Why give police the power to decide these permits? Power corrupts

>Why give police the power to decide these permits?

So that they can make an end run around the 14th amendment, deny all the blacks, deny all the mexicans, deny all the chinese while the state looks the other way, or at least that's what the tacit understanding was ~70yr ago when people were voting for politicians who supported these policies.

Exactly—this is the same reason cops have discretion over who they fine for traffic violations vs. who they let off with a warning: so that the "right" people don't end up having to pay fines.

Having been recently subjected to an invalid traffic violation, it seems discretion means they go after the easy target that will most likely pay (someone caught dead to rights, or looks like they don’t have time or money to fight the case). I watched who the cop pulled over after me and every person was someone who had the means and likelihood to pay the fine rather than fight what was a bogus trap (based on the perceived value of their cars; recent model year, none less than 40k)

I simply went to court and the officer never showed up, but I didn’t see any of the other people pulled over that day in court either (while reasons could explain this away I find it hard to believe of the 7 people I observed none of them paid the fine or took a driving course from the comfort of their own home to be done with it)

Usual think of the children stuff. Basically, someone who shouldn't have a permit could hypothetically get one and then go on a killing spree, so we need to give police and sheriffs full powers to deny them. If I remember rightly, one of the main things the American gun control movement has been campaigning for is the removal of shall-issue policies which require police and sheriffs to issue permits like these unless they have a specific legally-defined reason not to, and replacing them with the kind of may-issue policies that allow arbitrary denials and this sort of corruption - and they're quite happy to point at dead kids and accuse anyone who gets in their way of supporting child murder to achieve this.

Contrary to the wishes of gun control organizations, the resulting trend has actually been towards shall-issue and constitutional carry over the past few decades.

Ironically anyone intent on committing murder get to conceal carry at will.

Agreed, this makes 0 sense to me. There should be an explicit list of reasons for which police should be able to deny these permits, and the police should have to show their evidence as to why they believe one of these reasons apply.

The problem with this is pretty obvious. When some scumbag like a pimp or similar without a conviction goes for a permit, you end up in a situation where the police are enabling certain types of undesirable behavior.

IMO, discretion for this sort of thing should be with a judge, not a cop.

How are they enabling undesirable behavior? Wouldn't the behavior occur anyways? Most people would be stupid to create a paper trail for themselves if they plan to use a weapon in a crime. Hence the reason close to 50% of guns recovered from a crime were stolen.

How would a judge or a cop have any impact on a situation without a conviction? They wouldn't know any better without additional data.

Denying permits may not be as effective at thwarting career criminals as you may think.

Perhaps, but providing them with CCWs will be effective at thwarting career police chiefs.

How so?

Think about the NY Post headline for any action like this.

“Guns for Thugs - Sheriff Arms Pimp”

The permit doesn't provide anyone with arms.

> (of course they aren't supposed to ask for a bribe)

Oh they just weren't "supposed" to ask for bribes. Nothing illegal here, just a honest guy going above and beyond on his job to keep America safe.

May-issue doesn't legalize bribery. See: the indictment.

Yeah, I'm not saying it makes it right. I'm saying it makes it possible.

Soliciting bribes is explicitly against the law, and that has nothing to do with "may" vs "shall" issue.

Deniability. i.e. the sheriff can say the permit wasn’t issued because its at their discretion, not because someone didn’t pay a bribe. That said, even with a "shall" situation there are hoops to jump thru that can be used to set this same kinda situation up.

however the official in a shall issue state is then lying on documents, by jumping through hoops to deny applications if they are not paying the bribe.

And thus leaves a paper trail that you can use for a civil rights violation complaint to the FBI or at least internal affairs.

You just get a recording of them soliciting the bribe. Not so hard.

Private parties recording conversations without consent is illegal in California.

I've seen a few people on here state this. I really wish people knew their rights better.

Federal judges have consistently ruled that recording public officials in the performance of their duties is a right under the first amendment. As a member of the public, you can record your interactions with police without their consent.

> As a member of the public, you can record your interactions with police without their consent.

You can do it without their consent, but can you do it without their knowledge?

Yes, you can record them secretly. That's according to the federal courts that hold that it is your first amendment right. Don't be surprised if they try ro charge you under the state's laws. You would then have to file a federal lawsuit claiming your rights are being violates. It all depends on exactly how stupid or corrupt the specific officer is.

Apple should just add it to the EULA of the iPhone :)

It’s clear that this applies to uniformed cops performing duties in public places.

It is much less clear that it applies to a private conversation with a senior officer in a police station.

> > public officials in the performance of their duties

> conversation with a senior officer in a police station

Are you seriously suggesting that conversing with a public official at their place of work about official business doesn't qualify as part of their official duties?

(Aside, two party consent is a genuinely broken system for a wide variety of reasons. I consider violating it to be a laudable act of civil disobedience.)

I’m suggesting that an attorney could definitely argue that a particular conversation was not part of a persons official duties, depending on the content.

Attorneys argue things like this all the time. And Judges rule on their arguments.

What I’m asking about is whether any existing ruling makes this point clear.

Some states have exceptions to the 2 party rule in general, such as if you think a crime may be committed, or a crime from a specific list. This can apply to everyone, not just police.

I think it would be hard to argue that a conversation with a CCW applicant in which you ask for stuff in exchange for issung a CCW isn't acting in an official capacity. The only person who can issue it is the person holding that office. Not to mention, the calendar/schedule/sign-in book should have a memo a out the purpose of the visit (the pretext he was called down to the station).

The department / police union could argue that if it’s not sanctioned behavior it is not part of the officers duties.

No they couldn't. That would be equivalent to saying committing a crime creates a right to privacy that didn't exist previously. And if it wasn't part of their official duties, why would the department/police union be defending the officer?

You do sometimes see cases where a police union defends an officer accused of some crime, but that's usually because they're putting up some BS story about how they actually were doing their duty, eg an officer busted in possession of drugs who tries to argue it was actually an undercover investigation of the drug scene.

Some of those stories can be very imaginative (See Abner Louima).

Please explain how this same scenario would work under a shall-issue scheme?

Edit: Since you wouldn't respond... denying a permit under a shall-issue scheme would require proof that they didn't meet the statutory requirements instead of providing the issuer with the ability to hide their reason behind an arbitrary excuse.

> Since you wouldn't respond

I didn't respond because I was asleep (??)

> Please explain how this same scenario would work under a shall-issue scheme?

It doesn't matter: Soliciting bribes is against the law.

Everything else is just arguments about if a particular arrangement makes bribery more or less likely.

Not per se, but Good luck getting anything out of police department after you call the FBI on them.