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.
What the Nazi did, was done under German/Nazi law. Popular notion were that somehow soldiers just showed up and took you away, where in fact laws were passed in the Reichstag's and administratively enforced by various state security bureaucracies.
Not one German judge or lawyer was ever charged.
Ditto Soviet trials.
How do you think in a modern age tyranny would be? With King George and soldiers in Red Coats? Or do you think it would ( quite efficiently ) use the existing forms of state power?
..........
It is not that the government wants to turn everyone in felons but that it must happen. Every year, more activities which used to be un-lawed are brought into law and made criminal. Every day, each legislator and the federal government pass yet more laws. Most if not all have penalties. Up until the moment the law was passed, the activity or property was legal, the minute after, you or it are criminal.
You must not get around much. Criminals post convictions have all the guns they want. By definition, they don’t obey the law. As it is the law now just makes itself look like a fool.
I have zero, no faith in the abilities of state officials in judging future behaviors. No even if they could see into the hearts of men, I have no faith in the state to effectively monitory or control save by prisons.
Got to love those little fiefdoms. It is this kind of imperial thinking that screams term limits and reminds us that police powers are grounded and limited in the Constitution. The police are not here to be omnipotent and solve your problems. They are here to insure a minimum of social civility and curb outrageous behavior by representing the interests of the people and introducing the ethically challenged to the Criminal Justice System. They should not be making the rules, just enforcing them.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“So there is no conviction but he wants to punish anyway, great legal scholar he is”
Yes probably a graduate of the Red Queen School of Law: Verdict first, trial later.
Punishment without a trial huh? Seems to be deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
Also denied, folks who support someone else for sheriff, or someone who wanted to "carry while black", brown or red?
That was federal law until the 1930s or so. Once a convicted felon served his sentence, his full sentence, then his rights were restored. Voting, arms, the whole 9 yards. Then for a good long time, until 1968, it was only violent felons that lost their RKBA, and even they could petition to have them restored (good behavior and all that). Then Congress, in its less than infinite wisdom, extended the ban to all persons convicted of any crime *punishable" by more than one year in jail, two years for state offenses, regardless of the actual sentence meted out by the judge/jury. Since the 1992, Congress has forbidden spending any money on processing claims for reinstatemen. Thus a guy, Bean, who accidentally took a some ammunition across the border into Mexico, lost his RKBA forever, with no chance of reinstatement, even if issued a pardon.
BTW, the Bush adminstration supported the inability to even take such a refusal to process the applicatioin to court. They said, and the court agreed that the law only allowed an appeal to the courts if the application was denied, not if is was never processed.
The rule of Law is the only viable method of governance-the alternatives are exactly what you fear most-a strong man (Hitler, Hussien, Stalin, etc) making the story up as he goes or every man for himself-anarchy. Not on my watch.
I agree with several of your points-Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia etc, succeeded only because the rule of law was forfeited to the government. When Hilter passed firearm confication laws, the good german people should have said “NO”-regardless of the cost. The subjects of the United Kingdom are now in the thoes of a failed culture-virtually all private weapon ownership is gone, crime is rising and the sheeple are wondering what happened. The people of this country are the ultimate power-too bad most Americans could care less as long as they have their toys and “free” time.
We agree therein, I think.
Of course I do not think the “redcoats” would be called in-as a professional offcier, I know that the our military CAN NOT be used domestically, and I know many senior offciers in the several branches that understand that principle and are strongly vocal about any attempts to include the military in domestic affairs. We agree that other “agencies” from child services to zoning commission would be /are the means to the limitation of our freedoms-usually well meaning, but still unreasonable intrusions for teh most part.
We also agree on the next point-too many laws that erode our freedoms (usually in the form of a tax or administrative law agency, rather than a true “Law” violation). I am strongly in facvor of reduction of government intrusion, but we do have to have certain laws to make abhorrent behaviors distasteful; many would-be criminals are deterred by the threat of severe penalties, some are not. I agree that in certain cases only armed defense prevents a wanton evil-doer from running rampant. Prisons are required, but we certaily could do better than we are doing now.
As far as me “not getting out much”-I’ll ignore your assumption and tell you that I am a professional firearms trainer and consultant, as well as a very active member of the research community, having travelled around the world both in uniform and out. I am very involved in local considerations. I am “out” most of the time; hence why I carry virtually 24/7.
I agree that criminals obtain weapons illegally every day- and that is why we must not “make it legal” for them. The 2A does NOT apply to law-breaking violent criminals. Whether or not a person uses a firearm or other lethal weapon in a crime is irrelevant-the crime itself is the violation.
