Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: Culver To Sign Weapons Cary Permit Measure

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    http://www.kcci.com/news/23270243/detail.html

    [/b]
    DES MOINES, Iowa -- Gov. Chet Culver has told The Associated Press he will sign into law a measure overhauling the way concealed weapon permits are issued.The governor said he plans to sign the measure on Thursday.He said he's always been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. Culver also said telephone calls and e-mails to his office have run heavily in favor of the measure.Currently, those seeking a permit to carry a concealed weapon must apply with their local sheriff, who has broad discretion to make the decision about whether to grant the permit.The new law would require sheriffs to issue permits to applicants who meet a set standard and allows sheriffs to deny an application only for a specific set of reasons.
    I think the appropriate emotion here would be a dancing banana: :celebrate

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    amaixner wrote:
    http://www.kcci.com/news/23270243/detail.html

    [/b]
    DES MOINES, Iowa -- Gov. Chet Culver has told The Associated Press he will sign into law a measure overhauling the way concealed weapon permits are issued.The governor said he plans to sign the measure on Thursday.He said he's always been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. Culver also said telephone calls and e-mails to his office have run heavily in favor of the measure.Currently, those seeking a permit to carry a concealed weapon must apply with their local sheriff, who has broad discretion to make the decision about whether to grant the permit.The new law would require sheriffs to issue permits to applicants who meet a set standard and allows sheriffs to deny an application only for a specific set of reasons.
    I think the appropriate emotion here would be a dancing banana: :celebrate
    Contratulations to the leadership and membership of Iowa Carry . . . you have fought a long hard battle to get here . . . you owe it to yourselves to celebrate!

    Again, many congratulations on getting your bill passed into law.

    SS

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    136

    Post imported post

    Congratulations Iowa!!!!!!!!

    If he does is fact sign the bill, I look forward to having a reciprocity agreement at some point.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Way to go Iowa!! :celebrate

  5. #5
    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:
    Congratulations to the leadership and membership of Iowa Carry . . . you have fought a long hard battle to get here . . . you owe it to yourselves to celebrate!

    Again, many congratulations on getting your bill passed into law.

    SS

    Next year and the year after that, we can go after 18-20 year old possession/carry laws, getting rid of local ordinances in violation of state law, get rid of ANY vestiges of "dangerous persons" in the law, get rid of that "renewal training" crap and after wards, get constitutional carry.

    It took Alaska 8 years, and Arizona 16 years, to get "constitutional carry" into law. I believe that Iowa before the next decade, you will be able to carry openly or concealed without a license. There may be disagreements as to first step, but the citizens of dozens of "yellow" and "red" counties are going to be free of a sheriff playing god with their applications as of 01/01/2011.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    Congratulations!

    How are reciprocity issues looking in your state?

    I have many friends in the Davenport (Quad Cities) area who I visit irregularly. (Irregularly, because I'm unable to be armed in your state.)

    It kind of irks me that, as a Missouri resident, my permit is recognized in a majority of sates.......except the one I would like to visit.

    Whenever I do, it seems kind of strange that, out of all my friends, I'm the one Iowa doesn't trust to be armed.

    They all have their CCW's, and although safe and responsible, they're the "crazy" ones. I'm the calm one of the bunch. If you were to ask all three of them, "Who's the least likey to cause trouble/scene/argument......it would most likely be me. Yet, whenever I visit, I'm the only one who doesn't carry because my CCW isn't recognized.

    Yeah....this makes sense. Disarm the calm one.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771

    Post imported post

    If anybody is in that area:

    Signing Ceremony
    States donít have rights. People do.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Superlite27 wrote:
    Congratulations!

    How are reciprocity issues looking in your state?
    There will be no reciprocity issues. Technically the bill has no reciprocity, instead, Iowa will honor ALL states' permits (same as Missouri does).

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    mrjam2jab wrote:
    If anybody is in that area:

    Signing Ceremony
    It's not open for the public. It's invite only.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    mrjam2jab wrote:
    If anybody is in that area:

    Signing Ceremony
    It's not open for the public. It's invite only.
    Source I got it from was told to "pass it on to anyone interested"...


