Some Iowa Sheriffs Resisting Shall Issue

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Dubuque county Sheriff Kenneth Runde said that won't work. He said if he knows someone in his community has assaulted his wife but never been convicted, he wants to be able to deny a permit.

Runde says:"And we're going to give people like that permits to carry? That's not gonna happen, and I won't give 'em to those people. Just because they didn't get convicted 'cause their wives wouldn't testify, doesn't give them a right to carry a gun that they may end up using in a domestic violence situation."
Click to expand...

But this is OK? He used to be a cop. The frmr chief of police's daughter was a coke addict, but she gets one. This is just another instance of hooray for me and F@#$ YOU! Sherrifs are elected. They should act accordingly.

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/14/news/local/doc461fa32487511234538008.txt
Van Fossen used to be a cop, and has attacked his wife TWO more times since this article.
 
In Northern Virginia the only way to get a permit prior to 1995 was to either be an elected big whig of the same party as the sheriff, give his re-election campaign a lot of money, or (as some speculated) perform unspeakable sexual acts on the sheriff's person....

There was a LOT of whining from them when Virginia started pushing the shall issue position, and some of them still go outside of the very clearly worded law on the subject.

The Virginia Citizen's Defense League has been pretty successful in helping get those sheriff's to toe the line regarding the law.
 
These public employees need the harsh whip of reality brought to bear. Citizens of Iowa need to take a hard stand against the notion that a government enforcer can become judge and jury with regard to rights access if it pleases them to do so.
 
I don't advocate for people not getting the permits they deserve, but police officers are allowed to use discression. How many times have you been given a warning when you got stopped for speeding? No one complains about this. While it is true all officers are expected to uphold the law as it is written, they are taught discression is the better part of valor. (I think that's how the saying goes). As far as permits goes, the sheriff may feel he knows something others don't? There is always two sides to every story, it would be interesting to hear both. Are sheriff's allowed to decide who gets one and who doesn't? Or is it a strict guideline he must follow?
 
That's all well and good, Marko, but FAR too many sheriffs have used the CCW issuance as a personal political plumb.

Can you tell us, though, exactly what purpose is served when a sheriff, using his "discretion," denies a permit to someone with an absolutely clean record and background check and is a pillar of his community, and does so reflexively in 99.9% of all applications?

Sheriffs certainly don't "use their discretion" to that level when handing out warnings for speeding, do they? Of course not.

Sheriffs are elected by the people. Ergo, they should SERVE the people, no their own particular interests or beliefs.

Some sheriffs also used this "discretion" in denying permits because they bought into the theory that there would be rivers of blood running in the streets if even one person were issued a CCW permit (at least a person who didn't prove his worth by contributing to the Sheriff's reelection campaign).

That was always a favorite mantra of the Brady Bunch. More guns = more blood in the streets.

But, in every state where sheriffs reflexively exercised their discretion to deny permits, states that later went to shall issue, no rivers of blood flowed in the streets. The people whom the sheriffs reflexively denied as "horrible, uncalculable risks to slaughter dozens, if not hundreds, if allowed to carry a gun" actually turned out to be FAR more law abiding than the general populace.

What does that tell you about the sheriff's discretion and intuition?

It tells me that if the sheriff is so absolutely blind to the merits and capabilities of individuals he allegedly serves, he's actually failing them and sure as hell should not be sheriff.
 
Can you tell us, though, exactly what purpose is served when a sheriff, using his "discretion," denies a permit to someone with an absolutely clean record and background check and is a pillar of his community, and does so reflexively in 99.9% of all applications?
Click to expand...
No, No I can't. I don't think people with clean records should be denied a permit. I wasn't saying that at all. What do you think about the example of the guy who is known to beat the crap out of his wife, but the wife was too scared to press charges? If he was convicted would you still feel he deserves a permit? As you and I both know the "system" isn't perfect. People slip through the cracks all the time. The sheriff, I'm sure also feels he has an obligation to protect the people. Since the law states people convicted of assult are not allowed to carry, do you think the sheriff may of felt it was his obligation to deny that particular permit because of what he knew about the applicant? Or do you believe since he was not convicted, even though he beat his wife, he still deserves the permit? I am not saying I am right or wrong here. I don't advocate people not getting what they deserve, both good and bad. I am simply asking if maybe that sheriff did indeed make a good call? I know there are others who do hold the CCW card in their political agenda, that's why I said I would like both sides of the story.
 
Mark NO! Who is he to judge? Then he can say that about anyone! What next? I heard! He says She says! when will it end? It was that way here in Minnesota before we became a Shall issue state! I have not heard of any of these "suspected" wife beaters shooting there wifes yet! As a matter of a fact one of the sheriffs said, "he wouldn't issue even if the person was being chased by someone with a gun"!
That kind of helped the shall issue!
 
"What do you think about the example of the guy who is known to beat the crap out of his wife, but the wife was too scared to press charges?"

That's why many, if not most, most states now don't require the wife to file charges if there is evidence of domestic abuse.

In your scenario, though, as Magnum Mike says, it requires that the sheriff become a judge and rule on issues that are, essentially, rumors, not fact.

Hey, I heard this guy runs an illegal still in his basement. Any proof? Nah, just heard it. Denied.

I think I saw this guy jaywalking across Main Street last week. Are you sure it was him? Nah, but it sort of looked like him. Denied.

No single law, or proposed law, will cover ever single situation. But allowing absolute randomness in a selection process, all based on the whim of one individual, is the height of unequal protection under law.
 
And the bright side to all this?...it is that these sheriffs are ELECTED officials. I hope that their constituency remembers this reluctance to issue CCW's when it comes time to elect a new sheriff. I know I sure as heck would.
 
What do you think about the example of the guy who is known to beat the crap out of his wife, but the wife was too scared to press charges? If he was convicted would you still feel he deserves a permit? As you and I both know the "system" isn't perfect. People slip through the cracks all the time. The sheriff, I'm sure also feels he has an obligation to protect the people. Since the law states people convicted of assult are not allowed to carry, do you think the sheriff may of felt it was his obligation to deny that particular permit because of what he knew about the applicant? Or do you believe since he was not convicted, even though he beat his wife, he still deserves the permit?
Click to expand...

Most of the shall-issue states have written their laws to include a requirement for the CLEO to notify the applicant, in writing, why a permit is denied.

If you have no convictions, but the local Sheriff or PD has responded three times to your residence on a "domestic" call, it is possible that a CLEO might try to deny based on "recent complaints"... it will depend on what the reporting officers wrote in their report.

Likewise, if the Sheriff knows that the applicant makes Forrest Gump look like Einstein, he can oppose the permit. Denials have to take the form of tangible reason. A rumor that Billy-Bob smacks his wife around isn't enough. Several reports from his officers to "domestic calls" in which both the applicant and his wife are sloppy-drunk and arguing could be sufficient.
 
We had the same problem in Minnesota for a long time; some rural law enforcement agencies would grant CCW permits, while agencies in the major cities would deny permits to everyone. The worst part was that they didn't have to give a reason for denial; they could just say that they didn't think you needed a CCW permit. You had no course to take if they denied you; there was no such thing as an appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top