If – under the new law that went into effect Jan. 1 – Mark Becker had walked into the Butler County Sheriff’s Office on the morning of June 23, 2009, and requested a permit to carry a handgun, that sheriff would have been required by law to issue him one.
Becker would not have had to “reasonably justify going armed.”
That is an extreme example of why many people in law enforcement are concerned about the unintended consequences of Iowa’s new “Shall-Issue” law.
But it is one example of why many in law enforcement dread the new law.
Before I go on dissing this “Shall Issue” law, I will acknowledge that the intent for it was good. The Iowa Legislature looked at how county sheriffs seemed to have widely varying policies on issuing gun permits. Some law-abiding citizens who would have received a permit in other counties were denied permits in the county where they live. That seems unjust; the Legislature wanted to fix it. I also understand that most people who have permits to carry firearms do so for legitimate reasons, and that they are law-abiding citizens.
But like many things a government body tries to do, it screwed up on this law.
That was my opinion when I first began reading the details of the new law. It is also the opinion of two of the long-time law enforcement officers I asked about the issue on Thursday.
“I don’t see how this could do any good,” said one of them.
“I do not think that they ever expected it to pass,” said the other. "Otherwise they would have thought it through more carefully."
Here’s what the new law will do, beginning Jan. 1.
Anyone who is not disqualified by law can pay the $50 fee, take a class and be issued a permit to carry a gun. The only way a person can be disqualified is to be convicted of a felony, convicted of domestic abuse, or be certified mentally insane. The law does require a certification course, but not all of those courses actually require a permit holder to shoot the gun.
The morning that his mental illness and other factors led Mark Becker to kill one of America’s coaching legends, none of those disqualifying factors applied to him.
That’s why the old law – the one the Legislature just ended – was designed to give county sheriffs the final say. The politicians of yesteryear understood that a local sheriff would know many people in his own county well enough to know whether or not it’s a good idea to let that person wander virtually every place with a loaded weapon.
The officers to whom I spoke about this law wish the 2010 Legislature had the wisdom of leaders of years ago.
“There are going to be some shootings because of this,” said one of the officers.
The new law allows guns in taverns – as long as the person who is carrying a gun is not legally intoxicated. But up until a person’s BAC reaches .08, the law allows them to be in a bar, drinking, and armed. The permit also lasts for five years, instead of one.
One of the officers I talked to said this change in law will certainly lead to more calls to police from taverns.
The new law would also allow a man to have a loaded rifle or shotgun in the gun rack in the cab of his pickup, said one of the officers. That will present an opportunity for theft, he said.
The change also means that it’s possible, said another officer, that a person who never fired a gun could end up with a permit to carry one.
“They require more for you to have a driver’s license,” said one of the cops who discussed the issue with me.
I know, I know: Most of the people who carry guns are law-abiding citizens. And under the new law, that will still be the case.
But when the new law results in one shooting, one injury or death to an innocent person, that will be one too many.
And the guys who have been dealing with this issue every day for years tell me that it’s not a question of if such a shooting will happen, but when.
The good news, said one of those officers, is that the Legislature will have lots of input from authorities this year, and has a chance to change the law.
Let's hope there is no bad news that inspires the change to happen more quickly than it usually does in Des Moines.
“No History” vs. recent history
Under the old law, a person could not obtain a permit if he had a “history of repeated acts of violence.”
The change in this law is one example of how modern politicians muddy definitions, make laws unnecessarily complex, and cause innumerable legal cases.
The new law replaces “history of repeated acts of violence with, and I quote:
“Probable cause exists to believe, based upon documented specific actions of the person, where at least one of the actions occurred within two years immediately preceding the date of the permit application, that the person is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or in such other manner as would endanger the person’s self or others.”
In other words if someone was violent in the past, but has not been arrested for violent crimes in the past two years, the sheriff has to give them a permit to carry a loaded gun anywhere in the county for the next five years. (At least, the law does prohibit those with previous firearms offenses from obtaining permits to carry them now.)
Only a group of politicians could come up with something so silly, and potentially malevolent.
Laws are on the books for a reason. When the Iowa Legislature, decades ago, put the local sheriff in charge of gun permits, the leaders knew that the sheriff would know best who should and should not carry a gun in his county.
Now – as politicians these days seem to always do – the Legislature decided that it knows best.
I just wonder what kind of near-tragedies – or tragedies – it will take before the Legislature realizes that it does not know best.
Comments
Submit a CommentPlease refresh the page to leave Comment.
Still seeing this message? Press Ctrl + F5 to do a "Hard Refresh".
These law abiding citizens that are going though the proper steps and getting their permits legally are not the ones you need to worry about.
Criminals get and carry guns illegally quite often and they are the ones that commit crimes, and yes indeed occasionally get a permit. That is nothing new.
