Minnesota Department Of Public Safety Application For Off Sale: Fill & Download for Free

Three Strikes laws are shortsighted and contribute to more problems in our legal system instead. Our laws and our choices about incarceration need to be based on intelligent, informed assessments of the crimes committed and the people involved. It's absurd that we consistently lock up far more nonviolent offenders than violent ones, and that we in fact are consistently releasing violent and even predatory offenders in order to make more room for nonviolent offenders.One glaring point that helps demonstrate the flaws in Three Strikes laws, is that very often there is an intentional choice to charge someone with a more serious offense specifically to make Three Strikes laws apply, whereas in other cases a lot of people might plead their more serious cases down and avoid falling under Three Strikes laws for a longer period of time. The result will be the cliched but very real examples of someone going to prison for a longer period of time for eating a piece of pizza off another person's table at a pizza joint, than someone who rapes or murders someone. Literally, that can and does happen under Three Strikes laws.If we had rational sentencing for offenses in general to begin with, so that we weren't giving longer sentences for drug crimes than (for one glaring example) for violent sex crimes against children, and if we instead focused on locking up violent offenders for longer periods of time and focused on rehabilitation and education for nonviolent offenders, we could solve many problems of repeat offenses and dramatically reduce our prison population.Three Strikes laws are an example of one of the most typical problems in this nation's broad social behavior -- laziness in dealing with problems, and a desire to just apply some reactionary simplistic response in order to claim to have taken some action, rather than doing the serious, harder work of thinking about the issue and applying a rational, long-term solution. We do this all of the time, getting angry about something and making a stupidly gross overreactive choice and then pretending we solved the problem and can now promptly ignore it and just complain and get angry without having to further consider and work on the real, more nuanced, harder issues involved.Drug law reform that eliminates the obviously failed and morally bankrupt prohibitions against marijuana and other drugs; reforming and tightening laws against violent offenses such as rape (seriously, if any crime beside premeditated homicide needs to result in a life sentence, it's sex crimes); and dealing with basic economic and educational inequalities that we all know contribute directly to crime, are just a few examples of the ways we need to more reasonably change our approaches to law enforcement and incarceration. Allowing jails and prisons to be treated as some sort of industry to address job creation is absurd and speaks to a moral failing of our approach not only to crime and justice, but to economic stimulus as well.But that's part of the difficulty in getting everyone to be honest about these issues and look at them seriously and intelligently -- vested interests abound, including the private prison industry, companies that supply services to jails and prisons, the fact local police departments get large amounts of extra money and resources and militarized weapons and training due to continued drug prohibition, and so on. That these are all ultimately false "benefits" and that we lose far more as a society as a whole is lost amid the propaganda from the small select groups who benefit from keeping things the way they are in our justice system and who in fact promote even harsher, less intelligence-based choices and regulations and laws.Whomever benefits from California's Three Strikes law, for example, their financial interests pale in comparison to the fact marijuana alone generates more than $100 million in sales tax alone from dispensaries for approved medical patients -- when you add business licenses, personal income taxes, payroll taxes, and other revenue, California is benefiting to the tune of more than a quarter of a billion dollars every year just from medical marijuana dispensaries. That's not to mention the role in job creation played by the hundreds of dispensaries, too. Imagine if this was expanded in a full tax-and-regulate program for marijuana. Then imagine if we just rationally took all recreational drugs, put them into private business models, applied FDA standards for purity levels and preventing tainting with other drugs etc, and then sold them in limited specialty shops that only let adults come in, that required ID, that were heavily taxed and regulated like tobacco and alcohol, and then we treated addiction as a health care problem instead of a criminal justice problem. We'd remove most of the secondary problems associated with illicit drug use, we'd be able to treat addiction a lot easier and with better results, we'd reduce access to drugs for young people and kids, and we'd generate BILLIONS of dollars in revenue and create a large number of jobs, and we'd massively reduce state and federal expenditures for crime and punishment.Compare that to whatever benefits people mistakenly believe we get from Three Strikes laws. If drugs were taken off the table as an issue, you'd in fact remove most of the crimes that are part of Three Strikes sentencing. We'd cut our jail and prison populations by more than half. Meaning we'd be able to sentence violent criminals to much longer sentences, allowing judges to listen to the details of the crimes and consider the defendant's behavior and attitude and background and other factors, and then make a reasoned determination about sentencing.It's not exactly the same thing in every respect, but Three Strikes fits into the broader category of sentencing requirements like mandatory minimum sentencing, which is something I've been mostly against for a very long time. I say "mostly" because I do in fact think that certain violent crimes with specific kinds of context should result in sentences that ensure the offender cannot threaten the victim or society any more -- sexual assaults, for example, are crimes where by definition there's no "defense" to explain and justify having committed the crime, as compared to a beating or physical assault where a person might claim self-defense or having been overcome with rage against what they thought was another person who did something that might itself be considered a crime (if you see someone beat their child, you might be enraged to the point of punching that parent, as an extreme example). I think that even with murder and manslaughter cases, we can all think of hypotheticals and real-life examples where it would be reasonable to say that a harsher sentence might not be the best choice and where there are mitigating circumstances; but with sexual assaults and similar sex crimes, there is no real mitigating circumstance -- if someone committed a rape or molestation, then they need to be punished very severely and locked up for a long time.But anyway, for MOST crimes, that kind of narrow context doesn't apply, and I think mandatory minimums should be abolished. A lot of -- probably most of -- the points against mandatory minimum sentences tend to generally apply to Three Strikes laws as well, so it's worth considering some quotes from experts and other with experience related to mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Here are a few from the Web site of the excellent organization Families Against Mandatory Minimums...AcademicsCharles Ogletree, Harvard professor“The criminal justice system is devouring our resources; putting people who have committed low-level offenses, who are perfectly capable of being rehabilitated, away for lengthy sentences and turning them into hardened criminals; destroying families and communities; and callously throwing away lives. We cannot afford to continue to invest in such a system.”