With the changing of the wording of Iowa concealed gun carry laws from "May issue" to "Shall issue" regular law abiding Iowans who qualify to carry guns are no longer being treated like they are criminals, and are being issued carry permits by Sheriff's Departments who no longer have the power to arbitrarily deny that right.
One side effect of this has been increased paranoia on the part of
Sac County has already put into place a resolution ( Copy of resolution) banning such weapons in the courthouse and it's annexes. Though the resolution is a slightly less restrictive version of items being enacted in other counties, it may still face a legal challenge if the National Rifle Association decides to get serious and add their muscle to the fight.
According to the following post, the NRA may begin making noise in Emmet county...
Full Story
"While it wasn't on the agenda, a proposed ban of concealed weapons on county property already started to draw interest from concealed carry advocates at Tuesday's Emmet County..."
Copyright (c)2007-2011 TheSacNews.com Inc. All Rights Reserved
The Code of Iowa specifically bars these ordinances. Iowa Code section 724.28 reads "A political subdivision of the state shall not enact an ordinance regulating the ownership, possession, legal transfer, lawful transportation, registration, or licensing of firearms when the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state. An ordinance regulating firearms in violation of this section existing on or after April 5, 1990, is void."
ReplyDeleteThe intent of the preemption clause is to prevent a patchwork of laws across the state - in other words, if you can legally go into a county owned building in Woodbury County while legally carrying a firearm, you don't have to worry about if the laws are different when you come to Sac County, or any other city/county buildings in the state.
You will notice that every county attempting to pass something like this is proposing a RESOLUTION, not an ORDINANCE. Because of that, the most they could legally charge you with for (legally) carrying a firearm into the courthouse would be criminal trespass - and then only after they asked you to leave.
However, because these resolutions have the effect of law in that they apply to all citizens using the publicly owned courthouses, (etc), they are deemed to have the effect of law, and precedent has been set that the resolutions are illegal.
Counties are attempting to skirt the intent of the preemption clause in Iowa law by passing (illegal) resolutions. There is a bill soon to be introduced into the Iowa Legislature that will make it very clear to ALL political subdivisions of the state that they cannot do this.
Guns don't kill, bullets do. Ban the bullets!
ReplyDeleteLOL! Ban the spoon and fork, thats what makes people fat! people kill people, that person makes a choice to point that gun, than pull the trigger.
ReplyDeleteBullets have nothing to do with it.
Why are people against banning guns and other weapons from entering the courthouse. I can't think of any reason you would need a gun or knife or any other weapon in the courthouse.
ReplyDelete*sigh*
ReplyDeleteBecause with a permit to carry weapons, you can legally carry your gun with you. People have various reasons for doing so. If I have my pistol on my person in a concealed carry holster, and carry it with me at all times, in order for me to go into the courthouse for anything - be it drop my property taxes off, renew my drivers license, whatever, I would technically have to go home, remove the gun, drive back to the courthouse, do my business there, and return home to pick up the gun again. (Yes, it is feasible to leave the gun in the car, but 1. The gun is no longer in my personal control and 2. Me unholstering in the parking lot is going to draw a lot more attention than necessary)
You might say "So? That's not that big of a deal." Wrong. Imagine (for the sake of argument) that Food Pride put up a "No Underwear" sign. To comply with the sign, you'd have to stop in the middle of your errands, go home, strip the skivvies, and go back to the grocery store - all because of a policy regarding something that won't hurt anyone, and in all honesty, nobody in the store will likely know if you're complying or not.
Same goes for concealed carry. The gun stays in the holster, and it's not a threat to anyone's safety -- and nobody in the store knows if there's a gun strapped to an ankle, or in an inside-the-waistband holster, or in a purse.
I can all but guarantee you that just about every day you go out in public, you interact or are in close proximity to at least one person with a firearm legally concealed on their person. Ever had a problem with that gun magically going off and hurting you? No? Then why worry about it.
The second reason people are against the bans is - why should one's right to defend and protect themselves stop just because they step across a threshold into a county building? The SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment does apply to the individuals right to bear arms for defense, and Iowa state law explicitly prohibits cities and counties from taking these actions. So please explain why you think we should just say "Well, okay then." and let them?
A few facts you need to keep in mind:
1) Statistically, Permit to Carry Weapons holders are very much law abiding citizens. Nation-wide, there are very few cases of a weapons permit holder using their gun in an illegal manner.
2) Criminals don't care. If someone is intent on shooting up the courthouse, they're not going to walk up to the building, see that little sign saying "Weapons prohibited", and turn around and go home. The only thing that means to a criminal is "The people inside this building do not have any means to fight back and defend themselves."
3) Even though the common law enforcement motto is "To Protect and Serve", the fact is police departments do not have any obligation to protect you. There are several supreme court rulings stating this very fact. It is up to you - and you alone - to ensure your personal safety.