As far as your lack of faith in officials-that is because the people have abdicated their responsibility and have not recalled and punished the fools we seem to elect every day. It is the peoples fault-government will seek its own and that is why we must be willing to fight for our communities, states and the US as a whole.
I hope never to lose so much faith as you seem to have lost and thereby apparently approve of anarchy and “self” rule-which is dependent soley on what each indiviual thinks is “right”-not good enough for me and most patriots.
I am a multiple-theater combat veteran (disabled) with over 23 years of active duty experience and have seem more than my share of those whom you seemingly support carrying weapons-and had to be involved in the eradication of a whole lot of them; I also have lethal armed conflict experience as a private citizen, so yes, I do get out; and I win.
God Bless
Doesn't even have to be a felony. Just punishable by more than two years for a state conviction, or one year for a federal one.
Lots of things, many non-violent and often "malum prohibitum" (prohibited by law) rather than "malum in se" (bad in itself) offenses.
Wanna bet? There have been numerous exceptions passed to the 1870s Posse Commitatus Act, most involving the War on (some) Drugs. Prior to that act, the military could be used.
Oh and what about Former General of the Armies, Eisenhauer sending in 101st Airborne to enforce the anti-segregation laws? (After federalizing the Arkansas National Guard so that they could not be used to enforce the state's segreation laws.) National Guard can be and are used in domestic law enforcement all the time, riots for example. Federal troops, 7th ID and 1st Marine Division, were used during the Rodney King riots in California as well, and that was only 16 years ago.
Where does it say (in the Constitution) that convicted felons cannot carry a weapon?
If a person is too dangerous to carry a weapon they should be behind bars. Even convicted felons should have the right to protect themselves and their families, shouldn’t they?
You are taking my sentence out of context-the instances you quote certainly make it appear that the military has been used domestically-as they have, but certainly not in the context we are talking about.
House to house arms searches? Tried that in NOLA (Katrina) Commanders would not allow the LEO to use their troops to do that task-common fact. Now, many states have passed laws prohibiting confication of firearms period. Checks and balances at work.
Posse Commitatus was enacted as the frontier was closing and the need for military vice civil law enforcement ended.
While there are cooperative agreements between the DOD and teh FBI/DEA/ICE etc, they are nominal and usually non-LE focused, with very few exceptions. I know, I spent many years involved with counter drug ops both here and S of the borders. Big difference in what the Army does south, compared to CONUS.
Most commanders know the laws and navigate carefully-even though the LEAs seem to want to push the limits.
God Bless
It does not but several states including mine have passed laws precluding felons from possessing weapons.
Yes but I am I am torn. I know a couple of felons that did their time and are remorseful and pretty good guys now. On the other hand our screwed up legal system lets people our all the time with multiple felony convictions based on good behavior or low sentencing.
I've heard reports that guard troops were used that way. It would be legal if it weren't for the second amendment, as the guard can perform law enforcement functions when in their state role. Most of the guardsmen from other states, maybe all of them, were not federalized, but rather were "on loan" via state to state support agreements. Also perfectly legal and constitutional. (Even if the feds *are* still paying the bill, or most of it)
But as you state the DoD is used for counter drug ops, but again not in the US or at most the targets of their surveillance are not in the US even though those doing the surveillance may be in or over it.
Posse Commitatus was enacted as the frontier was closing and the need for military vice civil law enforcement ended.
Actually it was passed at the end of reconstruction, at least 20 years before the frontier closed, and had much to do with the return of complete sovereignty, or at least as much as other states have, to the former Confederate states.
BTW, I just found the authority under which both the LA riots and Arkansas deployments took place, The Insurrection Act, which dates to 1807, and was amended just last year to account for "Katrina" type actions.
The posse commitatus act was amended upon creation of the Air Force, to add them. It has never covered the Navy or Marines, although they are covered by regulations of similar impact.
I suspect that under the orders of President Hillary or President Bark, federal troops might indeed be ordered to confiscate firearms from the citizenry. The only question then would be, would they do it. The Constitution does not forbid it, and it would only take a 50%+1 majority to pass a law allowing it.
The problem is dangerous felons being let out of prison or still being alive to be let out of prison.
The solution is to keep them in prison, not to restrict gun ownership. We all know that the bad guys who want guns are not deterred by mere laws, only good people are.
An old Doonesbury strip had some gal arguing with Duke about gun control and she says something like “Did you know that most firearm deaths are a result of family squabbles?” And Duke replies “Sure - and don’t you want to be able to fire back?”
In fact the only safe place to be is a pubic school or a college campus where no one gets hurts because guns are banned!
Is that something new under Fraudoire? Sounds more like a Nevada thing.
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.