Posted on 11/28/2010 5:49:06 AM PST by marktwain
Under Iowa's new weapons permit law -- starting in 2011 -- a person with a permit could openly walk down Central Avenue with a shotgun slung in a holster across his back.
Plymouth County Sheriff Mike Van Otterloo, explaining the changes to Iowa's permit laws, said such a situation would be legal, but not likely.
As of Jan. 1, people with permits can carry visible guns in public, Van Otterloo said.
Before this, the law allowed Iowa sheriffs to put restrictions on nonprofessional permits to carry weapons.
Those could include restrictions like being valid for concealed carry only or valid for handguns only or not valid while using or consuming alcohol or illegal drugs, according to the Iowa Department of Public Safety.
The law going into effect in 2011 removes that ability to put any kind of restrictions on nonprofessional permits to carry weapons.
Currently nearly 400 people in Plymouth County have a permit to carry a concealed gun -- handguns only.
Van Otterloo said he's not overly concerned people will take the new law to the extreme.
"Of the 400 permits I have out there, 99.9 percent of these people are good, law abiding citizens," he said. "They're not going to draw attention to themselves by strapping the gun on and walking down Main Street. That's just not what they're all about."
He said the sheriff's office may get a call or two from members of the public.
"We will definitely answer the call, see what the situation is," Van Otterloo said. "If for some reason we feel that that individual, even though he holds a permit, is conveying it in a manner that is threatening or assaultive or some circumstance, then I still have the authority to revoke the permit."
That's just the beginning of the changes.
The bill Governor Chet Culver signed into law in April made Iowa a "shall issue" state, meaning county sheriffs would lose some of their discretion to deny a weapons permit.
"The applicant doesn't have to justify to me anymore as to why they want to carry the permit," Van Otterloo said. "If you meet the requirements, which are the training, background check, no felonies, assaults, domestic violence type situations, then you get the permit."
Before this, individuals had to justify why they felt they needed to go armed and have the option to use deadly force.
"I could deny those permits based on the justification they gave me," he said. "Not anymore."
Van Otterloo said there were cases in which he had denied permits to people in the past.
"The justification just didn't quite meet what I felt was necessary to show that they needed to go armed to protect themselves or others," he said.
The most common reason, he said, is that people said they wanted the permit so they could protect their home. However, no permit is needed to carry a gun on one's own property.
Van Otterloo still can deny a permit under the new law, but it has to be in writing, and the applicant can appeal it.
Another change: there will be no specific restrictions included on a person's weapons permit.
Before this, he explained, sheriffs could place restrictions on when a person could carry a gun, even with a permit. For example, some people would want a permit just to carry a gun when they are transporting a large sum of money.
The old permit law also allowed the sheriff to restrict permit holders from carrying weapons into bars.
"It said it right on all the permits -- it was not valid when you were in an establishment that sold alcohol," Van Otterloo said. "The new law changes that. There are no restrictions. You can carry it wherever you want, however you want, whenever you want."
However, the rule does ban permit holders from carrying a gun if they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
In Iowa, being under the influence of alcohol is having a blood alcohol concentration of .08.
A private business could set up a policy to prohibit weapons from its property, Van Otterloo said.
"We might see more of those," he said.
Places like schools and the courthouse may have policies prohibiting the carrying of guns onto their property.
Also with the new law, Iowa recognizes weapons permits from all other states, Van Otterloo said.
The new permits will be five-year permits, while the current permits must be renewed every year.
The cost increased to $50 for a five-year permit. Renewals will be $25. Prior to this, the cost was $10 for a one-year permit and $5 for a one-year renewal.
In Plymouth County, the sheriff's office will be issuing a plastic ID card, like a driver's license, along with the paper gun permit.
The card will include the applicant's photo, personal description, the training they took and the expiration date.
The plastic card is not required in Iowa, but Van Otterloo and some sheriffs plan to issue them.
Van Otterloo said the cards will be acceptable in other counties in Iowa.
"I would assume if they have some doubt or question, they'll call Plymouth County," he said.
Permit carriers should also keep their paper permit with them for such cases, he added.
To get a card in Plymouth County costs an additional $5.
Van Otterloo will meet with other Iowa sheriffs in early December for a one-half day training on the new rules.
