Some Iowa Sheriffs Have Their Undies In A Bunch Over New Shall Issue Law

[MikeBjerum]

This debate is showing that we have lost sight of one central fact:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Constitutionally protected Right!

If a person has not had his Rights removed legally, no body in the United States of America has the right to deny him.

"In house records and what nots" that have not been acted on through the legal system do not give grounds to deny a Constitutional Right.  It is this line of thought that has states rightly acting to pass "shall issue" laws.  As much as I enjoy it around here, I fear what a few on this forum would do to our Rights if they had the power.

I know a few here will disagree, and lawyers, judges and scardy cats (sorry Haz) have twisted our heritage, but the Second Amendment IS our shall issue permit for all United States Citizens that have "kept their noses clean."

[kmitch200]

thats a CYA move and I would do the same thing.  So would most of us if they were in his shoes.

Of course it's a CYA move. When I retired, I had been a fireman for 31+ years and 27+ of those years were as a Firefighter Paramedic. 99% of what we did was CYA. But, we did it on official paperwork, not "in house records and what not".
The bastard needs to get off his ass and do his friggin job.

I can think of 3 things off the top of my head that would allow some one that should not have a gun/ccw to have one.
1 they went to a mental hosipital of thier own free will.  a guy could be nuts, but if he has never been held in one aginst his will, he can still have a firearm.
2 had charges droped do to "funny " stuff
3 has had several NDs over the years,

1. Going to a mental hospital does not mean you're "nuts".
Doing so voluntarily shows that someone recognizes they need help and is actively trying to get it. There are thousands of people including veterans, cops, fireman, and John Q that seek help for PTSD related issues, depression, etc.
Having a blanket denial in place would rob a lot of people of their rights unnecessarily and soon, some of those people would not get help because of fear of the stigma you would put on them. You can be completely bugf%k crazy and never have been treated, let alone have been in a hospital.

2. Do you mean charges dropped do to a "technicality"?
Like a bad search, improper conduct of the cop or prosecutor, improper handling of the chain of evidence, confession beat out of someone?
Legal "technicalities" are rights that hundreds of thousands of our soldiers have fought and died for. It's called our legal system and is part and parcel of our American life. Consider that in New Orleans, they have had police officers tried and convicted of ANY CRIME YOU CAN THINK OF. That includes premeditated murder and drug sales. Trumping up phoney charges would be nothing for some folks.

My CCW required me to go to a class, pass a written test, a shooting test and submit fngerprints. The renewal required a shortened version of the class, another written/shooting test and another set of prints - as if they could somehow change.  
I could shoot any handgun I wanted and I bet most of the folks on this board could pass the firing portion stinking drunk, using their off hand, with a patch over their dominant eye.
I have no problem with those requirements and since my last renewal the process has gotten easier.
Now you don't even need a permit to carry concealed.
There are no more shootings than before, blood does not run down the streets and the sky is still up where it should be.

[fightingquaker13]

Godd points the both of you. Shall issue means shall issue. Again, same as a DL. Everyone is entitled unless the state can prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on them. I'm not saying that there aren't cases where the answer shouldn't be "no", just that they should be required to show cause. As long as you meet uniform and non-onerous standards, you should be good to go.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

This thread shows just how far the Nanny state indoctrination has progressed.
On a pro gun, pro civil rights Forum people are actually saying it is alright to deprive a citizen of , to quote the appropriate document "God given" rights.
Until the passage , under the socialist FDR , of the NFA, once a convicted felon had done his time his civil rights were restored with the possible exception of holding certain offices that was clearly stipulated in the Constitution.
Doesn't the Bible say something about "What God has brought together let no man tear apart" ?
When Frank James was released from prison for various charges stemming from his bank and train robbing career his guns were returned to him by the Warden .
The 2A say's "Shall not be infringed",  No exception's, no stipulation of good conduct.
Even if there were no other grounds for argument than the fact that such restrictions will not prevent a criminal from getting what ever he (or she )wants , what seemed like a good idea in the 30's, no guns for felons, sets a bad precedent that has been abused by the Lautenberg amendment which now strips that civil right from citizens for the misdemeanor of spousal abuse, which can in fact derive simply from calling the spouse bad names.

[Solus]

Correct, Tom.

There is a flaw in logic here.

If the Sheriff feels the person is law abiding enough to follow the concealed carry restriction, how much of a "bad guy" is he?

Perhaps the Sheriff knows the guy is clumsy and  has cut himself several times using his pocket knife and decided to protect the poor guy from shooting himself?

Like we've often said about gun laws, only the  honest folks follow them, and that includes CC laws, and if you are an honest person, there should be no restrictions on your possession, concealed or otherwise.
 

[Sponsor]