You seem to be assuming that a law that strengthens our constitutional right to bear arms is to blame. It is not.
By allowing more law abiding citizens to carry, we make the state a safer place. Think about it, more people will become educated about the proper handling and use of weapons. Criminals may think twice about robbing someone. Law Enforcement will be forced to learn and do their jobs better and without corruption; this may be the reason many in law enforcement object to citizens carrying.
Will there be mistakes made? Of course, thats society.
Does that mean you have the right to blame it on the rest of us? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
As a veteran of multiple tours of duty, I am proud to live in a state that takes the Constitution seriously, and at least tries to abide by most of it.
May I refer you to this graphic?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif
Please show me where recognizing the God-given right to self defense has failed in any of the other states that have shown similar faith in their citizens.
Suppose Coach or someone around him had been carrying a legal weapon. Do you think Becker would have had a chance against them? Perhaps Ed Thomas would still be alive and Becker would be dead if Coach Thomas or someone with him had a weapon to defend themselves from criminals who would do them harm, Like Mark Becker.
There are always two sides to the story, ya know.
Happy New Year.
I\'m sure Mark Becker was brought up because of his supposed mental illness. However, if such mental illness is not documented, then under the old law there would have been no way for the sheriff to know if he was insane unless it was grossly obvious. Under the new law, sheriffs DO have some discretion on issuance, but they actually have to document just cause and be prepared to back such cause up in court. Under the old law, the sheriff could (and some would) deny permits with no just cause whatsoever. The reasons could be personal, political or simply on a whim, and there was little or no recourse for someone unjustly denied. The writer mentions that the old law harkens back to \"yesteryear\" when the sheriff of the county was, perhaps, a lot like the fictional Andy Taylor of Mayberry RFD. (Actually, the old law was written during the Jim Crow era, likely to allow sheriffs to restrict firearm possession by blacks migrating from the south to find work, but I digress...) One hundred years ago it may very well have been true that the sheriff knew most everybody in the county, and knew who the troublemakers were, and would act reasonably. That simply isn\'t true today. According to the 2009 U.S. Census, there are 131,005 people living in Johnson County, 209,226 in Linn and 429,439 in Polk. There is simply no possible way for the sheriff to know each and every person in his county. So, for no more reason than this, the old law relying on the sole judgement of the sheriff was obsolete and unfair on its face.
The writer makes the assertion, in fact it\'s the title of his piece, that \"many in law enforcement are concerned about Iowa\'s new \'Shall Issue\' gun law.\" What many I ask? He makes this assertion from the statements of just two unnamed supposed law enforcement officers. Here\'s the problem, when your sample size is two, and a biased reporter gets to pick which two, it\'s not hard to find a couple that share your viewpoint. I\'m sure if the writer bothered to try, which I\'m quite sure he didn\'t, he would find as many or more law enforcement officers that support the new law as don’t. In fact, there may come a day when a PCW holder comes to the aid of a wounded officer and uses his weapon to save that officer\'s life. In fact, I\'m sure it\'s happened before.
The truth is that there are now 41 states in this great Union that are \"Shall issue\" or better (Vermont, Alaska and Arizona require no permit whatsoever to carry a weapon). Yet, none of these states have ever once had any problems with permit holders great enough to have the state legislature attempt to repeal their shall issue law. 48 states have some provision to allow regular citizen to carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise), with Illinois and Wisconsin the last holdouts. All of the darkest predictions of skittish law enforcement and anti-gun organizations that there would be \"blood in the streets,\"\"shootouts over parking spaces,\" etc... involving permit holders has never happened. People who choose to carry a deadly weapon lawfully do so with a great sense of responsibility. Honest folks who obey permit laws aren\'t likely at all to harm anyone unless there is just cause under the most dire of circumstances.
The writer also objects to PCW holders from carrying into a \"tavern.\" What he fails to mention is that carrying a weapon while intoxicated is a felony under the new law. What he also fails to grasp is that there are plenty of establishments that serve alcohol that also serve food and/or provide other forms of entertainment aside from consuming alcohol. Under the old law, there was also no specific prohibition from carrying into a place that served alcohol, but many sheriffs would put an arbitrary restriction on PCW\'s prohibiting such. Based on such a restriction, a PCW holder would not be able to eat at Applebee\'s, Godfather\'s Pizza, Pizza Hut or Outback Steakhouse (to name a few), because all serve alcohol. Some of the best food in the world comes out of the small kitchens of small bars and taverns across the state, and it is quite possible to eat a meal without consuming alcohol. Bars also often host live entertainment. Essentially there are a lot of reasons that one might frequent a place that serves alcohol that doesn\'t involve consumption of alcohol. Under such a restriction, it would be a felony for a PCW holder to go to a bar to pick up an intoxicated friend or family member, to keep them from driving home, if the PCW holder forgot to disarm him or herself first. The new law allows for individuals who become intoxicated while carrying to be punished, and very harshly. I would strongly contend that intoxicated PCW holders will not be a problem, because the same reverence for the law that led them to get the PCW in the first place (rather than just carry illegally) will stop them from knowingly committing a felony while carrying.
Another point the writer makes is the issue of changes to the law regarding prior violent acts by applicants. As he pointed out, the law prohibits issuance when \"Probable cause exists to believe, based upon documented specific actions of the person, where at least one of the actions occurred within two years immediately preceding the date of the permit application, that the person is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or in such other manner as would endanger the person’s self or others.\" I fail to see how this is in any way unreasonable. The law now requires that the sheriff produce evidence supporting probable cause that the individual in question is a danger to themselves or others. It is not unreasonable at all to expect our government to provide evidence and exercise due process when restricting our liberty. As for the two year time constraint, it simple states that one event must be recent, not all, which establishes the patterns indicating that the individual in question is a continuing danger. What the writer fails to accept is that people change, and the law should accept that. There are plenty of folks that have made poor choices in their past, but have since matured into a peaceful, conscientious and law abiding member of the community. Just because somebody liked to get drunk and start fist fights when they were 21 doesn\'t mean that they have any inclination to do so when they are 31. Is it right to allow the mistakes of a persons past to disable their liberty for the rest of their life? I think most reasonable folks would say no.
At the end of the article the writer states, \"Laws are on the books for a reason. When the Iowa Legislature, decades ago, put the local sheriff in charge of gun permits, the leaders knew that the sheriff would know best who should and should not carry a gun in his county. Now – as politicians these days seem to always do – the Legislature decided that it knows best.\"
First of all, it should be duly noted that sheriffs in the state of Iowa are elected officials, and therefore politicians, elected to serve in an executive capacity. It should also be noted that we are a nation governed by law, not by rulers. This is essential to the preservation of our liberty. The old law essentially made the sheriff of each of Iowa\'s 99 county a duke of his fiefdom as it pertained to the citizens ability to exercise their fundamental right to protect themselves. The sheriff\'s will held the force of law, and his discretionary power was virtually unchecked by the legislature or the courts. The new law makes PCW\'s a matter of written law, equally applied to each and every Iowan, and returns the 99 sheriffs to their proper executive role.
What this all boils down to is liberty. Freedom. Laws can only serve to deny the law abiding citizens their freedom and provide the government with the ability to remove lawbreakers from society and punish them. The one thing laws can never do, especially if we are to be a free people, is stop criminals from breaking them. The new PCW law is just because it serves to empower the people so that, through their liberty, they might prevent a criminal from making them a victim. It removes some arbitrary authority from the state and transfers it to the people where it belongs. Make no mistake about it, try as they might, the police cannot protect each of us from the criminals that would prey on us. The only people guaranteed to be present at a persons assault, rape, armed robbery or murder, are the criminal and the victim. The police may be minutes or hours away, if they are even summoned while the crime is taking place at all. The only way, then, to stop the crime is for the victim to defend him or herself from their attacker. A firearm allows even the weakest among us to stop even the strongest criminal. It’s not about killing, it’s not about vigilantism, it’s not even about justice. It’s about allowing the innocent the freedom and power to survive the onslaught of the guilty.
This is one of the worst \"opinions\" that I have read on the new shall issue law.
Mark Becker is such an odd example to choose to present the argument that the Shall Issue Law is poorly thought out and will do more harm than good.
Mark Becker had a very violent outburst just prior to his murder of Coach Thomas. In fact, just days before the shooting he had broken into a neighbors home, broken windows, rammed a car through their garage and lead the police on a high speed chase. He was arrested and was supposed to be taken to a psychiatric hospital for treatment. Instead he was taken to a hospital for treatment and released without notifying the local authorities. If more attention had been paid to this person at that time, Coach Thomas may well still be alive.
That said, Mark Becker (or anyone else) could not have walked into a Sheriff’s office and walked out with a permit to carry. The individual must have prior military training or have attended a hand gun class (true – shooting is not required) and pass a background check. The Sheriff’s office has up to 30 days to issue a permit, it is not upon demand as you seem to imply. During that time, it may well be that a description of Mark’s violent behavior and arrest would have come to the Sheriff’s attention. The new law states in 724.8.3:
Probable cause exists to believe, based upon documented specific actions of the person, where at least one of the actions occurred within two years immediately preceding the date of the permit application, that the person is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or in such other manner as would endanger the person\'s self or others.
