|
Post by yammerschooner on Feb 14, 2010 21:10:50 GMT -6
As a followup post, here is one that may have more direct impact on those of you who coyote hunt. Did you know that the loaded AR-15 magazine you keep in your case or the loaded pistol mags you keep in your range bag on the way to the range are considered on the same level as loaded, operational firearms? One of the pieces of legislation Iowa Carry is pushing would make it so that detachable magazines would not be considered loaded weapons. I don't know how many of you coyote hunt with an AR, but I imagine it would be easier to keep those mags separate from the firearm and not have to load and unload them every time you step in or out of the vehicle. You can use their "legislator contact" page to let your opinion on that be known too. www.capwiz.com/iowacarry/issues/bills/?bill=14658816Happy hunting.
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 14, 2010 21:40:58 GMT -6
Being a newbie you probably do not know me. I am a Deputy Sheriff and very supportive of a persons right to bear arms.
However I will try to address some of the issues in your very lengthy but well spoken and informed post.
The only reason I think a permit is important is that the person carrying has had to go through a process to get it. The most important part of that process being the training. I agree with Iowa Carry that this should be more uniform. I should be able to look at someone toting gun and know that they have shown an understanding of force, and use of the weapon they carry. We don't need any cowboys jumping up and shooting in the middle of a property crime, and if they do shoot they better be able to hit what they are shooting at. I would personally require permit holders to re certify with their weapon one time every say, four years.
As far as grossly overplayed knowledge of constituents is concerned, that likely varies from County to County. I work very rural areas, predominantly Tama, Grundy, Hardin, Marshall and Powesheik Counties. I can promise you that the Sheriffs in those areas know a large majority of their constituents. They also know alot about them.
My Sheriff gets input from us occasionally on permit holders who have come to our attention for various reasons. Sometimes he asks the permit holder to come in so he can hear his side of the story, other times he flat out just takes away the permit.
I understand why Iowa Carry wants the Sheriff to justify why the permit is not issued but I greatly oppose it. The reason being, I have many times worked very long term drug investigations. I am talking several years. I have had on occasion people come in to get permits who were targets or close associates/suspects in such criminal organizations. I have very covertly interfered with those permits. To give them appeal process exposes the fact that an investigation is underway. To give them the permit is irresponsible, and maybe even an entrapment offense later down the road if their drug case has a gun enhancement or goes Federal.
Admittedly the majority of permits that are refused are for substance abuse issues, mental issues, etc and could be openly discussed. However the few times you wouldn't want the person to know why because it threatens an investigation that has hundreds of man hours dedicated to it, countless money invested in it, and possibly the safety of informants or undercover officers is a pretty doggone big deal.
If you guys made a difference in Johnson Country I applaud you. I also urge you to do more of the same. The fellow I spoke to the other day told me they "watched" the race in Mahaska County and supported the candidate who was challenging. I'm not talking about back slappin and attaboying your favorite candidate, I'm talking about advertising your issue and making it a wedge issue that the voters know about.
Also I am talking about your group finding candidates to challenge the Sheriff who will not issue permits in a primary race, and when or if the incumbent Sheriff wins that turn around and throw a challenger at him from the other party in the general. If you could pull that off these guys will get tired of campaigning. You may soften some of them to your views. A candidate does not have to spend a lot to run for a county race and make himself a pain in the rear to a Sheriff.
If you really want to throw a wild card into a Sheriffs race in the smaller more rural counties, throw an Independent candidate into a general race that has candidates on both sides. These little County races that are sometimes decided by hundreds of votes get pretty dicey when you start doing that.
I do not want a State Bureaucracy running things like this. It's not about power for the Sheriff with me, it's about power for the tax payers. I have direct power over my elected Sheriff. I have very little voice with some State agency and sure's heck I can't walk down the street and speak with them face to face anytime I want.
Don't judge the rest of the 98 counties by what you see in Des Moines. Just look at the immigration issue alone and that Sheriff is totally off base from the majority of Iowa Sheriff's.
Why are you guys at Iowa Carry afraid to target these guys and either put them out of office or put enough heat on them to affect change?
