Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Tom Gresham's Guntalk covers NRA's Permit to Carry proposal

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    I'm listening to the Guntalk podcast right now. So far the NRA proposal to Iowa was mentioned. The host does not like the bill. Consider this post as a placeholder for more discussion and a announcement that Guntalk considers this news worthy of discussion.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Ok, so the host didn't go into the topic of the NRA proposal to Iowa as much as I had hoped. He stated that he saw the proposed bill had been revised three different times by the NRA and was still a poorly written bill.

    The Guntalk podcasts can be found here:
    http://guntalk.libsyn.com/

    I'll have to find the articles he mentioned writing on the NRA proposals and read what he thought was so ad.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Found the article mentioned by Jeff Knox on the poorly written NRA proposed permit to carry reform.

    http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ind...tid=50:reports

    It seems odd that Mr. Knox pointed out many of the same issues that I had with the NRA proposal. It feels good to have such a recognized civil rights advocate agree with me.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    I'm listening to the Guntalk podcast right now. So far the NRA proposal to Iowa was mentioned. The host does not like the bill. Consider this post as a placeholder for more discussion and a announcement that Guntalk considers this news worthy of discussion.
    What's the real issue with the bill? There's no "naked man" provision in it. It's a pure shall-issue bill.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    What's the real issue with the bill? There's no "naked man" provision in it. It's a pure shall-issue bill.

    Far from it. This bill is a Trojan Horse and "Shall issue" in it is a "straw man." There are so many new added ways that you can lose or never receive a permit in the first place that it makes a mockery of "shall issue." A simple DHS investigation strips you of your permit, and DHS runs investigations on innocent, law abiding citizens all the time in Iowa. I havea friend at work who's 5 yr old daughter slipped and fell and bruised her forehead on the school playground; that got him a 1 year investigation by DHS, which ended in "no cause found." But under this POC bill, he would have lost his permit.


    Worst of all is that we don't need this whenwe have a good, solid, Vermont style bill going in both houses that the Republican caucuses are signing onto in fairly large numbers (24 in the house so far) . . . in other words, recognition of the second amendment in Iowa. This bill is only going to give anti-gun Democrats cover for the next election where they can say "see, I voted for an NRA bill . . . I support the second amendment." . . . this bill is anything but recognizing of the second amendment.

    We don't need this NRA intrusion into our grassroots efforts right now that brings in all kinds of federal laws into Iowa. Congress has no authority under the Constitution to pass laws affecting the police powers of the states; codifyingtheir un-Constitutional laws into state law only reinforces their unlawful and illicit activities. The NRA ignored Iowa's draconian anti-gun laws for years . . . I wish they would go back to doing so again and leave us to pass our own laws.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    What's the real issue with the bill? There's no "naked man" provision in it. It's a pure shall-issue bill.
    Why not read the Knox article if you really want to know? Jeff does a good job of shooting holes in this piece of crap:

    http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ind...tid=50:reports

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    What's the real issue with the bill? There's no "naked man" provision in it. It's a pure shall-issue bill.
    Why not read the Knox article if you really want to know? Jeff does a good job of shooting holes in this piece of crap:

    http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ind...tid=50:reports
    Too bad the article is a piece of crap.

    Part of the Republican strategy was to push the Iowa Gun Owners’ Alaska-style carry bill, forcing the Democrats into a hard up or down vote before November. Many observers believe that if the IGO bill ever actually came to the floor, it would have full support of the Republicans and enough Democrats to put it over the top.

    Who are these observers? How did they come to believe it?

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:


    Far from it. This bill is a Trojan Horse and "Shall issue" in it is a "straw man." There are so many new added ways that you can lose or never receive a permit in the first place that it makes a mockery of "shall issue." A simple DHS investigation strips you of your permit, and DHS runs investigations on innocent, law abiding citizens all the time in Iowa. I havea friend at work who's 5 yr old daughter slipped and fell and bruised her forehead on the school playground; that got him a 1 year investigation by DHS, which ended in "no cause found." But under this POC bill, he would have lost his permit.
    Cite your source, SS. I've read through the bill three or four different times, and I am not seeing the authority for a PTC to be suspended or revoked under the circumstances that you're talking about. Also, tell me how this isn't any different than the current law as it stands? Sheriffs have the unlimited power to revoke licenses for any reason, short of saying "I'm refusing to issue you a license because of your race, gender, etc".

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Cite your source, SS. I've read through the bill three or four different times, and I am not seeing the authority for a PTC to be suspended or revoked under the circumstances that you're talking about. Also, tell me how this isn't any different than the current law as it stands? Sheriffs have the unlimited power to revoke licenses for any reason, short of saying "I'm refusing to issue you a license because of your race, gender, etc".

    Ok . . . that's what Isuspected . . . another NRA apologist.

    JUST READ THE ARTICLE FROM KNOX AND YOU WILL KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS!

    "Also, tell me how this isn't any different than the current law as it stands? Sheriffs have the unlimited power to revoke licenses for any reason . . ."

    That is exactly the point . . . we IOWANS want to have second amendment RIGHTS, not government granted privilages. That is whywe don't want the watered down NRA POC bill that keeps things "status quo."

    SS

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Too bad the article is a piece of crap.

    Part of the Republican strategy was to push the Iowa Gun Owners’ Alaska-style carry bill, forcing the Democrats into a hard up or down vote before November. Many observers believe that if the IGO bill ever actually came to the floor, it would have full support of the Republicans and enough Democrats to put it over the top.

    Who are these observers? How did they come to believe it?
    Forget about that . . . who the hell are you? What makes you such a "knowledgeable" person on Iowa politics? And tell us exactly why someone from Washington State has such a strong interest in protecting the NRA's activities in Iowa . .

    Answer those questions . . credibly . . . and then we'll talk.

    SS

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Cite your source, SS. I've read through the bill three or four different times, and I am not seeing the authority for a PTC to be suspended or revoked under the circumstances that you're talking about. Also, tell me how this isn't any different than the current law as it stands? Sheriffs have the unlimited power to revoke licenses for any reason, short of saying "I'm refusing to issue you a license because of your race, gender, etc".

    Ok . . . that's what Isuspected . . . another NRA apologist.
    The Knox Report did not answer my question. You're the one who made the claim about the DHS investigation, so I'm asking you to cite the source inside of the bill for your claims.

    I find it telling that you were the first to launch the personal attacks on me because I asked you to cite your source.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Too bad the article is a piece of crap.

    Part of the Republican strategy was to push the Iowa Gun Owners’ Alaska-style carry bill, forcing the Democrats into a hard up or down vote before November. Many observers believe that if the IGO bill ever actually came to the floor, it would have full support of the Republicans and enough Democrats to put it over the top.

    Who are these observers? How did they come to believe it?
    Forget about that . . . who the hell are you? What makes you such a "knowledgeable" person on Iowa politics? And tell us exactly why someone from Washington State has such a strong interest in protecting the NRA's activities in Iowa . .

    Answer those questions . . credibly . . . and then we'll talk.

    SS
    Nothing I say will be credible to you, given your personal attack of accusing me of being an NRA apologist so what is the point?

    I asked you to cite specifically from a bill, a bill that you keep attacking, and your sourcing for this information that is not regurgitated from some other source.

    I refer you to Rule #7 of this forum:

    7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

    Why aren't you doing that?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Straight_Shooter wrote:

    I asked you to cite specifically from a bill, a bill that you keep attacking, and your sourcing for this information that is not regurgitated from some other source.

    I refer you to Rule #7 of this forum:

    7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

    Why aren't you doing that?
    All right . . . I'll play your silly game . . . this is right out of the NRA bill:

    724.13 Revocation of permit to carry weapons.

    ". . . Pursuant to section 17A.18A, an issuing officer who finds that a person who has been issued a permit to carry weapons under this chapter has been arrested for a disqualifying offense or is the subject of proceedings that could lead to the person’s disqualification for such permit may immediately suspend such permit."

    A DHS domestic violence investigation will unquestionablyqualify for this. While I know you care nothing for Constitutional protections, I will point out that this is a total violation of our due process rights . . .



    Good enough?

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Straight_Shooter wrote:

    I asked you to cite specifically from a bill, a bill that you keep attacking, and your sourcing for this information that is not regurgitated from some other source.

    I refer you to Rule #7 of this forum:

    7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

    Why aren't you doing that?
    All right . . . I'll play your silly game . . . this is right out of the NRA bill:

    724.13 Revocation of permit to carry weapons.

    ". . . Pursuant to section 17A.18A, an issuing officer who finds that a person who has been issued a permit to carry weapons under this chapter has been arrested for a disqualifying offense or is the subject of proceedings that could lead to the person’s disqualification for such permit may immediately suspend such permit."

    A DHS domestic violence investigation will unquestionablyqualify for this. While I know you care nothing for Constitutional protections, I will point out that this is a total violation of our due process rights . . .



    Good enough?
    may immediately suspend such permit

    There is no requirement that a Sheriff *must* do this. They can already do this now and revoke your license for being part of a DHS investigation per the current statute before this amendment.

    You also are cherry picking provisions of the statute and misinterpreting them. Here are the disqualifiers in the new bill:

    (There are some formatting problems with this copy I posted, I'll be fixing it later but here is the copy of the current bill:

    No person shall be issued a professional or nonprofessional permit to carry weapons unless shall be issued to a person who:
    1. For a professional permit, is less than eighteen years of age, or for a nonprofessional permit, is less than twenty-one years of age or older.
    3. Is subject to the provisions of section 724.26. 6. 3. The person has never Has within the last three years been convicted of or under sentence for any crime serious or aggravated misdemeanor defined in chapter 708, unless the provisions of subsection 11 apply, in which case subsection 11 shall control except "assault" as defined in section 708.1 and "harassment" as defined in section 708.7.
    4. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, as this term is used 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and any amendments thereto.
    5. Is a fugitive from justice, as this term is used in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(15), 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(2), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(2), and any amendments thereto.
    6. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, as those terms are used in 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), and any amendments thereto.
    7. Has been adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution, as those terms are used in 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), and any amendments thereto.
    8. Is an illegal or nonresident alien, as those terms are used in 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(5), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), and any amendments thereto.
    9. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, as this term is used in 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(6), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6), and any amendments thereto.
    10. Has renounced his or her United States citizenship, as this term is used in 18 U.S.C. §922(d)(7), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(7), and any amendments thereto.
    11. Is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, as those terms are used in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(32), 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(8), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), and any amendments thereto.
    12. Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, as that those terms are used in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33), 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(9), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), and any amendments thereto.
    13. Is under indictment for crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, as those terms are used in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), and any amendments thereto.

    So my question for you, SS, is the following:

    Does DHS itself have the authority to arrest or indict someone for a criminal offense? Do they have the ability to issue an order of protection by themselves, or does it require outside intervention such as an actual court order order by a judge?
    DHS can rule that you "abused a child", but until you are actually arrested or under indictment, the sheriffs and the DPS would have no authority to strip you of your permit. Sheriffs have this statutory authority to revoke your license now but won't after this bill, in it's current form, passes to cause what you're talking about with DHS child abuse investigations somehow causing the PTC to be suspended.

    That being said and beyond the current issue I am not a fan of arrest or indictment causing a PTC suspension. That is currently being challenged in the court system, and some federal judges are questioning the constitutionality of indictment or arrest causing a loss of RKBA when the issue is brought up. The point being is, the sheriffs and DPS can do this at this very moment, with no restrictions at all on the law against them, and they can hold it against you even if you win.

    So again, I ask you: Why are you not citing to actual authority on this bill?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    may immediately suspend such permit

    There is no requirement that a Sheriff *must* do this. They can already do this now and revoke your license for being part of a DHS investigation per the current statute before this amendment.

