Permit to Purchase treatment as juvenile?

[mnguy19]

So here's my deal, I already applied for a permit to purchase when I live in Eagan, MN and was approved. Back when I was 15, I was a stupid kid and was sent to treatment, which I put on my first application with Eagan. Now, I apply in Saint Louis Park and the Deputy sheriff writes back saying I must provide documentation of completing treatment (didn't happen with Eagan PD). So, why did one department approve me with me putting that on the application and the other didn't? It's been 12 years since that happened I assumed it wasn't an issue since I was approved in Eagan but now it's somehow an issue.

So my question: does anyone know the actual law regarding this? Was this a case of one officer being sloppy and the other one not? I almost just assume the Eagan Pd looked up my actual info, saw nothing because of an expunged record and approved it while Saint Louis Park didn't bother looking.

Any help with this is greatly appreciated; I have paid for pistol waiting for me at the guns shop and to be honest, this is a pain in the butt. Thanks everyone.

[mrp]

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/sta ... d=624.7131

Subd. 4.Grounds for disqualification.
A determination by the chief of police or sheriff that the applicant is prohibited by section 624.713 from possessing a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon shall be the only basis for refusal to grant a transferee permit.

You can read through the statute to see what applies to you. This might:
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/sta ... .624.713.1

(5) a person who has been committed to a treatment facility in Minnesota or elsewhere by a judicial determination that the person is chemically dependent as defined in section 253B.02, unless the person has completed treatment or the person's ability to possess a firearm has been restored under subdivision 4. Property rights may not be abated but access may be restricted by the courts;

Call a lawyer if you want a real answer, though.

[farmerj]

I'd call Marc Berris and ask....

"Why is a sealed record from a minor being accessed 10 years after you became an adult."

[Pat]

He is a great guy to deal with: (612) 332-3100

[mnguy19]

Okay, so I think I may have my own answer on this; since the guy above me posted the law, I looked at the wording of it very carefully. Based on this, "a person who has been committed to a treatment facility in Minnesota or elsewhere by a judicial determination that the person is chemically dependent as defined in section 253B.02" I think I pretty much determined that the Saint Louis Park PD didn't do their homework. Firstly, I was never sentenced judicially to a treatment facility, even when I was a minor as it was a voluntary action. Even if I had been judicially sentenced to attend a treatment facility, it would appear on my record, or at least the offense and sentencing would. So, if my criminal record showed that I had been sentenced to attend a treatment facility, and I had not completed it, it would also show up on my record as a violation of my sentence. Even if I had not completed treatment but was sentenced to it, it would still show up on my record.

My point is, if you don't see it on my criminal record, I completed treatment (because if I was in violation of my sentence, it would show on my record as current), and if you don't see it on the record, then it wasn't judicially determined I needed it or was completed. Just the fact that I admitted to it on my application and it won't show up on my record should be proof enough it was completed or not court ordered.

What a freakin' headache. It seems to me the Eagan PD pretty much came to my conclusion and the Saint Louis Park PD didn't bother looking at my record. This is extremely frustrating as I thought I was going to be able to pick up my purchased firearm today.

Thanks mrp for the reference. If anyone has any thoughts on my conclusions, feel free to post.

[farmerj]

regardless of what happened.

It became a moot point once you turned 18. At which point your record as a minor was sealed. Meaning it basically doesn't exists unless you were tried as an adult.

If that's the case....

Why is it being used against you?

[mnguy19]

Good point farmerj. That's my point too, why do they need proof of something that doesn't even legally exist anymore? What more proof do you need it's not an issue when it doesn't show up anymore? I have a feeling I'm going to end up getting around this and finding out the officer was just not thorough. Doesn't fix the fact I lost a lot of time and brass spent on my new pistol I can't pick up yet.

[farmerj]

I don't think you are getting my point.


The officer is illegally accessing records he should not be accessing.


ETA

And in doing so...IMO... is violating your civil rights.

[cobb]

Go back and read farmerj's first post in this thread and take his advice.