How many Sheriff's are there in Iowa who are not issuing permits? Or are barely issuing them??
I keep hearing about those guys lets see a number.
You seem to be wired in to this group pretty close. How bout a list of the Sheriffs who would be considered to issue no permits, or very few. I can name a few, but I'd like to see the big picture here.
Then how about another list of those Sheriff's who issue permits freely to law abiding citizens. I never get to hear about those guys from your group, and that frankly bothers me because you are forcing these Sheriffs into a situation where they are lumped in with those that they likely disagree with on most of these issues, but are in agreement with them on some.
|
|
|
Post by yammerschooner on Feb 15, 2010 0:43:23 GMT -6
OK, I will take a crack at this. Please let me know if I fail to address any of your points that we fail to match up on. I agree that knowledge of constituents varies from county to county. Bill Kearns in Clarke County knows much more about me than Bill McCarthy does here at home in Polk County. While that knowledge is nice, I do not believe that one’s suspicions of an individual should trump that individual’s ability to exercise the same rights as every other Iowan. In short, I am a firm believer that people are innocent until proven guilty. I am of the belief that only once a person has been convicted of an action that shows they are unfit, or once a person has been adjudicated incompetent should they be denied rights that should be applied evenly across our populace. An authority figure “thinking” that a person is bad should not be enough. I am not naïve; I realize there are bad people out there who have not been caught or have not been legally shown to be incompetent. I didn’t see my father most of the time while I was growing up because he spent all of the hours I was not at school working vice/narcotics here in Des Moines. From him, I realize that LEO knows who the bad guys are long before a case is ever put together. My argument in cases where those bad guys apply for a permit relates more to the validity of the license. If a permit is not valid when a person is committing a crime, which it isn’t, then your concerns about these individuals having permits should not be an issue. Since the permit wouldn’t be valid due to the illegal activity, gun enhancement should still apply. It should be hard to argue entrapment if the Sheriff’s office was issuing as required by law. The fact that discretion didn’t exist would throw the idea of entrapment out the window. In fact, issuing a permit due to “shall issue” might even throw up fewer flags in a bad guy’s mind than a denial. While I cannot say Johnson is without a doubt a result of Iowa Carry’s efforts in this state, I do know that policies changed there after many in our organization used them as a talking point for why Iowa should change. While I would like to claim causation, my argument is more one of correlation. I do know that as the carry issue has been more vocalized, more offices that were not issuing have started to issue. In addition to Johnson, I am aware there have been reports of recent loosening of policies in Mahaska and Linn Counties. By putting pressure on Sheriffs via legislative pressure to change, reform can be made at a much more sweeping level than could ever be made by addressing offending counties individually, with much less overall cost. More importantly, it is the organization’s goal to make permanent changes that cannot be washed away in the next election cycle. Individual rights should not be dependent on who is currently in office, which dictates a focus other than disrupting specific races. Plus, inserting the group into political races makes it a partisan issue. It shouldn’t be. If legislation is passed, it will need bipartisan support, especially considering the strength of the Democratic Party in Iowa. My support of the goals I share with Iowa Carry goes beyond the “attaboy” approach. For example, I attended my local party caucuses a few weeks ago and put forth planks for my district that “Shall Issue” should be adopted into Iowa law. The wording I took into that meeting was directly copied and pasted from other individuals at Iowa Carry who were doing the same. That said, Iowa Carry needs to do much more to organize their efforts outside of the legislative sessions. At the end of the day, it is a young organization that is still trying to figure out how to herd the cats that are its members. Finally getting the NRA to show interest in Iowa has been something that has been worked on before this year. As recently as a year ago last December, the NRA was noncommittal in requests to support “Shall Issue” in Iowa, arguing that the system wasn’t broken, or that changing the laws was an avenue to even worse issue policies once the can of worms was opened. I know because I worked a gun show for Iowa Carry at that time. While not an adversarial relationship, there was not much fruitful communication between the two groups. I am not sure where you are getting a new State bureaucracy becoming involved in the process. The changes being proposed do not take permit issuance out of the hands of the Sheriff. They only take discretion out of the picture and put a uniform standard in place. Finally, you asked about Sheriffs who were not issuing permits or barely issuing them. The most comprehensive feedback I can give you is in the color-coded map at the following location. It also provides an idea of who is issuing: www.iowacarry.org/county.php The information is provided by a myriad of individuals at the county level where there is varying levels of support, so some of it will lack completeness. If you were willing to use your unique position to add to the completeness or help correct mistakes on that map or in the county forums, I am sure it would be greatly appreciated. More specific information about each county can be found in the county specific forums sections. I agree with you wholeheartedly that they need to do more to recognize the Sheriff’s who are issuing. I concur that failure to vocally do so is doing their cause no good. I hope I have addressed everything. I understand that there are certain areas where we will have to agree to disagree, but I urge you to call me out if you feel I have slighted any of your concerns. I should probably point out once again that I am not in the know for this organization as far as what their future plans are. It is just a cause I have a great deal of support for, and likewise, tend to keep up on. If I haven’t answered one of your questions and can point you in the direction of someone who knows more than I, please let me know. Thanks for your response. I have enjoyed the opportunity of this exchange, albeit I didn’t expect it to be my first, second, and third posts on a new-to-me website. If I ever make it back out to Crow’s Shooting Supply or Brownells it would be fun to meet up with you for lunch or something. Take care.
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 15, 2010 8:35:47 GMT -6
My point as to a State Bureaucracy is just a personal opinion. I feel that if you take away the discretion of the Sheriff, then why have him involved in the process at all? Several times in conversations over the years about this I have heard people point out that they should not need a piece of paper from a Sheriff to exercise a right. Frankly I agree with that basic point from a Constitutional standpoint.
So if Iowa Carry is gonna go for it at the State level then why still have the Sheriff issue the permits? To me, if I am a Sheriff and your group forces me to issue permits, but does not allow me to weed out people that are an obvious threat then I want to be out of the process.
I heard one of your groups founders say on the radio the other day that only convicted felons should be excluded. To me that is the group's goal since he said it on the Jan Michealson show.
A few years back I interfered with a permit being sought by a fellow who is really a nice guy. No criminal record, would never steal, gainfully employed. To talk to him he comes off as pretty normal until you talk with him for very long. Then you find that he thinks he is a member of a "Black Ops" secret group of agents, and he even has business cards that he carries.
Do you really want this guy packing a gun concealed? I know if he really wants to he will carry concealed anyway. Should we really force our Sheriff's to give him a permit? Without the process that is currently in place he would qualify. I know him very well and I can tell you that him being armed is an unpredictable situation.
That permit is the Sheriff vouching for the permit holder. The Sheriff's signature is the vouching for the fact that this guy is unlikely to be unpredictable. We have the training so that we are all on the same page as far as use of force. Start throwing in guys who think they are secret agents and you toss in a wild card that could go off at any time.
I am not opposed to the State saying this guy and all guys like him qualify to carry concealed because our only standard is a felony conviction. I am opposed to continuing to make a Sheriff sign a permit that he would disagree with.
So why does the Iowa Carry group try to pass a Statewide standard yet still concede that Sheriff's would issue the permits?
I agree also that people are innocent until proven guilty. However in many cases I personally KNOW that a person is guilty because I have personally bought dope from them or the Feds are up on their phones and recording them order up dope, guns etc.
In many of these long term investigations we want the whole group, not just one person in the group. That takes time, sometimes months up to a year or more. I have seen at times that we will maintain an investigation until this person or that person crosses over to US soil where they can be arrested because they are the head of the drug cartels, etc.
If you put an appeals process into the mix, if I were the head of a drug group I would send my guys in to apply for permits just to force the Sheriff to expose why he doesn't think my guys qualify.
I will tell you this would be an extremely minute number of permit applications, but as an investigator the "appeals" process that Iowa Carry advocates scares the hell out of me due to its potential.
So I guess I do not understand why Iowa Carry wants to keep the Sheriff in this process. To me you either give him discretion or take him out of the process completely. If you take him out completely you are now dealing with a State org issuing permits blindly to all who are not felons.
