Senator Sodders sees changes in gun laws

It was reported in today's online edition of the Times-Republican that Senator Steve Sodders (D-22) believes that some changes to Iowa new “Shall Issue” law are possible. For those who have come late to the party, the changes that went into effect at the beginning of this year changed what had essentially been a discriminatory practice of the Sheriffs, harkening back to Jim Crow laws originally enacted around 1913 in an effort to keep firearms out of the hands of those who were the minority.

Senator Sodders is a Deputy Sheriff by profession, and unfortunately, he appears to be unable to grasp some of the concepts that a citizen's right to keep and bear arms really means.

As quoted in today's article:

"The intent was that for those re-upping to carry concealed weapons, they would have to at least qualify on a range," Sodders said. "There's sort of a loophole and we need to close that loophole."

What loophole could he possibly be referring to? Prior to 1/1/11, the number of Sheriffs who cared to require requalification of permit holders who renewed their permits could be counted on one hand. Even more damning was that the Sheriffs always had the ability to require requalification, yet they chose not to do so. Why the sudden interest in doing so, simply because they were going to lose their discretion in granting permits? Where is the tie between those two issues?

Right now, he said it is easier for private citizen to carry a concealed handgun than it is for law enforcement.

As it should be. Private citizens choose to carry a weapon for one reason – to defend themselves, or their loved ones. We are not paid to stick our nose into places that it does not belong. We are not required to investigate calls for help. We cannot justify deadly use of force when we have the ability to easily extract ourselves from situations that may require the use of deadly force.

The exercising of a basic human right – self-defense – is not bound by any employment requirement. Being paid by a government agency, carrying the public trust, and being exposed on a regular basis to the worst that society has to offer necessitates constant and regular training on all aspects of the job.

That said, as much as Senator Sodders believes he can justify more “required” training for citizens, I can also point to examples of private citizens who go to the range and practice with their weapons far more than some law enforcement officers do. We carry because we want to. We carry because we believe it is our right to do so. We carry because it is our passion, our belief. We do NOT carry because it is a requirement of our job.

Another issue relates to criminal history checks. Law enforcement can only do criminal history checks in a relatively few different cases. One is when a person is being investigated as part of a criminal case. The other is when they apply for a weapons permit.

This is patently false. Iowa Code 724.13 clearly states:

The issuing officer may annually conduct a background check concerning a person issued a permit by obtaining criminal history data from the department of public safety.

Continuing from the article:

Now, because the permits are good for five years, sheriffs want to make sure doing an annual check on those with permits will remain legal.

Would this be Senator Sodders spreading FUD? I am unclear as to why this has suddenly become an issue. None of the legislation currently being considered in Des Moines aims to remove the Sheriff's ability to perform an annual criminal background check, with the exception of what is called “Constitutional Carry.” In the event that Iowans are able to join the ranks of their brothers and sisters in Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona with the ability to freely exercise their Second Amendment rights, there would be no “pre-screening” of those who carry. Rather, those who actually commit a crime while armed would be subjected to increased scrutiny – and perhaps, increased penalties for doing so.

Although it may be legal to still conduct those criminal background checks, Sodders said the issue needs to be settled.

What needs to be settled? What is unclear about the current law that Senator Sodders is having difficulty understanding?

Senator Sodders joins the ranks of several other anti-gun legislators and special interest groups that are busy crying the blues and spreading FUD about things that have not happened and problems that have not arisen. The citizens spoke last year, and our legislators listened. Those supporting the repeal of the old discriminatory law far outnumbered those who favored keeping it in place. It is truly unfortunate that some of our elected officials cannot get past that fact.

-----

If you like this article, please consider sharing it on the social network of your choice.