Iowa sheriffs object to new 'shall issue' law

[Varmint]

http://iowainformer.com/politics/2017/08/iowa-sheriffs-stand-your-ground-gun-laws/

Really good, balanced article. There's some good reasoning to support 'may issue', such as:

Fitzgerald said he denied few permits before 2011. Like other sheriffs, he cited news coverage of the law change and culture of Iowa as the reason for the uptick in 2011. Iowans, he said, understood the law and their gun rights better because of the coverage.Reasons Fitzgerald would have denied a permit, he said, included a known history of mental health issues, family and/or spousal abuse and drug or alcohol addiction. “Other than that I don’t care if people have guns or what kind of guns they have,” Fitzgerald said.

But this sheriff needs to understand that just like criminals ruin things for the law abiding, cops who abuse the law ruin things for the good cops.

For ex.:

Wapello County Sheriff Mark Miller, who took office in 2012, said his county historically only would issue permits before 2011 to people like business owners who could prove a need to protect items with monetary value.

The law needed to be changed for this reason:

Before the law, he said, the equivalent of 99 different laws existed because sheriffs in each county could set their own criteria for issuing permits.

The article talks about required training. Also something that gets abused, like my town telling my wife and I we had to retake the LTC course cause the certificate was over a year old. Another $200 and several hours down the drain.

And a good quote:

“Everybody has a gun, multiple guns. People leave their doors unlocked. I can go over to my neighbors’ house while they’re not home, get some sugar or borrow a pop or something and leave a note, and they don’t give a shit,” Belleau, 34, said.

“People say, ‘Well if you ban guns, then nobody has any guns, then you can’t get shot,’ he said. “Well you can’t carry a gun in Chicago, and that’s where the most shootings happen.”
“Why?” Belleau asked. “It’s a mentality thing.”

 

[vickers]

.

 

[ScottS]

Taking an online training course is an option but Kim Smithe, owner of the Davenport gun shop G & G Retailers, said those courses are not sufficient.

“I do believe in the right to carry a firearm but I do think there needs to be stricter regulations,” Smithe said, who has had her permit to carry since 1988. “I think you need to be able to prove that you can handle that firearm and you have that knowledge, and if you don’t, you shouldn’t be able to carry, period.”

Fortunately, my rights don't depend on her opinion of how they should be applied.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Not one mention of all those sweet "training fees" fees and "campaign donations" that no longer will stream in?

The first change from "may issue" to "shall issue" was back in 2011, so the impact of this latest law was lessened. Keokuk county (pop. ~10K) issued zero licenses in 2010, and 760 after the 2011 change.


A note about the data: The next peak after 2011 came when permits issued needed to be renewed (5 year validity), public safety officials said.

 

[xtry51]

Having concerns does not grant you the privilege of denying natural rights. This is a huge mentality problem with cops.

If you're not in jail, you have the right to own a gun. Period.

 

[vickers]

I support cops in a lot of ways. It's a hard job and in some ways a no win proposition. There are many very good people who are LE and some that I know I respect a lot. There are a lot of LE who understand the balance of rights vs. the needs of public safety. However there are also some cops who are statists and only care about making their job "easier". Unfortunately Pols and the courts tend to back them up if it suits them.

Like Hassan on the constitutional carry veto a couple of years back, claimed she decided to veto because some high level NH cops told her the law would make their jobs harder and impact LE safety (BS I know, it was really because her orders came from the DNC). It doesn't matter if it makes your job harder. You have to protect everyone's rights or else all rights are meaningless.

 

[Bonesinium]

.Reasons Fitzgerald would have denied a permit, he said, included a known history of mental health issues, family and/or spousal abuse and drug or alcohol addiction. “Other than that I don’t care if people have guns or what kind of guns they have,” Fitzgerald said.

If only there was some sort of law that made possessing guns illegal for those who commit domestic violence, use drugs illegally, or have mental health issues. Wait a second...

 

[MichaelJames1971]

If only there was some sort of law that made possessing guns illegal for those who commit domestic violence, use drugs illegally, or have mental health issues. Wait a second...

Oh, but are those laws Constitutional? Is it okay to ENFORCE those laws? Do they really have your support?

 

[GPP]

Having concerns does not grant you the privilege of denying natural rights. This is a huge mentality problem with cops.

If you're not in jail, you have the right to own a gun. Period.

Great post. It is all about the combination of control, and inflicting their opinions on the populace. Drives me ****ing nuts. Ive had luck with my own chief, but not in every area. He did change his outlook on firearms at least, so theres that.

 

[firestorm]

If only there was some sort of law that made possessing guns illegal for those who commit domestic violence, use drugs illegally, or have mental health issues. Wait a second...

Those laws don't apply because the people he means are not convicted of anything, have never been committed for any mental health issues, and are not proven to be addicted to anything. He just means people he "Knows" are crazy, wife beaters or drunks. Also anyone who complains, or doesn't fit his world view, doesn't deserve to have guns.

 

[Bonesinium]

My only point was that his seemingly only concern is completely without merit as whether he can deny a permit or not those people are already prohibited. I wasn't saying I agree with it.

 

[usp45ct]

He doesn't have to like it, he just needs to do his job or quit. His job is to enforce the law not express feelings about it.

 

[Dadstoys]

Chiefs and Sheriffs are political animals.
Rights based on which way the political winds are blowing aren't rights at all.
Want to keep that authority ? Then stop f*cking abusing it or turning a blind eye to those who do.
Even in "Free" states I've heard stories about Chiefs or Sheriffs dicking around with permits and such.
Boom, constitutional carry. Problem solved.
The one they created.
So quit whining, you brought it on.

 

[Individualist]

People die every day fighting to protect our Country and Rights. If someone was required to take an oath as part of their job to protect the Constitution and then decides to opt out, imho they are no longer in that position of authority or responsibility. Automatic forfeiture effective immediately.

 

[Varmint]

Oh, but are those laws Constitutional? Is it okay to ENFORCE those laws? Do they really have your support?

I agree, if you're too dangerous to own a gun, you should not be walking the streets with access to dangerous weapons, like rental box trucks and kitchen cutlery.

 

[Lank]

Having concerns does not grant you the privilege of denying natural rights. This is a huge mentality problem with cops.

If you're not in jail, you have the right to own a gun. Period.

Yup Yup

 

[Oldarmy]

I find this statement interesting. Wapello County Sheriff Mark Miller, who took office in 2012, said "his county historically only would issue permits before 2011 to people like business owners who could prove a need to protect items with monetary value." Which would infer that he believes property has more of a value than his constituents lives

 

[Individualist]

I find this statement interesting. Wapello County Sheriff Mark Miller, who took office in 2012, said "his county historically only would issue permits before 2011 to people like business owners who could prove a need to protect items with monetary value." Which would infer that he believes property has more of a value than his constituents lives

Exactly how I read into that as well. That is why individuals should not be making the decision.

 

[Fixxah]

Great post. It is all about the combination of control, and inflicting their opinions on the populace. Drives me ****ing nuts. Ive had luck with my own chief, but not in every area. He did change his outlook on firearms at least, so theres that.

We need more with your outlook to step up. I know a few others but not nearly enough to tilt the scales.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I find this statement interesting. Wapello County Sheriff Mark Miller, who took office in 2012, said "his county historically only would issue permits before 2011 to people like business owners who could prove a need to protect items with monetary value." Which would infer that he believes property has more of a value than his constituents lives

No doubt "special" and "connected" people were also on the list.

The theory is that someone carrying valuables is more likely to be a target. But, that is like saying that only inexperienced and teenage drivers should wear seatbelts because they are at higher risk of collisions.

 

[fencer]

Reasons Fitzgerald would have denied a permit, he said, included a known history of mental health issues, family and/or spousal abuse and drug or alcohol addiction. “Other than that I don’t care if people have guns or what kind of guns they have,” Fitzgerald said.

Aren't there mechanisms in place to revoke a persons right to own firearms if these conditions exist? Shouldn't the state have to prove this in order to deny or revoke a right?
I get it. They don't want the town drunk or whack job carrying. They should be able to prove it in court. Not just the opinion of one man or even one department. And it should require some serious effort, not just picking up a stamp and hitting an application with "DENIED".

 

[42!]

Aren't there mechanisms in place to revoke a persons right to own firearms if these conditions exist? Shouldn't the state have to prove this in order to deny or revoke a right?
I get it. They don't want the town drunk or whack job carrying. They should be able to prove it in court. Not just the opinion of one man or even one department. And it should require some serious effort, not just picking up a stamp and hitting an application with "DENIED".

You mean like we have in MA. Which is routinely abused by the PD and the Courts who allow it regardless of what "proof" is provided? Ya, BAD idea!

If you want to deny someone for a reason, specifically deny it in the law where it can be challenged in necessary. Making ownership subject to the subjective opinion of an individual is a recipe for abuse of the system by the PD.

 

[cams]

These C'sOP and Sheriffs with this mentality are akin to the Hollywood weirdos who rail against gun ownership yet surround themselves with armed security. Maybe the hypocrisy is so obvious they can't even see it.

I wonder if they'd change their view if their ability to own and carry off duty was then at the mercy of some liberal governor above them, "Sorry Chief, once you're off duty you have no need to carry a weapon, if you or your family is in danger call 911 and start praying."

This would solve their attitudes. Why is it always those that have, think they can tell others that they don't need it. Arrogance and hypocrisy.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I wonder if they'd change their view if their ability to own and carry off duty was then at the mercy of some liberal governor above them, "Sorry Chief, once you're off duty you have no need to carry a weapon, if you or your family is in danger call 911 and start praying."

How about "A departmental investigation cleared you, but the civilian review board found evidence of guilt still exists, so you are limited to on duty possession only".

 

[CAR]

How about "A departmental investigation cleared you, but the civilian review board found evidence of guilt still exists, so you are limited to on duty possession only".

This is genius.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

You mean like we have in MA. Which is routinely abused by the PD and the Courts who allow it regardless of what "proof" is provided? Ya, BAD idea!

If you want to deny someone for a reason, specifically deny it in the law where it can be challenged in necessary. Making ownership subject to the subjective opinion of an individual is a recipe for abuse of the system by the PD.

When even Pro-2A folks can't even agree what would constitute reasonable/justifiable "disqualifying information", how do you expect LEOs to agree when they are often the ones who have to clean-up the mess after a shooting?

When all you see is the 'worst' in something, day-in and day-out....their gut reaction is "I don't want to deal with this anymore, go away".

 

[goodlife30]

I am fine with this as long as police lock up their firearms in the station when they are off duty along with their badges and pepper spray.

- - - Updated - - -

When even Pro-2A folks can't even agree what would constitute reasonable/justifiable "disqualifying information", how do you expect LEOs to agree when they are often the ones who have to clean-up the mess after a shooting?

When all you see is the 'worst' in something, day-in and day-out....their gut reaction is "I don't want to deal with this anymore, go away".

Quit and find another job. Making your job easier should not come at my expense.

 

[firestorm]

When even Pro-2A folks can't even agree what would constitute reasonable/justifiable "disqualifying information", how do you expect LEOs to agree when they are often the ones who have to clean-up the mess after a shooting?

When all you see is the 'worst' in something, day-in and day-out....their gut reaction is "I don't want to deal with this anymore, go away".

Actually, we all agree. No restriction without due process. Unless you are in prison at this moment, you should have your rights in full. Mental health issues that require you to be hospitalized against your will are already a disqualifier, how much more do you want? If you want to restrict someone, they should have had their day in court (Which mental health cases now don't usually get) beforehand.

Rights should not be taken away simply to make a cop's job simpler, they are basically relying on hearsay and "Inside knowledge". This is not 1932, your local chief has not lived down the street your whole life and there aren't 200 people in town allowing him to really know everyone. So instead they rely on restricting anyone they don't like, who complains about the PD, or who has had any run in with the law, even if they were never charged, or aquitted.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

Actually, we all agree. No restriction without due process. Unless you are in prison at this moment, you should have your rights in full. Mental health issues that require you to be hospitalized against your will are already a disqualifier, how much more do you want? If you want to restrict someone, they should have had their day in court (Which mental health cases now don't usually get) beforehand.

Rights should not be taken away simply to make a cop's job simpler, they are basically relying on hearsay and "Inside knowledge". This is not 1932, your local chief has not lived down the street your whole life and there aren't 200 people in town allowing him to really know everyone. So instead they rely on restricting anyone they don't like, who complains about the PD, or who has had any run in with the law, even if they were never charged, or aquitted.

So, you're saying a convicted felon, released from prison for "good behavior" should not be a PP? You sure we ALL agree to that?

 

[tcarter01]

I find this statement interesting. Wapello County Sheriff Mark Miller, who took office in 2012, said "his county historically only would issue permits before 2011 to people like business owners who could prove a need to protect items with monetary value." Which would infer that he believes property has more of a value than his constituents lives

hey Mr.Sherriff....But what about me and my nonbusiness owning self?? Is not my personal property worth anything?? After all, we all are insured for property loss...or at least any honest business owner and regular Joe Schmoe is...