    States donít have rights. People do.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Good.., and about time.

    Iowans should never have to be at the mercy of Sheriff's who make arbituary policies about Firearm Licenses , and all the politics that come with them.

    It is not fair when one Sheriff will issue that License, but another Sheriff in an adjacent County will not.

    Culver should not tolerate their whining and complaining. It is about time for Iowa to put a stop to 'May Issue Policies'.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Iowans should never have to be at the mercy of Sheriff's who make arbituary policies about Firearm Licenses , and all the politics that come with them.
    Iowans should not be at the mercy of our legislators either. We need constitutional carry. Even better if we can do so before the retraining provision of the current bill comes into play in about five years. No one should profit from Iowans exercising their right to self defense.

    It's too late to prevent profiteering on current law or the bill that governor will soon sign into law but at least we have the opportunity to stop it in the future. Once the money starts to flow from people getting their permits after the bill takes effect we will have to fight a lobby funded with our own dollars.

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

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    "Even better if we can do so before the retraining provision of the current bill comes into play in about five years. No one should profit from Iowans exercising their right to self defense."
    Ahhh . . . excuse me but . . . the (re)training requirement will apply to any renewal as well as first time permitees starting Jan 1, 2011. . . meaning anyone who has a valid permit or renewalfrom nowuntil Dec 31, 2010,will have to take the trainingby Jan 1, 2011 . . . current permits are only valid for one year.

    EVERY Iowanwho wants a permit in the next year will have to take and passthe (as yet undefined) training prior to applying . . . that's what the new law says. After that, yes, there will be a 5 year hiatus between individual training requirements . . . but for now, get ready, you will be taking the training if you want one of the new permits. Fortunately, I just renewed mine, so hopefully, a lot of the confusion will be ironed out in the next 8 months to a year.

    The interesting thing will be how the the NRA courses compare to the DPS definedcourses . . . this alone could produce some interesting "fireworks" . . . one would assume that there should be some general agreement as to content, but we'redealing with the gubermint here, so . . . well . . . we'll see I guess.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771

    Post imported post

    I didnt realize my Ceremony link above required sign up:

    You are Invited to Attend a
    Bill Signing Ceremony for Senate File 2379
    Standardization of Weapon Permit
    Process Legislation
    Hosted by Governor Chet Culver
    Thursday, April 29, 2010
    9:00 a.m.
    West Terrace
    State Capitol
    Des Moines, Iowa
    (Rain Location is First Floor Rotunda)
    If you have any questions, please contact
    Adam by phone at 515.281.0159 or by email at Adam.Gross@iowa.gov
    or Joni by phone at 515.281.0141 or by email at Joni.Klaassen@iowa.gov]



    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    IA_farmboy wrote:
    "Even better if we can do so before the retraining provision of the current bill comes into play in about five years. No one should profit from Iowans exercising their right to self defense."
    Ahhh . . . excuse me but . . . the (re)training requirement will apply to any renewal as well as first time permitees starting Jan 1, 2011. . . meaning anyone who has a valid permit or renewalfrom nowuntil Dec 31, 2010,will have to take the trainingby Jan 1, 2011 . . . current permits are only valid for one year.

    EVERY Iowanwho wants a permit in the next year will have to take and passthe (as yet undefined) training prior to applying . . . that's what the new law says. After that, yes, there will be a 5 year hiatus between individual training requirements . . . but for now, get ready, you will be taking the training if you want one of the new permits. Fortunately, I just renewed mine, so hopefully, a lot of the confusion will be ironed out in the next 8 months to a year.

    The interesting thing will be how the the NRA courses compare to the DPS definedcourses . . . this alone could produce some interesting "fireworks" . . . one would assume that there should be some general agreement as to content, but we'redealing with the gubermint here, so . . . well . . . we'll see I guess.

    The way I read the law...it says "ANY" handgun safety course...Can't imagine DPS than turning around and adding specifics to the courses...?
    States donít have rights. People do.

