The ISSDA lists their priorities for the 2011 session

I received a copy of the Iowa State Sheriffs & Deputies Association (“ISSDA”) 2011 Legislative Priorities & Policy Statements from an anonymous source this afternoon. Some of my readers might be contributors to the ISSDA when they come knocking on the door for fund-raising efforts, so I figured it might be a good idea to let folks know what the ISSDA feels are important topics for discussion with lawmakers in 2011 – at least as it pertains to gun rights in Iowa.

According to the list, the Sheriffs are working with the Iowa Department of Public Safety (DPS) to implement the new law. This is a good sign, and to be honest, we've only seen a handful of counties that have been stretching the law to some questionable limits. That said, the document says that there are some “unintended consequences of SF 2379” that the ISSDA would like to see addressed. They are as follows:

Clarify if carry permits are for "open" or "concealed" carry—prior to SF 2379, permits were restricted as "concealed" through Sheriff restriction; the new law does not allow Sheriffs to restrict permits, and the law does not address open or concealed carry.

Iowa law has NEVER addressed the open vs. concealed carry debate. Why start now? Does the right of self-defense depend on carrying a firearm concealed? What makes Iowa different from the many other states that currently allow open carry? My right to defend myself does not, and should not, depend on a hoplophobe becoming “concerned,” “worried,” or “scared” at the sight of a properly holstered firearm. It's true that the vast majority of those who will carry a firearm for protection will do so concealed, but that is not something that should be “restricted” by the Sheriffs. Just as law enforcement officers have a choice to carry openly or concealed, depending on the circumstances of their job and environment, so too should the everyday citizen have that choice.

Establish consistent statewide minimum training standards, including required successful firearms qualification for new carry permit applicants. While SF 2379 calls for completion of a training program, there are no defined minimum requirements for firearms qualification or demonstrated responsibility for those applying for a new permit.

Training is important – no question about it. However, it is odd that the ISSDA is pushing for mandatory range time when not every County Sheriff required it prior to the new law taking effect. In addition, we need to look at the reality of why we carry. The argument is made, time and time again, that law enforcement officers need to have range time to carry their firearm. However, their purpose for carrying a firearm is fundamentally different than a citizen's. Law enforcement officers carry because it is a requirement of their job, and they are expected to use that firearm not only for self-defense but also to prevent a crime from occurring in the first place. They may be asked to defend a life from a long distance, as that is what is expected from them.

Citizens on the other hand use a firearm only for self-defense. Any other use is illegal and would not be protected under the law. Most self-defense situations occur with the “rule of threes” - 3 feet, 3 shots, 3 seconds. Law enforcement officers who truly understand the dynamics of human interaction and self-defense will agree with this. Therefore, the requirement of making a citizen go to the range and shoot a full qualification set is absurd. We could never defend ourselves in a court of law by saying that our shooting at 15+ yards is justified. Furthermore, many of the firearms that we carry for self-defense are simply not accurate at distances of 10 yards or more. I'm speaking of the snubbie revolvers or the small .380 semi-automatic firearms like the Ruger LCP.

Citizens who carry for self-defense are committed to ensuring that they understand how their choice of firearms works. Unlike some law enforcement officers who shoot only when required by employment requirements, most of us who carry for self-defense shoot on a regular basis because we choose to do so.

Requiring proficiency training to exercise a right is wrong. No other basic human rights require any sort of proficiency training, and the right to self-defense by using the most effective tool available should not be any different.

Prohibit carrying while consuming alcohol—previously most Sheriffs restricted carry permits so they were not valid while using or consuming alcohol. Under SF 2379, Sheriffs may no longer restrict permits, so carrying weapons into bars and while drinking alcohol is allowed as long as individuals are under .08 BAC.

If you compare how many people were injured or killed by drunk driving in Iowa vs. how many were injured or killed by drunk shooting in Iowa, there would be a fairly large disparity in numbers. If we, as a people, or they, as the ISSDA, were concerned about drinking mixed with deadly actions and operating deadly pieces of machinery, we should start with those who drink and get behind the wheel of a car. When we have adequate laws that curb those numbers, get back to me on the firearms part. Otherwise, I go back to my original premise: firearms owners, and especially those who decide to carry for self-defense, are a responsible group of people in the overall population. There is no data to suggest that bars will become violence filled shooting zones simply because the law has changed. It hasn't happened anywhere else in the country, and it's not going to happen here in Iowa.

Clarify if weapons are allowed in city and county government buildings, including courthouses; the law prohibits weapons in state and federal buildings but is silent on local government buildings

Totally incorrect. The law is plain and clear on this, as I've mentioned in other articles. Chapter 724.7 and 724.28 both make it perfectly clear that it is ILLEGAL for any locality to prohibit firearms in any place not already prohibited by state law. Attorney General Tom Miller has trouble reading these two sections of law, as do many of the city, town, and county leaders who drink his illegal kool-aid. Apparently, the ISSDA has not read these two sections either. That may be a good place to start when they are seeking an answer to this question.

The NICS system to check for mental health adjudications is not yet in place and will not capture individuals who have been adjudicated prior to 1/1/2011; strengthen Sheriffs’ ability to ensure that carry permits are not granted to Iowans who have been adjudicated as mentally unstable

If a way can be found to get a more accurate picture of the mental health of an applicant, this might be a good idea. However, no amount of legislation will catch every applicant with an unstable background, nor can it predict who might already be unstable under the surface but just never detected. How did Sheriffs check on the mental health history of applicants in the past? Why would that have changed between December 31 and January 1?

ISSDA does not support “Alaska Carry” or constitutional carry that would eliminate carry permits, which would result in no background checks and no training

Of course not. We are all guilty until proven innocent. This type of system works fine in three states already, with several more, including Iowa, looking at this type of system in 2011 legislative sessions. (And before anyone blames the Rep. Giffords shooting on this, might I remind you that the type of permit system in place does not deter someone who is determined to carry out an attack of terror.) Iowans are not smart or responsible enough to handle this kind of freedom, according to the ISSDA (or any other group that thinks this is a bad idea).

Iowa counties would also lose what has quickly become a cash-cow for them if the Permit to Carry (and Permit to Acquire) were removed. That's a dirty little secret that nobody wants to admit or discuss.

If you want to stop criminals from carrying firearms and using them, there is only one sure way to do this: Keep anyone that you do not want to trust in public with a firearm from actually being in public – in other words, if you can't trust someone in public with a firearm for what they've done in the past, then those people need to remain in jail! Anything short of that is “feel good” legislation that does nothing to enhance public safety. Once someone is out of jail, regardless of their ability to purchase or carry firearms, criminals will always find a way to obtain, carry, and use a firearm. That is the true essence of what makes them criminals.

After being told that the ISSDA is not interested in fighting any permit related battles this year, I was a little bit surprised to see this list of priorities. To be sure, the ISSDA does not represent the ideals of every Sheriff in Iowa. There were a number who were very supportive of the passage of SF 2379 last year, and they are the same ones who understand the concept that firearms – and the citizens in general who carry them – are not the problem. It's a shame that more don't get that. Our Sheriffs should focus their efforts on fighting crime, not fighting those of us who want to exercise our rights.

-----

If you like this article, please consider sharing it with others with the social network buttons at the top of the page.