Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge orders Iowa sheriff to issue gun permit
Sioux City Journal ^ | 7/8/2010

Posted on 07/08/2010 10:17:19 AM PDT by Paraclete

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A federal judge has ruled an Iowa sheriff violated a man's First Amendment rights when he denied the man's application for a permit to carry a weapon.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Bennett ordered Osceola County Sheriff Douglas Weber on Wednesday to issue a permit to carry a weapon to Paul Dorr of Ocheyedan.

The ruling states that Dorr had received permits in previous years when he traveled the country to protest outside abortion clinics and had been arrested and that Weber, after becoming sheriff, only denied Dorr's request in 2007 after he began working with a taxpayer's group questioning county spending.

Bennett also ordered Weber to take a college level class on the U.S. Constitution.

Weber declined comment


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; guns; lping
"Bennett also ordered Weber to take a college level class on the U.S. Constitution."

There's hope yet?

1 posted on 07/08/2010 10:17:25 AM PDT by Paraclete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paraclete

Yeah, I really like a judge with creative orders particularly for bureaucrats.


2 posted on 07/08/2010 10:19:03 AM PDT by JLS (Democrats: People who won't even let you enjoy an unseasonably warm winter day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete
A federal judge has ruled an Iowa sheriff violated a man's First Amendment rights when he denied the man's application for a permit to carry a weapon.

Who's wrong here - the reporter or the judge?

3 posted on 07/08/2010 10:19:38 AM PDT by RightFighter (So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Sounds like the sheriff denied on the basis of political speech & associations.


4 posted on 07/08/2010 10:21:46 AM PDT by Sloth (Civil disobedience? I'm afraid only the uncivil kind is going to cut it this time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete
"Bennett also ordered Weber to take a college level class on the U.S. Constitution."

That is OUTSTANDING.

5 posted on 07/08/2010 10:22:16 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
Who's wrong here - the reporter or the judge?

Neither. The ruling was that the permit was wrongfully denied because of the applicant's political speech critical of the sheriff.

6 posted on 07/08/2010 10:23:22 AM PDT by xjcsa (Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete
NO "PERMIT" SHOULD BE NEEDED!

What is to stop this anti-USA commissar "sheriff" from revoking a permit later?

7 posted on 07/08/2010 10:26:29 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete
"Bennett also ordered Weber to take a college level class on the U.S. Constitution."

Take a class on the what? Never heard of that thing before.

8 posted on 07/08/2010 10:26:36 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Whoever disagrees with me at any point is a RINO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Here in Illinois you have to have a Firearms Owner Identification Card to buy a firearm or ammunition. It’s issued on a shall-issue basis by the State Police. The idea is to make sure that you are not a convicted felon, are not an illegal alien and that there are no orders of protection out against you that prohibit you from buying a firearm. The burden of proof is on the State Police, not you, and they are pretty timely on acting on applications.

Once you have that you can buy as many guns and as much ammo as you please. You are not required to register the gun - in fact, there is no mechanism for registering guns, at least at the State level. Daley II wants one in Chicago - we’ll see.


9 posted on 07/08/2010 10:49:04 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete

Don’t overlook the fact that ‘college level’ courses on the Constitution have given us all the activists judges, too...

Not wholly certain that this is a good thing...Maybe he should have directed the good sheriff to a school like Hillsdale.


10 posted on 07/08/2010 11:00:35 AM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

I agree. No permit is needed for public speech or publication in print or electronic media. No permit is needed to attend religious services, or to travel within the United States. No permit is needed to decline warrantless search of one’s home or car. No permit is needed to refrain from self-incrimination.


11 posted on 07/08/2010 11:07:47 AM PDT by CholeraJoe ("What did the English ever give you? Muffins and a burnt White House. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete

Where is the Sheriff going to find a college that doesn’t agree with his suppression of the first and second amendment rights?


12 posted on 07/08/2010 11:16:08 AM PDT by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonF

Yeah, but in Illinois, you can’t carry a weapon out of your home, either openly or concealed. Iowa permits are CCW permits.


13 posted on 07/08/2010 11:18:43 AM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Historically, concealed carry was presumptive proof of criminal intent. IIRC the Founding Fathers accepted this as a given. A CCW permit is a government issued document telling any apprehending authorities “it’s ok, we know, don’t presume criminal intent with this guy”. The problem came when open carry was discouraged or banned for fear of scaring others, and CCW permits otherwise subverted into a revokable privilege.


14 posted on 07/08/2010 11:21:42 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa; RightFighter

It is possible that Right Fighter was talking about the amendment number. I always thought it was a 2nd amendment right, not a 1st amendment right.


15 posted on 07/08/2010 11:29:12 AM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
In 2007 Iowa was a May Issue state, so the sheriff had almost complete power to say no.

