Jerome Ersland Did He Lie On His Concealed Carry Application

[LouC]

Some back story information about the pharmacist who killed a would be robber is starting to trickle out.

What this information means for the case against him is anyone's guess but it might prove good for a temporary insanity defense for his trial for murder.

It also might come to light that he lied and was not legally eligible to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit.

That would not negate his right to stand his ground in self defense but it could make his carrying the loaded weapon concealed in his pocket that he first shot the thief with an illegally carried weapon.

LINK (http://newsok.com/shooting-raises-question-on-concealed-carry-permits/article/3376400)

Nevertheless, reporting by The Oklahoman’s Nolan Clay on the mental state of Jerome Ersland raises questions about the law and whether Ersland should have been issued a permit.

Ersland gunned down Antwun Parker and has been charged with first-degree murder.

Oklahoma’s carry law was enacted in 1996. Residents who are 21 or older and complete a firearm safety and training course can apply for a permit.

Convicted felons and anyone being treated for a mental illness can’t get a license.

A question on the permit applications asks, "Have you ever ... had a condition relating to or indicating mental instability, been adjudicated as incompetent or committed to a mental institution?”

Clay’s reporting reveals that Ersland was accused by an ex-wife of displaying "paranoid behavior” and abusing drugs.

He apparently has been under the care of a mental health professional in the past.

Ersland denies he has mental problems now or ever had them. Divorce proceedings and other records tell a different story.

Then there is this.

LINK (http://newsok.com/mental-state-may-play-into-oklahoma-pharmacists-case/article/3375757)

In Ersland’s first child-custody case, his ex-wife testified in 1981 that she divorced him after almost eight years "because they couldn’t live together, he was unstable and it was for the good of the child to do so,” court records say.

Belinda Sue Ersland also testified he had been under the care of a psychiatrist in the summer of 1980 "for mental problems” and was on medication, her attorney wrote in a legal brief.

Her attorney also wrote that she claimed her ex-husband threatened her boyfriend with a gun.

The attorney wrote that a psychologist who testified for Ersland in the dispute reported he is rigid in his religious beliefs and "sees things as black or white.”

Ersland’s attorney in 1981 disputed the ex-wife’s claim of mental problems. The attorney wrote Ersland just prior to his divorce saw a psychiatrist because of his marital problems and had been released from the doctor’s care.

There are in the Oklahoma Concealed Carry Law time parameters for mental health issues prior to the application date which these public records do not indicate were necessarily violated, but the question is if he has been under care for mental health issues that are not publicly known, yet, but that would have precluded his having received a permit?

[BillBrown]

Some back story information about the pharmacist who killed a would be robber is starting to trickle out.

What this information means for the case against him is anyone's guess but it might prove good for a temporary insanity defense for his trial for murder.

It also might come to light that he lied and was not legally eligible to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit.

That would not negate his right to stand his ground in self defense but it could make his carrying the loaded weapon concealed in his pocket that he first shot the thief with an illegally carried weapon.



Then there is this.



There are in the Oklahoma Concealed Carry Law time parameters for mental health issues prior to the application date which these public records do not indicate were necessarily violated, but the question is if he has been under care for mental health issues that are not publicly known, yet, but that would have precluded his having received a permit?

I don't know about Oklahoma, but in Texas and many other states, a person cannot be charged with illegal possession of a firearm as a result of it being properly used.

In other words, if I am carrying illegally and I shoot someone lawfully, I cannot be charged with the illegal carry.

[LouC]

I don't know about Oklahoma, but in Texas and many other states, a person cannot be charged with illegal possession of a firearm as a result of it being properly used.

In other words, if I am carrying illegally and I shoot someone lawfully, I cannot be charged with the illegal carry.

Interesting?

I lived in Texas from 1991 to 2004 but never heard that come up.

It wouldn't be an illegal possession charge would it, illegal carry perhaps, he legally possessed as many as a hundred guns it has been reported.

It is if there had been any visits and treatment by a psychologist etc. within the last three years before he applied for the permit then that would be a different issue.

