Skip to comments.County sheriffs oppose adding Second Amendment to Iowa Constitution
Posted on 03/03/2012 7:53:45 AM PST by marktwain
DES MOINES - Iowa's guns rights would be among the strongest in the nation, under a proposed state constitutional amendment that cleared the Iowa House this week.
Democrats say the measure would eventually allow people to bring guns into Iowa's schools, the Capitol and other public buildings. That concerns county officials.
"I think one of the concerns for counties is in our courthouses where there are emotional situations, what that could lead to, particularly domestic disputes," said Sioux County Supervisor Mark Sybesma. "In our treasurer's office, a lot of times people come in very disgruntled - emotions and that type of thing. Guns sometimes aren't the best mix."
The number of Iowa gun permit holders has soared from about 40,000 to 100,000 over the past year, according to data from the Iowa Department of Public Safety. The increase came after a state law took effect in January 2011 that made Iowa a "shall issue" instead of a "may issue" state for weapons permits, largely taking away sheriffs' discretion of whether to issue those permits.
County sheriffs decided Thursday to oppose the latest move by state lawmakers to put the Second Amendment right to bear arms in the Iowa Constitution. They said the constitutional amendment would do away with the state's permitting and regulation of weapons altogether.
The Iowa House this week rejected using the wording found in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and instead voted 61-37 for an amendment to the state constitution that says Iowans have a fundamental right to "acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes" that cannot be infringed upon or denied.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesrepublican.com ...
The fearmongering is as predictable as it is mindless: guns in schools and courthouses.
Hang on, aren’t guns prohibited in both these places (and others) already? Wouldn’t the prohibition be enforced even in a state that had a mandatory open carry law?
It’s an interesting phenomenon. When I was a VA prosecutor pretty much all the police were against easy access to guns.
At the very highest level, our government is mandated NOT to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
So, sure, the government, at every level chooses to ignore that. Writing those words in a new document isn't going to do anything. Won't give you a new right. Won't meaningfully remind people of a right they've forgotten about. Won't deny government the ability to oppress people.
State-level Second Amendment? What on Earth is the point? Why not just try to reclaim the Constitution??
From the Second Amendment: “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...” Note that this right is undefined as to extent, scope, etc. It might be argued that some proposal or limitation is not an infringement, because it is not explicitly included as part of the right, just as easily as it might be argued that the same proposal or limitation is an infringement.
From the article: “...an amendment to the state constitution that says Iowans have a fundamental right to “acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes” that cannot be infringed upon or denied.”
Also from the article: “It goes far beyond the U.S. Constitution and what other states have done.”
It goes beyond only in that it is more specific. But do we like the particular specificity?
It could be argued that concealed carry may be banned and it’s not an infringement because you can open carry and defend life and liberty.
Or, it could be argued that open carry may be banned and it’s not an infringement because you can carry concealed and defend life and liberty.
Or, it could be argued that hand guns may be banned because one can carry a shoulder arm and defend life and liberty.
I’m not saying the proposal is good or bad, I’m saying it needs to be thought about. And I say the pro Second Amendment community needs to put more thought into the meaning of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, at least more than I’ve seen. If they don’t, the other side will, and they will define it so that whatever they propose is not an infringement by their definition.
“Those sheriffs need to be replaced at the next election with sheriffs that support the basic human right of self defense.”
They are just like the PE unions. They are seeing “their control” being taken away and they don’t like it. For them “it’s just easier” for citizens not to have legal access to firearms. That way, they can go about their abusive behavior without fear that someone might have the means to stop them. We need to have sheriffs who are staunch defenders of the Constitution, both Federal and State, instead of political hacks that are elected just like the rest of the political class.
Part of the reason many become cops is so they can carry guns in public. Cops. Don’t like the idea of civilians with guns as a result.
Disgruntled and emotional gee, Barney gets that way, too when Krispy Kreme doesnt open on time, but the cops union doesnt mind HIM carrying in that emotional state. Ive seen the idiots get emotional and disgruntled while writing out the *gasp HEINOUS felony* rolling stop, parking ticket or 5 MPH over the posted limit speeding ticket while IGNORING dope dealers, meth labs and child molesters. Remember (from another thread), Barney digs the intimidation factor and it REALLY gets his pastel thong in a wad if Joe Everyman REFUSES to be intimidated.
There, I corrected the shoddy "journalism."
The linked article quotes only a lobbyist for the ISSDA, and names exactly ZERO sheriffs going on record either way. A short piece in the sidebar quotes ONE.
If the ISSDA ever calls me for a donation of any kind, I'll politely say NO and gladly tell them why.