- Written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, June 11, 2009.Roger K. Warren, National Center for State Courts"State sentencing statutes, rules, and guidelines should provide sufficient flexibility so that sentencing judges can craft orders designed to reduce the risk of recidivism in appropriate cases, and should avoid overly broad, strict, or arbitrary sentencing mandates that interfere with more appropriate sentencing options. Principal examples of interfering mandates are provisions that prohibit judges from granting probation, require disproportionately long periods ofincarceration, or set mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment where neither the seriousness of the particular offense nor the risk factors presented by the particular offender warrant such restrictions."- Roger K. Warren, President Emeritus, National Center for State Courts, “Arming the Courts with Research: 10 Evidence-Based Sentencing Initiatives to Control Crime and Reduce Costs,” Pew Center on the States, Public Safety Policy Brief (May 2009)ConservativesGrover Norquist“The benefits, if any, of mandatory minimum sentences do not justify this burden to taxpayers. Illegal drug use rates are relatively stable, not shrinking. It appears that mandatory minimums have become a sort of poor man’s Prohibition: a grossly simplistic and ineffectual government response to a problem that has been around longer than our government itself.”- Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, House Committee on the Judiciary, July 14, 2009.David A. Keene“[M]y opposition to mandatory minimums . . . is rooted in conservative principles; namely, reverence for the Constitution and contempt for government action that ignores the differences among individuals. . . . James Madison, for one, believed that a clear separation of powers was more vital to protecting freedom than the Bill of Rights. Yet mandatory minimums undermine this important protector of liberty by allowing the legislature to steal jurisdiction over sentencing, which has historically been a judicial function. The attempt by legislatures and the Congress to address perceived problems in the justice system by transferring power from judges to prosecutors and the executive branch violate these principles and have, in the process, given prosecutors unreviewable authority to influence sentences through their charging decisions and plea bargaining power.”- David A. Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union, written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (July 14, 2009)Pat Nolan, Justice Fellowship“When judges mete out sentences for certain crimes, mandatory minimum laws prohibit them from weighing the relative harm caused by the crime or the relative culpability of the defendant. Mandatory minimum sentences are “one size fits all”. These laws offend the very notion of justice, which requires that the severity of the punishment match the harm done by an individual criminal. In Exodus 21:24, we are told that our judgments should exact an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” This verse limits punishment by requiring that offenders pay back “value for value.” The Bible calls for proportionality in punishment, and stresses that penalties should match the injury.”- Pat Nolan, President, Justice Fellowship, “Mandatory Minimums, Unjust and Unbiblical”Ed Meese, former U.S. Attorney General for President Reagan“I think mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders ought to be reviewed. We have to see who has been incarcerated and what has come from it.”- Ed Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan and Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, quoted in Texas Public Policy Foundation, “What Conservatives are Saying About Criminal Justice Reform” (Jan. 2010)Pat Robertson, Christian Broadcasting Network"[O]ur government [should] revisit the severity of the existing laws because mandatory drug sentences do harm to many young people who go to prison and come out as hardened criminals. ... [T]hese mandatory sentences needlessly cost our government millions of dollars when there are better approaches available."- Thoughts of Pat Robertson, Founder and Chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network, as delivered by CBN spokesman Chris Roslan on Dec. 23, 2010Drug czarsGeneral Barry McCaffrey, U.S. drug czar for President Clinton"I am unalterably opposed to the system of mandatory minimums. I think we need to give this authority back to the judges.”– Barry McCaffrey, former U.S. drug czar in the Clinton administrationElected officialsU.S. Representative Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)“Mandatory minimums wreak havoc on a logical system of sentencing guidelines. Mandatory minimums turn today’s hot political rhetoric into the nightmares of many tomorrows for judges and families.”- Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), statement for press release, “New Poll: Americans Oppose Mandatory Minimums,Will Vote for Candidates Who Feel the Same,” (Sept. 24, 2008)U.S. Representative Bobby Scott (D-Va.)“Mandatory minimum sentences have been studied extensively and have been shown to be ineffective in preventing crime. They have been effective in distorting the sentencing process. They discriminate against minorities in their application, and they have been shown to waste the taxpayers’ money.”- Rep. Bobby Scott, statement before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, House Committee on the Judiciary, June 26th, 2007.U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (R-Ill.),1994“It doesn’t make sense to put away everybody, no matter how peripherally involved in drug dealing, for five years or 10 years. Not only are such sentences morally troublesome, they threaten to sap the willpower we must maintain to deal with the true threats to society.”U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), 1998“I do…understand that some first-time, nonviolent offenders have been given mandatory minimum sentences, and I would consider supporting legislation to give judges flexibility in such cases.”Presidents of the United StatesPresident George W. Bush“I think a lot of people are coming to the realization that maybe long minimum sentences for first-time users may not be the best way to occupy jail space and/or heal people from their disease. And I’m willing to look at that.”– George W. Bush on CNN (Inside Politics), January 18, 2001, three days before his inauguration as President of the United States.President Bill Clinton“I think the sentences in many cases are too long for nonviolent offenders… . Most judges think we should [do away with mandatory minimum sentences]. I certainly think they should be reexamined. And the disparities are unconscionable between crack and powdered cocaine….Our imprisonment policies are counterproductive.”– President Bill Clinton, Rolling Stone, December 28, 2000President George H.W. Bush“[Eliminating mandatory minimums] will result in better justice and more appropriate sentences.”– President (then Representative) George H.W. Bush, in 1970 speaking about a successful bill to eliminate mandatory minimums.U.S. Supreme Court justicesJustice Anthony Kennedy“I'm against mandatory sentences. They take away judicial discretion to serve the four goals of sentencing. American sentences are eight times longer than their equivalents in Europe. California's 3-strikes law emanated from the electorate, and the sponsor of the initiative was the correctional officers association—and that is sick. California has 185,000 people in prison, and the cost is astounding.”- Justice Anthony Kennedy, William French Smith Memorial Lecture, Pepperdine University, February 3, 2010."If you were asked to design a penal system that would win the prize for the worst system, the one you’ve got would at least be runner-up... If cost is a way to activate human compassion, I’ll take it. We are squandering our resources and spending them in the wrong way.”- Justice Anthony Kennedy, speech to the Forum Club of Palm Beaches and the Palm Beach County Bar Association, West Palm Beach, Fla., May 14, 2010.“I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust. . .The legislative branch has the obligation to determine whether a policy is wise. It is a grave mistake to retain a policy just because a court finds it constitutional. Courts may conclude the legislature is permitted to choose long sentences, but that does not mean long sentences are wise or just…A court decision does not excuse the political branches or the public from the responsibility for unjust laws.”– Justice Anthony Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court justice at annual meeting of the American Bar Association, 2003“Mandatory minimums are harsh and in may cases unjust.” If the hypothetical example of an 18-year-old gets caught growing marijuana in the woods and happens to have a hunting rifle in his truck when arrested, he could face a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years. Now he shouldn’t be doing that, (but) an 18-yearold doesn’t know how long 15 years is.”– Anthony Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court justice, in Congressional testimony, 2003Chief Justice William Rehnquist“These mandatory minimum sentences are perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences. There is a respectable body of opinion which believes that these mandatory minimums impose unduly harsh punishment for first-time offenders…mandatory minimums have also led to an inordinate increase in the federal prison population and will require huge expenditures to build new prison space...they frustrate the careful calibration of sentences, from one end of the spectrum to the other, which the sentencing guidelines were intended to accomplish.”- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, "Luncheon Address," in U.S. Sentencing Commission, Drugs and Violence, 2005."Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long."– William H. Rehnquist, former chief justice of U.S. Supreme Court, at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Bar AssociationJustice Stephen G. Breyer[More statutes containing mandatory minimum sentences are] “not going to advance the cause of law enforcement in my opinion and it’s going to set back the course of fairness in sentencing. . . . There has to be room for the unusual or the exceptional case.”– Stephen G. Breyer, associate Supreme Court Justice, at a John F. Kennedy Library and Museum, 2003Federal judiciaryHonorable Judge Julie E. Carnes“Unjust mandatory minimums . . . have a corrosive effect on our broader society. To function successfully, our judicial system must have the respect of the public. The robotic imposition of sentences that are viewed as unfair or irrational greatly undermines that respect. . . [S]ome of these statutes do not produce merely questionable results; instead, a few produce truly bizarre outcomes.- Honorable Judge Julie E. Carnes, Chair of the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, statement before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, July 14, 2009.Professor David Zlotnick, Roger Williams School of Law, Rhode Island, created a set of case studies of federal sentencings that captures judicial dissatisfaction with the sentencing laws in effect during the mandatory Guidelines era . After corresponding with hundreds of inmates, he gathered sufficient documents to write detailed profiles of forty Republican appointees and at least one case in which each of these judges stated their disagreement with the sentence required by law from the bench. Only cases where reliable documents, such as the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) and the Sentencing Transcript, were available were considered. Read the studyU.S. District Judge Paul Cassell“I express no view on mandatory minimum sentencing schemes in general. But …one particular feature of the federal scheme – the ‘count stacking’ feature of § 924(c) for first-time offenders – has lead to an unjust result in this case and will lead to unjust results in other cases….The 55-year sentence mandated by § 924(c) in this case appears to unjust, cruel and irrational.”– U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell in sentencing first-time offender Weldon Angelos to 55 years in prison, 2004. Nominated by President George W. Bush, 2001.Honorable Robert Cindrich"When the law provides a result that is repugnant, we must still follow the law. And you can only do that so many times before you start to wonder, 'How many more times am I going to put my name on this sentence that I don't believe in?'”– Robert Cindrich, who resigned from the federal bench, partially in protest of federal sentencing guidelines, 2004. Nominated by President William J. Clinton, 1994.Honorable John S. Martin Jr.For most of our history, our system of justice operated on the premise that justice in sentencing is best achieved by having a sentence imposed by a judge who, fully informed about the offense and the offender, has discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory limits. Although most judges and legal scholars recognize the need for discretion in sentencing, Congress has continually tried to limit it, initially through the adoption of mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. . . . For a judge to be deprived of the ability to consider all of the factors that go into formulating a just sentence is completely at odds with the sentencing philosophy that has been a hallmark of the American system of justice.– John S. Martin Jr., federal district judge in Manhattan, retired in protest of restrictions on federal judicial discretion, 2003. Nominated by President George H.W. Bush, 1990.Honorable J. Spencer Letts“Statutory mandatory minimum sentences create injustice because the sentence is determined without looking at the particular defendant…. It can make no difference whether he is a lifetime criminal or a first-time offender. Indeed, under this sledgehammer approach, it could make no difference if the day before making this one slip in an otherwise unblemished life the defendant had rescued 15 children from a burning building or had won the Congressional Medal of Honor while defending his country.”– J. Spencer Letts, U.S. district judge, Central District of California, senior status 2000. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, 1985.Honorable Leon Higginbotham“We must remember we are not widgets or robots, but human beings. Defendants should be sentenced within the spectrum of what most judges would consider fair and reasonable.”—Leon Higginbotham, judge, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Nominated to the circuit court by President Jimmy Carter, 1977.Honorable David Doty“I think that a lot of people do not understand what is going on until, all of a sudden, they are caught up in the system; and they find out that people have been mouthing all kinds of slogans, and when the slogans all come down to rest, they sometimes come to rest very hard on the shoulders of the individual.”—David Doty, U.S. district judge, Minnesota, senior status 1998. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, 1987.Honorable Paul A. Magnuson“…I continue to believe that sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment under the circumstances of this case is unconscionable and patently unjust….[the defendant] will be sacrificed on the altar of Congress’ obsession with punishing crimes involving narcotics. This obsession is, in part, understandable, for narcotics pose a serious threat to the welfare of this country and its citizens. However, at the same time, mandatory minimum sentences – almost by definition – prevent the Court from passing judgment in a manner properly tailored to a defendant’s particular circumstances.