If they determine he lied on the permit application I doubt they will file any charges on that, just void it.

The District Attorney Prater has also officially requested his Service Records.

[Samm]

Some back story information about the pharmacist who killed a would be robber is starting to trickle out.

What this information means for the case against him is anyone's guess but it might prove good for a temporary insanity defense for his trial for murder.

It also might come to light that he lied and was not legally eligible to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit.

That would not negate his right to stand his ground in self defense but it could make his carrying the loaded weapon concealed in his pocket that he first shot the thief with an illegally carried weapon.

Then there is this.

There are in the Oklahoma Concealed Carry Law time parameters for mental health issues prior to the application date which these public records do not indicate were necessarily violated, but the question is if he has been under care for mental health issues that are not publicly known, yet, but that would have precluded his having received a permit?

The attorney wrote Ersland just prior to his divorce saw a psychiatrist because of his marital problems and had been released from the doctor’s care.
There are some who would consider going to a marriage counsellor as "being treated for a mental disorder." There are some who desire that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who avail themselves of mental health services to ease their transition to civilian life be denied the right to keep and bear arms on that basis.

[OldBuzzard]

I'll admit to not following the story that closely, so I do have one question.

Was he 'carrying', or did he have it under/behind the counter? Carrying and possession are two entirely different matters, which I think would make a difference.

In either case, once the perp was rendered helpless, 'finishing him off' later was not the proper thing to do, and I believe that there should be a penalty for that.

[Samm]

I'll admit to not following the story that closely, so I do have one question.

Was he 'carrying', or did he have it under/behind the counter? Carrying and possession are two entirely different matters, which I think would make a difference.

In either case, once the perp was rendered helpless, 'finishing him off' later was not the proper thing to do, and I believe that there should be a penalty for that.

It does not really matter if he was "carrying" or had the gun close at hand... he was inside his business... on his own property. He did not need any one's permission to carry.

The issue at hand though is not whether he had a carry permit; it is whether he lied on the application to get his CCP.

[LouC]

There are some who would consider going to a marriage counsellor as "being treated for a mental disorder."

Yes there are, the Brady people among them, but I am not one of those.

There are some who desire that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who avail themselves of mental health services to ease their transition to civilian life be denied the right to keep and bear arms on that basis.

I don't.

If they lie about it on a Concealed Carry permit application then that is different.

The people should see to it that their state legislators make provisions for veterans in their permit laws.

[LouC]

I'll admit to not following the story that closely, so I do have one question.

Was he 'carrying', or did he have it under/behind the counter? Carrying and possession are two entirely different matters, which I think would make a difference.

In either case, once the perp was rendered helpless, 'finishing him off' later was not the proper thing to do, and I believe that there should be a penalty for that.

He had one gun in his pocket and the other was in a locked drawer behind the counter.

The gun in his pocket is the one he used to shoot the suspect the first time.

The one in the drawer was the one he retrieved to finish off the perp.

I do not think it makes any difference that he had the gun in his pocket even if it is determined he lied on the application.

He was where he was rightfully supposed to be or allowed to be and it was clear self defense with the shots fired with first gun.

[Samm]

Yes there are, the Brady people among them, but I am not one of those.

I don't.

If they lie about it on a Concealed Carry permit application then that is different.

The people should see to it that their state legislators make provisions for veterans in their permit laws.

You have entered a circular argument... If he (just as you do) did not consider the mental health treatment he received when going through his divorce to be "under treatment for a mental disorder" then he did not lie on his application.

[LouC]

You have entered a circular argument... If he (just as you do) did not consider the mental health treatment he received when going through his divorce to be "under treatment for a mental disorder" then he did not lie on his application.

Ah, it might appear that way, but that is not the case.

In my OP at the very bottom I covered his marriage associated mental health treatment.

Here it is again:

There are in the Oklahoma Concealed Carry Law time parameters for mental health issues prior to the application date which these public records do not indicate were necessarily violated, but the question is if he has been under care for mental health issues that are not publicly known, yet, but that would have precluded his having received a permit?