    So my question for you, SS, is the following:

    Does DHS itself have the authority to arrest or indict someone for a criminal offense? Do they have the ability to issue an order of protection by themselves, or does it require outside intervention such as an actual court order order by a judge?
    DHS can rule that you "abused a child", but until you are actually arrested or under indictment, the sheriffs and the DPS would have no authority to strip you of your permit. So again, I ask you: Why are you not citing to actual authority on this bill?

    I know the contents of 18 U.S.C, so there is no need to regurgitate it here in all it's "Lautenberg splendor."

    "There is no requirement that a Sheriff *must* do this. They can already do this now and revoke your license for being part of a DHS investigation per the current statute before this amendment."

    Besides the fact that what you say ISN'TSPECIFICALLYCODIFIED IN IOWA NOW (and would be easier to challenge in court now because of that), why try to eliminate bad, draconianlaw? Yes, the sheriff can currently pull a ticket for any reason he wants because of "may issue," but you simply want to put this specific draconian stuff into law, instead of reducing the number of anti-gun provisions in Iowa law.

    Of course, that is what the IGO bill does, the NRA bill obviously does not. That is really the difference that I have tried to tirelessly point out.

    You have sufficientlyestablished your "bona-fides" as a statist, and I learned a long time ago that I generallycannot penetrate the mind of folks like you (much as I still try . . . sillyme)who are "Ok" withgovernment encroachments on our freedoms. I don't accept the NRA bill for that simple reason, and I think even you can understand that the IGO bill is the bill that supports Constitutional freedom over the NRA bill.

    Like many of the statists in the Iowa gun movement, you don't believe that the IGO bill can pass (I have heard that from so-called "second amendment advocates" until I am blue in the face) andI think the NRA bill is a total sell out designed to give the Democratscover in the next election specifically so we cannot improve the ratio of pro-gun folks in the legislature. I haveno doubt whatsoever that it was a Democrat in this state that contacted the NRAand asked for help with this very bill. NO, I cannot prove that (Jeff Knox alluded to this as well), but it sure does smell like it. I have told, and will continue to tell my representatives that I believe so.

    As far as your question to me regarding the need for morecites, the bill is quite clear, and I have quoted that section faithfully, that simply being the"subjectof proceedings" you can have your ticket pulled, specifically because of the Lautenberg language that you cited. That is the exact language in the bill whether you accept it or not, so it doesn't matter if "the DHS has the authority to arrest or indict someone for a criminal offense." All they have to do is call the sheriff and tell them they are conducting an investigation on you and you are the"subject of proceedings." Whether or not you think this is ambiguous or not, I really don't care, because I can pretty much guarantee that the DHS will interpret it this way and that is exactly how the sheriff will interpret it, and that is how prosecutors will interpret it. I know . . .I've seen it too many times.

    . . . is there any point in going on? You support huge government control and restrictionover my right to defend myself, I do not, and I intend to fight against it. I can live with the fact that you are a statist and that you do not fully support the second amendment (or the rest of the Constitution forthat matter). . . hopefully you can live with the fact that I do.

    From my perspective, and for valid reasons stated (by others as wellas me),The NRA bill is a statist piece of crap that gives very little for what it takes, and we have discussed only one small provision that stinks.

    The other thing others must keep in mind is that this bill has been "cleaned up" from earlier versions to its current pathetic state, specifically because many have been speaking out against it . . . one can only hope they will continue to do so.

    SS

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    What's the real issue with the bill? There's no "naked man" provision in it. It's a pure shall-issue bill.
    Here's a link to a more thorough explanation of the issues Jeff Knox has with this bill.

    http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ind...ate&Itemid=144

    Among the issues with the NRA proposal is that it creates new "with a gun" crimes, further complicates a needlessly complex licensing system, and creates new and interesting ways to tax and harass those that wish to defend themselves.

Posting Permissions

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