A bill yanking the ability of Iowa sheriffs from having nearly unlimited authority to deny permits to carry a gun was approved this afternoon by the House.
But opponents aggressively argued that the law would make Iowa less safe.
One of the key pieces of debate today centered around the issue of reciprocity. Iowa’s public safety commissioner would have compared laws in other states with Iowa’s before that state’s gun permits would be recognized in Iowa. The commissioner would have been in charge of obtaining agreements with each state that meet or exceed Iowa’s concealed weapons laws.
But instead, under a provision approved by the Senate, valid permits issued to nonresidents by other states would be valid in Iowa without the commissioner’s review.
Opponents argued that laws in other states may be so weak that virtually any person – regardless of their possible criminal histories – could be eligible to carry a gun.
These are two losing propositions. The "shall issue" regulation appeals to gun rights advocates, but why? Do they resent the authority of local police so much? Can't they see that under "may issue" many would-be criminals, delinquents, alcoholics, drug addicts and others unfit for responsible gun ownership, who are known to the police but haven't been convicted of a felony yet, would be prevented from carrying a gun in public? How can the benefit of that be traded away for the convenience of "shall issue." This is one place where the responsible gun owners inextricably associate themselves with the criminals, or I should say the future criminals, all those who will benefit from this law.
The reciprocity law is bad news in a similar way. People from places like Alaska and Arizona, whose laws are even more lax than Iowa's, and allow even more unfit people to carry concealed guns, will continue to enjoy their gun rights when visiting or travelling through the Hawkeye State.
But, "formula for disaster" and "blood in the streets," may be a bit strong to describe the problem. What do you think? Time will tell, eh?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Yes, time will tell. It will tell us that, just like the 30+ other states that have shall issue, there will not be "blood flowing in the streets".
ReplyDeleteWhere do you find cops that can detect "would-be criminals" before they commit a criminal act?
May issue is bad news. It takes a legal act passed by the legislature and makes its application subject to a politician's whim. We have seen "the only ones" in action. I would hate to see them in charge of deciding who can have a permit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Comment deleted
ReplyDeleteThis post has been removed by the author."
Not that I argue that the comment should not have been deleted -- but Mikeb does not do it very often so I am sooo curious as to who wrote it and the reason for deletion.
Mikeb: But, "formula for disaster" and "blood in the streets," may be a bit strong to describe the problem. What do you think? Time will tell, eh?
ReplyDeleteYes and no. So many places have changed to "shall issue" that if time will tell, then it should have already told.
And all that anti-gunowner advocates have come up with is anecdotes. Not that gunowners are not fond of DGU anecdotes, but...
1) It's far from the slaughter that anti-gunowner advocates predicted.
1) Many LE spokesmen later admitted that the negatives that they feared never came to pass.
3) The fact that anti-gunowner advocates use anecdotes, rather than any actual overall negative results from shall issue, is telling.
The "shall issue" regulation appeals to gun rights advocates, but why?
ReplyDeleteThe discretion was very often abused at the whims of the approving agency or the political beliefs of the chief LEO.
If there is concern that "shall issue" will force approval in cases where it should not occur, show examples of that and then propose specific circumstances for denial other than felony conviction.
FishyJay: That was my comment that I deleted by myself. It was in reference to the reciprocity. After going back and further reading about how this is different in Iowa's case, I realized that I was wrong. Since my comment had only been up for a short while, I thought it best to just delete it.
ReplyDelete"The "shall issue" regulation appeals to gun rights advocates, but why?"
ReplyDeleteBecause it prevents people from bein denied permits based on their race, appearance, how much they donated to their local sheriff's campaign, etc.
"This is one place where the responsible gun owners inextricably associate themselves with the criminals, or I should say the future criminals"
Because criminals need a permit to commit crime? Even if they are denied a permit, what's to stop the from carrying anyway?
MikeB: “Can't they see that under "may issue" many would-be criminals, delinquents, alcoholics, drug addicts and others unfit for responsible gun ownership, who are known to the police but haven't been convicted of a felony yet, would be prevented from carrying a gun in public?”
ReplyDeleteIdeally, but as pointed out by others this power has been routinely abused. In my city only one CCW was issued in the past several years (even people who can document death threats and stalking are not even considered), and that was to one of the mayor’s cronies. And guess what- he has been convicted of domestic abuse! If may issue permits were being handled as you say above, there wouldn’t be the big push for the shall-issue change. Yet another example of gun controllers “shooting themselves in the foot” by taking it too far.
-TS
Disaster? Most of the country has adopted "shall-issue" CCW and violent crime rates have plummetted. I'd hardly categorize that as "disaster."
ReplyDeleteOr are you claiming that Iowans are incapable of responsibly enjoying the freedoms that most of us do?
"That was my comment that I deleted by myself......I realized that I was wrong."
ReplyDeleteRuff Rider. What were you worried about? Jade posts wrong info, supposition and out right lies all the time. He doesn't worry about being wrong.
"That was my comment that I deleted by myself."
ReplyDeleteOh yeah -- removed by the AUTHOR.
As Emily Litella said...
RuffRidr is an honorable man. So is FatWhiteMan, and funny too.
ReplyDeleteI realize the "may issue" system is abused in certain places, just like any power we place with the police. But, I keep thinking of the juvenile delinquents I grew up with. In my little city in NJ, the cops knew them well even though for the most part they'd not been convicted of any felonies. When they got old enough, the cops were able to, being NJ, prevent the worst of them from getting guns. This is a good thing which needs to be compared to the potential for abuse.
MikeB: “I realize the "may issue" system is abused in certain places, just like any power we place with the police”
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not just like any of their other abuse of powers. They deny EVERYONE. Though we hear of racial profiling, they certainly don’t pull over and search every single black man who drives by.
MikeB: “When they got old enough, the cops were able to, being NJ, prevent the worst of them from getting guns.”
Did they really? How does denying a CCW permit prevent that?
MikeB: “This is a good thing which needs to be compared to the potential for abuse.”
Sure, and as we have it the abuse has far exceeded the “good thing”. As I stated before, if the police were using their power as you suggested (with discretion based on know facts), then there would be no need for the sweeping shall-issue changes.
-TS