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

    Post imported post

    mrjam2jab wrote:
    The way I read the law...it says "ANY" handgun safety course...Can't imagine DPS than turning around and adding specifics to the courses...?
    Well . . . technically . . . yes . . . that is true . . . in pertinent part:

    724.9 Firearm training program.
    1. An applicant shall demonstrate knowledge of firearm
    safety by any of the following means:
    a. Completion of any national rifle association handgun
    safety training course.
    b. Completion of any handgun safety training course
    available to the general public offered by a law enforcement
    agency, community college, college, private or public
    institution or organization, or firearms training school,
    utilizing instructors certified by the national rifle
    association or the department of public safety or another
    state's department of public safety, state police department,
    or similar certifying body.
    c. Completion of any handgun safety training course offered
    for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any
    division or subdivision of a law enforcement or security
    enforcement agency approved by the department of public safety.



    BUT . . . it can only be administered either by NRA certified instructors or DPS approved agencies. . . there is no mention of content . . . I can't help but imagine that there will be perceptions one way or another that one or the other is: a) more costly, b) more (unduly) rigorous, c) etc.

    Do you have to PASS these courses, or is it simply a "participation" thing? If you have to pass, what standardsare there for passing?Harder (or easier) for DPS or the NRA? If you fail, one can only assume that the NRA or whoever will be able to charge you again to take the course until you pass, assuming that you have to pass.

    Now here is the really wierd thing:

    2. Evidence of qualification under this section may be
    documented by any of the following:
    a. A photocopy of a certificate of completion or any
    similar document indicating completion of any course or class
    identified in subsection 1.
    b. An affidavit from the instructor, school, organization,
    or group that conducted or taught a course or class identified
    in subsection 1 attesting to the completion of the course or
    class by the applicant.
    c. A copy of any document indicating participation in any
    firearms shooting competition.
    3. An issuing officer shall not condition the issuance of a
    permit on training requirements that are not specified in or
    that exceed the requirements of this section.



    Exactly how participation in a firearms shooting competition can serve as evidence of having taken a handgun safety course is beyond me. So what if you walk into the sheriff's office and show him a certificate of having participated in a CMP shoot at Van Meter, will he accept that? Even though that is rifle competition, the law says ANY firearms shooting competition, not just pistol, etc.

    Time alone will tell . . . but there are plenty of opportunities for this thing to be quite "cumbersome."

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

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    IA_farmboy wrote:
    "Even better if we can do so before the retraining provision of the current bill comes into play in about five years. No one should profit from Iowans exercising their right to self defense."
    Ahhh . . . excuse me but . . . the (re)training requirement will apply to any renewal as well as first time permitees starting Jan 1, 2011¬*. . . meaning anyone who has a valid permit or renewal¬*from now¬*until Dec 31, 2010,¬*will have to take the training¬*by Jan 1, 2011 . . . current permits are only valid for one year.

    EVERY Iowan¬*who wants a permit in the next year will have to take and pass¬*the (as yet undefined) training prior to applying . . . that's what the new law says. After that, yes, there will be a 5 year hiatus between individual training requirements . . . but for now, get ready, you will be taking the training if you want one of the new permits. Fortunately, I just renewed mine, so hopefully, a lot of the confusion will be ironed out in the next 8 months to a year.

    The interesting thing will be how the the NRA courses compare to the DPS defined¬*courses . . . this alone could produce some interesting "fireworks" . . . one would assume that there should be some general agreement as to content, but we're¬*dealing with the gubermint here, so . . . well . . . we'll see I guess.¬*
    I did not say "training or retraining" I specified only "retraining". No one will have to line up a retraining course for about five years since with the eight months for the law to go into effect and the 12 month expiration on the validity of the retraining there is a little less than five years between the initial issue and when one can take a valid retraining course for renewal.

    The training seems to be relatively well defined but it sets a ceiling on the training but no floor. A sheriff could just ask the applicant a few questions and if answered correctly then sign a neat little form stating completion of a certified training course. The bill sets a ceiling by allowing competition between the various state law enforcement entities and the many private entities spelled out in the law. One of those courses stated in the bill that satisfies the training is the NRA Basic Pistol Course, something that has a long history of its stated curriculum. That makes the NRA course a standard to work from for all competing entities. People will have some choice in the training they desire but the sheriff does not. The sheriff can offer their own training but they must also honor the training from another sheriff.

