CCP *REVOKED* due to criminal *CHARGE*, not *CONVICTION*

[k9ontheway]

I just received a letter from my Sheriff's Office stating that my CCP was REVOKED due to a *pending charge* of "Felony Larceny by Employee", 1 count.

I've yet to have my court date and have NO priors (not even a moving violation) and furthermore, I'm innocent of the crime.

They state in the letter that I'll need to appeal in District Court to overturn the ruling made during their "hearing" (which I was not notified of, by my attorney or law enforcement).

I have NOT been found guilty, I have NOT been convicted and I'm INNOCENT, either way.

Can someone please advise me as to what in the hell is happening here?

Last time I checked (10 minutes ago), NC General Statutes stated that you have to be CONVICTED to lose your permit. I haven't even had my first court date! Guilty until proven innocent?

This makes no sense.

 

[White1]

You may want to call the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.

 

[k9ontheway]

Now I wish I was a member. :/ I'll look into it, regardless.

I still can't believe this. It's funny that they reference that I'm "in violation with the North Carolina General Statute" yet fail to give the article or section number I'm violating.

Again, the NC GS states you have to be on probation (which you can attempt to obtain a court order to retain your permit) or CONVICTED.... I am covered by neither.

Unreal.

 

[jameshd]

First thing you need to do is contact a lawyer.

 

[BC1]

So much for shall issue.

 

[dad45acp]

When and if you're found innocent you'll prob be eligible to get your permit back. Seems like your energy should be spent in proving that first before you get bent about losing the permit. Typically Sheriff's have authority to do this if a charge has been brought. Are NC permits automated because I'm surprised that this is addressed so quickly before you have been to court.

 

[BC1]

As far as I know, all shall issue states are shall issue subject to the absence of one or more specifically-enumerated disqualifying reasons. Also, all states, whether or not they are "shall issue" have permit revocation provisions.

That is correct. Thus little difference exists between shall issue and may issue states. Both have restrictions on the second.

 

[k9ontheway]

To anyone who may be interested in how the NC law works as of right now, my attorney just emailed this to me.

NC GS 14-415.12B10

(10) Is free on bond or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal, or sentencing for a crime which would disqualify him from obtaining a concealed handgun permit.

It's likely that if you've been formally charged, a warrant will be issued. According to NC law (defined in a section just above this one), anyone who is a "fugitive" of the law or who has a misd or felony charge with an active warrant is automatically disqualified from an NC CHL. If you take care of the warrant by arrest or surrender, your permit is immediately invalid.

Your Sheriff's Office will revoke the permit at a "hearing" between the DA and your local LEO (usually a captain) without your knowledge or ability to defend yourself.

A letter is then sent to you in notification of the revocation.

So in short, if you are charged with a crime (ANY crime), your permit will be revoked whether you are innocent or not. You have the option of attempting to appeal in District Court or if you can prove in writing after the case has been settled that you were found innocent, the District Court may decide to reinstate your permit.

Hope this helps anyone who needed clarification like I did.

 

[dad45acp]

When and if you're found innocent you'll prob be eligible to get your permit back. Seems like your energy should be spent in proving that first before you get bent about losing the permit. Typically Sheriff's have authority to do this if a charge has been brought. Are NC permits automated because I'm surprised that this is addressed so quickly before you have been to court.

It **might** not be as easy as "just be found not guilty" given the apparent non-conviction basis (indictment or reason to believe) for for the revocation. As that revocation could be permanent even if the case never went to trial, it's possible that even a not-guilty finding (or conviction of a lesser misdemeanor) wouldn't result in automatic reinstatement. Part of the reason (in addition to the fact that revocation doesn't require a conviction) would be that stricter evidentiary standards (e.g., exclusionary rules) and burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) applicable to criminal trials aren't usually inherently applicable to discretionary administrative matters like this. Bottom line is that the OP shouldn't assume anything and shouldn't become his own lawyer based on real or presumptive legal talk in gun forums. If he wants the permit restored, he must rely on a local lawyer.

Yes and I agree...which is why he needs to prove innocence above anything else and then to find out how to get it reinstated which is the logical thing to do. Good legal advice is otherwise sparse on these forums.

 

[SR40c]

That is correct. Thus little difference exists between shall issue and may issue states. Both have restrictions on the second.