4) Finally, and perhaps the most important, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
"Bullets have nothing to do with it."??
ReplyDeleteWhat is it that the doctors dig out of your hide? Given the choice of having a gun shot at them with or without bullets, MOST people would choose without. Many jurisdictions around teh country are now going the route of banning ammunition to get around the carry laws. Without a clip/bullets, you're about as dangerous as the five-year old with his six shooter and cowboy hat.
Anonymous 012011 12:17PM,
ReplyDeleteIt's self destructive of you to celebrate the government keeping us from being able to defend ourselves against them should they become tyrants.
I'm really curious as to why you think that is a good thing. It seems like you haven't thought this out.
"Many jurisdictions around teh country are now going the route of banning ammunition to get around the carry laws."
ReplyDeleteI'll take "Laws that would be ruled unconstitutional before the ink on the signature dries" for $500 please, Alex.
'Many' implies a significant number. I challenge you to name ONE specific jurisdiction actively doing exactly what you state--I won't hold my breath.
Certain TYPES of ammunition are illegal for a civilian to own - incendiary rounds, armor-piercing, black talon. But I know of no jurisdiction with a blanket 'no ammo' ban.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." this is exactly why concealed weapons scare me. According to this you would rather take matters into your own hands then waiting for TRAINED professionals. What supreme court cases are you talking about cause not be able to read them in context doesn't tell the whole story.
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd amendment states nothing about the right to bear bullets that I can see. Maybe the Supreme Court would have a different view? I don't know.
ReplyDeleteIf the county can ban fireworks, they can certainly ban ammunition in the courthouse and on county property. Just leave your clip locked in your vehicle. Not a big hassle that I can see. If you feel threatened ask for a deputy to provide backup when you renew your tabs.
Curtis your paranoia about county government threatening your existence needs to be examined. Too much talk radio I'm guessing? Paranoia is self destructive.
Anonymous 11:40 AM -
ReplyDeleteVery well put!
I'd like to add to this that as one researches violence there are many times more examples of law-abiding gun toters stopping bad guys from their horrid intentions than examples of the same group of law-abiding gun toters being the pepretrators. You don't think the liberal media would all too gladly scream from the rooftops the fact that a killer had a permit to carry? It would strongly support their opposition to the idea. Unfortunately that same liberal media usually seems to downplay the cases they do report where an armed citizen saved people. If they are reported at all, they tend to try to leave that part out. But those cases are out there in great numbers, if you're willing to hear it. Also these cases a lot of times don't go as far in the news simply for the fact that the number dead and injured is significantly reduced by the armed citizen's actions.
As a cop myself, and an armed citizen before that, I feel strongly about keeping the option in place for people to defend themselves. As you stated, the criminals will always have guns, and will always do the bad things they do, and unfortunately it's not possible for law enforcement to be there in time to stop violence in progress a lot of the time. The only people these laws hurt are the good law-abiding folks. There is nothing wrong with farmer Joe having a Glock .40 or a S&W .357 Mag under his bib overalls, as long as he is responsible with it. Conversely to this, I also would like to see harsher prosecution and punishment for violations, as firearms and other dangerous weapons are not to be taken lightly.
To the idiot that said "ban the bullets", and also to anyone that is for gun control: As I stated, the only people these laws effect are the ones that aren't a problem in the first place. The people intent on causing harm don't care about these restrictions. It amazes me how many otherwise intelligent people refuse to understand this principle.
Anonymous January 20, 2011 3:54 PM,
ReplyDeleteA weak argument about how ammunition and fireworks are the same and name calling? I restate: You've jumped into this argument unprepared and haven't thought out your position clearly enough to make your case.
Allow me to give you a starting place for making your argument so that you can at least be interesting:
http://www.uselections.com/issues/gun-control.shtml
I would venture a guess that an overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by people who didn't take the time to get their concealed carry permit. And usually, these gun crimes are carried out in a gun-free zone. Do these criminals not know that the area was a gun-free zone?
ReplyDeleteI don't remember where I read it, but there was a poll taken of police officers and sheriffs not long ago, and large percentage of them want there to be armed citizens among us.
The threat of your victim being armed makes criminals think twice. It's really not hard to figure out.
If I am a patron in a store who happens to be carrying a weapon and another patron pulls their gun out and threatens someone other than myself, can I shoot them?
ReplyDeleteLet's make sure we all understand your scenario.
ReplyDeleteSome criminal or mentally unbalanced person enters a store and has so lost touch with reality that they've somehow justified to themselves threatening another human with death.
In this scenario they actually pull out a (probably unlicensed) gun, indicating to you and everyone else that's aware of the situation that someone in the store is about to be murdered.
