IA - From "May Issue" To "Shall Issue", Bill Passes

[Kevlar]

A Marengo man facing a first-degree murder charge exemplifies why Iowa should not strip sheriffs of their discretion to issue permits to carry weapons, Iowa County Sheriff Robert Rotter said.

Tonch Weldon, 37, who is accused of killing Amy Gephart, 35, with a shotgun in June, is one of five Iowa County residents whose requests for weapons permits were denied last year, Rotter said.

Rotter said his decision did not stop a murder, but it stopped the issuance of a weapons permit to a person he judged capable of violence, even though Weldon had no disqualifying criminal or mental instability record.

Under legislation passed Monday, his insights as the local sheriff would no longer be relevant, he said.

The bill - approved 81-16 in the House and 38-4 in the Senate — effectively converts Iowa from a state in which sheriffs "may issue" the permits to a state in which they "shall issue" them. The bill awaits action by Gov. Chet Culver.

Linn County Sheriff Brian Gardner, who has liberalized issuance of the permits since succeeding Don Zeller in the office, said he, too, is concerned that the law takes away much of his discretion.

Based on their experience and contacts, sheriffs sometimes "just know" without written documentation that a person can't be trusted with a carry permit, Gardner said.

Jones County Sheriff Mark Denniston and Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington, both supporters of the bill, drove to Des Moines on Monday for the vote in the House.

"It's status quo for us," Denniston said.

"We have been operating under a 'shall issue' premise," he said.

Calling the change long overdue, Wethington said it makes the law uniform across the state and puts Iowa on the same plane as three dozen other states.

Denniston and Wethington said crime typically declines where law-abiding residents are allowed to carry weapons.

Rotter and other Iowa sheriffs expressed disappointment that a Democrat-controlled Legislature acquiesced to the National Rifle Association.

"The NRA came in and pushed it through, even though the vast majority of sheriffs and deputies supported the current law and the majority of Iowans want sheriffs to have the discretion to deny permits," Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said.

At their most recent law enforcement school in December, 35 of 38 sheriffs and 77 of 82 deputies favored keeping the law as is, Bremer County Sheriff Dewey Hildebrandt said.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...hange-in-gun-law-draws-ire-of-county-sheriffs

 

[Zappa]

Good deal for the citizens of Iowa.

At their most recent law enforcement school in December, 35 of 38 sheriffs and 77 of 82 deputies favored keeping the law as is, Bremer County Sheriff Dewey Hildebrandt said

I'm not surprised.
This is typical of most people in a positon of power over others, once they have it, they don't want to willingly give it up.

 

[HooVooLoo]

Umm, er...

"A Marengo man {Tonch Weldon} facing a first-degree murder charge exemplifies why Iowa should not strip sheriffs of their discretion to issue permits to carry weapons, Iowa County Sheriff Robert Rotter said..."

Tonch Weldon... is an Iowa County resident whose request for a weapons permit was denied last year, Rotter said.

Rotter said his decision did not stop a murder, but it stopped the issuance of a weapons permit to a person he judged capable of violence, even though Weldon had no disqualifying criminal or mental instability record.

Um, ok...So what does any of this have to do with LEO discretion in granting people LTCs? The guy was denied, but killed anyway. Habla? Que?

"Under legislation passed Monday, his insights as the local sheriff would no longer be relevant..."

What does relevant insight have to do with someone who uses a gun to commit murder? Do the Iowan peeps really believe that all people with murderous intent will first ask the local sheriff for a permit? Uh? Duh?

 

[Jose]

Piss on Iowa Sheriffs. All of them.

 

[Kevlar]

Piss on Iowa Sheriffs. All of them.

Well, almost all.

Jones County Sheriff Mark Denniston and Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington supported the bill (the only 2 that did, out of the 38 sheriffs in the state).

 

[Jose]

Well, almost all.

Jones County Sheriff Mark Denniston and Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington supported the bill (the only 2 that did, out of the 38 sheriffs in the state).

2/38 with common sense. Not good odds.

 

[ScottS]

"...the majority of Iowans want sheriffs to have the discretion to deny permits," Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said.

And how did he come by this information? Is this one of those things that sheriffs sometimes "just know"?

 

[buketduder]

I bet the majority of Iowans could give a crap less either way....But it all depends on how you ask the question what response you will get

 

[ScottS]

Remember this guy?

"The NRA came in and pushed it through, even though the vast majority of sheriffs and deputies supported the current law and the majority of Iowans want sheriffs to have the discretion to deny permits," Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said.

I actually e-mailed him this AM regarding his quote, and while he's clearly a believer in "may issue," he closed his note with this:

"It does not matter what my personal opinion is when it comes to enforcing and working under the law. I took an oath to do that and will always follow the law. So, when the law changes I will still be in compliance."

Sounds like a pretty good guy, overall.

 

[Kevlar]

"It does not matter what my personal opinion is when it comes to enforcing and working under the law. I took an oath to do that and will always follow the law. So, when the law changes I will still be in compliance."

Well, his personal opinion DID matter when licensing was discretionary, and he possessed the power to unilaterally, and subjectively, determine an individuals "suitability".

Thankfully, that is no longer the case.

 

[Chris]

Sounds like a pretty good guy, overall.

I STRONGLY disagree. Sounds like another dictator wanna-be.

