Hat Tip to the Federal Judge

[OilPatch197]

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/article_b6b931ef-32dd-5743-9e72-2d6f23f4a3a6.html

This is the way it's supposed to work. A local sheriff in Iowa denied a man a concealed handgun permit on the grounds that the man held (and voiced) unpopular opinions in the local community. A Federal judge then overturned the sheriff's decision AND ordered the sheriff to take a college course on the Constitution. I particularly liked these two paragraphs: And, Bennett said, “In denying Paul a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections.

Ironically, Sheriff Weber, sworn to uphold the Constitution, in fact retaliated against a citizen of his county who used this important freedom of speech and association precisely in the manner envisioned by the founding members of our nation ... "In doing so, this popularly elected Sheriff, who appears to be a fine man and an excellent law enforcement officer, in all other regards, blatantly caved in to public pressure and opinion and, in doing so, severely trampled the Constitution and Paul’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.

This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views." I am VERY MUCH in favor of a judge noting that the Constitution does indeed protect kooks, weirdos, and gadflies. For obvious reasons.

 

[mc_muench]

right on dude!!!! fight the man...with a slightly more powerful man!!!!

 

[Frank The Tank]

Hope that man doesn't go postal and kill everybody, but right on (other than that)

Frank

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The sheriff might know things that would ruin this story as well.

If he wasn't comfortable giving someone a permit and gave it to him anyway, and they guy went nuts in a shopping mall the next week... guess who would be the center of unwanted attention. That is why it is his call who gets them and who doesn't. Not everyone is capible of having one.

 

[Viva*the*Ranger]

Right on. You don't hear those stories very often.

 

[Tony Raine]

Hope that man doesn't go postal and kill everybody, but right on (other than that)

Frank

he would do that with or without a legal right to carry

 

[adsm08]

he would do that with or without a legal right to carry

Yeah. The people who are actually planning to go nuts and shoot up the place aren't going to draw attention to themselves by applying for a CAC permit. They are just going to do it.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

he would do that with or without a legal right to carry

Depends, it is harder to fly off of the handle and start shooting the place up if you gun is at home in the safe. Self control is something not everybody has and not something everybody can admit they don't have. The sheriff plainly said he didn't trust him, and by law in Iowa he would normally have the final say.

If everybody carried that thought that they should, we would go right to the old west days, and that was less than perfect.

 

[JohnnyO]

The sheriff might know things that would ruin this story as well.

If he wasn't comfortable giving someone a permit and gave it to him anyway, and they guy went nuts in a shopping mall the next week... guess who would be the center of unwanted attention. That is why it is his call who gets them and who doesn't. Not everyone is capible of having one.

The guy we had here two sheriffs ago would hardly give anyone a permit. The previous sheriff, now retired, was mostly okay about it and belonged to the NRA himself. That's when I got my first permit although it may have helped that I was dating his daughter at the time.

 

[PickupMan04 FX4 L2]

wow the judge did the job that he was appointed to do: uphold the constitution!

but im with frank on that one.. hope the guy does not go postal

 

[Will]

Only law abiding people apply for a permit. If you aren't , they won't give you one. Indiana says you have to remain a proper person which is:

IC 35-47-1-7
"Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:
(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement under IC 35-44-3-3 within five (5) years before the person applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence (as defined in IC 35-41-1-6.3), unless a court has restored the person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as defined in this chapter;
(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of this article within five (5) years of the person's application; or
(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less than twenty-three (23) years of age.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984, SEC.1; P.L.148-1987, SEC.3; P.L.269-1995, SEC.5; P.L.49-2005, SEC.1; P.L.118-2007, SEC.34.

If you don't have any of that shit, you are good to go. In that iowa sheriff's case I guess the sheriff made the mistake of saying that the outspokeness was the reason he didn't issue the permit. If the law gives the sheriff the right to refuse he just needs to put down a different reason that wouldn't be directly challengable.

 

[crbnunit]

Good. I'd have been more impressed if he had stated this gentleman's second amendment right to bear arms had also been violated. Still, not bad!

 

[pontiacfieroguy]

i wonder what those unpopular views were? if he is some anti american al-quaida member shouting death to infidels or some bs like that i think the sheriff did right.

 

[Ranger Dave (B25)]

Depends, it is harder to fly off of the handle and start shooting the place up if you gun is at home in the safe. Self control is something not everybody has and not something everybody can admit they don't have. The sheriff plainly said he didn't trust him, and by law in Iowa he would normally have the final say.

Son, you ever been to Chicago? Shootings happen every day, and all weekend long there, have the highest murder rate in the US - and they have the strictest gun laws in the nation. Whom exactly do you think is doing all the shooting? HINT: It's not CCW holders, IL is one of only TWO states that remain steadfastly with their heads up their asses on CCW, and will not issue them, period. IL is a SHALL NOT issue state.

If everybody carried that thought that they should, we would go right to the old west days, and that was less than perfect.

Statistics will show you that you are dead wrong thinking that increasing the number of CCW holders increases violent crime. In fact, violent crime shows decreases in EVERY state that has passed CCW. Why? Because the perps think twice before robbing someone: 'is this guy armed? am i going to die in the attempt?'

IMAO, EVERYONE who is eligible should carry, with no restriction.

edit: 1800 posts. woo hoo.

 

[RotorFX4]

+1 ranger dave. That's why I live in AZ. Good to see the system works.