary" is a person that is a danger to others and should not possess a CCW permit.

Unknown said...

Dear Mr. Casady,

One thing to keep in mind is that criminals do not obey the law, nor do they obey gun laws.

Law abiding citizens DO obey the law and in doing such, follow the proper procedure for obeying them.

It sounds like "Gary" has followed those procedures and has qualified. He might not be the greatest example of a model citizen but he did follow the rules.

I would guess that if the criminal element was still in him, he would have said "to hell" with the permit and broke the law by carrying anyway.

When I see the "no guns allowed" signs, I wonder if the criminal element heeds these signs and they keep out.......or does it just let them know that nothing but unarmed
(defenseless) people are inside?

I was branded a criminal 18 years ago by getting into a fist fight and being arrested. It was self defense on my part but the $300 fine was cheaper than an attorney at the time, so I plead “no contest”.

Because I’m now a criminal, I don’t qualify for a permit under Nebraska law because I committed “a crime of violence” Yes, a misdemeanor assault from 18 years ago keeps me
from qualifying! It doesn’t keep me from owning a gun, it just keeps me from concealing it for personal protection.

I could “open” carry (which is legal in Nebraska) for protection, but I would guess that would create quite a worry to people on the street as well as arouse the attention of any law enforcement in the area.

The Nebraska Board of Pardons only grants a pardon for around 40 percent of the folks that apply. It’s not an easy process at all and requires a lot of paperwork, including court documents, testimonials from several folks and a whole hell of a lot of embarrassment. There are timetables that have to be met (3 years for a misdemeanor, 10 years for a (felony) and you have to be ABSOLUTELY clean during that time period! So as you can see, it’s not an “easy” process. “Gary” must have been clean for 10 years to be able to qualify.

I’m about as “right wing” as you get, but some folks that get their life in order deserve a break.

Tom Casady said...

Anonymous 744:

First, Gary has never been convicted of stalking.

Second, no, stalking is not a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" as defined in18 USC 921. The very specific definition begins at the bottom of page six on this link. The elements of stalking do not include the use or threatened use of force--although that sometimes occurs in stalking cases. The defendenat would have to be convicted of some other crime including those elements.

This is also true of protection order violations. While the existnece of a current protection order that meets the 18 USC 923 standards is an impediment to firearms possession, a conviction for violating such an order is not.

Runner1717:

Your case points out another oddity of the law. Your single 18 year old misdemeanor assault conviction arising from a fist fight bars you lifelong from obtaining a concealed handgun permit. On the other hand, you could be convicted of stalking, violating a protection order, impersonating a peace officer, and contributing to the delinquency of a child LAST YEAR, and still be eligible.

Anonymous said...

My understanding is the wheels are in motion to identify CCW permit holders to law enforcement in vehicle computers etc (perhaps this has already occurred?)

Since we all agree that Gary would carry regardless - I would think it is better that he is following the law and thereby flagging himself as having a weapon to law enforcement.

I think the biggest takeaway from this example is (as is true in every situation) there are exceptions, anomolies and head scratching situations that don't fit within the anticipated framework - but that doesn't invalidate the overall value of the law.

We don't shut down the foodstamp program because there is a lady who drives a caddy, gets food stamps and buys nothing but PopTarts with them. We wish those cases didn't exist - but a few will always squeak through.

Ultimately, its critical for officers to be aware of this. The overwhelming perception is that the top 1%, most concientious, law abiding citizens are going to go to the trouble and spend the money to get the permit. Assuming that, it wouldn't be unreasonable for an officer to see a CCW "flag" on a person they are contacting, and actually relax a little, let their guard down - cause "this guy took the trouble to do it legal". Obviously, with the Gary's that exist, this wouldn't be a good idea.

Anonymous said...

My guess is "Gary" hasn't violated any of the mentioned laws in the last 10 years. If he has, "Gary" would find himself in quite a conundrum if contacted by law enforcement:

--Do I inform law enforcement that I am carrying a concealed weapon and violating Lincoln's municipal ordinance 9.36.100?

--Do I keep quiet and violate Nebraska's concealed carry provisions?

While it is certainly plausible that municipalities must enact stricter laws to prevent these "loopholes" when they are found, I can't believe that these loopholes were not at least thought of on the state level when this law was being debated on the floor of unicameral. I mean, this law was kicked around for sessions before it appeared in its current form. Perhaps we need legislators that are more concerned with their finished product than posturing on the issues. The last thing Nebraskans need is a half-baked gun law that requires someone else to clean it up.

At any rate, I appreciate at least some of the loopholes being plugged locally by Lincoln Municipal Code 9.36.100. Perhaps it gives law enforcement a tool to take the weapons it finds on folks like "Gary" if they are found in violation.

And Chief, "The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom." - Sun Tzu

Carry on--

Anonymous said...

I believe this story is more of an indictment of our criminal justice system than of the current concealed carry law.

Certainly LB 454 will be modified in time to close some of these legal loopholes. It will be fixed.

Perhaps then we will turn our attention to our increasingly ineffective criminal justice system?

viridari said...

The thing that boggles me is that you need a "permit" to exercise a "right". We were better off where a man could carry a pistol open or concealed without asking the nanny state for permission. You ever hear of an armed robbery happening successfully at a gun shop?

Obviously the thugs don't care whether they are permitted to carry or not, so these laws restricting CCW only create victims and protect the scumbags of the world.

It's interesting that we did fine without much of anything in the way of gun control laws until Prohibition (another great example of bad nanny state laws)

Tom Casady said...

viridari:

"You ever hear of an armed robbery happening successfully at a gun shop?"

Yes, January 28, 2000 the lone employee of Acher Arms in Lincoln, Gary L. Jones, was shot and killed during a robbery.

If you google "gun shop robbery" and "gun store robbery" you will find plenty. High value merchandise is attractive to violent criminals. Gun shop owners and employees are at risk of daylight armed robbery by criminals who will shoot first.

Mr. Jones got off a shot that wounded one of his two assailants before his death.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't appear that you think a person can change. It seems that Gary's convictions were several years ago and how do you know that this person has not changed. Do you know him personally or do you just think that because a person has a bad roll for a while that they are that way forever? Have you ever given anybody besides your officers a second chance?

Anonymous said...

My guess is that he's seen enough repeat offenders over the years that he would rather not see someone with the demonstrated character of "Gary" toting a concealed weapon. Drug possession, protection order violation, police officer impersonator... definitely a model citizen and just the guy I want with a gun hidden away behind me at the checkout line.

Unknown said...

Gary sounds like the type of person that makes me want to have a concealed firearm while behind him at the checkout lane.

Anonymous said...

I agree completely joemerchant24!

Anonymous said...

With Gary pack'n heat, I am very glad I paid the money and got my CCW Permit.

Anonymous said...

I agree that this person should probably not being carrying a firearm and I agree there are some shortcomings to the concealed carry law. However, the example you give seems to be more of an issue with the criminal justice system of this state than of the CCW law.

Anonymous said...

Chief Cassady,

I'm about to begin a career in law enforcement and this intrigues me a great deal. I agree with you in the fact that the conceal carry legislation is riddles with holes, as almost all legislation is. The problem comes in plugging those holes in such a way that it does not create a bigger mess than is already there. Perhaps a clause in the law that would allow the issuing officer to flag an applicant for review by a board? There would be extra man power and expense in such a thing but it may keep permits like this one from falling through the cracks. Any thoughts?

Tom Casady said...

Chris, that's the way concealed carry works best from my standpoint: when someone or some group can make an informed judgement call on an applicant who is questionable. Some people who have been convicted in the past or who have been committed due to mental health issues in the past are good citizens now and should not have their ability to get a permit limited; some people who have never been convicted or committed are very risky, and anyone who talks to them would cringe at the thought of this person getting a permit. I see examples of this in our own local applicants both directions.

You can't make a hard-and-fast rule that covers all the things that worry me, without catching far too many people in the net unnecessarily.

Unfortunately, I don't think you can ever get agreement from proponents of concealed carry, who view this as their right, and rarely will agree to any kind of judgement call--regardless of how the "board" is composed.

Tango Juliet said...

Gosh, I wonder how Vermont and Alaska manage to get along so well, what with their CCW laws. If a citizen can legally purchase a handgun, they can carry it concealed. Are permit holders in Alaska and Vermont running amok?

Why is a board of any kind needed in Nebraska in light of Vermont and Alaska's experience?rigm4

Anonymous said...

Don't tell me you just had a recent run in with this guy!

Tom Casady said...

Nope, different impersonator. Same kind of applicant, though.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Casady is selective in his posting.
Gary would not qualify for a permit if any of his drug CONVICTIONS were within the last 10yrs. Also it is not charges but convictions, which disqualify one from a permit. If charges are pending than that will stop the permit until Judgment day.
I do agree Gary sounds of ill repute.

Anonymous said...

Chief, I generally agree with you, but you fail to mention the police officer who gets convicted of a felony or beats his wife (by statute he loses gun AND job). He can have his record expunged, as did the gentleman you mention, and keep his job and gun (which is MORE dangerous that the guy you mention)-- This is a double standard that I notice throughout law enforcement in Nebraska.

Peter said...

Chief-
I know this post is pretty old, but I thought I would try asking a question here on the subject anyway (with the hope you get notifications whenever something is submitted or that you get nostalgic and re-read these old posts every once in a while)..

I've been thinking about getting a CCW permit but I'm interested in joining LPD as an officer and wouldn't want to do anything to jeopardize my chance. Would holding a CCW be a factor in hiring decisions?

Thanks for the response!

Peter

Tom Casady said...

Peter-

Not a factor at all, in any way whaatsoever. If you want one, get it!