    I kept hearing the claim about how this bill sets a state wide standard on the training but I believe that is very far from the truth. A sheriff has a certain amount of discretion on what training is acceptable. They might get away with demanding more than a certain minimum of training but they cannot set the bar too high without getting slapped around in the courts.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    I did not say "training or retraining" I specified only "retraining". No one will have to line up a retraining course for about five years since with the eight months for the law to go into effect and the 12 month expiration on the validity of the retraining there is a little less than five years between the initial issue and when one can take a valid retraining course for renewal.

    The training seems to be relatively well defined but it sets a ceiling on the training but no floor. A sheriff could just ask the applicant a few questions and if answered correctly then sign a neat little form stating completion of a certified training course. The bill sets a ceiling by allowing competition between the various state law enforcement entities and the many private entities spelled out in the law. One of those courses stated in the bill that satisfies the training is the NRA Basic Pistol Course, something that has a long history of its stated curriculum. That makes the NRA course a standard to work from for all competing entities. People will have some choice in the training they desire but the sheriff does not. The sheriff can offer their own training but they must also honor the training from another sheriff.

    I kept hearing the claim about how this bill sets a state wide standard on the training but I believe that is very far from the truth. A sheriff has a certain amount of discretion on what training is acceptable. They might get away with demanding more than a certain minimum of training but they cannot set the bar too high without getting slapped around in the courts.
    We're probablysplitting hairshere, but anyone who currently has a one year permit, and has not "trained" for several years (with that I mean "their" training, not mine - I train continuously), will have to take "their" retraining immediately to get a permit. Perhaps it is semantics, but from that perspective, the retraining requirement starts Jan 1, 2011, not 5 years from now. In otherwords, all Iowans who want a permit after Jan 1, 2011, will have to go through the training, whether they already have in the past for their current annual permitor not.

    "The training seems to be relatively well defined . . . "

    I don't see how this claim can be made, even when discussing the NRA courses. The NRA courses, from what I have seen, aren't even consistent and vary with the instructor. The sheriff taught course that I took, which Ithought rathergood,had a 1/2 day discussion about the law, responsibilities of the CCW carrier, how to handle encounters with LEO's, etc., some discussion about proper handling (the 5 basic gun handling rules, etc.), and then the afternoon session had supervised live fire on the range, very simple: 3 sets of 5 rounds each at an NRA "B" target from 25 feet - min passing score 70% (pretty easy to do - though one woman in my class failed). None of these type ofdetails of content are even addressed in the new law. And DPS can set completely different standards than the NRA. For all the talk from Iowa Carry of wanting consistent training standards across the state, this lawfellfar short of"consistent."

    "A sheriff could just ask the applicant a few questions and if answered correctly then sign a neat little form stating completion of a certified training course."

    I doubt this would fly, unless the sheriff is "winking"while he does it. . . the law is specific that the course must come from either a certified NRA instructor or someone teaching a courseapproved by the DPS. The sheriff could no doubt meet these requirements, but I don't think the format yououtline herewill be acceptable, as neither the NRA nor the DPS is likely to endorse such a thing.

    "They might get away with demanding more than a certain minimum of training but they cannot set the bar too high without getting slapped around in the courts."

    This is where I think it is going to get interesting . . . the Dubuquegroup of Iowa Carry mentioned that "their" sheriff (notably anti-self defense) has made the comment that "I don't care what the law says" . . . ostensibly this couldmean he will do whatever he can to keep from issuing permits, which could be prettycreative, including "jinking" people around as to what is and is not an acceptable training course. . . They made it sound as if this guy might even be willing to go to court to try and block releasing permits.

    No one yet has provided a good explanation as to how ‚Äúparticipation in any firearms shooting competition‚ÄĚ can be acceptable evidence that you have completed and NRA or DPS handgun course, but that is what the law infers . . .

