PDA

View Full Version : Iowa Discretionary Issue - a prime example of why it is wrong


Bill_in_SD
10-20-2010, 11:53 AM
Bold added for emphasis by me. The tie in to the 1st amendment is important, especially right now as this organization moves ahead with the project to uncover the problems with California's CCW program.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/23/armed-and-weird

Armed and Weird
Guns and free speech

Jacob Sullum from the October 2010 issue

"Iowa is one of seven states where local police still have the discretion to decide who is allowed to carry a concealed handgun in public. In a vivid demonstration that such policies can have First as well as Second Amendment implications, a federal judge ruled in July that Osceola County Sheriff Douglas Weber violated a man’s right to freedom of speech when he denied him a carry permit based on his political activism.

Paul Dorr, well known locally for demonstrating at abortion clinics and agitating against government spending, said he applied for a permit because he carries large amounts of cash as part of a balloon-selling business. Weber decided Dorr was too “weird” to carry a gun, although he had held a permit without any problems from the late 1990s until 2006. The sheriff put this notation on Dorr’s rejected application: “Concern from Public. Don’t trust him.”

U.S. District Judge Mark W. Bennett concluded that the “concern” was related to Dorr’s controversial speech, especially his attacks on excessive county spending, which included an inquiry about the salaries of Weber’s deputies. “The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct, uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber’s own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of…Paul Dorr,” Bennett wrote. “This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views.”

Bennett ordered Weber not just to issue Dorr a carry permit but to complete a court-approved course on the U.S. Constitution. The case has had broader consequences as well, spurring the state legislature to limit police discretion regarding carry permits. A new law that takes effect in January lists valid reasons for denying a permit application. Weirdness is not one of them. "

yellowfin
10-20-2010, 12:12 PM
Iowa's Shall Issue law goes into effect soon if not already. They fought like hell to get it, too. The strongest suspicion of stuff like this still going on in other remaining May Issue states is the populated counties of New York (specifically Erie, Albany, Westchester, Nassau, and possibly Monroe) and Connecticut-- MD and NJ just flat out say no instead of dangling it as a "maybe, if we like you."

Untamed1972
10-20-2010, 1:22 PM
Bennett ordered Weber not just to issue Dorr a carry permit but to complete a court-approved course on the U.S. Constitution. The case has had broader consequences as well, spurring the state legislature to limit police discretion regarding carry permits. A new law that takes effect in January lists valid reasons for denying a permit application. Weirdness is not one of them. "


Outstanding! :thumbsup:

CHS
10-20-2010, 1:53 PM
I've never understood how *ANY* discretionary permit system is legal ANYWHERE in the US. Be it for AW's, CCW's, parades, whatever.

I mean, discretion in government is flatly unconstitutional.

Glock22Fan
10-20-2010, 2:50 PM
I seem to remember this being discussed several months ago. Unless, of course, this is some new sheriff being made to take Constitution 101.

Oh, I note that although it says October 2010, the date in the URL says August 23rd.

Wherryj
10-20-2010, 4:13 PM
I've never understood how *ANY* discretionary permit system is legal ANYWHERE in the US. Be it for AW's, CCW's, parades, whatever.

I mean, discretion in government is flatly unconstitutional.

It's downright discriminatory, although it seems to be allowed when it comes to the 2A for some reason.

Bill_in_SD
10-20-2010, 4:32 PM
I seem to remember this being discussed several months ago. Unless, of course, this is some new sheriff being made to take Constitution 101.

Oh, I note that although it says October 2010, the date in the URL says August 23rd.

Good catch - I guess it is a slow news month for them or something. I went back and found that the Sheriff completed his course.

"I've been duped!" - Gecko

press1280
10-20-2010, 5:09 PM
Iowa's Shall Issue law goes into effect soon if not already. They fought like hell to get it, too. The strongest suspicion of stuff like this still going on in other remaining May Issue states is the populated counties of New York (specifically Erie, Albany, Westchester, Nassau, and possibly Monroe) and Connecticut-- MD and NJ just flat out say no instead of dangling it as a "maybe, if we like you."

January 1st the Iowa sheriffs can no longer deny on grounds of "need". The vote in the Iowa legislature was overwhelming. You kind of wonder why it wasn't sooner. I suspect there was probably an anti in charge of some committee who wouldn't let any shall-issue bills get out because they knew either the bill would pass or the other antis voting against it would pay a political price.

CT is basically shall-issue. You can get their permit by mail.

IGOTDIRT4U
10-20-2010, 5:17 PM
January 1st the Iowa sheriffs can no longer deny on grounds of "need". The vote in the Iowa legislature was overwhelming. You kind of wonder why it wasn't sooner. I suspect there was probably an anti in charge of some committee who wouldn't let any shall-issue bills get out because they knew either the bill would pass or the other antis voting against it would pay a political price.

CT is basically shall-issue. You can get their permit by mail.

CT, really?!? Surprising. They are about as liberal as MA and RI. Good going CT!

Paladin
10-20-2010, 6:00 PM
January 1st the Iowa sheriffs can no longer deny on grounds of "need". The vote in the Iowa legislature was overwhelming. You kind of wonder why it wasn't sooner. I suspect there was probably an anti in charge of some committee who wouldn't let any shall-issue bills get out because they knew either the bill would pass or the other antis voting against it would pay a political price.Sit down because you won't believe this: the sheriffs fought tooth and nail last time to keep the power to determine which of their serfs, er, I mean residents, had the right to bear arms to defend themselves. :rolleyes:

There was the usual fear mongering of shootouts over fender benders and parking spots w/the streets awash in blood. I'm confident that those problems will not materialize just like they haven't in ANY other state that has gone Shall Issue.

Window_Seat
10-20-2010, 9:42 PM
Question:

Will Iowa license only its residents, or non residents as well? What states permits will Iowa recognize? Yeah, I should know... Sorry.:o

Erik.

Gray Peterson
10-20-2010, 9:45 PM
Question:

Will Iowa license only its residents, or non residents as well? What states permits will Iowa recognize? Yeah, I should know... Sorry.:o

Erik.

ALL out of state licenses are recognized as of January 1st. Residents of Iowa must get their local license, though.

yellowfin
10-20-2010, 9:50 PM
CT is basically shall-issue. You can get their permit by mail.For non resident yes. For residents in a few populated areas there's been reported shenannigans with denial by runaround, pre-application screening (application process to get the application! I'm serious!), and other unsavory stuff.

misterjake
10-20-2010, 9:56 PM
I read the article and the sheriff who had to take the constitution class earned a B-.


You would think a person who has upheld and protected the US Constitution to the degree of taking an oath would have earned an A.


Jus' sayin.

yellowfin
10-20-2010, 10:07 PM
I've never understood how *ANY* discretionary permit system is legal ANYWHERE in the US. Be it for AW's, CCW's, parades, whatever.Slaughterhouse Cases decision. Only your rights pertaining to US citizenship must be treated equally. You currently have essentially no legal claim to fair and equal treatment by any local or state government.