[mnguy19]

@cobb

If this were pressed, I definitely would. Luckily for me though, I was never sentenced to attend a treatment facility, it was voluntary, so I essentially should never have answered yes at that box. Basically, it sounds like the issue will be resolved by a few voice mails and phone call or two. The funny thing though is, Eagan PD knows their stuff, caught my mistake, and approved me so it's good to know they're thorough.

What I'd like to ask though is, why the hell do I need to check a box answering those questions when I just gave them permission to give me a background check? If the background check doesn't tell them what I've been sentenced for and whether or not I'm a US citizen, then what's it good for? I highly doubt they're relying on people's honesty to check a box so I think they should knock off the bureaucratic BS and just run the background check. If the background checks can't be trusted they shouldn't be performed.

It's a giant waste of time , especially when I own a pistol and was at the range the day they said I needed documentation for this crap. I guess I didn't know I needed to break out a monocle and study law to buy a pistol. What the hell did the background check tell you? Nothing? Then let me buy my firearm.

[cobb]

@cobb

If this were pressed, I definitely would. Luckily for me though, I was never sentenced to attend a treatment facility, it was voluntary, so I essentially should never have answered yes at that box. Basically, it sounds like the issue will be resolved by a few voice mails and phone call or two. The funny thing though is, Eagan PD knows their stuff, caught my mistake, and approved me so it's good to know they're thorough.

What I'd like to ask though is, why the hell do I need to check a box answering those questions when I just gave them permission to give me a background check? If the background check doesn't tell them what I've been sentenced for and whether or not I'm a US citizen, then what's it good for? I highly doubt they're relying on people's honesty to check a box so I think they should knock off the bureaucratic BS and just run the background check. If the background checks can't be trusted they shouldn't be performed.

It's a giant waste of time , especially when I own a pistol and was at the range the day they said I needed documentation for this crap. I guess I didn't know I needed to break out a monocle and study law to buy a pistol. What the hell did the background check tell you? Nothing? Then let me buy my firearm.

I bet if you contact Mark Berris he could answer your questions.....

[mnguy19]

Do you guys work for the guy or something? I'm not going to call a lawyer for a problem that will be fixed in a few days, especially because lawyers aren't free. I just want my CZ 85B waiting for me at the shop and for PD's to be more thorough. I have a feeling I'm not going to get any policies or laws changed any time soon.

[farmerj]

no, I don't work for the guy. Matter of fact, I can never use him for a lawyer due to conflict of issue because he is a PT sheriff deputy in the county I live in.

But you obviously don't give much concern to the fact your civil rights are being violated and they are accessing information they should not be.

Since you are disregarding what you came here searching for,....

Enjoy your problem.

[cobb]

Do you guys work for the guy or something? I'm not going to call a lawyer for a problem that will be fixed in a few days, especially because lawyers aren't free. I just want my CZ 85B waiting for me at the shop and for PD's to be more thorough. I have a feeling I'm not going to get any policies or laws changed any time soon.

No we don't work for him, but you asked a question

So my question: does anyone know the actual law regarding this? Was this a case of one officer being sloppy and the other one not? I almost just assume the Eagan Pd looked up my actual info, saw nothing because of an expunged record and approved it while Saint Louis Park didn't bother looking.

So it was recommended that you should maybe speak to an attorney to get this taken care of, hopefully permanently. If it happened once to you, it will probably happen again so spending some money with an attorney that knows the law is both good advice and probably an investment to eliminate future head aches. But hey, it's your problem, so good luck and I hope it somehow magically self rectifies in the future.

[mnguy19]

@farmerj

I don't know if you read my full post, but I am referring to the fact that I answered yes to the question of whether or not I had attended a treatment facility. He didn't access my records, it was a question on the application and I answered yes to it. The problem is that Eagan PD caught that I didn't need to check yes and approved whereas SLP PD didn't bother looking and denied me. So, this is partly my fault but a quick review of my background check by SLP PD would have shown them I should legally be approved.

My point is that the people reviewing the applications aren't looking at background checks before making a decision when it could save paper, time, and money, and it's their job. I just want every PD to be as thorough as the PD was on my first application. If one department caught it, all of them should. Either someone isn't following their guidelines or no one is reviewing how these applications are being denied or approved.