If you leave the Sheriff in the process, then you are conceding that there needs to be some form of local control over the permits.
Iowa Carry can't have it both ways nor should they try.
The bottom line is, I bet every single one of us knows a person who is not a felon, who would carry if the law allowed, but is unstable to the point that it would concern us that he or she is consistently armed. Criminals will carry anyway, but there is a lot of people out there who are law abiding, but frankly should not be walking around armed.
Being armed is one hell of a responsibility. Unstable people who sometimes make quick unstable decisions in life can take it to a whole new level if a gun is right at hand. Those are the kind of people the Sheriff should be taking out of the process.
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 15, 2010 8:53:35 GMT -6
By the way welcome to the forum and thanks for the well worded dialogue.
As to the entrapment defense we have been speaking of, if I have knowledge that a person is engaged in bad acts and stand by thus allowing them to get a permit I promise you it would get used against me in a gun enhancement or ATF gun/drug case.
In rural counties its not just the Sheriff involved in the permit process. They often ask their Deputies about people who are seeking permits. So if someones name comes to me and I have been buying dope from them, I cannot "not" say anything. I owe it to the public and also to the legal gun owners to interfere with this persons permit process.
I cannot speak for all, but I do not want reckless or unpredictable people carrying guns not only for our safety, but also for the legal and responsible gun owners sake. It hurts us all when someone does something off the wall with a gun.
|
|
|
Post by roosterk0031 on Feb 15, 2010 9:34:24 GMT -6
Did you know that the loaded AR-15 magazine you keep in your case or the loaded pistol mags you keep in your range bag on the way to the range are considered on the same level as loaded, operational firearms? One of the pieces of legislation Iowa Carry is pushing would make it so that detachable magazines would not be considered loaded weapons. I don't know how many of you coyote hunt with an AR, but I imagine it would be easier to keep those mags separate from the firearm and not have to load and unload them every time you step in or out of the vehicle. 9 out of 10 coyote chasers I know only get out of their truck to pick something up. Paying the fine once every few years is just part of game. I'll go along with AR-15 mags being covered by a CCW permit, like handgun mags are, when I see a concealable AR15. Loaded mag is a loaded gun, 2 seconds to slap & rack is the same as loaded. #1 reason I'm out of I.C.
|
|
|
Post by yammerschooner on Feb 17, 2010 0:15:32 GMT -6
K9, I believe (but am not sure) the idea behind not getting a new state bureaucracy has something to do with not needing an other administrative group out there making rules via interpretation. You even said that you really don't want another state bureaucracy out there in your prior post. I guess I am not understanding how a sheriff's signature on a license would be condoning anything other than a person meeting legal requirements as spelled out under Iowa law. Having a sheriff verify that shouldn't require a new bureaucracy and be taxpayer friendly.
I would go into a lengthy post about due process and when a person should be considered guilty and denied equal application of rights, but I think we are both pretty clear on where each other stand on that, so I won't. I am not saying that I do not understand what you are saying.
What it comes down to for me is this. If sheriffs would have uniformly been issuing permits to qualified, stable, law abiding citizens in the first place, this would have never become an issue. There would not have been a wheel to squeak enough for anyone to feel like it needed fixing. I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty that the people I have personally met at Iowa Carry are not "black ops" individuals. Most of the ones I have met were consistently denied permits to the point it brought them to action. Some people may believe that denying these stable, law abiding, individuals equal access to a right other Iowans are able to exercise is worth it. I am not one. My ability to arm against criminals who would ignore the law and "black ops" individuals who may or may not normally be law-abiding should be the same as everyone else's in this state.
The entrapment defense and appeals seem to be a major hangup. I would really like to know what kind of statistical history this is based on, much like you were curious about which sheriffs were issuing and which ones weren't. Since Iowa is not currently a "shall issue" state and it would not be possible to site problems at the federal level due to the current state of Iowa law, I am wondering where this has become an issue in the 36 states that currently do have shall issue laws. Just as importantly, I am wondering why Susan Cameron, a lobbyist who received 50k from the ISSDA last year to combat issues exactly like shall issue, has not been parading these statistics to anyone who would listen. Do you have statistics or other citable information based on the aggregated experience of those 36 shall issue states?
Some day I am actually going to get around to asking about how much time I should expect from ice out to beaver fur springiness when given a winter as harsh as this one, but hopefully you will add that as an addendum to your response. I haven't gotten a consistent sense yet, and today I asked a conservation officer.
roosterk0031,
First, I will clarify that I know you believe a loaded mag is a loaded gun and it is the #1 reason you are out of IC. That is fine, and I have no issues with that choice or position.
Second, I am wondering if you spent the same amount of time informing yourself about the legislation I mentioned as you did responding to the post, since the legislation I mentioned has nothing to do with concealed weapons, which you said was your hangup when you posted, "I'll go along with AR-15 mags being covered by a CCW permit, like handgun mags are, when I see a concealable AR15."
Once again, I understand that you believe that a loaded magazine is a loaded gun, so you wouldn't support the legislation anyway.
Also, how is the logic about unethical coyote hunters that you use any different than saying, "I do not believe 220s should be set anywhere other than under water because unethical trappers might set them too close to where people have pets if the law allowed us to put them on the ground"?
Why should a person not be allowed to load their magazines, put them in a range bag, and go to the range without breaking the law? You have already articulated that people who are going to break the law are going to break the law anyway.
Why not make it less of a pain in the rear for those with good intentions who do follow laws?
K9, let me know if I am being perceived as stirring the pot and I will be happy to stick with trapping. I realize that I am a newb, and as such may not be engaging in acceptable behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Horn on Feb 17, 2010 4:47:35 GMT -6
yammerschooner, Welcome.
I have read some of your other posts on another site and thank you for the work done at IC.
As far as the Beaver Quality after Ice out: Good luck getting a definite answer LOL. I know Dale spent a bunch of seasons trapping spring beaver in SE Iowa he may have an answer.
Again Welcome aboard
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Feb 17, 2010 8:14:26 GMT -6
K9, let me know if I am being perceived as stirring the pot and I will be happy to stick with trapping. I realize that I am a newb, and as such may not be engaging in acceptable behavior. You're doing just fine. I can see very good points on both sides of this discussion. Bruce has thick skin, he can handle a difference of opinion. ~ADC~
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 17, 2010 13:34:09 GMT -6
Yammer you are not going to offend me so don't sweat it. I always appreciate good two way dialogue and that never happens if both sides agree all the time.
I cannot offer you any statistics on entrapment defenses related to shall issue permits. It is something I foresee from my experience in being hammered upon by both State and Federal level defense attorneys over the years. When you start getting many years of experience you can see obvious issues over the horizon that the defense will use. Be careful when you ask law enforcement officers in your org or opposing orgs questions about such things. Just because they have a badge does not mean they have a lot of court experience. Doesn't mean guys like me are better than them, but we do have different experience than them. If you get ahold of someone who has done a lot of gun/drug cases at the Fed and State level you will be dealing with someone who has a lot of experience with gun crimes that may involve defendants who have little or no real criminal history. So I'm not talking ACC offenders, I'm talking folks who could likely score a permit under a "felons only" disqualification.
As to your other point, I flat out do not want a State agency handling this. However if you are going to involve the Sheriff than he should have some say, otherwise he is just a Secretary shuffling permit paperwork.
I feel that any law abiding citizen who can show he or she is able to handle a firearm and use of force responsibly has a duty to carry for their own safety and the safety of the general public. THAT is my personal standard that I would set if I were king for a day. So the rub is who is to decide which people are responsible and which are not? The Sheriff is the ideal IF all Sheriff's would start out from a uniform place like your group is advocating.
So why not split this up?
Allow the State to issue concealed carry permits to all non felons who apply.
Those permit applicants then go through a uniform NRA type certification process the same in every county.
Once the permit is obtained, allow the Sheriff the ability to revoke permits in his County on a case by case basis.
I do not like the State issuing permits but would concede that point if the Sheriff can weed out the few that would makes things bad for the rest of us. The "Black Ops" guys who went undetected.