That will change.

"The NRA would like to thank Iowa Carry for their support, as well as Rep. Clel Baudler (R) for championing this legislation. In addition to the provisions previously listed, SF 2379 will also limit the information that can be required of a permit applicant and prevent the application process from being used as a de-facto firearm registration scheme. Until the new system goes into effect, gun owners will still be able to obtain a one year permit under the old system. This measure will take effect January 1, 2011."

16 posted on 07/08/2010 11:34:01 AM PDT by TYVets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete

If he takes it at University of Iowa, he’ll be armed with a hundred different ways to subvert the Consitution.


17 posted on 07/08/2010 11:36:52 AM PDT by Larry Lucido (You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality. ~Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

He’ll take the course from Obama, a constitutional law professor.


18 posted on 07/08/2010 11:47:22 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mark17
It is possible that Right Fighter was talking about the amendment number. I always thought it was a 2nd amendment right, not a 1st amendment right.

Yes, he was obviously talking about the amendment number. That's what I was replying to. I'm not sure what part of it you don't understand.

19 posted on 07/08/2010 11:47:50 AM PDT by xjcsa (Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"He’ll take the course from Obama, a constitutional law professor."

He's from the "emanations into the penumbra" school. Ugh!

20 posted on 07/08/2010 11:59:35 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

ping!


21 posted on 07/08/2010 11:59:36 AM PDT by ellery (It's a free country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
He's {0bama} from the "emanations into the penumbra" school. Ugh!
Don't forget the "Negative Rights" school. He got that on the record in his 2003(?) NPR interview. Whenever you hear the phrase "negative rights" regarding the Constitution, you know you're listening to a progressive. Probably one who fundamentally despises the Constitution.

Peet (who used the phrase "negative rights" - does that make me a progressive?)
22 posted on 07/08/2010 12:41:40 PM PDT by Peet (<- A.K.A. the Foundling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete
What I never understood is the Constitution says Congress shall create any laws infringing on my rights to keep and bear arms. Then it lets state and local governments do exactly that. They force me to get government approval to carry a concealed weapon which can be arbitrarily denied by some local law enforcement official for any reason he sees fit.
23 posted on 07/08/2010 1:06:35 PM PDT by Americanexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole

I can certainly take a gun out of my house, put it in my car, and drive off with it. I’m supposed to keep the ammo and the gun separate and keep the gun where the driver cannot reach it.


24 posted on 07/08/2010 1:26:28 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Take a class on the what? Never heard of that thing before.

Uh, unfortunately neither have most "U.S." college professors either...

25 posted on 07/08/2010 2:00:38 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Peet
Whenever you hear the phrase "negative rights" regarding the Constitution, you know you're listening to a progressive. Probably one who fundamentally despises the Constitution.

BUMP!


26 posted on 07/08/2010 2:04:43 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Exactly. Give the judge points for protecting Dorr’s First Amendment rights but perhaps the judge should take a remedial course in 2A. With a reading for comprehension prerequisite. The CCW permit should never have been an issue in the first place.


27 posted on 07/08/2010 2:24:34 PM PDT by magslinger (If recycling makes cents as well as sense, I am all for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/07/08/federal-judge-blasts-iowa-sheriff-for-denying-gun-permit-to-nut-job/
“”“The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct, uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber’s own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of … Paul Dorr,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett of the Northern District of Iowa...

The Dorr case, filed in October 2008, inspired some grassroots activists to push for changes in the state law that gives Iowa sheriff’s almost unlimited discretion to deny weapons permits.

After intense lobbying from Iowa gun rights advocates and the National Rifle Association, state lawmakers earlier this year approved legislation that spells out a narrow list of reasons why a sheriff can deny a permit. The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2011.

In his ruling Wednesday, Bennett ordered the Osceola County sheriff to immediately issue Dorr a nonprofessional permit to carry a weapon....

“In denying (Dorr) a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections,” Bennett wrote...

Weber testified that after Dorr began to work with a group that challenged the county budget: “People started talking about it saying things like, ‘Oh, that guy’s a nut job. Oh, that guy’s whacko.’”””


28 posted on 07/08/2010 3:16:21 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete
"Bennett also ordered Weber to take a college level class on the U.S. Constitution."

Judge Bennett "bitch slaps sheriff Weber"

29 posted on 07/08/2010 5:18:39 PM PDT by piroque (God bless Lee and the rest of the True Americans. . ." The Confederates”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

“Dorr was denied a permit precisely because Sheriff Weber believed that his free speech rights offended the majority of voters in Osceola County,” Bennett wrote in his ruling.


30 posted on 07/08/2010 5:27:28 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Remember, guys, the enemy is to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Weber should have been ordered to issue the permit as his last official act in office.


31 posted on 07/08/2010 5:29:26 PM PDT by Larry Lucido (You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality. ~Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

He holds an elected seat. I don’t want judges removing any elected official without a jury trial.


32 posted on 07/08/2010 6:34:37 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Remember, guys, the enemy is to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Well that’s just stupid. It’s still his SECOND amendment right that was being violated. If the sheriff had arrested him to prevent him from participating in the group’s activities, that would have been a first amendment violation. So, it turns out that - back to my original question - it was the judge who was wrong.


33 posted on 07/08/2010 7:45:19 PM PDT by RightFighter (So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Did you read the article? The sheriff withheld his permit because he was exercising his 1st Amendment rights.


34 posted on 07/08/2010 7:58:20 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Remember, guys, the enemy is to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Yes, I can read. The sheriff violated the man’s 2nd amendment rights because he didn’t like the way the man was exercising his first amendment rights. If the story was that the sheriff had interfered with the man’s ability to speak out, then it would have been a first amendment violation.


35 posted on 07/08/2010 8:03:17 PM PDT by RightFighter (So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2; pnh102

“Historically, concealed carry was presumptive proof of criminal intent”

.
Leftist balderdash!

At the time the country was founded, every “gentleman” carried a discreetly concealed weapon. Restrictions have always been unjust, and immoral. Most gun laws arose in the aftermath of the civil war, to control the “freed” slaves.

You need to read more John Lott.
.


36 posted on 07/08/2010 8:46:19 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa
I'm not sure what part of it you don't understand.

Neither am I. I must have gotten discumbobulated or something like that. Regards.

37 posted on 07/08/2010 10:50:16 PM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; ctdonath2
At the time the country was founded, every “gentleman” carried a discreetly concealed weapon. Restrictions have always been unjust, and immoral.

Agreed. Besides, criminals aren't going to care about these stupid sorts of laws when they carry concealed weapons. Nor are any going to bother with the process of getting a fully revocable government "blessing" to carry a concealed weapon either.

As far as I am concerned, a gun should be treated no different than any other piece of personal property. Most people conceal their wallets, why should a gun be treated any differently?

38 posted on 07/09/2010 2:54:08 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
He holds an elected seat. I don’t want judges removing any elected official without a jury trial.

Why not? This commissar willingly and knowingly deprived a law abiding citizen of his God-given constitutionally guaranteed rights. He has no place being a sheriff, or even a dog catcher, in my book.

39 posted on 07/09/2010 2:57:00 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Then put it to a jury of voters, not a politically appointed position.


40 posted on 07/09/2010 5:09:03 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Remember, guys, the enemy is to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ellery; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...
Bennett also ordered (Sherrif) Weber to take a college level class on the U.S. Constitution.



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
41 posted on 07/09/2010 7:06:24 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM
Maybe he should have directed the good sheriff to a school like Hillsdale.

Or a correspondence course from Tom Woods.

42 posted on 07/09/2010 7:17:47 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Americanexpat
What I never understood is the Constitution says Congress shall create any laws infringing on my rights to keep and bear arms. Then it lets state and local governments do exactly that. They force me to get government approval to carry a concealed weapon which can be arbitrarily denied by some local law enforcement official for any reason he sees fit.

Not so. That's what's so bizarre about the left's slavish devotion to protecting the First Amendment but not the Second. The First Amendment merely says "Congress shall make no law...", while the Second says "...shall not be infringed" without limiting the prohibition on who wasn't allowed to do any infringing. So at least pre-incorporation, the Second should have received MORE deference than the First.

43 posted on 07/09/2010 7:23:58 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Maybe the reporter should have been ordered to take a basic course on The Constitution as well. Only goes to show how myopic the press is...THEIR right to a free press is inviolable, everybody else not so much.


44 posted on 07/09/2010 9:28:30 AM PDT by JrsyJack (a healthy dose of buckshot will probably get you the last word in any argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RonF

make sure that you are not .. an illegal alien

You may be right. But I’m curious where you get your informaton? I’ve known illegals with a FOID, and have seen illegals buy guns at Walmart.

I’ve taken a perverse interest in the topic because
a) My life has been saved twice by illegals who practiced conceal carry and as good Samaritans rescued me from murderous citizens ... but that was before there was a FOID.
b) I’ve been active on the illegal alien issue at least since ‘61. Long before they pulled guns on my attackers.


45 posted on 07/09/2010 11:06:33 AM PDT by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete

These people can’t even get the Amendments right.


46 posted on 07/09/2010 11:56:35 AM PDT by wastedyears (The Founders revolted for less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete

All that is good, but free men don’t ask permission.


47 posted on 07/09/2010 6:43:18 PM PDT by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson