Jim Frank is no longer the Sheriff of Washington Co. but I am still stuck with a reminder of him in my wallet. He was the sheriff that had to put "sub recuso" on every permit he issued in protest to the law. I wrote him a note and told him that his stance would end in political suicide which ended up being the truth when he ran for another office in Washington Co. Can I get my permit card replaced without much trouble or fees?

Sure. Just call the Washington County sheriff's office and explain, in a nice way, that you'd like to replace your permit with one without the former sheriff's graffiti. They'll ask you to come in, fill out a replacement form, and pay ten bucks for the new card.

Actually I like it! I get a good chuckle everytime I look at my permit.

What does it mean, for those of us latin-legalese impaired readers?

= "Under Protest"

Well, that is just a rough translation. In doing some more research, and in relying on my Latin days in high school, I believe the more correct translation is as follows:

I am just a stupid elected official that does not need to follow the law, particularly those that I don't like. Minnesota voters and legislators are all idiots and only I am the chosen one to truly judge the worthiness of a permit applicant. I, and only I, know best.

Yes, that is a more complete translation.

I'm surprised that's even legal.

I'm only guessing, but isn't there a law that requires an agency issuing standardized permits, licenses and documentation to issue them in the format required by the legislature or the regulating authority?

Adding additional text to the license, especially when it represents the local authority's personal opinion on the licensing process, seems like it would violate such a requirement.

Particularly if the additions would cause the person being issued the license to have that license's authenticity or validity questioned by other authorities.

Well, yes, there is, and, unsurprisingly, one of my students raised just that issue, and I checked it out with an attorney of my acquaintance whose opinions I very much respect.

His take was, roughly, that it would cost several thousand dollars, minimum, to get the sheriff into court and get an order, and that there were probably better things to do with the money. "Just how much justice can [the student] afford?"

This is the sort of thing where I think it would be, theoretically, interesting to have lawyers who would work for the cause pro bono -- which we do -- but who don't have more useful ways to spend their time working for the cause -- which we don't.

(Not that either of them has to justify his expenditure of time to me, but if Joe Olson or David Gross were to ask me if they should spend their time litigating this sort of stuff or doing more important work, I'd take that as an intelligence test that nobody should flunk.)

As is all too common these days, I stand corrected... mea culpa...

I would think that it would be the kind of thing that the AG (I know, I know..) would be responsible for since the State or the Regulating Authority is really the one with standing to enforce.

It's hard to figure if adding this to the permits is an act of arrogance or stupidity.

I would say "yes"....to both, but realistically mostly arrogance.

We should probably thank sheriffs like ex-sheriff frank, I think it was arrogance like his that helped make Minnesota a shall issue state.

The new regime, according to my students, is polite, helpful and quite accomodating. Recently had a student whose background check was done prior to his training to ensure his permit could be issued promptly.
Gave him a 1 on 1 class and he picked up his permit at the end of the next business day.