mrjam2jab
Regular Member
imported post
IA_farmboy wrote:
IA_farmboy wrote:
Code:b. Completion of any firearms safety or firearms training 5 5 course available to the general public offered by a law 5 6 enforcement agency, community college, college, private or 5 7 public institution or organization, or firearms training 5 8 school utilizing instructors certified by the national rifle 5 9 association or the department of public safety or another 5 10 state's department of public safety, state police department, 5 11 or similar certifying body.The problem I have is that the sheriff would still be the person interpreting this portion of the code since he or she would still be the person issuing the permits. A sheriff, as the head of a law enforcement division within the state, would have the power to offer a training course to the public under this provision. The sheriff can simply waive any training by offering "training" that consists of nothing more than submitting the application.
There is no guidance in the provision on what constitutes minimum required training. It does set a maximum through some very plain language which should prevent sheriffs from denying permits based on an onerous and/or arbitrary and capricious training requirement. It seems that Mr. Burris agreed with my assessment of the language.
Mr. Burris did explain that the intent was to avoid the imposition of training that was onerous, arbitrary, capricious, etc. and the continuation of "may issue" by this means while still providing that people applying for a permit did in fact get training prior to getting a permit. While I believe that the proposed bill did avoid the imposition of impossible to obtain training it failed in assuring applicants did show proper aptitude prior to receiving a permit.
There are a few solutions that I can see to this problem. One is to remove any ambiguity to the training requirement. Place specific forms of training that would be acceptable and the specific paperwork that would be required to prove one had obtained that training. Another possibility is to have a single person or group be responsible to decide on proper training. This would likely mean that the sheriffs would not be issuing the permits but instead some statewide entity. My favorite solution is to simply remove the training requirement.
Before people have a heart attack over the last sentence I'd like to point out that I am not opposed to people obtaining training before carrying a weapon, in fact I encourage it. What I have seen happen in Iowa and other states is that when training is required it tends to devolve into arbitrary requirements to obtain a permit which results in "may issue" or, some kind of rationing scheme (since training would only be offered to so many people over time),
This brings me back to the confusion over recognition of the Iowa permit to carry in other states. If I found this issue in the bill then I would assume that some Attorney General in another state would find it also. If the goal was to have a minimum set of training to appease the powers that be so that Iowans can carry weapons while traveling out of the state then it would seem that this provision has failed.
This is all just a bunch of thinking out loud since I doubt my concerns will be met in the current sausage making session. I'm hoping that by posting my thoughts here I can help in making any future proposals to the Iowa legislature a stronger protection to our rights.
The proposed training requirements seem to be on par with the requirements of many other states from what I have seen.
FL Question #6
and
Connecticut:successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association,
Maine:Demonstrates to the issuing authority a knowledge of handgun safety. The applicant may fully satisfy this requirement by submitting to the issuing authority, through documentation in accordance with this subparagraph, proof that the applicant has within 5 years prior to the date of application completed a course that included handgun safety offered by or under the supervision of a federal, state, county or municipal law enforcement agency or a firearms instructor certified by a private firearms association recognized as knowledgeable in matters of firearms safety by the issuing authority or by the state in which the course was taken. A course completion certificate or other document, or a photocopy, is sufficient if it recites or otherwise demonstrates that the course meets all of the requirements of this subparagraph.
as examples.
Its general enough that anybody can get it done. And a certificate of completion is required to be submitted with the application. Specific training, as you suggest, is pretty much what is in place now with the WP0 form, isnt it?
ETA: Dont know why my response (bolded) wound up inside the quote box...i know i was outside of it when i started typing....