    The next year or so will prove to be very interesting on several fronts . . . .

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    mrjam2jab wrote:
    The way I read the law...it says "ANY" handgun safety course...Can't imagine DPS than turning around and adding specifics to the courses...?
    Well . . . technically . . . yes . . . that is true . . . in pertinent part:

    724.9 Firearm training program.
    1. An applicant shall demonstrate knowledge of firearm
    safety by any of the following means:
    a. Completion of any national rifle association handgun
    safety training course.
    b. Completion of any handgun safety training course
    available to the general public offered by a law enforcement
    agency, community college, college, private or public
    institution or organization, or firearms training school,
    utilizing instructors certified by the national rifle
    association or the department of public safety or another
    state's department of public safety, state police department,
    or similar certifying body.
    c. Completion of any handgun safety training course offered
    for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any
    division or subdivision of a law enforcement or security
    enforcement agency approved by the department of public safety.



    BUT . . . it can only be administered either by NRA certified instructors or DPS approved agencies. . . there is no mention of content . . . I can't help but imagine that there will be perceptions one way or another that one or the other is: a) more costly, b) more (unduly) rigorous, c) etc.

    Do you have to PASS these courses, or is it simply a "participation" thing? If you have to pass, what standardsare there for passing?Harder (or easier) for DPS or the NRA? If you fail, one can only assume that the NRA or whoever will be able to charge you again to take the course until you pass, assuming that you have to pass.
    I can use myself as an example. CT has similar training requirements IE 'any NRA handgun safety course'. So in order to obtain a CT non-resident license I took the NRA Basic Pistol course...in PA. This course is not state specific. It does not cover any state laws. This is not Pass/Fail, it is merely Certification of Participation. It does involve live fire which is important to some states...It is in CT. A copy of that certificate was proof enough. That same certificate can also be submitted to FL for their license.


    States donít have rights. People do.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    mrjam2jab wrote:
    I can use myself as an example. CT has similar training requirements IE 'any NRA handgun safety course'. So in order to obtain a CT non-resident license I took the NRA Basic Pistol course...in PA. This course is not state specific. It does not cover any state laws. This is not Pass/Fail, it is merely Certification of Participation. It does involve live fire which is important to some states...It is in CT. A copy of that certificate was proof enough. That same certificate can also be submitted to FL for their license.

    I hope you are right and it turns out to be this simple . . .

    SS

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    IA_farmboy wrote:
    I did not say "training or retraining" I specified only "retraining". No one will have to line up a retraining course for about five years since with the eight months for the law to go into effect and the 12 month expiration on the validity of the retraining there is a little less than five years between the initial issue and when one can take a valid retraining course for renewal.

    The training seems to be relatively well defined but it sets a ceiling on the training but no floor. A sheriff could just ask the applicant a few questions and if answered correctly then sign a neat little form stating completion of a certified training course. The bill sets a ceiling by allowing competition between the various state law enforcement entities and the many private entities spelled out in the law. One of those courses stated in the bill that satisfies the training is the NRA Basic Pistol Course, something that has a long history of its stated curriculum. That makes the NRA course a standard to work from for all competing entities. People will have some choice in the training they desire but the sheriff does not. The sheriff can offer their own training but they must also honor the training from another sheriff.

    I kept hearing the claim about how this bill sets a state wide standard on the training but I believe that is very far from the truth. A sheriff has a certain amount of discretion on what training is acceptable. They might get away with demanding more than a certain minimum of training but they cannot set the bar too high without getting slapped around in the courts.
    We're probably¬*splitting hairs¬*here, but anyone who currently has a one year permit, and has not "trained" for several years (with that I mean "their" training, not mine - I train continuously), will have to take "their" retraining immediately to get a permit. Perhaps it is semantics, but from that perspective, the retraining requirement starts Jan 1, 2011, not 5 years from now. In otherwords, all Iowans who want a permit after Jan 1, 2011, will have to go through the training, whether they already have in the past for their current annual permit¬*or not.
    Yes, we are splitting hairs. A person that currently has a permit to carry in Iowa may not have had any formal training. Just because you were required to have training by your sheriff does not mean other sheriffs did as well. Since this law is essentially a fresh start it's either one has had training under this law or not, the retraining provision does not seem to apply for five years. I don't know if the retraining provision would apply, might depend on the sheriff's reading of the law.

