Sheriffs don't want to give up control of concealed gun permits

Radio Iowa ^ | 2/14/08 | Darwin Danielson

[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.

[Clemenza]

I’m still waiting for the wild west shootout in the streets of Boca Raton, FL, where shall-issue has been the rule for more than 20 years.

[TalonDJ]

I am still waiting for weapons to ‘flood the streets’ like was suppose to happen when the AWB expired. I waited and waited and no assault weapons ever floated past my house.

[TalonDJ]

Typically, sheriffs in rural, semi-rural, and most suburban counties enthusiastically give out cc permits, but they routinely deny them in the welfare centers/parasite nests (”cities”). At least, that’s how it seems to be in Pennsylvania. br>
Sure. It is sorta like that here except that Cedar Rapids is not that big.

[Manly Warrior]

Please clarify- your sentence does not make sense to me, I am no English scholar, but...

Are you saying that even felons have a 2A right to keep and bear arms and you support that? Again, please clarify....

The second sentence is clear-but not sure if you think the constitution is stating that criminals (felons), even after having served their debt, are protected by the 2A?

The last is clear too, not sure how crime fits in though.

Please expound, otherwise many may think you are advocating that felons should have the right to keep and bear in prison (or out) since they too may be placed in danger from “other” criminals....

I don’t want criminals toting guns “legally”they proved their worth by being criminals, no need to give them the means to perpetrate their characteristic illegal behavior under guise of the 2A.

Are you one of us or one of them? Just wondering.

[Manly Warrior]

Please clarify- your sentence does not make sense to me, I am no english scholar, but...

Are you saying that even felons have a 2A right to keep and bear arms and you support that? Again, please clarify....

The second sentence is clear-but not sure if you think the constitution is stating that criminals (felons), even after having served their debt, are protected by the 2A?

The last is clear too, not sure how crime fits in though.

Please expound, otherewise many may think you are advocating that felons should have the right to keep and bear in prison (or out) since they too may be placed in danger from “other” crimiminals....

I don’t want criminals toting guns “legally”-they proved their worth by being criminals, no need to give them the means to perpetrate their characteristic illegal behavior under guise of the 2A.

Are you one of us or one of them? Just wondering.

[Manly Warrior]

Sorry about the double-tap; key stroke error on my part.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

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.

Hmmmm...doesn't that fly in the face of everything the U.S. Constitution is supposed to stand for?

[GovernmentShrinker]

There may be situations where that’s appropriate (e.g. a pending trial for a violent crime, or pending results of a court-ordered psych exam for someone found living under a bridge sitting in pools of their own urine screaming irrational threats), but it certainly shouldn’t be up to an individual sheriff to decide.

Judges should be handling this on an individual basis, as they review the evidence in cases brought before them, and the specific reason for decisions need to be a matter of formal court records, so they can be appealed. If there’s no pending court action, and a sheriff has serious concerns about an applicant (not that I think there should even BE an application process, mind you), the sheriff should be required to promptly petition the court for permission to deny, pending further court action, and submit accompanying affidavits and/or concrete evidence, to support the petition, just as when a law enforcement agency seeks a search warrant.

Any abrogation of rights must be on an individually adjudicated basis, just as with imprisonment. No blanket abrogation of rights of categories of people, and certainly not categories defined by “Sheriff So-and-so doesn’t think these people should have carry permits”.

In the sheriff’s defense, it’s a huge problem in this country that many people who everyone knows committed one or more violent crimes are routinely allowed to “plea bargain” down to a lesser, non-felony offense. This is mainly the result of ludicrous standards of evidence (i.e. garbage like “wasn’t read his Miranda rights in a language he’s fluent in”). The result is that people who are flatly known to have violent criminal histories have no documented judicial record of this. The sheriffs aren’t responsible for this sad state of affairs, and are put in a really difficult position if they’re forced by law to sign off on a carry permit for someone they know has committed one or more serious violent crimes (in some cases very recently).

Example: the child rapist in Maryland who kept claiming he was only fluent in some obscure African dialect, and was let off scot-free by a judge who claimed she couldn’t find an interpreter with which to give him a fair trial. I’d have plenty of sympathy for a sheriff who was protesting that he shouldn’t be forced to sign a carry permit for this guy. That fact that he doesn’t have a “conviction” is frankly irrelevant. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR2007072100660_pf.html

[Old North State]

I wonder how the good people of Iowa would respond if they had to convince a sheriff that they needed to drive before they got issued a license?

[ozzymandus]

Cops hate to be told they have to obey the law.

[ExGeeEye]

My permit to own, carry, and conceal (if practical) the firearm of my choice is found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

That said, I would only do it if the likelihood of my “be[ing] carried by six” was outweighed by that of “be[ing] judged by twelve”.

[Leisler]

Yes.

Why can not the government make felonies of anything? Heroin is, why not tobacco? Bank robbery, why not speeding?

[wastedyears]

Yeah, National Guard running around everywhere, getting into 3 firefights a day all because some wackos want to own guns. Incredible!

(do I need /s?)

[SoothingDave]

Typically, sheriffs in rural, semi-rural, and most suburban counties enthusiastically give out cc permits, but they routinely deny them in the welfare centers/parasite nests (”cities”). At least, that’s how it seems to be in Pennsylvania.

PA has been a "shall issue" state for quite some time. In all counties.

[Oztrich Boy]

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.

I see a solution here. The Sheriff can deny issue of any perceived defect (social, psychological, or criminal) provided he states the reason in a manner that makes him liable to a libel lawsuit.

{OK on second thoughts, the US will have to bring in tort reform for that to work - darn those unintended consquences)

[TC Rider]

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.

Here's a compromise for your sir. You grant the permit, then take up a collection and get a little pistol and a permit for oppressed spouse also. Should clear up some problems for everybody.

[Cuttnhorse]

Likewise for Arizona, with our shall-issue CCW and open carry.

Yep, same here in Idaho...can hardly drive down main street what with all the gunfights.
I have a CCW permit from Arizona...got it when I was working down there...good program; excellent class.

[B4Ranch]

I don’t carry a gun…

… to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun
because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun
because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun
because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun
because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to
spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to
die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun
because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun
because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun
because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun
because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

“Police Protection” is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate
the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.


Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take an ass kickin’.

[Manly Warrior]

Okay, so the rule of law is not safe? The government wants to turn everyone into a felon, so therefore even felons must be eligible to own firearms? Perhaps you subscribe to the grand conspiracy concept, huh?

Murderers? Rapists? Bank Robbers? Terrorists? Even if they have been convicted by a jury of their peers?

You have got to be kidding! You are promoting foolish sentiment. While I know that all men are created equal, in terms of the self-evident right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, once we begn making decisions, equality ends. Those that decide to deprive others of their essential liberty via coercion, violence etc, lose their right to the same. Laws of government, idealy will be fair and applied correctly (yes, one must have faith in the rule of law!).

In our historic background, English common law, concepts of justice, biblical law and our own adaptations which resulted in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is the best man has ever produced.

While I do agree that we are being over-burdened by excessive laws and regulations, the basics of human justice must be upheld.

To that end we must debar those that are defective in their behaviors-while being careful on how we define that exactly.

I tend to be inclined to apply these principles rather stricly-if one is convicted of certain crimes, the reuslt should be death, while other crimes may result in imprisonment or fine etc.

I too understand that my warrant to defend myself comes not from the 2nd Amendment, but from my inalienable, God-given right to life; the 2nd simply enumerates that empowerment along with other critical endowments by my God (other amendments).

To say that criminals should be allowed the very means to perpetrate additional crime just because they have the “same” right as peaceful citizens is ludicrous if not plain stupid.

Certainly there could be debate on what constitutes a disqualification, but felons are defined by their actions, hence I agree with the disbarring of cetain rights based on that behavior.

The bibilcal parallel is if your ox gores (aberrant behavior for an ox) another person; the ox is to be killed as it will continue to gore others that may pass.

God Bless

[Hot Tabasco]

Before Michigan became a "shall issue" state in 2002, it was next to impossible to get a CPL in Detroit unless you had political ties. Not surprising, almost all the city council of course had their guns.

One of those members, I think his name was Washington, was arrested for pistol whipping his wife or girlfriend.