Martin County Sheriff Brad Gerhardt cites a state software problem as the reason he won't accept renewal applications less than 30 days before expiration. Apparently, the state's system doesn't deal properly with renewals: it claims they're all duplicates, and the only way to correct the problem is to delete the original entry. I'd been wondering if he was trying to lead me down the garden path, but apparently the problem is real. (See the thread I mistakenly started under Twin Cities Carry Course for more.)

None of this makes any difference. The sheriffs are OBLIGATED BY LAW to accept your application and issue your permit within thirty days.

When, where and how they do the paperwork with the state is irrelevant.

The problem with this "law" is that there are no penalties for breaking it (at least none that I can see). When you have a law without penalties, you really have no law. At best it's a strongly worded suggestion.

You can petition for a writ of mandamus, but it ain't free.

Now, there, I'd like to see a test case. While the wording of the law suggests (or more than suggests) that a failure to respond is a granting of the permit, and not a denial, I'm wondering if a judge would consider the further failure to just mail out the permit as a constructive denial, and order the attorneys fees.

It's a bit more complicated, as while 624.714 mandates fees and costs in the case of a successful appeal of a denial, the judge could order that anyway.

But in this case, there is no failure to respond since they did not accept the application in the first place. Or is the refusal to accept the application a response in, and of, itself?

To my mind, not accepting an application because they can't figure out how to make the system work in spite of some perceived "computer problems" is not a permit denial since you still have your old permit and may very well get your new permit.

I'd try to work out a deal where either I could leave it there until they figured it out, or I could mail it in. When I requested a new permit that had my new DL number on it, Scott Co wanted me to come down and apply in person. I explained in a friendly manner that it didn't make much sense, since I was already a permit holder...that this was just an administrative change. After some thought she agreed that I could mail the app in as long as I picked it up in person. I agreed to that.

All interesting questions. My own take, were it me, would be to simply sign and drop off the application, and document that; the law doesn't say anything that would lead me to believe that the sheriff can refuse to accept it. If necessary, I'd expect that a judge would explain it to him.

Good thinking, Joel.

:) I've been understudying some people who know this stuff, you know.

I spoke to an attorney that Joel recommended this afternoon. He said there'd probably be a good case for a writ of mandamus - but that it would probably not be issued before the sheriff's 30-day period started, and would require me to be present for the hearing. Since my problem is that I don't know when I'll be present in the county during June, especially during business hours, this doesn't look like it'll help, and he agreed. He suggested I try to work something out with the sheriff. He did know of the computer problem, and that it was quite real - but agreed that that was the sheriff's problem, not mine.

I then called Sheriff Gerhardt and tried to work something out with him. He refused to budge: he wouldn't accept the application before the 30-day period, even just to sit on it until that period started (he claimed that would violate his ethics), and he wouldn't authorize anyone to accept it on a weekend. He did promise to turn it around as quickly as possible, but when I told him that I might not be around at all during June, his reply was "Can you do without it a couple of weeks?" I told him I'd rather not.

At this point, I don't know that I've got any practical choices other than to hope I'll be home during the week one day in June.

Fuck him. Bring it in, drop it on the desk, ask for a receipt. If you are refused one, advise the refuser of their obligation under law. Walk out.

If they still refuse, take today's paper, your application and a decent camera outside the front door. Hold them up and take a couple photos so you have proof you were there with the document on that day. Then just leave it on the desk.

I think there are good, sound ways to document time and date that are known to work with judges. Not being a lawyer who has studied this stuff (I'm not a lawyer, and haven't studied this stuff), I'm not sure how best to do that sort of thing to set up for a 624.714 appeal, but I think that if one is going to go that route, it's probably best to consult one in advance.

I think the "we don't accept applications" game is a particularly sneaky one, and I really, really don't like it.

I didn't know whether to reply in this thread or the other thread but this is in regards to the permit payment methods in Martin County. I was there the other day picking up my ATF forms and they have a price list for things such as background checks, finger printing, permit to carry, etc. The permit to carry is the only thing listed that says "cash only" next to it.

I would think that a carefully worded letter from an attorney on your behalf may budge the Sheriff. A threat of having to explain himself before a judge then pay for your attorney might loosen him up. What do you think?