Got that right. The fact they take it upon themselves to "issue" or grant you a permit is an absolute violation of the Second Amendment.

 

[Popeye2347]

This should cause everyone to value the Constitution and the 2nd amendment's statement as to who can carry, (constitutional carry) even more valuable. Our entire legal system is built around the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' even if it seldom seems like that in today's courtrooms.

 

[nosreme]

This should cause everyone to value the Constitution and the 2nd amendment's statement as to who can carry, (constitutional carry) even more valuable. Our entire legal system is built around the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' even if it seldom seems like that in today's courtrooms.

"Technically," it's a criminal law (only-not the entire legal system) evidentiary presumption that an accused/defendant is presumed innocent unless the prosecution overcomes the presumption with proof beyond a reasonable doubt using admissible evidence and following correct procedures. It's entirely possible for somebody who really did the acts alleged and with the intent alleged to be found "not guilty" because the admissible evidence was insufficient (e.g. botched custodial interrogation advisement of rights resulted in confession critical to the prosecution being thrown out, tons of incriminating evidence seized and critical to the prosecution excluded because the warrant was bad, or a warrantless search was done when a warrant was required...or it all came in but at least one juror didn't buy it or intentionally disregarded it a la OJ Simpson...).

This "presumption of innocence" (until proven guilty) is seldom applicable to non-criminal proceedings (e.g., administrative hearings and determinations), and in those the burden of proof is lower and the evidence and procedural rules much less strict. That's fully consistent with the constitution, BTW.

 

[nogods]

Here's what appears to be going on (references are to NC law):

-An application for a permit must be denied if the applicant is under indictment for a felony, or has been the subject of a finding of existence of probable cause for a felony (note that no conviction is required), or has ever been adjudicated guilty in any court of a felony. See p. 14 of the link below.
-The sheriff may revoke an existing permit for the doing of an act or existence of a condition which would have been grounds for the denial of the permit by the sheriff (which takes you back to the bullet immediately above, and again, no conviction is required for this to happen--and it appears to be a discretionary determination without any notice or hearing requirement at least in the firearms laws). See p. 19 of the link below.

Here's the NC Attorney General's consolidated explanation of NC firearms laws, with statutory citations and discussion: Link Removed

So there either has to be an indictment or a finding of probable cause. It isn't sufficient to be merely "charged" with a crime. In most states, you are charged with a crime merely by someone (either a private person or law enforcement) filing a complaint. A "finding" of probable cause usually requires a hearing before a judge. and, of course, an indictment requires a grand jury vote.

I wonder if he was indicted or had a probable cause hearing. If neither, then the letter of revocation may be meaningless.

But it also raises an interesting 2A issue as to restrictions on 2A rights arising from the criminal process.

If the indictment process wasn't so meaningless it might be grounds for a temporary restriction on 2A rights. But it is a farce.

We used to say "A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich"

Now, we say "A prosecutor doesn't even need the ham to get an indictment."

 

[BC1]

Actually there's a huge difference despite all the disqualifications in shall-issue states. In non-shall-issue states, issuance can be at the discretion (or whim) of the issuing authority. In short, in shall-issue states, the discretion not to issue has been explicitly circumscribed. Also, shall-issue states usually have a statutorily-specified time within which they must be issued unless one of the disqualifications kicks in.

This is an often misunderstood concept. I've personally handled permits for hundreds of clients. In NY, a may issue state, the licensing officer must provide cause in writing for all denials. Denial may not be capricious or arbitrary. The acceptable reasons for denial are defined in S400.00 of NYS penal law. The difference between types of issue generally involve restrictions. For example NYS must approve a candidate who has no cause to be denied but MAY restrict the extent of carry to certain activities or may be unrestricted. NYS penal law requires approval or denial within 6 months.

 

[nosreme]

This is an often misunderstood concept. I've personally handled permits for hundreds of clients. In NY, a may issue state, the licensing officer must provide cause in writing for all denials. Denial may not be capricious or arbitrary. The acceptable reasons for denial are defined in S400.00 of NYS penal law. The difference between types of carry generally involve restrictions.

Of course, your response cause me to realize I should have mentioned that I was talking about the general rule using general lay language, not about specific jurisdictions or universally applicable principles.