—Paul A. Magnuson, U.S. district judge, Minnesota, senior status 2002. Nominated by Ronald Reagan, 1981.Honorable Joyce Hens Green“As a consequence of the mandatory sentences, we (judges) know that justice is not always done…[Y]ou cannot dispense equal justice by playing a numbers game. Judgment and discretion and common sense are essential.”—Joyce Hens Green, U.S. district judge, District of Columbia, senior status 1995. Nominated by Jimmy Carter 1979.Honorable Stanley Sporkin“We need to deal with the drug problem in a much more discretionary, compassionate way. We need treatment, not just punishment and imprisonment.”—Stanley Sporkin, U.S. district judge, District of Columbia, retired 2000. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan 1985Other notablesMartha Stewart“. . .So many of the women here in Alderson will never have the joy and wellbeing that you and I experience. Many of them have been here for years -- devoid of care, devoid of love, devoid of family. I beseech you all to think about these women -- to encourage the American people to ask for reforms, both in sentencing guidelines, in length of incarceration for nonviolent first-time offenders, and for those involved in drug-taking. They would be much better served in a true rehabilitation center than in prison where there is no real help, no real programs to rehabilitate, no programs to educate, no way to be prepared for life ‘out there’ where each person will ultimately find herself, many with no skills and no preparation for living.”– Martha Stewart, December 2004

good luck reading this:People generally recognize law enforcement officers by their marked cruisers and uniforms, which include the display of symbols of authority—a badge and a gun. The public expects officers to be comfortable carrying a sidearm and to exercise precision and sound judgment when using it. officers are responsible for ensuring the safety and protection of citizens and, thus, expected to provide a calming presence. This is true when they are on duty, but does this extend to off-duty hours when there are no outward signs of authority?The U.S. Congress has determined that in a post-9/11 world, the public is better served when off-duty officers are in a position to effectively respond in the face of a threat. To this end, the Law Enforcement officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA) allows officers to carry concealed weapons not only in their jurisdictions but in all 50 states, and the territories of the United States, provided certain conditions are met.1This article will explore LEOSA, address federal statutory limitations regarding firearms possession, and summarize a short legal history of the Second Amendment concerning the right to bear arms.2THE SECOND AMENDMENTThe Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. It reads, “(a) well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”3History shows, however, that this simple amendment is anything but. Over the years, much debate has centered on whether the right referred to in the Second Amendment is an individual or a state right.4In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court offered some insight as to the context of the Second Amendment in deciding United States v. Miller.5The case involved the interstate transportation of an unregistered shortbarreled shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.6The Court decided that the Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia forces.”7The Court further stated that only weapons with a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” would come under the Second Amendment definition of arms.8Explaining that the militia meant “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” the Court advised that these men would commonly provide their own customary arms when called to service.9The Court, thus, upheld the ban of weapons having no connection to the militia or to the common defense.Special Agent Bulzomi is a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.From 1939 until recently, the Supreme Court steered clear of much of the debate regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment. In 2008, the Court offered guidance as to the meaning of the Second Amendment in Heller v. District of Columbia.10The Supreme Court held that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and operable firearms in the home was unconstitutional. However, the Court did note that the Second Amendment does not allow an unfettered right to possess all kinds of firearms or permit all persons to possess them.Heller, a special police officer in the District of Columbia, was denied a license to register a handgun for self-protection in his home even though he possessed one for his job. Citing the Second Amendment, Heller filed suit in federal district court challenging the city’s gun laws. This challenge was rejected and Heller appealed. The D.C. Circuit Court reversed the district court’s decision, holding that an individual has a right under the Second Amendment to possess firearms and that the city’s gun laws infringed upon that right. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision and discussed the extent of the right to bear arms.The Court declared that an “inherent right to self-defense” is central to the Second Amendment and that a total ban on an entire class of firearms essentially serving as Americans’ first choice for self-defense of “the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” is an impermissible infringement upon one’s right to keep and bear arms.11The Court clarified, however, that this right is not absolute. Further, the Court provided a nonexhaustive list of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures,” including restricting felons and mentally ill persons from possessing firearms, restricting the carrying of firearms into schools and government buildings, and imposing conditions or qualifications concerning the sale of commercial firearms.12The Court concluded by ordering the District of Columbia to allow Heller to register his handgun and to issue him a license to carry it in his home.As the District of Columbia is a federal enclave and not a state, the decision only impacts the federal government. However, this past term in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court addressed the role of the Second Amendment with respect to state gun control.13In McDonald, the ban on handguns by the city of Chicago and one of its suburbs, the Village of Oak Park, Illinois, was challenged as violating the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs contended that the Court’s decision in Heller14should be applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause—interpreted by the Supreme Court as allowing the Court to incorporate provisions of the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states. According to the Court, the issue is “whether the particular Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice”15or, in other words, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”16The Court stated that its decision in Heller17was clear on this point.“...law enforcement officers retain their identity, training, experience, and dedication to the safety and welfare of the community regardless of whether they are on duty...”Self-defense is a basic right recognized by various legal systems throughout the ages. More important, individual self-defense is a fundamental right from an American perspective, deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. As such, it is a “central component” to the Second Amendment right to bear arms to include the protection of one’s home, self, family, and property, a right protected from infringement by the federal government, as well as from the states. The Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.Today, not only police officers but virtually all Americans may possess a handgun for home protection. As noted in Heller,18this may be limited as a result of reasonable restrictions, such as mental instability and felony convictions. In addition, local and state restrictions concerning the storage and number of handguns still may be lawful. However, any restrictions that appear so restrictive as to circumvent this individual right to bear arms likely will be deemed unconstitutional.FEDERAL STATUTESIn 1968, Congress enacted the Federal Gun Control Act,19prohibiting convicted felons from possessing a firearm. Since the passage of this act, Congress has enacted additional pieces of legislation to further restrict firearm possession. Two of these acts in particular—the Lautenberg Amendment20and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—could affect law enforcement officers and their employers.21The Lautenberg AmendmentEnacted in 1996, the Lautenberg Amendment creates a prohibited-possessor status for persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.22There is a statutory stipulation that the convicted individual had legal counsel or knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived it. If the conviction is set aside, it does not automatically mean that the prohibited-possessor status also is set aside. If the judge’s order contains restrictions on firearms possession, the prohibited-possessor status continues.23The act permits an individual who is a prohibited possessor to petition to the U.S. attorney general for relief. If the relief is denied, the act allows for judicial review of the denial.24In United States v. Hayes,25the Supreme Court held that the statutory predicate requiring a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” does not have to include a crime establishing a specified domestic relationship.26In other words, the statutory predicate is satisfied as long as it involves a misdemeanor crime of violence and the victim is a person who has a qualifying domestic relationship. To require the predicate offense to be a crime that specifically included the domestic relationship as an element to the underlying crime would have limited the reach of the statute.In Hayes, police officers responded to a 911 call of domestic violence. They arrived at the home of Ronald Hayes, obtained his consent to search his home, and discovered a rifle, as well as two other firearms. Hayes was indicted on three charges of possession of firearms after having been previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence against his wife. He contested the indictment on the basis that battery was not a predicate offense under the Lautenberg Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied the motion to dismiss the indictment. Hayes then entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the denial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court, agreeing with Hayes that the underlying charge was not a qualifying predicate offense because it did not designate a domestic relationship as an element to the crime. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and reversed the Fourth Circuit decision.The Supreme Court held that the government need only show beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim of domestic violence was the defendant’s current or former spouse or in some way related to the defendant. The Court stated, “but that relationship, while it must be established, need not be denominated as an element of the predicate offense.”27Aside from the obvious suitability issues raised by the underlying conduct engaged in by the applicant or officer, which should be considered by the agency, Hayes may impact hiring and retaining officers by law enforcement agencies. For example, if a misdemeanor conviction pertaining to a crime of violence surfaces during the investigation, the department must determine whether the crime involved someone who had a domestic relationship with the applicant or officer.The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention ActThe Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act also creates a prohibited-possessor status upon a finding based on reasonable cause to believe, after a hearing with notice and an opportunity to participate, that an individual is a “credible threat” to the safety of an intimate partner or child.28An exception to the act exists whereby the prohibited possessor status does not extend to the “United States or any department or agency thereof or any state or department, agency, or political subdivision thereof or for military training or competitions.”29The extent of this exception and whether it applies to individuals has yet to be fully determined. As with the prohibited-possessor status created by the Lautenberg Amendment, the provision in the Brady statute also could impact the ability of an officer to carry a firearm.“LEOSA applies to qualified active duty and retired officers.”LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2004On July 22, 2004, President George W. Bush signed into law H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA),30which created a general nationwide recognition that the public is better served by allowing law enforcement officers to carry their firearms outside of their jurisdictions whether they are on or off duty. The theory behind LEOSA already was recognized among a number of states.31That is, law enforcement officers retain their identity, training, experience, and dedication to the safety and welfare of the community regardless of whether they are on duty in their employer’s jurisdiction, going home to another community, or merely traveling for leisure purposes. However, the act creates a limited privilege to carry concealed weapons for law enforcement officers, not a right to bear arms.Qualification Under LEOSALEOSA applies to qualified active duty and retired officers.32Qualification under LEOSA requires employment by or retirement from a local, state, or federal law enforcement agency as someone charged with the ability to investigate, prosecute, and arrest people for violations of law.33If an agency has firearms profi ciency standards, the offi cer must meet them to qualify to carry under this act.34The statute also prohibits carrying firearms when under the influence of alcohol or any intoxicating or hallucinatory substance.35If a current or retired officer is prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, they are not qualified to carry one under this legislation.36It also is important to note that if an officer is under a disciplinary action that may result in suspension or termination by their agency, they are not qualified to carry under this act.37Qualified retired officers must have retired in good standing for reasons other than mental instability and served at least an aggregate of 15 years.38However, if the retirement was due to a service-related disability, the officer need only have completed the probationary period to qualify under this act.39Retired officers also must have a nonforfeitable right to benefits under their agency’s retirement plan.40At personal expense, the retired officer must meet the state standard for firearms qualification required for active law enforcement officers.41Qualified active duty and retired officers must have photographic identification issued by the agency they work for or retired from.42Retired officers’ identification must have some indication that they have been tested or have otherwise been determined by the issuing agency to meet the standards active officers must meet to carry concealed weapons.43Retired officers do have the option of possessing the photographic identification with a certification from the state, rather than their former agency, that they have met the state’s requirements for active duty officers to carry concealed weapons within 12 months of the issuing date of the identification.44LEOSA does not give qualified officers any special enforcement or arrest authority or immunity. It merely allows them to carry concealed weapons. If these weapons are used, there is no special protection from arrest. Qualified officers may find themselves acting only under the authority of a citizen’s arrest or self-defense claim or under authority established by the state.“LEOSA allows qualified officers to protect themselves, their families, and the community by being armed while off duty.”Qualified officers may use LEOSA only as an affirmative defense if prosecuted. An affirmative defense requires that the finder of fact, the judge, must make a determination of whether the person raising the defense is eligible to do so. To be eligible, the judge must have determined that the person raising the defense is, in fact, a qualified officer under LEOSA and was carrying the required identification at the time of the alleged violation. This means that the act will not keep officers from being arrested. However, LEOSA will stand as a defense at a hearing as to the legality of the arrest if the arrestee is, in fact, a qualified officer with the requisite identification.Limitations of LEOSAType of FirearmLEOSA allows qualifying officers to carry concealed firearms, but, at the same time, limits what qualifies as a firearm. The act’s definition of firearms does not include machine guns, silencers, or explosive or destructive devices.45State Limitations on Carrying in Certain LocationsLimitations also exist as to where a concealed firearm may be carried. LEOSA exempts qualified officers from state laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.46However, LEOSA does not supersede state laws permitting private property owners from limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons on their property.47This would include public bars, private clubs, and places, such as amusement parks. Nor does the act circumvent any state laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on state or local government property.48Possible examples would be courthouses, schools, or parks.Federal Limitations on Carrying in Certain LocationsFederal laws or regulations are not superseded by LEOSA. Qualified officers may not carry concealed weapons onto aircraft under the act. They also cannot carry firearms into federal buildings or onto federal property. However, in February 2010, a federal statute took effect authorizing individuals to carry concealed weapons into national parks if they have complied with the carry concealed rules of the state or states in which the park is located.49Of course, this federal statute will not change the fact that it is unlawful to carry a firearm into federal buildings, even in a national park.50This would include facilities, such as visitor’s centers, museums, and restrooms.Internal PoliciesIt is unclear whether LEOSA overrides an agency’s ability to limit an officer’s authority to carry a personally owned handgun off duty as part of off-duty restriction policies. Some agencies have continued to enforce such policies. Arguably, because LEOSA explicitly overrides state law provisions (except those addressing state facilities and property), and the head of an executive agency is given power by way of state law, it would appear that LEOSA would override off duty restriction policies. However, agencies with such a policy and officers working within these agencies should seek guidance and clarification in regard to the legality of such policies.CONCLUSIONIn recent opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified what previously was unclear for hundreds of years, that the Second Amendment does confer a right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense in the home, subject to reasonable restrictions. LEOSA, as noted above, does not confer a right to bear arms. The act merely confers a limited immunity from state and local laws dealing with concealed firearms and does not supersede any federal laws or regulations. Some jurisdictions outlaw the open display and carrying of firearms; however, LEOSA does not allow officers to carry firearms other than concealed. The authorization to carry concealed is not accompanied by any grant of extraterritorial arrest powers. Qualified officers must be aware of the laws of the state in which they are carrying concealed weapons, satisfy qualification standards, and carry proper identification.The world changed on September 11, 2001. Through LEOSA, Congress reacted to this new age of terrorism, accepting the fact that America never has faced a greater need to have additional watchful eyes on the streets of its cities, towns, and rural areas. These eyes possess the training, skills, and resources necessary to stop rapidly evolving situations before they become disasters. They also provide an instantaneous, no-cost benefit to the country by simply allowing trustworthy officers to carry concealed weapons while off-duty. LEOSA allows qualified officers to protect themselves, their families, and the community by being armed while off duty.Law enforcement officers know that criminals are never off duty. LEOSA also is premised on the notion that officers are vulnerable off duty. Criminals sometimes target them, as well as their families, for harm; these individuals also know that off-duty officers may be unarmed. LEOSA allows qualified officers to protect themselves, their families, and the community by being armed while off duty.Law enforcement officers of other than federal jurisdiction who are interested in this article should consult their legal advisors. Some police procedures ruled permissible under federal constitutional law are of questionable legality under state law or are not permitted at all.Endnotes1Title 18 U.S.C. § 926 B and C.2U.S. Constitution, amend. II.3Id.4In 1875, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, dismissed an indictment for two individuals charged with denying freemen their Second Amendment right to keep and “bear arms for a lawful purpose.” The Court advised that citizens must look to the state’s police power for protection against other parties infringing upon their right to bear arms as the amendment wording “shall not be infringed…means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” The Court concluded that under the laws of the United States there were no applicable federal charges in the indictment. The Court continued along this trail of precedent that the Second Amendment limits only the federal government when it upheld a state prohibition against participation in an unauthorized militia in the 1886 case Presser v. Illinois,116 U.S. 252 (1886). Presser was an unlicensed militiaman who, along with 400 others, marched through the streets of Chicago with swords and rifles in violation of Illinois state law, exercising what Presser and the others claimed was their right to bear arms. The Court decided that the states, unlike the federal government, were free to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The Court also emphasized that the Second Amendment protects only a legitimate reserve militia meant to serve the states and the federal government. The Court cautioned, however, that the states cannot disarm the people so as to deny the United States this military resource regardless of the Second Amendment.5307 U.S. 174 (1939).6Id. at 175-76, (National Firearms Act, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 48 Stat. 1236 (1934) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.) was the first federal regulation of private firearms).7Id. at 178.8Id.9Id. at 179-80.10128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).11Id. at 2817-18.12Id. at 2816-17.13130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).14128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).15Id. at 3034.16Id.17128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).18Id.19Pub. L. No. 90-618 (1968), codified in chapter 44 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.20Title 18 U.S.C. § 922.21The short title of the 1993 amendment, which included amendment to § 922 and 924.22The Lautenberg Amendment contains § 922(d)(9) and (g)(9), passed in 1996, which was part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. This act was challenged in United States v. Hayes, 129 S. Ct. 1079 (2009), without success.23See Title 18 § 921 (33)(B)(ii).24See Title 18 U.S.C. § 925 (c).25129 S. Ct 1079 (2009).26Id. at 1090.27Id. at 1088.28See Title 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(g).29See Title 18 U.S.C. § 925 (a)(1).30Title 18 U.S.C. § 926 (B) and (C).31All 50 states exempt their own on-duty police officers from statutes governing the right to carry concealed weapons. A majority of states allow within their borders other states’ peace officers to carry concealed weapons if on official business. Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and Vermont allow on and off-duty out-of-state officers to carry concealed weapons. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyoming allow carry-concealed permits or rights for retired officers.32Title 18 U.S.C. § 926B (qualified law enforcement officers) and § 926C (qualified retired law enforcement officers).33Id.; and Id. at Sec. 926B(1) and 926C(1).34Id. at § 926B (C)(4).35Id. at § 926B (C)(5) and 926C (C)(6).36Id. at § 926B (C)(6) and 926C (C)(7).37Id. at § 926B (C)(3).38Id. at § 926C (c)(3)(A).39Id. at § 926C (c)(3)(B).40Id. at § 926C (c)(4).41Id. at § 926C (c)(5).42Id. at § 926B(d) and § 926C(d)(1).43Id. at § 926C(d)(1).44Id. at § 926C(d)(2)(A) and (B).45Id. at § 926B(e)(1)-(3) and § 926C(e) (1)-(3).46Id. at § 926B(a) and § 926C(a).47Id. at § 926B(b)(1) and § 926C(b)(1).48Id. at § 926B(b)(2) and § 926C(b)(2).49See Title 36 U.S.C. § 2.4.50See Title 18 U.S.C. § 930, Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities.(source: Legal Digest: Off-Duty Officers and Firearms | FBI: Law Enforcement Bulletin )

PERMIT TO CARRY FAQThese answers are for information purposes only. Further clarification of the law may be addressed by referring directly to Minnesota State Statute 624.714.Where can I apply for a permit to carry a pistol?For Minnesota residents, individuals may obtain permits to carry a pistol by submitting an application and other related documentation to the sheriff in the county where the applicant resides. Non-residents may apply to any Minnesota county sheriff.This came right of the state of Minnesota's web site.Permit to Carry FAQCan I apply for a permit to carry if I am not a U.S. citizen but have permanent resident status in the United States?Yes, when you apply you will need to provide the sheriff with your I-551 or I-151 card, whichever one you have been issued.Where can I get a permit to carry application?Applications will be available at the county sheriff’s office and on the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension website.Can a non-resident mail in a permit to carry application or obtain a Minnesota permit to carry without physically being present?No. Applications must be submitted in person to a Minnesota county sheriff.What are the requirements for getting a permit to carry?Must be at least 21 years of ageMust complete an application formMust not be prohibited from possessing a firearm under Minnesota Statute 624.714Must not be listed in the criminal gang investigation systemMust be a resident of the county from which you are requesting a permit, if you reside in Minnesota. Non-residents may apply to any Minnesota county sheriff.Must provide certificate of completed authorized firearms training. Training by a certified instructor must be completed within one year of an original or renewal application. (624.714, Subd. 2a)When is a permit to carry not required?A permit to carry is not required of a person: (Minnesota Statute 624.714 Subd. 9)To keep or carry about the person's place of business, dwelling house, premises or on land possessed by the person a pistol; To carry a pistol from a place of purchase to the person's dwelling house or place of business, or from the person's dwelling house or place of business to or from a place where repairing is done, to have the pistol repaired;To carry a pistol between the person's dwelling house and place of business;To carry a pistol in the woods or fields or upon the waters of this state for the purpose of hunting or of target shooting in a safe area;To transport a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile or boat if the pistol is unloaded, contained in a closed and fastened case, gun box, or securely tied package.Where can I find a list of approved firearm training classes?The BCA no longer publishes a list of firearm instructors on the website, but does provide a list of the Approved Business Organizations that the BCA certifies for training classes for the Minnesota Personal Protection Act. The Approved Business Organizations certify the instructors that teach for them. Individuals need to contact those organizations for instructor information.If I am a non-resident, must I take an approved firearms training class in Minnesota in order to get a Minnesota permit to carry?No. You are only required to present evidence that you have received training in the safe use of a pistol from an organization or government entity that has been approved by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety in accordance with the department’s standards.Do members of the military need to take additional firearms training in order to apply for a permit to carry?Although members of the military received superb firearms training, they must receive training from an instructor that has been certified by an approved business organization in Minnesota. This additional training pertains to the legal aspects of “permit to carry issues”. Military members can contact their local sheriff’s office for further clarification and consideration.What is the cost for a permit to carry?The fee for a new permit to carry will be determined by the county sheriff, not to exceed $100. A fee for a renewal permit (applied for before the expiration date of a current permit to carry) will be determined by the county sheriff, not to exceed $75. An additional $10.00 fee will be charged for those applying for a renewal after the expiration date on the previous permit, but within 30 days of that expiration date.How long do I have to wait to get my permit?The county sheriff must either issue or deny a permit within 30 days of the application date.How long is my permit valid?New and renewal permits are valid for five (5) years from the date of issuance. Emergency permits are valid for 30 days.Can I get an emergency permit to carry?Emergency permits may be issued by the sheriff if he/she determines that the person is in an emergency situation that may constitute an immediate risk to the safety of the person or someone residing in the person’s household.What would prevent me from getting a permit to carry?Any applicant who does not meet the criteria as listed above is not eligible for a permit to carry a pistol. The sheriff may also deny the application if there is a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to himself/herself or others if issued a permit to carry.Are predatory offenders prohibited from obtaining a permit to carry?Yes. It is a misdemeanor for a person required to register as a predatory offender to carry a pistol.Where is my Minnesota permit valid?Minnesota permits are valid throughout the state of Minnesota. Individuals interested in determining whether a Minnesota permit to carry is valid in another state should contact that state directly to determine what the carry laws are. You may also find other resources on the Internet to assist you.Do I need to have my permit with me when carrying my pistol?Yes, the