Posted on 02/15/2008 11:00:44 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
There was an outcry at the statehouse Wednesday from county sheriffs objecting to a bill they say would make it harder for them to deny permits to carry concealed weapons.
The bill changes Iowa law to say the sheriff shall issue a permit except for a limited list of reasons, including felony convictions and drug addiction. If a permit's denied a written explanation would be required.
Representative Clel Baudler, a Republican from Greenfield, says there needs to be more consistency statewide in issuing the permits. Dubuque county Sheriff Kenneth Runde said that won't work. He said if he knows someone in his community has assaulted his wife but never been convicted, he wants to be able to deny a permit.
Runde says:"And we're going to give people like that permits to carry? That's not gonna happen, and I won't give 'em to those people. Just because they didn't get convicted 'cause their wives wouldn't testify, doesn't give them a right to carry a gun that they may end up using in a domestic violence situation."
Dewey Hildebrandt is sheriff of Bremer County. Hildebrandt says there are some cases where people might not have been found by the courts to be mentally unstable or unfit, there are situations where the sheriffs know the individuals personally and they are not the type they would want to see carrying weapons.
Story County Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald said explaining why a permit is denied could interfere with criminal investigations. "Taking the discretion away from sheriffs who have the intimate knowledge is going to be a disservice to the people in those communities," Fitzgerald says. Fitzgerald says the responsibility has got to fall back into the the sheriff and the sheriff has to stand up on why he did not give the person a permit.
Representative Baudler, a retired state trooper, says sheriffs are protecting their turf. He cited an example of permits unfairly denied for no apparent reason, including a prison guard who was not allowed to carry a concealed weapon for private protection outside the prison.
So there is no conviction but he wants to punish anyway, great legal scholar he is.
I always love the LEO "I know" reasoning.
"Forget about all that evidence, fair trial and jury crap! I know you did it. You're guilty!"
LEOs like that should make everybody very nervous.
I know an ex-LEO who once said, seriously, "We don't arrest innocent people!"
Sheriffs can be bought and most if not all grant favors to supporters and family members. Nobody should have control over who carries outside that of convicted felons, that is what my constitution says.
I rally want someone to take it to court that they were arrested for carrying and settle this once and for all so we can either carry or revolt.
Right you are, Sheriff. Here, in Minnesota, it has been one, long, wild-west shootout since 2003.
Same in Connecticut.
A river of blood, I tell ya.
I was an LEO and not all if us had that mentality it was usually the ones who will make upper echelon staff or chief one day. You, know the Peter principle. Most every line officer I worked with expected citizens to carry and inferred as such with out getting in trouble.
“And we’re going to give people like that permits to carry? That’s not gonna happen, and I won’t give ‘em to those people. Just because they didn’t get convicted ‘cause their wives wouldn’t testify, doesn’t give them a right to carry a gun that they may end up using in a domestic violence situation.”
Lord knows these men that want to kill their wives will not break any laws and illegally carry or possibly shoot them in the home. Denying them a CCW is definitely going to stop them from killing their wives... </sarcasm>
They wouldn't go get a permit for the murder weapon, you moron.
I run from tree to tree when in the park,just to avoid those wacky permit holders getting me.
Sometimes I even borrow a metrocrat’s Kevlar so I can be safe at gun shows.(sarc)
Same in Connecticut.
Likewise for Arizona, with our shall-issue CCW and open carry.
Well... technically, the highest law official in a state, is the county sheriff. Well, sure there’s AGs, and the Governor... things like that, but most of the time the county sheriff can trump the “bigger boys” on a local level.
In our state they went through this, and set the laws so they are the “same” throughout all the counties. Sheriffs retained the right to deny a license for a REASONABLE cause. But, those causes are mandated by state law. So, you can’t just deny one based on a personal issue with an individual, cuz say, you don’t like him.
So, the Iowa sheriff won’t be in office much longer if he tries to fight the state. The people will boot him, or the governor should be able to just tell him where to get off.
I love the LEO attitude of we’re all just felons waiting to happen. You know, guilty till proven innocent.
These local yocal tyrants need to be taken down a peg.
I think they could use improvement on policing their own.
http://www.wisn.com/news/15249053/detail.html
http://www.wisn.com/news/15249053/detail.html
Any legitimate reason to refuse a concealed carry permit can be defined.
The decision process should be objective and unbiased.
If there is no definable, legitimate, reason to refuse a person the legal right to excercise their 2nd ammendment rights should we leave it up to the subjective feelings of a government employee?
People cannot be refused fair and equal treatment in other areas subject to government control, why is this any different?
Should people be refused the right to vote because a government employee has a suspicion they aren’t suitable or qualified?
What about school enrollment, tuition assistance, library cards, passports, marriage licenses?
What about drivers licenses?
Proportionally, many more people are killed by drivers and their motor vehicles than are killed by people with concealed carry permits.
Everyone has the right, at all times.
The 2nd isn’t about crime or hunting.
Their true motivations are coming to light. They want do deny the permits and are forlorn when they can't.
Overwhelming it is the attitude I have seen.
Heard the new word is “turds” not even “perps” when they have a suspect.
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.