A federal court case involving the denial of a concealed carry permit to an Iowa resident because of his First Amendment activities clearly demonstrates why police chiefs and sheriffs should not have discretionary authority to issue such permits and licenses, and why we took it away from them here in Washington a generation ago.
In this case, Osceola County Sheriff Douglas L. Weber was found to have “retaliated against a citizen of his county who used this important freedom of speech and association precisely in the manner envisioned by the founding members of our nation.”
Giving Sheriff Weber more deference than is due his elected status, the court finds that Sheriff Weber denied Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit not because of the content of his First Amendment activity but because it was effective and agitated many members of the local community.”—Judge Mark W. Bennett
U.S. District Judge Mark W. Bennett not only ordered the sheriff to issue Paul Dorr a concealed carry permit, for which he had applied in 2007, he also required Weber to enroll in a class on the Constitution that puts some emphasis on the First Amendment, and to provide an affidavit of successful completion of the course with a passing grade.
According to the Sioux City Journal and my colleague, Des Moines Gun Rights Examiner Sean McClanahan, Sheriff Weber denied Dorr’s application because other citizens in the community apparently objected to Dorr’s political activities, which include writing letters to the editor about various subjects. Sheriff Weber reportedly testified in court that he withheld the permit because of “concern from public. Don’t trust him.”
In denying Paul a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections. Ironically, Sheriff Weber, sworn to uphold the Constitution, in fact retaliated against a citizen of his county who used this important freedom of speech and association precisely in the manner envisioned by the founding members of our nation...”—Judge Bennett
There is more. According to the Journal account, Weber also testified that people had described Dorr as “a whacko, delusional, a nut job, a spook, and a narcissist.”
In his ruling, Judge Bennett observed, “Regardless of the adjective used to describe Paul, however, Sheriff Weber stated that Paul’s ‘lousy’ reputation was due to his political activities in writing letters to the editor and distributing fliers.”
Clearly, this is the kind of authority abuse that becomes commonplace where police officials have discretionary power to issue or deny a concealed carry permit. The Washington legislature wisely removed this authority from police chiefs and sheriffs several years ago when they also adopted our model preemption statute. Evergreen State gun rights activists should remain vigilant because erosion of those laws is a high priority for the gun prohibitionists at Washington CeaseFire. They will find that a tougher chore now, in the wake of the McDonald ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states.
In doing so, this popularly elected Sheriff, who appears to be a fine man and an excellent law enforcement officer, in all other regards, blatantly caved in to public pressure and opinion and, in doing so, severely trampled the Constitution and Paul’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views."—Judge Bennett
While Washington already has a first-rate state constitutional right to bear arms provision – as detailed in my book Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities – incorporation of the Second Amendment solidly reinforces that language, making it less likely that legislative hoplophobes will be able to successfully push their extremist agenda.
The chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of a county shall within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person within this state for five years from date of issue, for the purposes of protection or while engaged in business, sport, or while traveling.—RCW 9.41.070
This is not to say that concealed pistol licenses should be issued to anyone adjudicated as a mental incompetent, or to violent convicted felons. But citizens with clean backgrounds should not be denied, especially for the reasons Dorr was denied. They should not be required to demonstrate “a need” to exercise a civil right, as is the case in New York City. In an ideal world, as now exists in Alaska, Arizona and Vermont, no permit would be required to carry firearm, openly or concealed, in a peaceable manner while going about one’s daily routine.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard
And Don’t forget to visit:
KeepAndBearArms.com
GunVoter.org
OpenCarry.org
GunDigest.com
Hunting-Washington.com
GunnersLair.com
Are you traveling safer streets?
Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner John Longenecker has created the Liberty News/Safer Streets Newsletter. You can read a recent sample here. (I already did.)
And to make sure you never miss an issue, you can sign up for convenient free email delivery here.
Comments
Cudos to the judge..Bad sheriff no doughnut
If you want an exercise in abuse of that power by sheriffs and police chiefs come to California where you can have a range of 7 in one county and almost 5,000 in another county(Unconfirmed in Kern county)from what I was told. I know for a fact a CCW is Sacramento county is nearly impossible to get for any reason. In California they are used as bargaining chips all the way from the individuasl to the state capitol. California has abused the CCW process as badly or worse than almost any other state and will continue to do so until someone shines some light on it. There is also a trend of starting to dress in all black by many police department reminding people of the jack booted "SS" of Nazi Germany. California may be well on it's way to repeating history with almost complete denial of CCW's in most areas, over restrictive gun laws that do nothing, and harsh police/government practices. If california will not clean up it's act then the rest of the country should force it to. Boycott!
It should be mentioned that shall-issue law will go into effect in Iowa on 1 Jan 2011. The people, through their legislature, have moved to deny sheriffs the ability to discriminate in this way.
Glad you pointed that out Carl. Good also that the judge meted out some punishment to the sheriff. He is, after all, a sheriff, not a police chief. Because chiefs serve at the pleasure of mayors, one would expect more political shenanigans from them. Not that either should subvert The Constitution.
MD
Sheriffs and police chiefs shouldn't be able to deny a gun permit if they feel it's appropriate? You gun fetishists are obviously smoking crack.
What you people are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is mob rule. Whoever has the biggest gun is the boss.
An ordinance which makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official--as by requiring a permit, or license, which may be granted, or withheld in the discretion of such official--is an unConstitutional censorship, or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of these freedoms. And, our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unConstitutional licensing law may ignore it, and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right...for which the law requires a license. -- Shuttlesworth v City of Birmingham (from Staub v. Baxley)(1969) 394 U.S. 147
Permits for rights are unconstitutional What part of this is not the pro-2A community understanding? What part of this doesn't the left understand? After all, these rights apply to all citizens, black, white, other. All have this undeniable, unalienable (not separable), and inalienable (not able to be transferred) right.
Alex, as opposed to the mob rule we have in this country now thru the ballot box? Mob rule? Really? That's what you think we are advocating? What would stop you then from getting the biggest gun and taking over? See, this is a fallacy you are promoting. You do so because you can't cope with the fact that if others are armed, you might need to be so, or might have the desire to, as well. Shame that you aren't already. McDonald was right & wrong. Every household should have a gun, but no one should be denied the ability to bear (carry) that arm on them at all times for defense of self, community, country.
Niagara County, NY, judge requires that you have a gun safe, and that the sheriff come check that you do? If you don;t let the sheriff in, no proof, no permit. Sound fair? Sound just? Sound constitutional? Invasion of privacy? 4th amendment violation? We shall see, but no local group has the funds to fight it, and no state, or federal pro-2A group is coming to their defense. Why is this?
The only 'reasonable restriction' I'm willing to put up with is a NICS. Even that is a massive invasion of privacy and 'infringement.'
Ideally, 'shall not be infringed' will be the norm.
Meaning no more alphabet agencies who exist only to harass the peaceful, while leaving the real problems only because they're too afraid to go after real criminals. Que the gangerbangers...
Niagara County, NY, judge requires that you have a gun safe, and that the sheriff come check that you do? If you don;t let the sheriff in, no proof, no permit. Sound fair? Sound just? Sound constitutional? Invasion of privacy? 4th amendment violation? We shall see, but no local group has the funds to fight it, and no state, or federal pro-2A group is coming to their defense. Why is this?
They don't care what the Constitution says, or what you think about anything they do or don't do.
They give lip service to the bill of rights and constitution, which are virtually worthless and send out people to incite the masses by posting inflammatory things on their sites. They hope to provoke a violent response in order to consolidate their power.
This isn't just about guns and your time is short.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!