South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

Gary F. Jensen vs. SLED

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

Gary F. Jensen

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

Gary F. Jensen
Petitioner, pro se

W. Rutledge Martin, Esquire
For Respondent




This matter comes before this tribunal pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-215(D) (Supp. 2003) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2003) for a contested case hearing. Petitioner Gary F. Jensen challenges the decision of Respondent South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to deny his application for a permit to carry a concealable weapon because of his prior criminal conviction in Minnesota for making terroristic threats. After timely notice to the parties, a hearing of this matter was held on August 17, 2004, at the South Carolina Administrative Law Court in Columbia, South Carolina. Based upon the evidence presented at that hearing, I find that SLED correctly determined that Petitioner’s background is unfavorable for the issuance of a concealed weapon permit and properly denied Petitioner’s application on that basis.


Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:

1.On December 16, 1997, Petitioner was convicted in Olmsted County, Minnesota, of making “terroristic threats” in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.713 (1997). In the Sentencing Order for this conviction, District Judge James L. Mork required Petitioner to complete an “Aggression Replacement Training Class” and instructed Petitioner to refrain from making any direct or indirect contact with his victim and from exhibiting “assaultive behavior toward anyone.” Resp’t Ex. #1 at 2 (staying the imposition of a sentence upon Petitioner and placing him on probation, provided that he comply with the requirements stated above, pay a fine and certain fees, and be incarcerated for thirty days).

2.On March 3, 2004, SLED denied Petitioner’s application for a concealed weapon permit based upon its determination that Petitioner’s background was not favorable for Petitioner to carry a concealed weapon. Footnote Petitioner now challenges that determination before this tribunal.


Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:

1.This tribunal has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-215(D) (Supp. 2003) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2003).

2.The terms and conditions governing the issuance of concealed weapon permits are set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-215 (Supp. 2003). Under subsection (B) of that statute, SLED, as the agency responsible for the administration of the concealed weapon permitting process, see S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-31-205 et seq. (Supp. 2003), is required to determine whether an applicant for a concealed weapon permit has a favorable background for the issuance of such a permit. That subsection provides, in full:

Upon submission of the items required by subsection (A) of this section, SLED must conduct or facilitate a local, state, and federal fingerprint review of the applicant. SLED must also conduct a background check of the applicant through notification to and input from the sheriff of the county where the applicant resides. The sheriff must, within ten working days after notification by SLED, submit a recommendation on an application. Before making a determination whether or not to issue a permit under this article, SLED must consider the recommendation provided pursuant to this subsection. The failure of the sheriff to submit a recommendation within the ten-day period constitutes a favorable recommendation for the issuance of the permit to the applicant. If the fingerprint review and background check are favorable, SLED must issue the permit.

S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-215(B) (Supp. 2003). In the case at hand, SLED determined that Petitioner’s relatively recent conviction for making terroristic threats rendered his background unfavorable for the issuance of a concealed weapon permit.

3.I find that SLED made the appropriate determination regarding Petitioner’s background. While there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Petitioner had an unfavorable fingerprint review or an unfavorable recommendation from his local sheriff, Petitioner’s 1997 conviction for making terroristic threats provides a more than sufficient basis for the conclusion that his background is not favorable for him to carry a concealed weapon. An individual who has made violent threats in an effort to terrorize another person (or at least without regard for whether his threats will terrorize that person) has clearly failed to demonstrate the temperament necessary to be entrusted with permission to carry a firearm on his person. See Minn. Stat. § 609.713 (1997) (defining the offense of making “terroristic threats”); see also, e.g., Manne v. Main, 778 N.Y.S.2d 210, 211 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) (“It is settled that ‘[t]he State has a substantial and legitimate interest . . . in insuring the safety of the general public from individuals who, by their conduct, have shown themselves to be lacking the essential temperament or character which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerous instrument.’”) (quoting Pelose v. County Ct. of Westchester County, 384 N.Y.S.2d 499, 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976) (alterations in original). Accordingly, I conclude that SLED properly denied Petitioner’s application for a concealed weapon permit.


Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SLED’s decision to deny Petitioner’s application for a permit to carry a concealable weapon is SUSTAINED.




Administrative Law Judge

September 7, 2004

Columbia, South Carolina

Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court