PDA

View Full Version : Appeals Court ruling favors CCW



Bailey Guns
01-06-2010, 10:38
From the CSSA:

Dear CSSA Member,

A note from our President, Tony Fabian, which will interest you:

COURT OF APPEALS RULES SHERIFFS OWE CCW APPLICANTS DUE PROCESS

The Colorado Court of Appeals has reversed an Arapahoe County District Court’s affirmation of a sheriff’s refusal to reinstate a suspended concealed handgun permit. In Copley v. Robinson, case no. 09CA469, the COA ruled that the Arapahoe County Sheriff did not provide the appellant, Robert Copley, sufficient procedural due process in denying his application for reinstatement after his concealed carry permit was suspended due to a criminal charge that was later dismissed. The COA ruled that the Arapahoe County District Court erred by affirming the sheriff’s denial even after remanding the case to the sheriff for him to make specific findings of fact upon which he based his decision. The COA ruled that, when persons request an administrative review/hearing with a sheriff after initial denial of a concealed carry permit, the sheriff must provide the applicant with an opportunity to review adverse evidence/witnesses and to confront such evidence/witnesses at hearing. It is insufficient to provide only a generalized basis for denial of the application; an applicant must be given specific information about witnesses and evidence upon which the sheriff is basing his decision and the applicant must be given an opportunity to confront and challenge said witnesses and evidence.

This ruling is important because it affirms the intent of the concealed carry law that any denial of a concealed carry permit must be based on specific evidence/information and not be a subjective or arbitrary conclusion based on speculation or supposition, and that any such denial must be so reasonably based as to withstand the fair and unbiased review of a court of law.

Sincere Regards,

Tim R. Brown
Legislative Director
Colorado State Shooting Association

Ranger353
01-06-2010, 11:00
Good deal! This is case law folks, make note of the decision for future reference. Due process is a fundamental right, unfortunately not all elected officials and judges understand this.

[Beer]

Irving
01-06-2010, 18:20
This is a great win. I wish they'd set up a "Shall Issue" law for NFA stuff so people wouldn't have to go through a trust.

cysoto
01-06-2010, 20:05
Kudos to the Colorado Court of Appeals!

KFinn
01-06-2010, 20:07
AWESOME! Good Win. Especially since its local and for the county in which I reside in. Woot!

NFA?

BPTactical
01-06-2010, 21:39
A good smackdown on one of Colorados most 2A unfriendly Sheriffs.

Elhuero
01-06-2010, 22:54
suck on that sheriff!

KFinn, NFA = National Firearms Act = owning full auto firearms = great fun!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Moviestar
01-06-2010, 23:06
this is pretty sweet. ive heard that arapahoe sheriffs are the worst from the RMGO guys...

jim02
01-15-2010, 11:19
This is great.
I despise any LEO that is not pro 2nd amendment, espically the elected ones. The facts are out there that show time and time again, the more legal gun owners in a given area the lower the violent crime rates.

TFOGGER
01-15-2010, 11:43
I'm unclear on why his permit was not automatically reinstated after the charges that resulted in suspension were dropped. Does anyone know the nature of the charges? [Dunno]

Edit: Found it.


On April 24, 2007, the Sheriff revoked the permit after Copley was charged with misdemeanor trespass. The prosecutor later dismissed the trespass charge because of the death of a key witness.
In January 2008, a deputy in the Sheriff’s office sent Copley a letter instructing him how to request reissuance of his permit, in light of the dismissal of the trespass charge. The letter advised Copley that he could either “request to personally meet with the Sheriff for this review or just have him review [Copley’s] file along with the court disposition.”
Accordingly, in February 2008, Copley requested the Sheriff to reissue his concealed handgun permit and specifically requested a personal hearing with the Sheriff.
On March 27, 2008, the Sheriff held a “reissuance hearing,” at which he permitted Copley to testify and present information regarding his request for reissuance, including documentation confirming that the trespass charge had been dismissed. The record indicates that the hearing was documented through an audio recording with Copley’s permission. However, the recording is not part of the record in this case.
In a letter dated April 7, 2008, the Sheriff denied Copley’s request to reissue the permit without explanation. The letter also did not inform Copley that he had the rights to seek a second review by the Sheriff, to submit additional information for the record, and to seek judicial review of the Sheriff’s denial.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/opinion/2009/2009q1/09ca0469.pdf

theGinsue
01-15-2010, 22:17
2A is a fundamental right and for a Sheriff to dismiss this persons CCW permit simply "because I said so" (implied reasoning - surely not what was officially stated) fails to provide the due process that our system was founded on. The original courts decision was flawed from a legal perspective which is interesting when they are supposed to base their decisoins on the law and provide true justice.

It's great to see the judicial process actually work and consider that citizens DO have rights.