…Changed from a practice of banning guns only in the past
SAC CITY, IOWA – JANUARY 11, 2011
1.Prior to this there were no signs posted on secondary roads, engineers, or annex building.
2. This is a reaction to the recent change in carry laws to beef up efforts to keep guns out of the building.
3. New signs will be made and they will be put on every entrance.
4. Any patron refusing to disarm or leave the building will be arrested for criminal trespass.
5. Weapons can still be in your vehicle on the property. This resolution pertains to the buildings only.
6. Supervisors approve resolution by roll call, all ayes.
7.The resolution goes into effect immediately.
Copyright (c)2007-2011 TheSacNews.com Inc. All Rights Reserved
Has there been any other talk of knee-jerk reactions like this in the county?
ReplyDeleteThis is against the law 724.28 states that no political subdivision can regulate the possession of firearms when possession is lawful under the laws of the state.
ReplyDeletestate law states it cannot regulate by ordinance..mostly meaning that subdivisions cannot regulate firearms in their jurisdiction they can however pass a RESOLUTION (different from an ordinance) regulating weapons on their OWN property.
ReplyDeletefrom Iowa League of Cities...In a recent letter from the Attorney General’s Office to the County Attorney for Des Moines County, the Attorney General relies largely on a 2003 formal Attorney General Opinion “that determined that Iowa Code Section 724.28 would not bar a city or a county from regulating firearms on the city’s or county’s own property; however, Iowa Code Section 724.28 does not allow more generalized regulation of firearms within these jurisdictions.” In light of Section 724.28’s prohibition of ordinances regulating the ownership or possession of firearms, the Attorney General’s Office went on to essentially recommend that cities and counties address the issue through the adoption of a resolution or motion setting forth the city’s or county’s policy with respect to the possession of firearms on city or county property. If that policy is to prohibit the possession of firearms on city or county property, the Attorney General then suggests that violations be dealt with under the trespass law. Persons who enter city or county property with a firearm would be asked to leave, and if they refused it would constitute a trespass violation, punishable as such.
so, if you do not like that political subdivisions can pass such a resolution you need to take it up with the attorney general.
Slightly less condescending version of above comment content happening at http://thesacnews.blogspot.com/2011/01/legality-of-county-supervisors-banning.html
ReplyDeleteEnjoy :)
The problem is, the attorney general's opinion is just that, an opinion.
ReplyDeleteThere is case precedent set -- I'd have to look it up, but it was a Seattle case -- with basically the same scenario. State law had a preemption clause, and a local entity (may have been the City of Seattle) passed a 'resolution' instead of an ordinance. The outcome of the case was because the resolution covered EVERYONE that entered the buildings in question, it had the effect of a law - and was illegal. They can ONLY enact a resolution that covers a specific group of people - say the employees of the courthouse. They cannot enact a resolution that covers EVERYONE. That is called a law.