SAC CITY, IOWA – FEBRUARY 14, 2011
The Sac City Council is considering banning weapons on municipal property.
According to research that Sac City Administrator Adam Ledford has conducted; weapons are already prohibited in Chautauqua Park, Lions Park, and South Park. Because it is against the law to create an ordinance banning weapons on municipal property, Ledford advised the council that if they want to follow through and ban weapons, they would have to do so by resolution.
Before asking the council if they would like him to draft a resolution banning weapons on municipal property, Ledford pointed out that a resolution would not actually keep any person determined to bring a weapon onto city property from doing so. Sac City Councilperson Nick Frohardt and Sac City Chief of Police John Thomsen concurred saying that a resolution would not prevent a weapon from coming onto municipal property.
Sac City Councilperson Bill Brenny disagreed, suggesting that without anything in place there would be no way to even take action should they spot somebody with a weapon on municipal property.
Ledford suggested to the council that they consider reacting in the same way as they did when the smoking ban went into effect and wait to see if the legislature or judiciary provides further guidance.
Both Brenny and Frohardt presented real life examples of governmental entities that supported their pro and con positions regarding banning weapons on municipal properly.
No action was taken, but the council will presumably take another look at this issue at a future date.
Copyright (c)2007-2011 TheSacNews.com Inc. All Rights ReservedTSN Commenting Guide
Keep us posted. This (like all the other knee-jerk resolutions passed in the last two months) is illegal.
ReplyDeleteAnd Adam's research apparently was incomplete...
From Iowa Code:
724.28 Prohibition of regulation by political subdivisions.
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.
And also: At least Adam realizes from the start that they cannot pass an ordinance, it has to be a resolution.
ReplyDeleteA resolution carries ZERO weight of law. What it amounts to is this: IF they do pass a resolution, they would have to see that an individual is carrying a firearm, and ask them to leave or disarm themselves - and if the individual does not, law enforcement can be summoned, and the individual can be charged with Criminal Trespass. Nothing more.
It is a worthless, feel-good idea that does absolutely nothing to protect anyone. All it does is give people a warm and fuzzy feeling, and a false sense of security.
I believe there are some exceptions to the law. One being no weapons are allowed within 1000 ft of a school or public parks. The city building is well with in the 1000 ft range of Chautauqua Park which is a public park.
ReplyDeleteYou're almost right. It's 1,000 feet around a school, or only the property of a public park.
ReplyDeleteBut it does NOT prohibit weapons in those locations (If so, nearly every small town in Iowa would be automatically weapons-free zones; there is a large portion of Sac City that is within 1,000 feet of a school). That section of code (724.4A) specifies that IF you commit a public offense involving a firearm inside that "Weapons Free Zone", you are automatically subject to twice the maximum penalty for that offense.
For the life of me, I can't understand! I've had this argument many times, with many thick-headed people. Any gun control measures only hurt the law-abiding people. If we got to the point of totally banning guns, the criminals would still have them, plus they wouldn't have to worry about encountering armed resistance. They could rob, assault, and murder anyone they wanted to because they know their victims will be unarmed. These resolutions local governments are putting in place are more dangerous than doing nothing. Those law-abiding guns owners responsible enough to legally carry a weapon will respect what's put in place. Anyone thinking of using a weapon to hurt people is not going to give a moment's thought to some piddly simple misdemeanor trespassing charge. So now you've got someone going in to hurt people, and you've disarmed the good guys that may be able to stop him. With all the silly lawsuits anymore, how about one where the victims in a case like this would go after the local government for stripping them of their right to defend themselves? It would make more sense than a lot of cases that I've heard being successful. Pull your head out from where you squeeze out the brown stuff!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTwo more comments posted at TSN's Facebook page regarding this post... http://facebook.com/thesacnews
ReplyDelete