Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Question about 724.5 (Iowa Code)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    18

    Question about 724.5 (Iowa Code)

    Hello,

    I am looking to get my permit to carry soon, and I had a specific question about the wording in Iowa Code 724.5. I already have my permit to acquire.

    724.5 DUTY TO CARRY PERMIT TO CARRY WEAPONS.
    A person armed with a revolver, pistol, or pocket billy concealed
    upon the person shall have in the person's immediate possession the
    permit provided for in section 724.4, subsection 4, paragraph
    "i", and shall produce the permit for inspection at the request
    of a peace officer. Failure to so produce a permit is a simple...

    The word I am most confused by is "concealed". Because of this wording and the fact that the code is all one sentence gives me the impression that if I "Open Carry" and I am approached ONLY for that reason and no suspicious behavior is observed or law violation is reasonably suspected that I do not have to give the permit or any identification. Is this correct? Please let me know at your convenience. If I'm reading this wrong, I'd like to find out before(if ever)I have an encounter.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by cablebob View Post
    Hello,

    I am looking to get my permit to carry soon, and I had a specific question about the wording in Iowa Code 724.5. I already have my permit to acquire.

    724.5 DUTY TO CARRY PERMIT TO CARRY WEAPONS.
    A person armed with a revolver, pistol, or pocket billy concealed
    upon the person shall have in the person's immediate possession the
    permit provided for in section 724.4, subsection 4, paragraph
    "i", and shall produce the permit for inspection at the request
    of a peace officer. Failure to so produce a permit is a simple...

    The word I am most confused by is "concealed". Because of this wording and the fact that the code is all one sentence gives me the impression that if I "Open Carry" and I am approached ONLY for that reason and no suspicious behavior is observed or law violation is reasonably suspected that I do not have to give the permit or any identification. Is this correct? Please let me know at your convenience. If I'm reading this wrong, I'd like to find out before(if ever)I have an encounter.
    If you read on, yes, it explains that open carry does not require a permit if one if neither within the limits of a city, nor in a vehicle on a public road/property.
    OC on foot requires no permit unless you are in a city, in short. All 4th amendment decisions apply regarding ID, permits, detention/consensual encounters, etc, unless you are in a city/vehicle, in which case you must show your permit if requested/demanded.

    That said, most sheriffs' departments in IA are not familiar with how this works, and you may get hassled and waste time.
    Last edited by amaixner; 03-06-2013 at 07:47 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by amaixner View Post
    If you read on, yes, it explains that open carry does not require a permit if one if neither within the limits of a city, nor in a vehicle on a public road/property.
    OC on foot requires no permit unless you are in a city, in short. All 4th amendment decisions apply regarding ID, permits, detention/consensual encounters, etc, unless you are in a city/vehicle, in which case you must show your permit if requested/demanded.

    That said, most sheriffs' departments in IA are not familiar with how this works, and you may get hassled and waste time.

    I figured. I see you are in Linn County. I am too. Why do I get the feeling that Iowa looks at our right to carry as a privilege? Our right to privacy gets revoked if we choose to carry in the city limits. I don't understand how they can get away with this. I'm not a trouble maker, but I'm not a conformist if I'm not sure why I'm conforming, or I disagree with the purpose because it violates my civil rights. What a fine line it is to walk. I believe in keep the public safe, as long as it doesn't infringe upon my civil rights.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by cablebob View Post
    Why do I get the feeling that Iowa looks at our right to carry as a privilege?
    That feeling would be accurate.

    Our right to privacy gets revoked if we choose to carry in the city limits.
    Two things.

    First, if you are concealing or driving a vehicle, there is no law requiring you to disclose that you are carrying to ANY police officer, even if they ask. Some would call it wise to inform the officer that you are carrying to minimze the chance of getting shot by some jack boot that feels "threatened". However, there are some, myself included, that will exercise within the law, to the letter of the law, and simply state "I dont consent to answer any questions". If they insist on searching you, you should say two things, "I dont consent to a search", and "I am armed".