...and you have your legally licensed, loaded, and concealed weapon on you.
give him ur gun and ask him not to shoot you in the face! lol
ReplyDeleteTo make a point of an armed populace versus an unarmed populace in regards to gun violnece, murders etc...one only need to look at Washington DC. After they placed the ban on firearms, DC's crime reports skyrocketed, including the category of murder by gun, helping it to rank up near the top of the list of city's murder rates consistently. Re-arming the populace does in fact give criminals cause to be concerned and re-think their plans.
ReplyDeleteAs for the person talking about banning bullets? Common sense tells you that eliminating projectile ammunition is the same as banning the gun, as now it renders the gun equivalent to a set of brass knuckles (pistols) or a baseball bat (long guns).
All the hysteria about giving someone a gun (legally) causing humanity to take a dive off into the deep end of Crazytown and everyone is suddenly murder happy, is the same paranoia you choose to label Curtis and other like-minded individuals with.
Anonymous 3:12 PM:
ReplyDeleteYou completely failed to understand my point.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, April 16, 2007, Approx. 9:30 AM Seung-Hui Cho, after killing two female students earlier in the morning, enters Norris Hall, chained the three main doors shut, and went to the second floor, where he opened fire. The first 911 call was received within 2 minutes of the start of the shooting, and police arrived on scene approximately TEN MINUTES after the start of the shooting. As police breached the first chained door, Cho committed suicide, but he had already killed 32 and wounded 17 more.
Westroads Mall, Omaha, NE, Dec 5, 2007, 1:43 PM. Gunman enters Von Maur store and opens fire. SIX MINUTES AFTER THE FIRST 911 CALL, the police arrive. By this time, 12 individuals are killed or injured.
Ft. Hood Army Base, Killeen, TX, Nov 5, 2009, 1:34 PM Major Nidal Hasan enters the Soldier Readiness Center, and shortly after opens fire. It is about TEN MINUTES before a police officer is able to disarm Hasan and stop the threat. By this time, 13 are dead and 30 are wounded.
These are only three examples of the basis of my statement. Every one of these happened in significantly sized areas, with a strong police force. And yet, the fastest police response was still over 5 minutes, by which time several people were already dead.
You still have to take a class to get a permit to carry weapons, and a large part of that class is "When are you justified in using force?" The litmus test is "Are you in fear for your life?" Which translates into, you can use force if you have no other option - if you or someone in your vicinity, is in imminent threat of serious harm or death. THAT is the situation where seconds count. If you find yourself in a situation where a gunman is holding up the store - or bank - or wherever you happen to be at the time, you are in a situation where seconds count. 10 seconds could mean 10 dead bodies. And even a 5 minute response time by the police could mean no survivors.
Some might call my attitude paranoid, or accuse me in living in fear. I can assure you, neither are the case. I simply do not harbor any grand illusions about the police having any duty - or even being remotely able to if they did - to protect me and my family wherever I am.
To Anonymous at 3:12 January 20th:
ReplyDeleteYou posted:
""When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." this is exactly why concealed weapons scare me. According to this you would rather take matters into your own hands then waiting for TRAINED professionals. What supreme court cases are you talking about cause not be able to read them in context doesn't tell the whole story. "
While it's a US Court of Appeals case, not Supreme Court, Warren v. the District of Columbia is the best example of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
You can read the Wikipedia link for the context, but here's the crux of it, "The court held that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection."
That set the precedent that the police are not responsible for an individual's safety. There are other such cases if you require them.
tk
I as a patron am not threatened in any manner, nor is any other patron other than the cashier. The gunman is robbing the joint. I am not trying to start an argument, just want to know as a by-standard if I can shoot the guy or not.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 429PM-
ReplyDeleteI believe until he turns the weapon on you or disharged it, you can't shoot the guy. You can draw down on him, however
Iowa Code Chapter 704 covers this, http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83&input=704
ReplyDeleteEssentially you are legal to use "reasonable force" to protect yourself or another person if it's necessary to do so. 704 says this:
"A person is justified in the use of reasonable force when the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend oneself or another from any imminent use of unlawful force. "
tk
To Anonymous January 22, 2011 4:29 PM,
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that explains your reaction to this would be if you are having a depersonalization experience, (seem to be standing outside of your body just watching), are in medical shock, or have experienced some kind of past trauma like a rape that causes you to disconnect and "pretend" to yourself that you are in no danger.
None of the above reactions on your part actually remove you from the danger you are in, they just address the possible reasons why you might think you and your fellow patrons would not be in danger.
IOWA - Shoot to kill in self defense and recover costs if sued or arrested?
ReplyDeleteYeah, that might be a reality soon.
http://thesacnews.blogspot.com/2011/01/law-enforcement-opposes-shoot-to-kill.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter