Iowa's Concealed Carry Law
Posted in the Dubuque Forum
#1 Mar 9, 2008
The Dubuque Telegraph Herald has been lying about concealed carry in Iowa for several weeks.
Just in Sunday's paper, they have an editorial stating that the local Sheriff should decide whether you get a concealed carry permit, even if you pass the required training, testing, and background checks.
The result of this Sheriff's "Discretion" at deciding who does and does not get a carry permit, is the Unequal Protection of Iowa citizens under the law. We have 99 county Sheriff's out there enforcing this law in different, unequal, and discriminating ways.
For the Dubuque TH to attack a gun rights group by effectively call them liars, without presenting any evidence, is evidence of a local so-called newspaper with an anti-gun bias.
If the Dubuque Telegraph Herald wanted to gain any credibility back, they would do some investigative reporting by researching all 99 counties in Iowa to obtain the facts - then report on the facts.
Until then, the Dubuque TH isn't even worthy for my cat to go on.
#2 Mar 9, 2008
As a follow-up to the above post:
1. The 2nd Amendment of the US protects our Right to Bear Arms?
2. Article I Section 1 of the Iowa Constitution protects the rights of persons in enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
3. The 14th Amendment of the US which provides for the Equal Protection of citizens under the law.
4. Article I Section 6 of the Iowa Constitution which states that:“ the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens”.
5. Iowa Code 724.7 gives law abiding citizens in Iowa the right to carry a concealed weapon.
6. 99 County Sheriffs in Iowa currently enforce 724.7 in completely different ways.
The House Bill HF2092 still unfortunately leaves discretion with the Sheriff to issue or not issue a permit. This Bill does:
Standardize the training and live fire testing requirements in all 99 counties.
Thus public safety is improved.
How can anyone be against enforcing existing laws? And how can anyone be against improving public safety, which is what HF 2092 would do?
#3 Mar 9, 2008
Here's a link to the Dubuque TH newsrag article attacking Iowan's right to carry a concealed weapon:
And here is the HF 2092 Bill. Not too long. Read it and see if the Dubuque TH is telling the truth or lying about this Bill. Then when you confirm the Dubuque TH is lying about this Bill, ask yourselves why they would do this.
#4 Mar 9, 2008
HF 2092 still leaves discretion with the local Sheriff, to decide if you get a concealed carry permit or not.
The Dubuque TH is lying about this. Here's the appropriate section of HF 2092:
5 4 724.11 ISSUANCE OF PERMIT TO CARRY WEAPONS.
5 5 1. Applications for permits to carry weapons shall be made
5 6 to the sheriff of the county in which the applicant resides.
5 7 Applications from persons who are nonresidents of the state,
5 8 or whose need to go armed arises out of employment by the
5 9 state, shall be made to the commissioner of public safety. In
5 10 either case, the issuance of the permit shall be by and at the
5 11 discretion of the sheriff or commissioner, who shall, before
5 12 issuing the permit, determine that the requirements of
5 13 sections 724.6 to 724.10 have been satisfied.
#5 Mar 9, 2008
It's clear the Dubuque Telegraph Herald and the local Sheriff do NOT want anyone to carry a concealed weapon.
They should be honest and come out and say that the laws of Iowa should be violated because.
I said Because.
The Iowa sheriff just has to say No. Why? Because the law gives the sheriff that discretion.
And Gman, you are correct. HF2092 does NOT take away the discretion of the Sheriff. It just makes the training and testing standardized.
#6 Mar 10, 2008
Ok, let me ask a couple of questions.
How many of our other rights, in The Bill of Rights, are "determined" for us by the Sheriff?
The Dubuque Telerats Herald says:
"This is an answer in search of a problem.
Citizens elect sheriffs to protect and serve the community. Who better to determine whether an individual should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon?"
I say, who is better to protect our 1st Amendment rights? No newspaper articles should be published until the local Sheriff approves them. Who knows what kind of dangerous lies could be spread if we don't have all articles reviewed and approved by the local Sheriff?
When the Dubuque Newsrag says there is no problem, from THEIR point of view that would be true.
You see, the Dubuque Newsrag doesn't think ANYONE should have a concealed carry permit. So, having a Sheriff like Ken Runde deny most concealed carry applications is just what the Newsrag likes to see.
No matter that our Rights are being violated and all those laws No4gman above cites are simply ignored by the "discretion" of the Sheriff.
#7 Mar 10, 2008
And the Newsrag outright LIES about their NOT being a problem.
See this map:
Where's the investigative journalism to refute the information at the above link? The TH has nothing but lies.
#8 Mar 10, 2008
You realize you're posting an editorial. I read the paper often, and I recall they also did a news article on the bill which gave your group some considerable talk time.
#9 Mar 10, 2008
Warhawk. Same comment as above to you, a San Fransisco poster.
#10 Mar 10, 2008
the NEWS article:
#11 Mar 10, 2008
James what group would you be talking about?
Yes I realize the Dubuque paper is entitled to their "opinion". However, they have responsibility as a newspaper, IF they want to have any credibility, to report the facts.
The fact is the current concealed carry law is not enforced equally by all 99 counties in Iowa, therefore the citizens of Iowa do not have Equal Protection Under the Law. The Dubuque rag of a newspaper is lying about this.
Is Equal Protection Under the Law not important to you?
It is the law of the US and of the state of Iowa.
Some would have the law violated to suit their own political agenda. The Dubuque TH and Sheriff Ken Runde are just two examples.
#12 Mar 10, 2008
It's very interesting to note the comments of a FEW sheriffs in Iowa who oppose this law.
HF 2092 does NOT take away the Sheriffs' discretion in issuing a permit. It does require the Sheriff to provide a written reason for any denial of a permit.
Now, if a Sheriff is denying concealed carry applications, what would they have to fear in providing a written reason for the denial?
Could it be they are unreasonably denying applicantions? Hmmmm.......
I would be worried if my Sheriff had something to hide.
#13 Apr 14, 2008
The bill, now HF2613, is defective. It requires the sheriff to issue concealed weapons permits to people convicted of assault and harassment. Convicted felons and those committed to mental institutions are barred but severely mentally ill persons will get permits if they haven't been committed (getting committed is rare these days). The bill will give the sheriff no grounds to deny a permit except for a short list of very serious problem people. Contrary to the above posters, the bill requires no justification whatsoever to carry a concealed loaded gun. How would you like to have a fender-bender with someone carrying a hidden loaded gun who is severely mentally ill person or has been convicted of assault? I support gun ownership but this bill will create public safety problems. Everyone should oppose it.
#14 Feb 23, 2009
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something, you have the choice of either
convincing me via discussion or argument, or to try to force me to do
your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into
one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact with
one another through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of
social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu
is the possession of personal arms, as paradoxical as that may sound to
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason to try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat
or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a
100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old
retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang-banger, and single gay
guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken homophobes with baseball
bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, and/or
numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force equations. These are the people who think that we'd all be more
civilized if every gun was removed from society, because firearms make
it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only
true if the mugger's potential victims are disarmed, either by choice or
by legislative fiat. It has no validity when most of mugger's potential
marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for the
automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's exactly
the opposite of a civilized society.
A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society
where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument
that guns make confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result only
in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns, the
confrontation is won by a physically superior party inflicting overwhelming
injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones
don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes
lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the
stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is leveled. The gun is the
only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as in the hands
of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if
it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am out looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot
be forced; only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because
it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who
would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why my
carrying a gun is a civilized act.
#15 Mar 18, 2009
Kevin you put if very well in your post. The real question for everyone is who will get the carry permits, probably not the criminals, they are lucky to get the permit to purchase. Criminals will always have weapons, will the law abiding citizen's. Police can't be every where for us. Look at the stats they tell the whole story, take away the law abiding citizen's gun and crime goes up, mandate a gun in every home crime goes down to record lows. There are examples of both. Law abiding citizens won't just start shooting up the place just because they have a permit to carry,
#16 Jan 27, 2010
Ha Ha Ha!
It is so funny that gun nuts are still pushing for a new gun law today.
Nothing is going to change.
The Sheriff is still in charge! I will tell you whether you have the right to carry a weapon or not. It is my right to determine your rights.
#17 Feb 3, 2010
Aahhhhhhhh, but the sheriff works for the people, and can be voted out. Like ALL politicians who don't care one whit about the constitution, and that they work for the people, they ALL need to be voted out and new people put in who care about our rights.
#18 Apr 6, 2010
It is not within a sheriffs perview to determine what my rights are. It is his/her duty to enforce the laws that are witten that guarantee our God given rights whether the sheriff agrees with the law or not. If the sheriff cannot fullfill this duty he/she should consider another line of work. Any LEO that knowingly violates the basic rights of the people is in violation of their primary duty; to protect the people they serve.
#19 Apr 7, 2010
Patriot, you are so right. However we live in an age when politicians have no integrity, no honor. Like the congressman who told the people he served about the "Health Care Bill" - "I don't worry about whether something is constitutional or not, I just do what I think is right." That's become the mentality of people today - no one cares about standards. Everyone lies when they take their oath of office to uphold the constitution. But informed and interested citizens can turn that around by voting the bums out.
#20 Jan 21, 2011
Read the Constitution. We have a right to bear arms
Add your comments below
|With gay marriage on hold, Alabama judge OKs le...||Mar '15||Shirvell s Shrivel||2|
|With gay marriage on hold, Alabama judge OKs le...||Mar '15||Shirvell s Shrivel||1|
|old paths baptist church||Jan '15||curious||1|
|Review: Jail House Cycles||Nov '14||mrcycle||1|
|ABRA Auto Body & Glass Adds Muscatine, IA Franc... (Feb '10)||Nov '14||Zach||5|
|Sanders eyes 'political revolution' in Iowa (Sep '14)||Sep '14||Swedenforever||4|
|Review: Splattering Ink Tattoo And Body Piercing (Nov '12)||May '14||Abby||3|
Find what you want!
Search Dubuque Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC