Hancock County and West Burlington respond to the NRA

As reported in a previous article on The Examiner, the NRA has made contact with Hancock County regarding their proposed ordinance that would ban handguns from County property, and with West Burlington regarding the ordinance they already have on the books regarding a similar ban. It did not take long for both localities to respond to the NRA action. According to The Des Moines Register:

"That's too bad," West Burlington Mayor Hans Trousil said about opposition to his city's ban from the National Rifle Association. "They need to sit in our chairs and worry about these nut jobs that go around with guns."

Unfortunately, Mayor Trousil has apparently not paid attention to who in Iowa is permitted to “go around with guns.” Under the current law, only those citizens who have passed a criminal background check, received training required by the Sheriff, and pass the Sheriff's own discretionary decision making process are able to receive an Iowa Permit to Carry Weapons. Based on that criteria, does Mayor Trousil believe that Des Moines County Sheriff Mike Johnstone is doing a poor job of issuing permits? It would seem so, since Mayor Trousil believes that “nut jobs” are the ones that “go around with guns.”

However, after visiting the Iowa Firearms Coalition's website, it would appear that Des Moines County is a “red” county. This would indicate that it is difficult to obtain an Iowa PCW in Des Moines County, or the permits that are issued are severely restricted, making them almost useless. Therefore, the only people that would be carrying guns in Des Moines County – or more specifically, West Burlington – would be criminals who do not obey the law anyway.

The support for such bans comes from an incident in 1986 which took the life of Mayor Edward King of Mount Pleasant. In that incident, a disgruntled resident shot Mayor King at a council meeting. The truth of the matter is that a ban similar to the one in effect in West Burlington would not have prevented this tragedy.

In Hancock County, The Register had this to report about Sheriff Scott Dodd and the recent attempt to ban firearms in Hancock County's municipal buildings:

Hancock County Sheriff Scott Dodd said his original goal was simple: to prohibit people from bringing guns into the courthouse. He said the proposed ordinance went beyond his original intentions and said it's likely he'll push for a narrower version.

"We don't bring guns to schools so we're protecting teachers and students, but why are people in my courthouse or courtroom to be treated any less?" Dodd said.

Sheriff Dodd should reconsider his statement. A ban on firearms, written on a piece of paper or a sign at the door, does nothing in regards to “protecting teachers and students.” For proof of that, all he needs to do is review the events at Columbine High School, or Virginia Tech, for starters. There were firearms bans in place at those locations, and even the most casual reader can understand how well those bans worked at “protecting teachers and students.”

In the case of courthouses or the Capitol building, entrances are normally protected by armed law enforcement, and belongings are searched upon entry. These are two somewhat effective ways of keeping weapons from entering the building, but it is not foolproof. Some states will go so far as to allow permit holders to enter their Capitol building with firearms, noting that statistically speaking, they are the most law abiding group of citizens in the general population. Virginia is an example of a state that does not infringe on the rights of its citizens when entering the building that technically belongs to those same citizens.

Even if a "narrower version" of the Hancock County ordinance is introduced, it will be opposed as quickly as their last proposal.  Iowa law simply does not allow any locality to enact a firearms law that is more stringent than what exists at the state level.  It is unclear what part of that law localities like Hancock County and West Burlington, or the Attorney General of Iowa find confusing.

This episode is another example of politicians who do not understand how “government” is supposed to work. Mayor Trousil, Sheriff Johnstone, and Sheriff Dodd did not inherit their positions. They hold those positions as elected representatives of their citizens, and they are bound by the laws of the land. The municipal properties of Hancock County and West Burlington do not belong to the “government” of those localities. Rather, those properties belong to the citizens of those counties, and those properties are the last places that any of the laws or rights of those same citizens should ever be infringed upon. As the country begins to realize that “shall not be infringed” has been ignored since at least the National Firearms Act of 1934, it will likely be common to see more illegal laws, ordinances, and practices get overturned.

The right to self defense is a God given right that cannot be removed by any government entity out of fear of “nut jobs that go around with guns.” Furthermore, as long as criminals know that areas such as businesses, schools and municipal properties are posted as “gun free zones” with no armed security to search and enforce such laws or ordinances, they will continue to practice their criminal ways with the same amount of ease as shooting fish in a barrel. “Gun free zones” are nothing more than “safety free zones” for the people who foolishly believe that they are truly safe in such areas – including the elected officials who hide behind such ordinances.