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:
[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]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.[/font]
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 . . .
[align=left]
Good enough?[/align]
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:
[align=LEFT][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
No person shall be issued a professional or nonprofessional permit to carry weapons unless shall be issued to a person who:[/font][/align] [align=LEFT][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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.[/font][/align][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
3. Is subject to the provisions of section 724.26.[/font] [font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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[/font][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
[font="Times-Italic, sans-serif"] "assault" [/font]as defined in section 708.1 and [font="Times-Italic, sans-serif"]"harassment" [/font]as defined in section 708.7.[/font]
[align=LEFT][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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.[/font][/align] [align=LEFT][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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.[/font][/align] [align=LEFT][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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.[/font][/align] [align=LEFT][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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.[/font][/align] [align=LEFT][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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.[/font][/align] [align=LEFT][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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.[/font][/align] [align=LEFT][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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.[/font][/align] [align=LEFT][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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.[/font][/align] [align=LEFT][font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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.[/font][/align] [font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"]
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
, and any[/font]
[font="Times-Roman, sans-serif"] amendments thereto.[/font]
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?
