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
There's hope yet?
Yeah, I really like a judge with creative orders particularly for bureaucrats.
Who's wrong here - the reporter or the judge?
Sounds like the sheriff denied on the basis of political speech & associations.
That is OUTSTANDING.
Neither. The ruling was that the permit was wrongfully denied because of the applicant's political speech critical of the sheriff.
What is to stop this anti-USA commissar "sheriff" from revoking a permit later?
Take a class on the what? Never heard of that thing before.
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.
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.
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.
Where is the Sheriff going to find a college that doesn’t agree with his suppression of the first and second amendment rights?
Yeah, but in Illinois, you can’t carry a weapon out of your home, either openly or concealed. Iowa permits are CCW permits.
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.
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.
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."
If he takes it at University of Iowa, he’ll be armed with a hundred different ways to subvert the Consitution.
He’ll take the course from Obama, a constitutional law professor.
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.
He's from the "emanations into the penumbra" school. Ugh!
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.