Another Sheriff hits the panic button

Sheriff Mike Johnstone of Des Moines County does not believe that you have the ability to safely carry a firearm in government buildings. As he put it in today's edition of The HawkEye, “It's a recipe for disaster.”

In other words, Sheriff Johnstone joins a small but vocal group of Sheriffs who say they will support the new law and carry out their orders, but will do so while spreading FUD among the citizens and politicians about how bad the law is.

Unfortunately, they do not have the statistics to back up their claims. Iowa is the 39th state to go to a “Shall Issue” system. None of the other 38 states has seen the problems that some of our Iowa Sheriffs are worrying about ever materialize. In fact, those states have seen the opposite happen, as Shall Issue has continued to gain acceptance across the country with no “blood in the streets” or “shootouts over parking spaces” noted.

The article goes on to say:

Since he cannot stop it, Johnstone said he wants to raise awareness about the law change so people will "not be shocked" seeing a civilian with a loaded pistol in the courthouse or any other public building or area.

The only reason people would be shocked is due to the simple fact that our rights have been stomped on for so long, we've forgotten what it means to exercise them. But again, that is no different than the battles that took place in every other state that went down this path before Iowa. Furthermore, most law-abiding citizens prefer to carry their weapons concealed, so how would people even be alarmed by seeing a “loaded pistol” when that pistol is properly concealed?

Perhaps the issue should be more about education. Teaching the public that a properly holstered pistol is not a threat should be more important than spreading FUD.

Sheriff Johnstone gets support in his mission from Supervisor Dan Cahill:

"This is like a return to the Old West," Supervisor Dan Cahill said, calling the relaxed permit standard "a step backward" for civilization.

Perhaps Supervisor Cahill has forgotten about the framework that formed this country. Anyone who lives in his district should send him a copy of the US and Iowa Constitutions to read at his leisure. Or a copy of “That Every Man Be Armed” by Stephen Halbrook.  Once he, and every other politician who believes that allowing the peaceful carrying of firearms is a "step backward" has read that book, I would be interested to hear their viewpoint.

Here's an interesting quote from the article:

Outgoing Supervisor Jeff Heland said the past decade's effort to enhance courthouse security is compromised.

"What are you going to do regarding courthouse security?" Heland asked Johnstone.

"There's nothing more I can do," the sheriff said.

Board chairman Bob Beck responded tongue-in-cheek, noting members of the board could be provided with weapons.

Beck went on to suggest having multiple people armed could be a deterrent if someone becomes a problem, but Johnstone said he would worry about unarmed bystanders.

Because we all know that law enforcement officers hit the target with every bullet they fire, right? When something bad and smelly hits the rotary oscillator, nobody is a good shot. Adrenaline tends to make all of the best practices done at the range go out the window.  Citizens and lew enforcement officers alike suffer from "bad shot syndrome" when the heat is on.

If a criminal is intent on plying his (or her) trade at a courthouse, he might think twice about it knowing that he has more to worry about than just the handful of Deputies who are in the building. Criminals do not want to have their force met with a like and equal force. They want to do their dirty deed then get out of dodge.

While saying so in jest, Chairman Beck actually has the right idea. If any Board member is that concerned for his or her safety, any of them could obtain an Iowa PCW and legally carry a weapon for protection. Imagine that – Board members responsible for their own safety as opposed to relying on someone else. That's an interesting concept.

While he does not dispute citizens' right to carry weapons, Johnstone said he opposes the law's lack of safeguards. The only way he could deny a carry permit, he said, would be with probable cause that an applicant is likely to harm to himself or others.

Nothing but pure double-speak by Sheriff Johnstone. Either you're for the right to carry, or you're not. Three states already allow their citizens to carry a weapon with no “permission” needed at all. How many news stories do you read about crazed homicidal maniacs turning the streets of Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona red? Or the halls of their public buildings, for that matter? Sheriff Johnstone is more upset, most likely, with the fact that he is no longer allowed to be the one person with the final say. He is no longer able to deny a law-abiding citizen's right to self-defense simply because “he has a hunch.” He needs to be able to document his reason for denial, and the citizen is able to appeal that denial.

Johnstone said even Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, the state's top law enforcement official, has been unable to define probable cause under the new law.

This is an interesting quote. I would honestly like to see this expanded on at some point. Perhaps this is another reason that Mr. Miller should have found himself looking for a new job in January. If he cannot provide guidance to the Sheriffs, then he probably needs to re-examine his qualifications for the job he currently holds.

Sheriff Johnstone did get one thing right, though:

Cahill asked if the board could adopt a resolution banning weapons in the courthouse and other county buildings. Johnstone told him "no."

"The only way is through the Legislature," the sheriff said.

Absolutely correct. Iowa has a preemption law that keeps localities from creating a patchwork of gun restrictions. Unfortunately, Mr. Miller has already incorrectly interpreted that law, but that will hopefully fixed in the 2011 session when the law is strengthened.

"I'm required to sign (permits)," Johnstone said. "Even for those I know in my heart should not be carrying."

More FUD mongering. Sheriff Johnstone can deny any permit application that he believes should be denied. However, the applicant can appeal that denial, and it wouldn't take long for a judge to get tired of seeing wrongly denied applicants come before him. One of the questions I've never been able to get a Sheriff to answer is how big of a problem they really believe this to be. You see, criminals do not ask for a permit, they carry a weapon regardless. That's what makes them a criminal. Furthermore, the issuance of a permit does not give a citizen the right to commit a crime with the weapon. In fact, using the firearm in the commission of a crime carries a larger penalty than without. If a Sheriff honestly believed that only a handful of people should not be able to legally carry a weapon, is that reason enough to break the process for thousands of others? Or do you instead make sure that the foolish folks who use a firearm in a reckless or criminal manner are punished severely?

Until changes can be lobbied through the statehouse in Des Moines, Johnstone said he has to take at face value the assurances he has received from people in other states with similar laws that it hasn't been a problem.

He really doesn't have to take it at face value. He has access to the Internet, and there are statistics out there that will speak to this. I would suspect that he has (or should have) spoken to others in the law enforcement community that have already gone down this path. If cannot trust what they tell him, what kind of a message does that send?

Heland, who also has served as Burlington's mayor and a trustee of Southeastern Community College, said he worries about a "chilling effect" on local government.

Invoking the memory of Edd King, the Mount Pleasant mayor who was gunned down 24 year ago during a city council meeting, Heland expressed concern local elected officials and others might live in fear of making decisions prompting anger in a gun-toting member of the audience.

As opposed to the “chilling effect” that continuing to suppress the civil rights of your citizens will have? Nobody ever said that being a public figure doesn't come without risks. In the Mount Pleasant case, where was the “protection” that a law enforcement officer was supposed to provide, to keep such an event from taking place? Would the attacker have been deterred by a “No Guns Allowed” sign? Would there have been a different outcome had any of those in the board meeting been properly armed?

The environment is not going to change for Des Moines County. Crazed homicidal maniacs are not going to visit Board meetings with firearms any more than they have in the past, simply as a result of the law changing. This is nothing more than those who are afraid of change trying to play on the basic emotions of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Here is one more question for my readers to ponder:

If “gun licenses” are supposed to keep gun crimes from happening, why don't “drivers licenses” keep driving crimes like DWI from happening?

If you enjoyed this article, please consider using the tools at the top of the page to "recommend" or "share" it through the various social networks.