SC CWP Denial Pending DD214 - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: SC CWP Denial Pending DD214

  1. I am a former head general counsel - lawyer at SLED and helped to revamp the denial/review protocol back in 2008. As an aside before then SLED would deny people for too many speedif tickets and other odd things!

    The process was changed to look more towards federal disqualifiers for firearm possession for 2 reasons. I was a federal firearms prosecutor before SLED so it was a more coherent system. Second it focused out attention on protecting a persons second amendment rights to a CWP while removing such rights from those who cannot lawfully possess a firearm.

    I say that to say your less than honorable shouldn't DQ you, but they may get wrapped up with that as well as the underlying reason
    being for drugs. They will probably get hung up more on those because they could each be a reason for denial via 18 USC 922g.

    As shamelessly as it sounds I would recommend a lawyer because you are going to have to make some nuanced arguments about previous federal cases as to why you are not prohibited.

    As an aside they are picky at SLED because the tight processes and thorough review they do SC is a state that FBI allows for CWP holders to forgo background checks when they purchase firearms. As annoying as the process is most of the feedback we got when I was there was people would rather have tight controls and the ability to bypass background checks when they purchased than the alternative. We can talk a whole week on why the process takes 90 days due to outdated IT systems at another time haha.

    In short I think you have a very solid argument to qualify but not sure they will see it that way. (I don't even think they have an attorney working there due to cuts and vacancies).

    Standard disclaimer that this is not legal advice.

  2.   
  3. #12
    What do you make of them now taking over 100 days in many (all?) cases now despite the law saying otherwise?

  4. There are two issues there - the legal question and the technological question. The technology/process question explains why it takes so long. In short, SLED is running off of a COBOL system designed for the 1970's which makes in-house automation difficult to upgrade to. During my tenure we began talking with an outside vendor to begin phasing in pushing the process out to private companies to do all the in take with better technologies such as instant scan of fingerprints. As an aside during the 2006-2010 time frame the rejection rate for CWP instructor submitted fingerprint cards of their students was about 40%. Nothing against the instructors but fingerprint someone manually is a difficult process. That was the single longest point of delay during that time period. Pushing out instant scan would have resolved that. From a PR perspective we should have done a better job educating what the process improvement was about. The General Assembly put a lot of heat to not implement the system. I am not saying people did not have valid concerns, just that was the end of that process. The result is SLED still relies on an outdated computer system. Back them we projected a new IT infrastructure would cost around $20 million. This was during the same time period SLED's budget was cut about 40%. I am not sure of the IT improvements going on now but I am sure the CWP infrastructure is the same.

    A second "cause" of the delay is a vast increase since about 2008 in CWP applications. I am of the opinion the more CWPs the better, but at the same time more applications puts funnel effect where you are trying to push through a large number of applicants through a narrow pipeline limited by technology. The two that lead the CWP unit did a number of great process improvements including using Constables at night to help process applications but a technological fix would go a very long way in this situation.

    The legal answer ties to the law, which states: "SLED shall issue a written statement to an unqualified applicant specifying its reasons for denying the application within ninety days from the date the application was received; otherwise, SLED shall issue a concealable weapon permit." While I know it is frustrating SLED is caught in a catch - 22. By the time it gets to the 90 day deadline I would say for 95% of the people all the background issues (ie fingerprints, criminal records check, sheriff requests) are finished. The only thing they have not done is literally print out the CWP license and mail it. The delay is in the front end. Because it is so backed up on the front end, compounded with the number of new applicants coming in each day things bottleneck.

    The law requires they issue send you a rejection notice or issue you one. You are almost guaranteed by that point to be in a position where they will issue you one so they can't send you a rejection but they are so backlogged they can't get to your application to issue you one.

    In other words if you haven't heard from them in 90 days you probably aren't going to be rejected for any reason but you are being delayed because the process is so backed up. They literally have buckets with dates on them for when the applications came in that are stacked 8 feet high as they work they way through simply printing out the CWPs and mailing them.

    The only real legal solution is to possibly file a motion for a Writ of Mandamus to have a court require them to issue. However, by the time you pay a filing fee for such a motion and get a court to hear your case you probably will have already received your CWP in the mail.

    Again with seeing the process first hand what will reduce the 90 day way is reducing the time on the front end of the process - that portion where you are getting fingerprints and running criminal records checks. That is where much time is "wasted" and bottlenecks occur because of reliance on a largely non-automated system.

  5. BTW not sure where "Google Range Perspective" came in the first paragraph, I obviously did not mean to include that. Maybe the NSA is monitoring my post!

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulster View Post
    First post here, been reading the forums for a long time. My question is regarding SC's requirements for CWPs and military discharges. Reading through the law, there is no listed requirement beyond being legal to own firearms per federal laws (ie cannot have a dishonorable discharge). That being said, I called and asked SLED whether an other than honorable discharge would prohibit me from getting a CWP. The helpful lady said that it would not disqualify me. I asked if I had to provide any info when submitting my application, she said no. So I signed up and completed my class on 2/20/13. Today (7/13/13) I received a letter from SLED informing me my application was denied pending review of my DD214. For background, my discharge was OTH due to failing drug test (I was drunk at a party of mixed military/civilians and ended up smoking pot, a case of impaired judgement. My command was extremely stiff on drug related offenses, hence the OTH).

    That all being said, here are my questions to those of you with experience with this area:

    1. Is an OTH grounds to deny CWP?
    2. Is the marijuana aspect grounds to deny? (I am not prohibited in any way to buy firearms, have purchased numerous firearms since my discharge)
    3. Should I send in the DD214 that fully discloses my discharge circumstances, or the one that has that info deleted? Letter does not specify which...
    4. Is there anything I should do to aid in getting an approval?

    So what do y'all think? I've been clean as a whistle since the discharge, no legal issues aside from a traffic violation, held the same job since discharge (and been successful, getting promotions, raises, etc). Thanks in advance for your advice!
    You got the chance to serve your country with honor and you proved to be a total **** up. You're a POG.
    My advice is to drop it. You couldn't be trusted to fulfill your oath and serve your country with honor and dignity, why should your country trust you with a gun?!

    Thanks in advance for your advice!
    You're very welcome.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulster View Post
    Thanks for the reply, I will take your judgment for what it's worth. I have no intention of falsifying any documents. I do not currently use marijuana, this was an isolated incident a few years back (I take responsibility for my actions, no excuses. I only outlined the circumstances so everyone gets the whole picture). I could back that up with a drug test, if that would help my case with SLED? My question lies in what SC law states and how SLED applies it. Anybody else have insight they can share?
    While your brothers and sisters were sacrificing life and limb, you were smoking weed with a bunch of retards. You aren't intelligent enough to handle a firearm. Moron.

  8. #17
    I appreciate the response. I wasn't interested in the excuses they have for not following the law, but am interested in your assessment of what it takes to fix is.

    How long do you think the writ takes to file and deliver?

  9. FormerSLEDAttorney-

    Thanks for all the info, it solidifies what I have been able to gather during my research. I have submitted what SLED requested and verified they received it. We will see what comes back.

    The info on the process and why it takes the amount of time that it does is useful to everybody here as well, maybe it can be used to put some pressure on our elected officials to update the system.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad View Post
    You got the chance to serve your country with honor and you proved to be a total **** up. You're a POG.
    My advice is to drop it. You couldn't be trusted to fulfill your oath and serve your country with honor and dignity, why should your country trust you with a gun?!


    You're very welcome.
    Biggest reason is because the 2nd amendment doesn't have a "if you get caught smoking weed in the military" clause.

    And what you apparently don't realize is that there are tons of people out there that we shouldn't trust with guns, but are somehow or another going to get their hands on them anyways. But this guy gets caught doing something that many states now are legalizing, and you jump on him like he's a hardened criminal? You've obviously got a lot of bitterness you need to deal with.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad View Post
    While your brothers and sisters were sacrificing life and limb, you were smoking weed with a bunch of retards. You aren't intelligent enough to handle a firearm. Moron.
    Cause I'm sure you never made any bad decisions in your lifetime. We're human, and people screw up. That shouldn't disqualify you from your rights for the rest of your life.

    How about you finish righting your book on how to lead the perfect life so that we'll have that to go by and won't have to worry about stuff like this anymore.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast