Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: 724.4B Carrying weapons on school grounds ‐‐ penalty ‐‐ exceptions.

  1. #1
    Regular Member kd6sxa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Quad Cities, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    92

    724.4B Carrying weapons on school grounds ‐‐ penalty ‐‐ exceptions.

    724.4B Carrying weapons on school grounds ‐‐ penalty ‐‐ exceptions.
    1. A person who goes armed with, carries, or transports a firearm of any kind, whether
    concealed or not, on the grounds of a school commits a class "D" felony. For the purposes of this
    section, "school" means a public or nonpublic school as defined in section 280.2.
    2. Subsection 1 does not apply to the following:
    a. A person listed under section 724.4, subsection 4, paragraphs "b" through "f" or "j".
    b. A person who has been specifically authorized by the school to go armed, carry, or transport a
    firearm on the school grounds, including for purposes of conducting an instructional program
    regarding firearms.

    How does this work if I live next to a public park? My yard borders the park.

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by kd6sxa View Post
    724.4B Carrying weapons on school grounds ‐‐ penalty ‐‐ exceptions.
    1. A person who goes armed with, carries, or transports a firearm of any kind, whether
    concealed or not, on the grounds of a school commits a class "D" felony. For the purposes of this
    section, "school" means a public or nonpublic school as defined in section 280.2.
    2. Subsection 1 does not apply to the following:
    a. A person listed under section 724.4, subsection 4, paragraphs "b" through "f" or "j".
    b. A person who has been specifically authorized by the school to go armed, carry, or transport a
    firearm on the school grounds, including for purposes of conducting an instructional program
    regarding firearms.

    How does this work if I live next to a public park? My yard borders the park.
    That isn't the section that would affect you. Assuming you have a permit to carry, so long as you don't actually go on the grounds of a school, you're legal. The section you may be thinking would affect you is the previous section: 724.4A

    724.4A Weapons free zones ‐‐ enhanced penalties.
    1. As used in this section, "weapons free zone" means the area in or on, or within one thousand
    feet of, the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or in or
    on the real property comprising a public park. A weapons free zone shall not include that portion
    of a public park designated as a hunting area under section 461A.42.
    2. Notwithstanding sections 902.9 and 903.1, a person who commits a public offense involving
    a firearm or offensive weapon, within a weapons free zone, in violation of this or any other
    chapter shall be subject to a fine of twice the maximum amount which may otherwise be
    imposed for the public offense.

    That itself doesn't do anything, so long as you don't commit a public offense. If you do, then you will face the potential of a maximum fine being double what it would normally be upon conviction. Although we do have firearms preemption the Iowa State Attorney General wrote an opinion, in response to the new shall issue law being put in place, contradicting preemption and many localities have taken that as authorization for them to write their own laws with regards to their public buildings and parks. While such laws are void due to 724.28, you would still have to face a judge in order to have the law enforced logically. Also, if you're thinking of baiting: with such ordinances I believe the LEO's involved would qualify for immunity as they could convince a judge/jury they were acting in good faith.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkshadow62988 View Post
    Also, if you're thinking of baiting: with such ordinances I believe the LEO's involved would qualify for immunity as they could convince a judge/jury they were acting in good faith.
    Acting in good faith of what? Are you talking about cities/counties that have unenforceable resolutions banning firearm? Or the "weapons free" zone itself?

    They need reasonable suspicion to detain longer than looking at ones permit.

    What actions are you suggesting the officers will do?

    I dont see any problems with baiting officers. I dont do it, but there are some that do. Its just a role reversal to keep them accountable.
    Last edited by Tucker6900; 10-03-2012 at 02:27 PM.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Acting in good faith of what? Are you talking about cities/counties that have unenforceable resolutions banning firearm? Or the "weapons free" zone itself?

    They need reasonable suspicion to detain longer than looking at ones permit.

    What actions are you suggesting the officers will do?

    I dont see any problems with baiting officers. I dont do it, but there are some that do. Its just a role reversal to keep them accountable.
    I don't have a problem with people baiting. I have a problem when the baited decided to swallow the hook, but that's why the court systems are in place(or so we are told) and 1984 exists. The problem being, as we can see with how often there are questions regarding 724.4(A and B), an officer may believe possession of a firearm with 1000ft of a school is an arrest-able offense. Courts have shown that an officer acting in the belief they were acting within the law and their authority by arresting a person in violation of said law were not responsible to pay damages to the arrested for their wrongful arrest so long as the belief the officer held at the time was reasonable. I'll see if I can find a citation for that. I'm not having the best of luck with at the moment.

    ETA: It appears the case I was looking at was a State Supreme Court case in NJ, not SCOTUS, and their ruling considered a law in NJ which specifically exempts public employees from damages due to right violations if they had RAS/PC from the perspective of an officer when the situation is in agreement with a "reasonable person" standard. Considering I can't find any comparable cases, or even arrests, with regards to 724.4(A or B) I'd have to say this one is still up in the air. In which case, if you're willing to spend the time and resources needed to fight this if you do run into an errant officer, exercise your right as it was intended, freely.
    Last edited by Darkshadow62988; 10-03-2012 at 05:03 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •