Here’s one our friends at the Violence Policy Center will love: The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that a Minnesota permit holder, Joseph Kadlec, shot a motorcyclist in a case of road rage last week. According to the story, “Despite knowing about a string of recent road-rage incidents involving a 71-year-old man, the Isanti County sheriff said Wednesday that he was legally obligated to issue a permit to carry a gun to the man who is now charged with shooting a motorcyclist in the face after a cat-and-mouse highway incident over the weekend.” There’s one problem with the sheriff’s claim that he had a legal obligation to issue a permit . . .

It’s not true. Since I would never accuse an elected official of being too stupid or inept to know how to do his job, the sheriff must just be lying.

“The reason he was issued a permit is because there was no indication in the required background check that indicated [Kadlec] was a danger to himself or others or was not allowed, by statute, to be issued a permit,” Sheriff Russ Monson said in response to an inquiry Tuesday from the Star Tribune.

No indication Kadlec was a danger?

The sheriff admits that he knew about five earlier road rage incidents that were serious to involve the police:

Monson then went on to explain that in each of the five earlier cases, “we have on record [Kadlec] was angry at someone for their driving conduct but never used any weapons, never assaulted anyone, never made threats and was never arrested.”

So the police were called to five road rage incidents involving Kadlec, but they never arrested him and apparently never cited him.

This tells me that Joe Kadlec is 1) someone’s brother-in-law or 2) has donated big bucks to someone’s re-election campaign or 3) done something that gives him some hefty political clout. The kind of clout that would have ensured that if Joe had applied for a PTC[1] under the old “may issue” system, he would have gotten it — road rage incidents notwithstanding.

Minnesota Statute 624.714 Subdivision 6(a)(3) clearly states that the Sheriff may “deny the application on the grounds that there exists a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit.” The denied applicant can appeal, but no judge would have looked at a history of five road-rage incidents in four years and given this guy a permit.

Let’s be clear: this shooting wasn’t a breakdown of the “shall-issue” system. It was just a sheriff abrogating his responsibilities, probably due to some good old political cronyism, and trying to lay the blame on a law he doesn’t like. And claiming his hands were tied is a transparent case of CYA in the extreme. Period.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

22 COMMENTS

  1. “This tells me that Joe Kadlec is 1) someone’s brother-in-law or 2) has donated big bucks to someone’s re-election campaign or 3) done something that gives him some hefty political clout.”

    Perhaps said Sheriff was afraid denying Mr. Kadlec would put him in a tough position against whoever Mr. Kadlec “knows” come re-election? That’s the only reason I see him turning a cheek and then passing the ball when SHTF.

  2. 5 road rage incidents prior to the 1 that ended in a shooting. This guy definately knows some dirt on someone. Wanna bet that even after shooting the other guy our man get’s off with probation? Talk about the fix being in.

  4. This story relates somewhat to my concern about using my real name online. If it were known then businesses and permit approvers could easily read the mean nasty comments that I’ve posted about Nancy Pelosi’s botox face and Hillary Clinton’s lousy personality along with what I think about the two big political parties ruling America. I don’t want to be denied my CC permit because I offended someone’s politics.

    • Aharon, I don’t post under my full name, even when I write gun reviews, for a different reason. I don’t want to advertise the fact that I’m armed and that there are guns in my home. No good can come from that.

      • Good points. No reason to expose your defenses or tempt others to steal your defense tools.

        Neither should people who own physical silver and gold be open about precious metals online, and even when discussing their views with friends, good neighbors, relatives, and co-workers. It is far too risky.

        • As far as firearms go, I even shred all the mail I get from CTD Midway etc. and old issues of Shotgun News. The lower my profile the better. But in all honesty I don’t think it matters what name you post under, except for local privacy, if the PTB want to know who you are they will find out. There is always a trail left by the average (me included) poster. Unless you find a way to hide you IPO or your e mail registrations, the I.T. boys will find anyone they want, IMVHO.

        • @Sammy:

          All true. We can’t be off the grid of we’re on the grid. My main concern about posting under my full name are the random scumbags who surf websites like Facebook and others looking for potential targets.

      • I don’t post under my full name either. I have some politically incorrectly opinions, and I also don’t need to advertise guns in my home. Nothing worn with that.

  5. im not so sure it mattered whether this guy had a gun or not. he was clearly on his way to killing someone eventually. i get the feeling the guy with the 3000 pound car could have killed a guy on a motorcycle with or without a gun…… i think the major point here is this guy wasnt taught a lessen about road rage the first 5 times which might actually be the real reason to be upset whether its corruption as you said or inept policing.

  6. While the system clearly didn’t work in this situation, this story is still perfect example against constitutional carry (the notion that he was going to kill someone eventually anyways notwithstanding).

  7. Wow, this is the last place I would expect to read a article cricitzing a sheriff for issueing a permit. Doesn’t TTAG always complain about may-issue sheriffs not iusseing permits like in CA?

    • Failure to issue permits is not the question here. Abrogating due diligence and passing the buck may have created the situation for approval where denial MAY have been the better bet with this particular candidate considering his history. That being stated, each jurisdiction has it’s own protocol, as such anything stated here without supporting information is sheer speculation.

    • Agreed. I am rather surprised as well. Where are all the “shall not be infringed” comments?

      In hindsight, yes, refusing the permit would have been a good thing. But without even as much as a citation for disturbing the peace, there was no reason deny the permit.

      If the same guy had been refused the permit and had been assaulted and/or killed, the comments against the sheriff, for denying the permit, would be deafening.

  9. As an Isanti county resident who recently received a carry permit through Sheriff Monson’s office, a couple of observations:

    1) Big fat liar? Um, guys, isn’t this the blog that tells us if we get into a DGU we need to STFU and call our lawyers? Isn’t it implied, therefore, that we will then follow our attorney’s advice in what we say? I’m guessing Monson’s answer to the Strib was exactly what his counsel advised, on the basis that his attorney believed he could make that case in court. Otherwise, Isanti county taxpayers will be paying for replacing most of the teeth that Kadlec shot out of that motorcyclist.

    2) I never heard of Kadlec until the shooting. If he has five previous road rage incidents, none of them made the local papers or the Star Tribune. I’m very curious to learn whether this a case of a person with power over local law enforcement or whether the real issue here is that Minnesota has toothless laws related to road rage. It’s interesting that law enforcement was able to confiscate all his firearms but he still has his driver’s license.

  11. As a victim of one if this mans road rage incidents where I thought I was going to be killed or run off the road, I am looking forward to this Wednesdays sentencing.

  12. Just because someone gets angry at someone and/or thier actions does not mean they intend to assault him with a firearm. A temper and a gun do not mean someone is going to get shot, it means that the person having the gun has protection against being assaulted, period.
    There is a big difference between using a weapon offensively or defensely – that is what we are taught from infancy.
    This is all about making second class citizens of people that the governing body does not want to be protected. The whole history of firearms regulation.

  13. They were friends. That’s why he issued him the permit. Why do you think he retired days after the incident, claiming it was do to his arthritis. Ya right!

Comments are closed.