    Second, there is no law in Iowa that requires ID if no law has been broken. Driving a vehicle has its requirements, but I am still searching on whether a license is required absent a traffic infraction. The ONLY thing that is required to be presented for a stop for carrying is a permit. Nothing more. If they ask for ID, you have the right to refuse, as carrying a firearm in and of itself is not a crime.

    I don't understand how they can get away with this. I'm not a trouble maker, but I'm not a conformist if I'm not sure why I'm conforming, or I disagree with the purpose because it violates my civil rights. What a fine line it is to walk. I believe in keep the public safe, as long as it doesn't infringe upon my civil rights.
    Ever since firearms became an evil thing, law abiding citizens(LAC) have been paying for the criminals actions. Its the only way our government knows to deal with the situation, however wrong they are. Criminals have ruled this country since the beginning. Even in the "old west" days, LAC have been punished for crimes they did not commit. The old saying innocent until proven guilty has been long gone for some time.

    There have been numerous organizations that have/are working on Constitutional carry here. So far they have failed. Events like Aurora and Sandy Hook have made it worse, even here. We have county sheriffs trying to rescind shall issue because they say its "broken". We have legislatures telling news outlets that no one has the right to have a gun, and the authorities should "take them all"

    The people are winning the battles for carry. Illinois is about to pass court ordered carry legislation, and it will be one of the most lienient states in the US. However, we still have a hill to climb.
    Last edited by Tucker6900; 03-06-2013 at 09:58 AM.
    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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    The people are winning the battles for carry. Illinois is about to pass court ordered carry legislation, and it will be one of the most lienient states in the US. However, we still have a hill to climb.
    I never thought about carrying a gun until recently. If you don't use your "rights" you will lose you rights.

  6. #6
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by cablebob View Post
    Hello,

    I am looking to get my permit to carry soon, and I had a specific question about the wording in Iowa Code 724.5. I already have my permit to acquire.

    724.5 DUTY TO CARRY PERMIT TO CARRY WEAPONS.
    A person armed with a revolver, pistol, or pocket billy concealed
    upon the person shall have in the person's immediate possession the
    permit provided for in section 724.4, subsection 4, paragraph
    "i", and shall produce the permit for inspection at the request
    of a peace officer. Failure to so produce a permit is a simple...

    The word I am most confused by is "concealed". Because of this wording and the fact that the code is all one sentence gives me the impression that if I "Open Carry" and I am approached ONLY for that reason and no suspicious behavior is observed or law violation is reasonably suspected that I do not have to give the permit or any identification. Is this correct? Please let me know at your convenience. If I'm reading this wrong, I'd like to find out before(if ever)I have an encounter.
    You're looking at the wrong section of the law. The issue isn't with 724.5, it's with 724.4:

    724.4 Carryingweapons.
    1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who goes armed with a dangerous
    weapon concealed on or about the person, or who, within the limits of any city, goes armed with
    a pistol or revolver, or any loaded firearm of any kind, whether concealed or not, or who
    knowingly carries or transports in a vehicle a pistol or revolver, commits an aggravated
    misdemeanor.
    2. A person who goes armed with a knife concealed on or about the person, if the person uses
    the knife in the commission of a crime, commits an aggravated misdemeanor. 3. A person who goes armed with a knife concealed on or about the person, if the person does
    not use the knife in the commission of a crime:
    a. If the knife has a blade exceeding eight inches in length, commits an aggravated
    misdemeanor.
    b. If the knife has a blade exceeding five inches but not exceeding eight inches in length,
    commits a serious misdemeanor.
    4. Subsections 1 through 3 do not apply to any of the following:
    i. A person who has in the person's possession and who displays to a peace officer on demand a
    valid permit to carry weapons which has been issued to the person, and whose conduct is within
    the limits of that permit. A person shall not be convicted of a violation of this section if the
    person produces at the person's trial a permit to carry weapons which was valid at the time of the
    alleged offense and which would have brought the person's conduct within this exception if the
    permit had been produced at the time of the alleged offense.
    The code is written in such a way that, no matter what, the refusals you see in the truly free states or with the unloaded OC in California in the past are not really any option here. Regarding your question about ID being required, Iowa isn't a stop and ID state, but Tucker covered that pretty well long before I posted this.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkshadow62988 View Post
    The code is written in such a way that, no matter what, the refusals you see in the truly free states or with the unloaded OC in California in the past are not really any option here. Regarding your question about ID being required, Iowa isn't a stop and ID state, but Tucker covered that pretty well long before I posted this.
    This statement holds true for in cities/vehicles. Outside incorporated areas, you may refuse to your heart's content (as long as hunting and the DNR aren't involved).

  8. #8
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    [QUOTE=matt2636;1912332]
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    That feeling would be accurate.

    Second, there is no law in Iowa that requires ID if no law has been broken. Driving a vehicle has its requirements, but I am still searching on whether a license is required absent a traffic infraction. The ONLY thing that is required to be presented for a stop for carrying is a permit. Nothing more. If they ask for ID, you have the right to refuse, as carrying a firearm in and of itself is not a crime.

    isnt the ID your proof of innocents? the law makes it illegal for you to drive without a DL so really arnt you illegal in the laws eyes until your show proof that your not (your DL) which basically gives LEO "RAS" to stop/search/detain you until you show ID or THEY ASK for ID cause you are illegal until you show otherwise. so are laws written in a way that void your rights in favor of the law? food for thought you prolly know more then me im just thinking out loud. thats if im allowed to think and question my law makers?
    No. LE must have RAS that you have committed, are committing and/or are about to commit a crime in order to detain you. Delaware v. Prouse(1979) made that abundantly clear. There is still question as to how this applies here in Iowa with regard to PTC as there are contradicting rulings on each level of the courts(trial, appeal, supreme) and in different states. Florida, if I remember correctly, has two rulings on the same level in different districts that do not comply with one another because they do not have to as they are trial level rulings that are not binding on one another. If you think it's confusing at this level it's just the tip of the iceberg.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	iceberg-tip.jpg 
Views:	128 
Size:	6.3 KB 
ID:	10114  

  9. #9
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    isnt the ID your proof of innocents? the law makes it illegal for you to drive without a DL so really arnt you illegal in the laws eyes until your show proof that your not (your DL) which basically gives LEO "RAS" to stop/search/detain you until you show ID or THEY ASK for ID cause you are illegal until you show otherwise. so are laws written in a way that void your rights in favor of the law? food for thought you prolly know more then me im just thinking out loud. thats if im allowed to think and question my law makers?
    Absolutely not. Its a sticky situation with driving and drivers licenses. Technically, per the law, you need one to drive, while also....technically, you are not required to show ID if you have committed no crime. Per the law, the officer must witness you committing a traffic offense (in most cases) in order to stop you. He/she cannot just stop to check that you have a valid drivers license. That is where a lot of people are pushing back with these "DUI", Border Patrol, and vehicle inspection checkpoints. The USSC ruled these checkpoints legal, ruled that the officers can ask questions, but in the same ruling said that the people are not required to answer any questions under the 5th Amendment. Thankfully, Iowa state law forbids the use of DUI checkpoints in this state.

    Most good officers will inform you of the reason they stopped you before they ask you for your license. This is the way it should be. However, I have had a few who ask for ID first, then say "Ill explain why I pulled you over after I get your ID." In my experience, this means they did not really have a reason for the stop, and are just "fishing". As Iowa is not a stop and ID state, it is my personal belief that until the officer can provide RAS for a stop, I do not have to show my drivers license. This is my belief, and is not to be taken as legal advice.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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