"It does not matter what my personal opinion is when it comes to enforcing and working under the law. I took an oath to do that and will always follow the law. So, when the law changes I will still be in compliance."

Yes, and the Constitution is part of that law and I don't see the part that allows someone to deny a right based on what 'sheriffs sometimes "just know"'.

Imagine if the Registry began denying driver's licenses based on personal opinion of the applicant. Do you think for a moment such a rule would be allowed to stand? And yet, driving isn't mentioned in the constitution, but firearm ownership has an amendment specifically addressing this point.

The guy is CLUELESS on what a citizen's right is.

Does that mean there are not some people out there that probably should not have a gun - YES. But if you believe in people having the rights to live life as they see fit until such life conflicts with another's rights, then you CAN NOT deny a person a right until that conflict exists. Otherwise, why don't we just lock up the people we don't trust?

Rights either exist or they do not. Its an all or nothing concept. As soon as you restrict or deny any person's right, you deny the very premise of the foundation of our country. Trust me, our foundation is FAR from being preserved. And it is people like the Sheriff and the poster who thinks this is a "pretty good guy" who ARE the problem. Fundamentally, there is NO difference between denying a firearm for no cause and imprisonment without cause. Both are clear violations of the rights of free people.

You may not like the idea of a scumbag having a gun, but if said scumbag hasn't done something that the due process of law agrees and enacts punishment, said scumbag is still a free person.

I don't want scumbags to have guns. But I far prefer that than an overbearing government that denies rights based on the whim of the majority or worse. Said scumbag may or may not use that gun illegally. But we have all the proof needed to know where the overbearing government is headed.

Free persons do not need permission. Only slaves, subjects, and children do.

 

[ScottS]

I STRONGLY disagree. Sounds like another dictator wanna-be.



Yes, and the Constitution is part of that law and I don't see the part that allows someone to deny a right based on what 'sheriffs sometimes "just know"'.

Imagine if the Registry began denying driver's licenses based on personal opinion of the applicant. Do you think for a moment such a rule would be allowed to stand? And yet, driving isn't mentioned in the constitution, but firearm ownership has an amendment specifically addressing this point.

The guy is CLUELESS on what a citizen's right is.

Does that mean there are not some people out there that probably should not have a gun - YES. But if you believe in people having the rights to live life as they see fit until such life conflicts with another's rights, then you CAN NOT deny a person a right until that conflict exists. Otherwise, why don't we just lock up the people we don't trust?

Rights either exist or they do not. Its an all or nothing concept. As soon as you restrict or deny any person's right, you deny the very premise of the foundation of our country. Trust me, our foundation is FAR from being preserved. And it is people like the Sheriff and the poster who thinks this is a "pretty good guy" who ARE the problem. Fundamentally, there is NO difference between denying a firearm for no cause and imprisonment without cause. Both are clear violations of the rights of free people.

You may not like the idea of a scumbag having a gun, but if said scumbag hasn't done something that the due process of law agrees and enacts punishment, said scumbag is still a free person.

I don't want scumbags to have guns. But I far prefer that than an overbearing government that denies rights based on the whim of the majority or worse. Said scumbag may or may not use that gun illegally. But we have all the proof needed to know where the overbearing government is headed.

Free persons do not need permission. Only slaves, subjects, and children do.

Either I did a poor job of conveying this guy's message, or you got up on the wrong side of the bed.

In my e-mail to him, I was discussing the change from "may issue" to "shall issue," and said something about him having trouble with the freedom that 38 other states enjoy. Although he wasn't a fan of "shall issue," he made the point that he was sworn to uphold the law as it was, not as he wished it was, and wouldn't let his personal opinion get in the way of upholding the law.

I respect someone who holds the oath they swore above their personal feelings. Do you think every LEO feels this way? Not in my experience. I think that makes him a "pretty good guy."

Reasonable people can differ in their opinions.

 

[TomH]

Rotter said his decision did not stop a murder, but it stopped the issuance of a weapons permit to a person he judged capable of violence, even though Weldon had no disqualifying criminal or mental instability record.

Under legislation passed Monday, his insights as the local sheriff would no longer be relevant, he said.

His "insights" were already irrelevant, he just doesn't know it. Great news for Iowa!

 

[TomH]

I respect someone who holds the oath they swore above their personal feelings. Do you think every LEO feels this way? Not in my experience. I think that makes him a "pretty good guy."

Reasonable people can differ in their opinions.

In some cases yes. But "I was just following orders" only goes so far.

 

[Chris]

wasn't a fan of "shall issue,"

That is all I need.

He believes his opinion DOES matter. And your rights should be the whim of that opinion.

It matters not how much he uses (or abuses) that power. The very fact he seeks power over another is a very telling trait.

 

[ScottS]

In some cases yes. But "I was just following orders" only goes so far.

WTF?!? How many times have we heard in this very forum about LEO's who hassle legal open-carriers because they "don't believe you should do that," or give shit to some properly licensed CCW-carrier during a car stop, because they don't like non-LEO's carrying? How about CLEO's who refuse to sign off on Form 4's because they "don't think you should have [insert NFA item of your choice here]" even though they're perfectly legal?

Now some poor bastard says he wouldn't do that. He wouldn't let his personal opinion influence his sworn duty to uphold the law, and suddenly he's a Nazi ("I was just following orders") or one of the freedom-crushing Uberlords.

I gotta tell you. Sometimes as a group we suck.