I certainly can’t read the mind of a mythical Sheriff, but this paragraph could certainly provide just cause to deny a permit in Mark’s case.
Any person looking to acquire a gun must fill out an Annual Permit to Acquire as well. This is yet one other roadblock to folks who do meet the requirements to legally possess a firearm.
So please, let’s take Mark Becker off the table as an example of why the new Shall Issue Law is bad law.
It made little sense to have 99 different sets of criteria prior to January 1, 2011. I realize the many county Sheriff’s feel as though they have lost some power (and they have) it is also true that many abused their old power as well. We now have a common set of laws for the entire state that are much more in line with the laws of the majority of states in the US. I consider this a good thing.
All this said I agree that training is key to carrying a firearm and should be emphasized by each individual permit holder. There are local courses available from a basic 4-hour firearms safety course on January 17th to an all day NRA Certified course out at the Izaak Walton League on January 22nd (both taught by Tom Boeckmann and Bill Keller). Range time is also a personal requirement to insure safe handling of the firearm is instinctive and proper use in a personal defensive situation is as responsive as possible. These are individual responsibilities.
There are over 40,000 deaths due to auto accidents each and every year – even with all the training, insurance requirements and automobile safety features. Deaths related to firearms range around 29,000 – including over 16,000 for suicide and 11,000 for homicide. This comes down to about 2,000 for accidental deaths. And yet there is no call to save the masses by banning the automobile.
I believe a strong argument can be made for personal carry. A couple examples:
Columbine: the Columbine High School Massacre – if a teacher had had a permit to carry and was armed, could he/she have saved dozen students that were murdered?
Virginia Tech: if students and professors were allowed to carry on campus, could the 32 murdered students have been saved?
April 3, 2009: A 41-year-old man opened fire at an immigrant community center in Binghamton, N.Y., killing 11 immigrants and two workers. Could these people have been saved if someone on-site had a carry permit?
Feb. 14, 2008: Former student Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, fatally shooting five students and wounding 18 others before committing suicide. Same question – could some of these dead students have been saved by a person with a consealed weapon?
There are dozen of stories each month of armed citizens protecting themselves and others from the violent acts of criminals through the use of a firearm. I am glad to see that Iowa is joining a long list of states that recognize the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens to “keep and bear arms” in their own defense.
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/pubs/hjweb/pdf/March%2029,%202010.pdf#page=18
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/pubs/sjweb/pdf/March%2029,%202010.pdf#page=4
Also, why cry wolf about all the shootings that will supposedly take place? Why is there no talk about how many lives can possibly be saved by someone carrying a gun? Is it posssible the Bad Guys may be a little nervous that someone may be armed and able to protect themself? Is there a chance the Bad Guys will be carrying without a permit? Look at both sides of the picture.
In the future, any shooting (criminal or in self-defense) will now be scutinized against this new carry law. Did they have a permit? Criminals don\'t get one. Would they have qualified under the old law? That would be subject to a sheriff\'s opinion which is got us in this mess to begin with.
To expand on the law, there is discretion power by a sheriff still there. If they believe the applicant is a danger to themselves or others, the permit can be denied. And a sheriff can still deny a permit application on their whim, but the denial can be appealed and no guarantee that it would be overturned.
Lastly, you state if one life is lost that is one too many. Okay, but if one life is saved because a victim of domestic abuse can now carry and defend themselves, wouldn\'t that be worth it?
Dean\'s Response: I was there when one of them executed a search warrant in a felony case 15 years ago. The other guy I have had a working relationship since I came to Vinton. I did not mention their names because the article -- an opinion piece, as you see -- is about my opinions, not theirs.
Some 40 states are \"shall issue\" ... and there aren\'t any problems in those states.
Now I can legally carry when my wife and I travel through Iowa which means that we will travel through your state and spend money there. Something we didn\'t and wouldn\'t do until this law passed. I\'m of the opinion that I\'m responsible for my own safety and that of my family. In nearly all cases law enforcement are there to solve crimes after they are committed and since they are almost always there after the fact, it makes sense to me to carry a gun to protect myself when or if that incident were to occur.
Also you mentioned that criminals will now be able to get permits. They didn\'t need a permit to carry a gun before this law change. They would do it anyhow, that in it\'s most basic fact is what makes them criminals. They do not follow the law nor respect the consequences. What makes people like myself law abiding citizens is the fact that we do follow the law, and we do our best to insure that we don\'t have to use our firearms unless we have to protect our lives or our kids. This isn\'t the wild west and it certainly isn\'t the movies that we see on television. There are violent people out there, they have always been there, in the past they had spears and swords, now they have guns. Well it seems to me the best method of protecting yourself these days would be to avoid conflict and area\'s where problems and encounters occur, and to be able to protect myself with a firearm.
Respectfully.
Luke