    "The training seems to be relatively well defined . . . "

    I don't see how this claim can be made, even when discussing the NRA courses. The NRA courses, from what I have seen, aren't even consistent and vary with the instructor. The sheriff taught course that I took, which I¬*thought rather¬*good,¬*had a 1/2 day discussion about the law, responsibilities of the CCW carrier, how to handle encounters with LEO's, etc., some discussion about proper handling (the 5 basic gun handling rules, etc.), and then the afternoon session had supervised live fire on the range, very simple: 3 sets of 5 rounds each at an NRA "B" target from 25 feet - min passing score 70% (pretty easy to do - though one woman in my class failed). None of these type of¬*details of content are even addressed in the new law. And DPS can set completely different standards than the NRA. For all the talk from Iowa Carry of wanting consistent training standards across the state, this law¬*fell¬*far short of¬*"consistent."
    Perhaps the training is not well defined but the requirement to fulfill that requirement is well defined. This part...

    724.9 Firearm training program.
    1. An applicant shall demonstrate knowledge of firearm
    safety by any of the following means:
    a. Completion of any national rifle association handgun
    safety training course.
    is well defined in that an NRA course covering handgun safety meets that requirement. If the NRA has to come up with a course named "Iowa Handgun Safety Training Course" to appease the powers that be then so be it.


    "A sheriff could just ask the applicant a few questions and if answered correctly then sign a neat little form stating completion of a certified training course."

    I doubt this would fly, unless the sheriff is "winking"¬*while he does it¬*. . . the law is specific that the course must come from either a certified NRA instructor or someone teaching a course¬*approved by the DPS. The sheriff could no doubt meet these requirements, but I don't think the format you¬*outline here¬*will be acceptable, as neither the NRA nor the DPS is likely to endorse such a thing.
    This part of the law...

    c. Completion of any handgun safety training course offered
    for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any
    division or subdivision of a law enforcement or security
    enforcement agency approved by the department of public safety.
    would seem to allow the sheriff to create a course for "special deputies" and offer it as a suitable course for the permit to carry training requirements. I don't know specifics on how it all works but in Iowa the sheriffs are technically employees of the department of public safety so therefore it would seem that an endorsement by a sheriff would seem to be an endorsement by the DPS.

    "They might get away with demanding more than a certain minimum of training but they cannot set the bar too high without getting slapped around in the courts."

    This is where I think it is going to get interesting . . . the Dubuque¬*group of Iowa Carry mentioned that "their" sheriff (notably anti-self defense) has made the comment that "I don't care what the law says" . . . ostensibly this could¬*mean he will do whatever he can to keep from issuing permits, which could be pretty¬*creative, including "jinking" people around as to what is and is not an acceptable training course¬*. . . They made it sound as if this guy might even be willing to go to court to try and block releasing permits.
    There is a simple solution for that, get a different sheriff. There is also the possibility to take the sheriff to court over it. After the court costs involved then it is more likely for the sheriff to get kicked out for spending so much money.

    No one yet has provided a good explanation as to how ‚Äúparticipation in any firearms shooting competition‚ÄĚ can be acceptable evidence that you have completed and NRA or DPS handgun course, but that is what the law infers . . .
    I don't understand it either but I'm not going to complain about it. Are you complaining about it?

    The next year or so will prove to be very interesting on several fronts . . . .
    No doubt.

    However you want to slice it we need constitutional carry. That is where we need to go instead of dwelling on the specifics of this bill.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    No one yet has provided a good explanation as to how ‚Äúparticipation in any firearms shooting competition‚ÄĚ can be acceptable evidence that you have completed and NRA or DPS handgun course, but that is what the law infers . . .
    I don't understand it either but I'm not going to complain about it. Are you complaining about it?

    The next year or so will prove to be very interesting on several fronts . . . .
    No doubt.

    However you want to slice it we need constitutional carry. That is where we need to go instead of dwelling on the specifics of this bill.
    "I don't understand it either but I'm not going to complain about it. Are you complaining about it?"

    No . . . quite the contrary . . . I see it as an inadvertent "loophole," which I am willing to try to exploit to the fullest. I plan on submitting a certificate of "participation in any firearms shooting competition" and seeing where it gets me. I'll be happy to report how that turns out.

    "However you want to slice it we need constitutional carry."

    As in the past, even now I maintain the same . . . and have never veered from that course.

    "That is where we need to go instead of dwelling on the specifics of this bill."

    I would respectfully dissagree, as the flaws in this bill are now the flaws in the law . . . this is no different than the position taken by all when we were "may issue" . . . we point out the flaws in the law to pursuade lawmakers and others to pursue change. I know you say this to try and deflect attention away from NRA/Iowa Carry, which is noble, but I can't change the fact that they are the ones that agreed to this. I believe you will now see a "split" within the ranks of that group, because there will be many who will say "what we have now is good enough," and others who will say "we need to make the law better by removing some of the flaws" (or move to "constitutional carry" as you have).This will cause a dilution of the pressure to change the law that we had before this . . . this is one of the fallicies of "changing the law gradually" . . . you lose activitists as you go.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    In the news, the bill now has officially been signed:
    http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/...n-permit-state

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    I would respectfully dissagree, as the flaws in this bill are now the flaws in the law . . . this is no different than the position taken by all when we were "may issue" . . . we point out the flaws in the law to pursuade lawmakers and others to pursue change. I know you say this to try and deflect attention away from NRA/Iowa Carry, which is noble, but I can't change the fact that they are the ones that agreed to this.
    No deflection intended. I would rather not cry over spilled milk and dwell on the past. I prefer to look to the future and make plans to improve the law. The only "flaw" in this law I care about is that it requires a permit to carry a tool of self defense. No need to discuss any detail beyond that, IMHO of course.

    I believe you will now see a "split" within the ranks of that group, because there will be many who will say "what we have now is good enough," and others who will say "we need to make the law better by removing some of the flaws" (or move to "constitutional carry" as you have). This will cause a dilution of the pressure to change the law that we had before this . . . this is one of the fallicies of "changing the law gradually" . . . you lose activitists as you go.
    It is probably true that we will lose some activism and activists because of this compromise law. I don't believe we will lose enough to kill constitutional carry in the near future. We saw quite the support for constitutional carry in the legislature and it has become a topic of discussion in the governor primary race. If we can keep it a topic through the election then we might just see constitutional carry happen next year.

    On some level I share your fear of the "good enough" mentality killing any momentum in constitutional carry but this is gaining momentum throughout the nation. People will see this in the national news for a while thanks to Arizona. Other states are picking up on this too. Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont were all mentioned in the debates I heard on the House floor. History shows that constitutional carry "works" and it is going to be hard for anyone to debate that Iowa is somehow "different".

  24. #24
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Congratulations to my brothers and sisters in LIBERTY in the Republic of Iowa! One more step closer to being able to carry without permission!:celebrate
    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE[/COLOR] with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTYhttp://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH TELEPHONE: +1(800)808-KIWI that's +1(800)808-5494 Tollfree. "NewZealander By Birth, American By The Grace Of God." See also http://www.facebook.com/NewZealandAmerican & http://RTR.org/NewZealandAmerican ďIN MEMORY OF OUR GOD, OUR RELIGION, AND FREEDOM, AND OUR PEACE, OUR WIVES, AND OUR CHILDREN" (The Title Of LIBERTY)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Waukee, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    New to the site here. Have a question, now I am in Dallas County and the last re qualification I did in Jan. I got grandfathered in so I would no longer have to qualify. Just go down to the sheriffs office and pay my money. Does this mean that I am no longer grandfathered in? Also, my father has his cc and has been grandfathered in for over 10 years, what does this mean for him?

    Regards

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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