[RickRhetoric]

If you don't have permission to own or carry a gun, hoodies, with total impunity, should legally be able to attack, rob and kill you.

This is a law-abiding society.

[sgtmac_46]

Soooo.......because his ex-wife said he was crazy in a bitter divorce proceeding, 30 years ago, he lied on his CCW application? :eh:


Sounds to me like the special interest vultures are circling this guy in hopes of getting a conviction and setting an example to anyone who would dare resist anyone with an Armed Robbers Union Card.

[LouC]

Soooo.......because his ex-wife said he was crazy in a bitter divorce proceeding, 30 years ago, he lied on his CCW application? :eh:

No.

Sounds to me like the special interest vultures are circling this guy in hopes of getting a conviction and setting an example to anyone who would dare resist anyone with an Armed Robbers Union Card.

None of what I linked in my OP is coming from the anti gun or anti concealed carry people but is just part of the process of outing a persons background when they are a high profile suspect.

( the anti 2nd amendment crowd will glom on to this I am certain at some point )

The Oklahoma paper I linked also has printed the backgrounds, arrest records etc., of the robbery scum suspects and now murder suspects.

It sounds to me that background information is coming out on all the particulars involved in the attempted pharmacy robbery, quite common practise.

The question for me is whether there were any mental health treatments that he was or had received that violated the Oklahoma time parameters for obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit but that he lied about.

We already know he has issues with relaying facts.

[sgtmac_46]

No.



None of what I linked in my OP is coming from the anti gun or anti concealed carry people but is just part of the process of outing a persons background when they are a high profile suspect.

( the anti 2nd amendment crowd will glom on to this I am certain at some point )

The Oklahoma paper I linked also has printed the backgrounds, arrest records etc., of the robbery scum suspects and now murder suspects.

It sounds to me that background information is coming out on all the particulars involved in the attempted pharmacy robbery, quite common practise.

The question for me is whether there were any mental health treatments that he was or had received that violated the Oklahoma time parameters for obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit but that he lied about.

We already know he has issues with relaying facts. And ask yourself again 'why is it high-profile'? Because certain interests wish to see Ersland made an example of.

It's not common practice, by the way........it's common practice when the media is attempting to make a case.



The good news for Ersland, however, is all this is going to do is make his case for a change of venue to rural Oklahoma (Citing the media coverage in OKC damaging his chances at a fair trial).........where he'll be acquitted about 1/2 hour after the Jury goes to deliberation.

[LouC]

And ask yourself again 'why is it high-profile'? Because certain interests wish to see Ersland made an example of.

It's not common practice, by the way........it's common practice when the media is attempting to make a case.



The good news for Ersland, however, is all this is going to do is make his case for a change of venue to rural Oklahoma (Citing the media coverage in OKC damaging his chances at a fair trial).........where he'll be acquitted about 1/2 hour after the Jury goes to deliberation.

Prater the DA has been spearheading the high profile aspect right from the start, had he not done it on his terms with the immediate maximum murder charge against Ersland it would have really played out in the national media with the ACLU and the NAACP plus possibly getting the "Justice Brothers" involved and mucking it all up.

I have been laying odds on a change of venue from day one if it ever goes to trial.

I do not believe the DA thinks for one minute Ersland would be convicted.

[sgtmac_46]

Prater the DA has been spearheading the high profile aspect right from the start, had he not done it on his terms with the immediate maximum murder charge against Ersland it would have really played out in the national media with the ACLU and the NAACP plus possibly getting the "Justice Brothers" involved and mucking it all up. I'm sure those groups have expressed their 'interest' to Prater emphatically.

I have been laying odds on a change of venue from day one if it ever goes to trial. If it goes to trial, i'd say a change of venue is a foregone conclusion.

I do not believe the DA thinks for one minute Ersland would be convicted. I'd say you're right.......i'd say he's only pursuing this out of fear of political backlash from those aforementioned 'interest' groups.