Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Estherville Daily - Emmet County thinks they can get away with preemption violation

  1. #1
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,601

    Estherville Daily - Emmet County thinks they can get away with preemption violation

    http://www.esthervilledailynews.com/...raws-fire.html

    SNIP

    While it wasn't on the agenda, a proposed ban of concealed weapons on county property already started to draw interest from concealed carry advocates at Tuesday's Emmet County Board of Supervisors meeting.

    Brian Forney, Larry Walders and Moriah Hawn asked the board to not ban concealed carry on county property. Sheriff Mike Martens and County Attorney Doug Hansen are drafting a resolution that would do just that.

    "Such a ban would be illegal under the new law," said Walders.

    Forney pointed to provisions in the Iowa Code limiting how local governments can regulate concealed carry. He pointed particularly to 724.28, Prohibition of regulation by political subdivisions: "A political subdivision of the state shall not enact an ordinance regulating the ownership, possession, legal transfer, lawful transportation, registration, or licensing of firearms when the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state. An ordinance regulating firearms in violation of this section existing on or after April 5, 1990, is void."

    "The right to self-defense shouldn't stop just because you cross some magical line," Forney said.

    . . .

  2. #2
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,250
    Many Iowa Sheriffs are just sore over having their power reigned in. Before shall issue began, CCW's were something only cronies and campaign contributers could get. Now they can't "sell" the people their rights, and they are more than pissed off about it.

    If you ask anyone from any state that transitioned from May issue to shall issue, they will almost all say that what Iowans are going through is an inevitable part of the transition. Your elected local officials were mostly a part of the old way, and they liked the old way. They like arbitrary power. as time goes on, new officials will eventually take office and the new way will be the only way they have known. It will probably take the better part of the next ten years before shall issue finally sinks in.

    The resistance you are facing is also something many of us in Nevada are still dealing with. Here, we have two cities and a county commission dedicated to finding any legal loop holes they can to keep preempted firearms restrictions viable. They hate guns, but they hate having their power taken away more. Keep the pressure on your elected officials. Constantly remind them who they work for and who pays their salaries. Do not let up, to do so would invite your officials to make spaghetti out of your laws, no one would know where their gun rights began and where they ended.

    The last thing you need is to have to have a set of rules that applies to Burlington, but changes when you get to West Burlington, and then change again when you get to middle town, only to again be different when you get to Danville, then New London, then Oh, wait, now they're different in Mt. Pleasant, **** now I gotta take the round out of the chamber because i'm in in Fairfield. But then I can put it back in when I get to Ottumwa, as long as it's not in the car.

    My solution when local governments opt to ignore laws preempted by the state, and this goes for all states not just Iowa; A civil penalty for violation should be charged to the local government or institution that willfully violated state preemption. To make it even better would be to make a civil penalty payable to anyone wrongfully arrested and charged with a crime that is specifically preempted.

    So the state doesn't prohibit lawful carry in a park, but Burlington gives the state the finger and arrests you for being armed in Crapo park on a Sunday afternoon. How would Burlington like to pay you a $100,000 civil penalty? Even better, lets say the arrest is one violation, then when charges are filed, thats a second violation, now you just got two civil penalties. I'll even take it one step farther. The officer who made the arrest must be made liable for 25% of the penalty, and for the charges being filed, the prosecutor who put their name on the indictment would be liable for 25% of the second penalty. Hit'em where it hurts, the coffers. I bet you would find fewer officers and prosecutors willing to put their lively hood on the line just because their boss told them to do something against the law. The reason these preemption violations are still happening isn't because they are without merit, it's because there is no penalty for violating preemption. Make it hurt.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    405
    My solution when local governments opt to ignore laws preempted by the state, and this goes for all states not just Iowa; A civil penalty for violation should be charged to the local government or institution that willfully violated state preemption. To make it even better would be to make a civil penalty payable to anyone wrongfully arrested and charged with a crime that is specifically preempted.
    I would not make it a civil penalty, I'd make it a criminal penalty. Any government official that disarms a person in violation of state law is acting under "color of law" while violating a person's rights. Any police officer that enforces a city ordinance that is in violation of state code should be threatened with jail time in county lock-up. Whether or not they actually get jail time will be left up to the judge.

    Make it hurt.
    Jail time would hurt.

  4. #4
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,133
    If passed you should protest by carrying openly. Every reference in the article refer to concealed weapons.

Posting Permissions

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