This will keep the Sheriff in line. To deny someone something is different than taking away something they already have. If normal guys walk in with permit in hand, and that Sheriff takes it away, it will move them to act in pretty strong political ways. Right now they are just grumbling. Take away something they have earned and paid for, besides the fact that it is a right of theirs, and you will see some guys who will elect that Sheriff out of office.
This would force the Sheriff to target those few permit holders who are real problems, and leave the others alone. It would take a Sheriff with a big brass set hanging down pretty low to start taking away permits the general public has already earned. So he will only take the ones away that he can justify, which is how it should be.
If there is an appeals process put into place I will not like it, due to the potential it will have to hurt some investigations. Again I cannot give you examples of this happening, but with my battle scars I can sure see the land mines up ahead without stepping on one. Most of the time the appeals process with hurt nothing, but there is potential in occasional investigations for this to be a pitfall.
So fellas, to summarize the State issues permits to all who apply who are not felons, then the Sheriff sorts out the problem children in the end. When guys have time and money invested in that permit that they hold in hand, that Sheriff better have a darn good reason for denying them.
You will get the public more "invested" this way which will hold the Sheriff accountable.
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 21, 2010 16:59:17 GMT -6
I got an email from the Sheriffs and Deputies Assoc asking me to support them on this. I pointed out to them that they need to take a leadership role and make the training universal. They responded that they are looking into that.
I also told them that they are the ideal group to hold the Sheriffs accountable who refuse to issue permits or are issuing an unreasonably low number of them. I pointed out to them that while I oppose "Shall issue" laws regarding permits, I oppose "no issue" counties even more.
The response I got on that is that it is hard for one Sheriff or a group of Sheriffs to force this issue on one Sheriff. The reason being, that those Sheriffs who refuse to issue permits claim that it what the majority of their tax payers in the County they represent want.
While I hate to agree with that, they have a case to be made there. A County elected official should be concerned with his tax payers and frankly the rest of us can pound sand. Even Iowa Carry admits that they cannot get the voters in certain counties motivated on this issue.
How Iowa Carry makes this an issue is by advertising in those counties during elections, or by bringing forth candidates for that office who will make this a wedge issue between they and the sitting Sheriff.
Just wanted to share what the response was and my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by yammerschooner on Feb 27, 2010 0:20:20 GMT -6
Thanks for sharing.
While you may hate to agree with them, I am glad that our system is set up to be somewhat cognizant and supportive of the rights of the minority. If the majority always ruled, we would have far fewer rights today. While a majority may believe a given proposition, that does not necessarily make said proposition right.
Considering the increasing urbanization of our population, a majority rules attitude would probably be a bad thing for trappers as well.
I hope the day doesn't come when a bunch of folks who have limited experience with a rural environment are able to tell trappers to pound sand in the same manner.
Speaking of which, have you been watching what has been happening with DNR lately? It is my understanding, albeit secondhand, that the new law enforcement bureau chief, Robert Garrison, has only purchased a fishing license for six out of the last 10 years and has never had a hunting license.
I imagine there has got to be someone on this site that can debunk these assertions and the uncomfortable feeling I get from such a proposition, given the tenor of this thread. If someone has more firsthand knowledge than I, it would make me very happy to be called ignorant of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Feb 27, 2010 11:37:02 GMT -6
If that is true about Garrison it is interesting indeed, and would be of concern.
I will openly admit to you to being very conflicted on your other point. I do believe that the majority especially a local majority like a County should have first say as to what goes on within their County. However I also believe that it is every responsible persons duty to go armed.
If a majority of an elected official's constituents stand for something, I think that elected official is duty bound to represent them.
We see that rule get broken and bent all the time though at all levels of politics.
|
|
|
Post by Scott W. on Feb 27, 2010 12:16:02 GMT -6
The difference between elected officials is that the sheriff is elected to enforce the law, not write it like a representative, or interpret it like a judge. It really isn't his choice whether he agrees or disagrees with a certain law, he is duty bound to uphold it. I'm also in favor of supporting the rights of the minority, because more and more the majority is losing touch with the things many of us feel have made this country great. BTW thanks for a great discussion on this subject everyone. Scott
|
|