He plans to post more information on gun permits on the sheriff's office website at www.plymouthcountysheriff.com after that training.
To apply for a new or renewed weapons permit, people must come in person to the sheriff's office of the county they live in.
"They can make application for the new permits after Nov. 30," Van Otterloo said. "They won't actually get the new card until January."
Those applying should also bring a legal ID and proof of their training. They also must pass a background check and be 18 or older.
To get weapons permits renewed, starting Jan. 1, 2011, people must attend a certified training course.
Currently no certified training courses are offered in Plymouth County. Under the new law, someone certified as certified instructors by groups like the National Rifle Association could start an acceptable course in Plymouth County.
Van Otterloo said that most from Plymouth County attend a course at Western Iowa Tech Community College, which involves four hours of classroom study and four hours on the shooting range.
The new law does not require that a person shoot a gun as part of the training, however.
For new gun permits, a person must show proof of completing a certified training course at some point in their life.
For first three months of 2011, while the sheriff's office is still adjusting to the new rules, Van Otterloo asked that people applying for new or renewed permits come in between 8 a.m. to noon and 1-5 p.m. Monday through Friday only.
The weapons law was changed in Iowa after lobbying by gun rights activists.
Iowa was one of very few states that allowed sheriffs discretion in whether to give weapons permits.
"Unfortunately a few sheriffs around the state were maybe misusing that discretion at times and maybe denying based on things that weren't appropriate or maybe were concerning a personal conflict they had with the applicant know that was part of the reason the new law was brought forth and adopted," Van Otterloo said. "Over 90 percent of the sheriffs were doing it the right way."
I think the next step in gun rights will sound oddly authoritarian, but is just the opposite of authoritarian: a legal *requirement* to be armed with a gun.
To explain, I knew of a judge who was sick of domestic violence cases with the same beaten women appearing before him time and again, and his protection orders ignored by everyone.
So he came up with the profound solution to use a bench order to *require* that these abused women be armed when in public, and to carry a copy of the bench order to show on demand to anyone who questioned her being armed.
And, being a good guy, if the women were too poor to afford a gun and ammo, he would stake them to both, out of his pocket.
It had a powerful effect. The number of women appearing before him twice dropped to zero.
But in any event, I think this *philosophy* should become the next idea in gun rights. To *require* citizens in many circumstances to be armed, whether or not they would be if left to their own devices.
Compare it to other Rights. Would there ever be a case where the government could require us to exercise our rights of free speech? Would anybody have to listen?
People, and not just CCW holders can't do that already? With all the emphasis on CCW the last couple of decades, some states infringe more heavily on open carry than closed, but it still feels odd when you come across one.
"Of the 400 permits I have out there, 99.9 percent of these people are good, law abiding citizens," he said. "They're not going to draw attention to themselves by strapping the gun on and walking down Main Street. That's just not what they're all about."
Yeah, that bad 0.4 of a guy is worrisome. If you find a body from the hips down open carrying, arrest it! I do feel bad for his better 0.6 though.
Free speech isn’t the best comparison. It is loaded with exceptions and twists. However, that being said, your testimony can be compelled in court, again, less exceptions, such as not incriminating yourself, or if you are in a husband-wife, doctor-patient, or clergy-laity relationship.
But since the primary goal of the first amendment is to protect *political* speech, it is actually a good comparison of whether the government could demand you speak about some facet of politics.
Yet in the case of firearms, I could instead categorize a judge requiring you to be armed with the multitude of legal requirements for individuals to use safety equipment. For example, there may be laws requiring people to wear helmets in hard-hat areas, to wear protective masks while working in a dusty environment, etc.
I the case I cited, that firearm is most definitely a piece of safety equipment, and against a real and specific threat, that is, an aggressive ex-boyfriend or husband with a protection order against them.
In other case, by the same judge I will add, a retired US Army Sergeant Major was given such an order, because he had given testimony against some criminals likely to seek retribution. This was in response to a prohibition against firearms by his current employer.
By having a court order, his employer allowed him to be armed at work, even though other employees were forbidden to be armed.
So again, as I said before, though it might seem authoritarian at first, in reality requiring someone to be armed is just the opposite.
In other words. Open carry, loose your permit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.