permit holder must have the permit card and a valid driver’s license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document when requested by a peace officer.Do I have to disclose to a peace officer that I am a permit holder and carrying a firearm?Yes, upon request of a peace officer, a permit holder must disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.Do I need to notify the sheriff’s office when I move?Yes, a permit holder is required to notify the issuing sheriff’s office within 30 days of a permanent address change. Failure to do so is a petty misdemeanor.Do the address and/or my new driver’s license number on my permit to carry need to match the address and/or drivers license number on my driver’s license?No. A permit holder, however, is required to notify the issuing sheriff’s office within 30 days of a permanent address change. Failure to do so is a petty misdemeanor. The permit holder may, however, obtain an updated permit at a cost of $ 10.00. There is a statutory requirement to change the address on your driver’s license within 30 days after changing your residence (171.11).What do I do if my permit card is lost or destroyed?The permit holder must notify the issuing sheriff’s office within 30 days of having lost or destroyed the permit card. Failure to do so is a petty misdemeanor. The permit holder may obtain a replacement permit card by paying $10.00 to the sheriff.If I have a permit to carry a pistol do I have to conceal the pistol?No. Minnesota’s Personal Protection Act is a permit to carry law, not a conceal and carry law. The pistol does not need to be concealed, but can be concealed.If I have a permit to carry a pistol do I need to apply for a permit to purchase if I want to purchase a handgun?No. Under Minnesota law, handgun transfers involve any sale, gift, loan, assignment or other delivery to another person. If you possess a valid permit to carry a handgun, that permit constitutes a permit to purchase. You don’t need to apply for a separate permit to purchase.Where am I prohibited from carrying my pistol?The provisions of federal and state law that describe these prohibitions are found at:Minnesota Statutes, section 243.55Minnesota Statutes, section 609.66Minnesota Statutes, section 624.714Minnesota Statutes, section 641.16518 United States Code section 930Can private establishments prohibit carrying pistols on their premises?Yes, private establishments must post a notice banning guns on their premises or personally notify patrons that guns are not allowed.Can my landlord restrict me from carrying or possessing firearms on residence premises?Landlords may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.Can my employer prohibit carrying pistols in the work place?Yes, an employer may establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees while the employee is working.Can I prohibit firearms in my private residence?The owner of the residence may prohibit firearms in their home.Can active licensed officers carry in private establishments?Yes, active licensed peace officers, or security guards acting in the course and scope of employment, may carry firearms in private establishments.Are there requirements for an out of state sworn Police Officer to carry in Minnesota?Federal or Out of State Police officers, whether on or off duty, do not need a permit to carry firearms in Minnesota. If they are going to carry a pistol, they must carry their police credentials as well.What are the federal laws that govern retired officers carrying firearms?The law governing retired officers is the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. In addition, United States Code Chapter 44, Title 18, Section 926 C, Carrying of Concealed Firearms by Qualified Retired Law Enforcement Officers, applies. Minnesota retired officers must meet the criteria found on the Minnesota POST Board website.If I am a resident of a state that does not have reciprocity with Minnesota but have a permit to carry from a state that does, may I carry in Minnesota?Yes.If I am a permit holder from another state traveling in or visiting Minnesota and I do not have a permit to carry that is recognized by Minnesota, where can I legally store my firearm while in Minnesota?For details on transporting firearms, refer to Minnesota Statute 97B.045.How can I legally transport a firearm from one place to another without obtaining a permit to carry?Transporting firearms without a permit requires the person to have the firearm unloaded and fully enclosed in a case made to contain a firearm. For full details on transporting firearms, refer to Minnesota Statute 97B.045, Transportation of Firearms.Is there a public list of gun permit holders, or can I obtain a list or call local law enforcement to find out individuals in my community who have a permit to carry?No. This is private data and is not available to the public.Where can I find a list of out of state gun permits that Minnesota recognizes?Minnesota laws authorize individuals holding gun permits from the states listed on this website to carry in Minnesota. A permit issued by another state does not supersede Minnesota’s laws or regulations. Legal conduct in another state may not be legal in Minnesota.Where can I get a permit to purchase or transfer a gun?The application can be found on this website, at your local police department, or if there is no local police department, at your county's sheriff's office. It must be filed with your local police department, or if there isn't one, with your county's sheriff's office.When does my permit expire?Any 5 year permit expires at 12:00 A.M. midnight on the date of expiration listed on the permit.After my five-year permit to carry expires, do I need to retake the approved firearms training class before I apply for a renewal permit?Yes. Applicants must present evidence that they have received training in the safe use of a pistol within one year of the date of an original or renewal application. (MN Statute 624.714 Subd. 2a)Where do I renew my permit?Permits must be renewed at the county sheriff’s office in the county where the applicant currently resides. Out of state permit holders can renew at any sheriff’s office.When can I renew my permit?Not prior to 90 days of the expiration date of the current permit. There is a renewal fee. After the expiration date, but within 30 days after the expiration, you can renew your permit by paying an additional late fee of $10.00. During this time your past permit is not valid, and you will not be able to carry until your renewal permit has been approved and issued. 31 days after expiration, you will no longer be able to renew your permit, but will have to apply for a new gun permit. ​For late renewals, it is important to note that your expired permit is not valid until you receive your new card.What is the process for renewing my permit?Take an authorized firearms training class within one year prior to your renewal application.Deliver the application packet, not prior to 90 days of the expiration date of the current permit, in person to the Sheriff’s Department in the county where you currently reside, or for out of state permit holders, to any Sheriff’s Department in the State of Minnesota.The packet must contain a completed application, signed and dated with the renewal box checked and an accurate photocopy of the certificate of completed authorized firearms training. You must provide an accurate photocopy of a current drivers license, state identification card or the photo page of your passport (not a US citizen but permanent resident must present an I-551 or I-151 card).Can you clarify the dates used on the permit to carry card?Date format on all permits is: YYYYMMDD – four digit year followed by two digit month followed by two digit day . So, an expiration date of 20180101 would be January 01, 2018.For additional questions related to Permit to Carry, please send an email to [email protected] .