Wouldn't that be a 1st amendment violation? Anyway, they dont need to know anything about what I do online. None of their damn business.
Printable View
Wouldn't that be a 1st amendment violation? Anyway, they dont need to know anything about what I do online. None of their damn business.
Really curious if any sheriffs departments actually even call references. None of mine were called for initial or renewal in Montgomery County. Nor were any called for my old lady's initial.
It depends upon who you put down as references. If you put down Cleetus and Joe Schlub, probably not. First time I got mine, I put down two chiefs of police. They both got called. Each renewal when they were required, they never got called. Now they don't require them.
So what IS the legal definition of "character and reputation"? And who establishes the definition?
It is measured on a scale of 0-100%?
Color - Red/Yellow/Green (rainbow is quite a character)?
DEFCON 3-2-1?
This rabbit hole will be interesting.
Begin preparing now for your next renewal. Start new YouTwitFace accounts and post "Today is Monday, 11 July" etc. every day to establish a record to give to the Socialists.
"No, Sheriff, I don't have any other accounts."
The statute says more than "character and reputation". It actually says, "An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety."
Emphasis added by me. It's very possible to be someone of "bad character or reputation" without meeting the additional threshold imposed. You might be a serial cheater in personal relationships, or have a gambling problem, or be a deadbeat parent who doesn't pay child support, but non of those, IMO, are the legal basis for denial/revocation.
As GunLawyer has noted on many occasions, acts that do fit in with the full definition could be used, even if no charges or convictions occurred. Hopefully a good attorney would argue that fact in an appeal, but since this condition, like "habitual drunkard" were included in addition to the lists of specific criminal offenses that are prohibitors, the legislative intent seems clear.
Whether or not that's actually constitutional has never been argued before SCOPA, as far as I know.