Democrats back concealed carry in Iowa ...

[spin]

Democrats resurrect concealed weapons measure

Legislative leaders have revived a concealed-weapons proposal that appeared dead earlier this month.

Under new bills introduced this week, sheriffs would be required to issue concealed-weapons permits to applicants who met certain standards. Sheriffs currently have discretion to deny such permits if they believe an applicant would be a poor risk.

Gun-rights advocates have pushed for the change, saying it's unfair to let sheriffs deny such permits at will.

The proposal died early this month after failing to clear a deadline for progress in the Legislature. However, it was revived this week by Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. The new bill numbers are Senate File 2379 and House File 2528.

***snip***

Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said he decided to revive the idea because of concerns that the current process is too subjective.

"We have a situation in the state of Iowa - 99 counties and 99 sets of criteria," he said. In some counties, he said, almost anyone who applies gets a permit. In other counties, almost no one but law enforcement officers can get one.

McCarthy, D-Des Moines, said a majority of House Democrats expressed concerns about the inconsistent policies. "We're at least going to give it a healthy look in the last week of session," he said of the idea.

The permits allow residents to carry handguns under their clothing. The issue is commonly known as a "may" vs. a "shall" permitting process. Iowa law now says sheriffs "may" give permits to qualified applicants. The new bill would say sheriffs "shall" give permits to such people.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100318/NEWS10/3180350/1001/

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Hopefully, they get state preemtion on firearms laws too - to unify the state laws. n/t

[shadowrider]

2. Nothing like having a 2A right

subject to the whims of a Sheriff. What is the criteria for a "poor risk"?

Sheriffs currently have discretion to deny such permits if they believe an applicant would be a poor risk.

Gun-rights advocates have pushed for the change, saying it's unfair to let sheriffs deny such permits at will.

[spin]

3. "May issue" allows more racism than "shall issue". (n/t)

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. "...well regulated militia..."

The Sheriff is the regulating agency.

You got a problem with the 2nd amendment?

[cowman]

5. That same

old argument

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Damn right - the words 'well regulated militia' were put in the amendment

for a reason. There is no justification for simply ignoring them.

[eqfan592]

7. Nor is there justification for twisting the intended meaning of the words.

Which is exactly what you're attempting to do. What's interesting is that you even attempt such a mockery in this particular forum, where that twisting of words has been shot down and debunked so thoroughly that anybody who attempts to dredge it back up from the dust-bin of intellectual dishonesty is only revealing their own pitiful desperation.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Fortunately that question has been answered by the Supreme Court.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Iowa has 'militias' consisting of people with concealed weapons permits?

I don't think so...

That's a ridiculous argument even by the current low standards of anti-gun thought.

I swear, watching people promote gun control these days is like watching the Washington Generals play basketball...

[Hoopla Phil]

10. Please stop misusing "regulated". Reading it in context of the 2A

it means of same type and like arms and equipment that is regularly practiced with.

[gorfle]

11. You do not understand the meaning of the word "regulated"

In 18th century vernacular, "regulated" meant "well functioning". This is why accurate clocks of the era, such as those used to set other, lesser-accurate clocks, were known as "regulators"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_clock

When the founders spoke of a "well regulated militia", they were not speaking of a militia burdened or constrained by rules (regulations). They were, instead, speaking of a well-functioning militia.

In this context, "The Sheriff" is not contributing to the good regulation of the militia, he is, in fact, undermining it.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. Great!

[proteus_lives]

12. As they should!

[TPaine7]

13. Kick! n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. Dupe. Someone else just wasn't brave enough to post the real title.

[spin]

16. Good catch. I didn't notice that. (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. You know how it is- sometimes facts just get in the way and need to be ignored.

Especially when they threaten a worldview...

[DissedByBush]

15. Democrats should own this issue! n/t