Hartford v. Maine Dep't of Pub. Safety
This text of Hartford v. Maine Dep't of Pub. Safety (Hartford v. Maine Dep't of Pub. Safety) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. AP "8-5? . ,.. I
f l)Y'\) - \{{}r- 10 ( j ) 'J.~ 1 r i~i r I~
RONALD HARTFORD,
Petitioner
v. DECISION
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Respondent
Introduction
On January 2008, the petitioner applied to the Commissioner of the Department
of Public Safety for a permit to carry a non-concealed firearm by a prohibited person
pursuant to Title 15 M.R.S.A. § 393 (Supp. 2008). The petitioner's application was
denied and the petitioner filed this pending 80C appeal.
The petitioner received a permit to carry a non-concealed firearm by a prohibited
person in 2000. Under the law, he was required to reapply in 2008. Pursuant to
procedures set out in statute, it was necessary for the Department to notify, among
others, the Office of the Attorney General, the sentencing or presiding justice, and the
District Attorney of the county where the petitioner resided.
Following notice being sent out to these entities, the Commissioner received two
objections, one from the Attorney General's Office, and the other from the Chief Justice
of the Superior Court. Both parties objected to the petitioner receiving a firearm permit. 2
Based on this, the Commissioner decided the application explaining, "If, within
30 days of the sending of the notice, any person so notified objects in writing to the
issuance of a permit, none shall be issued."
Standard of Review
This appeal is governed by the provisions of Title 15 M.R.S.A. § 393(5) and 5
M.R.S.A. §§ 11001-11008 and M.R. Civ. P. 80. Petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that there is no competent evidence in the record to support the
Commissioner's finding. Seider v. Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists, 762 A.2d 551, 555
(Me. 2000).
Discussion
The statute in this area of firearm permits is very clear. Any permit is valid for
four years and each renewal is subject to the same considerations as an initial
application. There is no provision for renewal based upon a change of circumstances
from the initial application.
Furthermore, the case of Gonzales v. Commissioner, Dep't of Public Safety, 665 A.2d
681 (Me. 1995) makes it very clear that an applicant does not have a property interest in
any permit that he receives. In addition, the Commissioner is mandated to deny an
application if one or more of the entities so notified of the petitioner's request objects in
writing. In this case, the Attorney General's Office and the Chief Justice of the Superior
Court objected.
This case is almost identical to the case of Gonzales v. Commissioner, Dep't of Public
Safety, Id. 3
Based on the holding of the Gonzales case, the court hereby DENIES the
petitioner's SOC appeal and affirms the decision of the Commissioner of Public Safety
denying the petitioner's request for a permit for a non-concealed firearm.
Dated: June:;C ,2009 ~~'-,~ Joseph ~)a[)ar/>/-p Justice, ~j}r(or Court Date Filed 7123/08 Kennebec Docket No. ------'A=P'-'0'-'8'-'--=5=--6.=---- _ County
Action _ _PL-e"""-L-t..... i .... i ...... t .... oLLr---"R.....e-'v'-"i~e~w~ o..un----Lf..... _ 80C J.JABAR
. vs. Maine Department of Public Safety Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney Ronald Hartford, Pro Se Lara Nomani AAG 128 Plains Road 6 State House Station Leeds, Maine 04263 Augusta ME 04333-0006
Date of Entry
7/23/08 Complaint/Request for Judicial Review/Appeal, filed. s/Hartford, Pro Se Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summons and Complaint, filed. s/Gomane Application of Plaintiff to Proceed Without Payment of Fees, filed. s/Hartford, Pro Se Indigency Affidavit, filed. s/Hartford, Pro Se 7/24/08 ORDER, Mills, J. It is ORDERED that:the filing fee is waived. The applicant is to attempt service by mail with acknowledgement. Copy to party. 08/05/08 Filed 7/28/08: Entry of Appearance for the Department of Public Safety filed by AAG Nomani 1/23/09 Motion to Accept Late Filing of the Administrative Record, filed. s/ s/Nomani, AAG 1/29/09 ORDER, Jabar, J. Granted by agreement of the parties. Copies mailed to atty./party 3/10/09 NOTICE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ISSUED. Mailed to party/atty. 4/10/09 Brief, filed. s/Ronald Hartford, Pro Se Acknowledgment of Receipt of Summons and Complaint, filed. s/AAG 5/5/09 Respondent's Brief, filed. s/Nomani, AAG
5/18/09 Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Brief, filed. s/Hartford, Pro Se 5/27/09 Letter informing the court that the dept. has no objection to request to waiVe a hearing, filed. s/Nomani, AAG 6/25/09 DECISION, Jabar, J. Ba8~d on th~ holding of th~ Gonzal~8 cas~, th~ court h~rby DENIES th~ p~tition~r's 80C app~al and affirms th~ d~cision of th~ Commission~r of Public Saf~ty d~nying th~ p~tition~r's r~qu~st for a p~rmit for a non conc~al~d fir~arm. Copi~s mail~d to attys. of r~cord.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hartford v. Maine Dep't of Pub. Safety, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-v-maine-dept-of-pub-safety-mesuperct-2009.