NEW SUIT TO EXPAND FREEDOM OF GUN POSSESSION

Forums: Guns
Email this Topic • Print this Page

An Ocheyedan man has filed a federal class-action lawsuit
challenging the constitutionality of an Iowa law that requires
individuals obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Paul Dorr, 52, said Thursday that Osceola County Sheriff Douglas
Weber wrongly denied on a political whim his and his 18-year-old
son's requests for permits to carry concealed weapons.

Dorr filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Sioux City against
Weber and Osceola County because Weber turned down the
permit applications of both Dorr and his son in 2007. Dorr alleges
that the sheriff denied his Second Amendment right to bear arms
and 14th Amendment right to due process. "He just denied my
permit to carry without foundation," said Dorr, a consultant for
taxpayer and political groups. "That denial just brought to
mind the lack of objective process that Iowa code allows for sheriffs."

Dorr is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of anyone who has been
denied a permit to carry in Iowa. The case is believed to be the
first of its kind challenging part of a state code that gives sheriffs
discretion in deciding who should receive permits to carry
concealed weapons, according to the Iowa attorney general's office.

It is also believed to be one of the first lawsuits since a U.S.
Supreme Court decision in June called into question the
constitutionality of some state and local gun permit ordinances.
The decision, District of Columbia vs. Heller, shot down the
district's gun ban, saying it violated an individual's right to bear arms.

At least 35 states " including Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri and
Nebraska " now mandate that concealed weapons permits be
approved if applicants meet a set of criteria laid out in state law.
For the second time in two years, Iowa groups such as the Iowa
State Rifle and Pistol Association and IowaCarry.org are supporting
a legislative proposal that would make Iowa's permit process
more uniform and take discretion away from sheriffs.

The code allows sheriffs to grant permits to carry provided
applicants are 18 or older, have never been convicted of a
felony, are not addicted to drugs or alcohol, and have no history
of violence. The law also requires that "the issuing officer
reasonably determine that the applicant does not constitute a
danger to any person."

Dorr said he was granted a permit to carry without incident from
2001 to 2007, but that changed when he went to renew his
permit in August 2007. His application, he said, came after he
had questioned spending within the sheriff's department and the
salary of the local county attorney.

Dorr said Weber, elected in 2005, denied his permit, saying that
there were people in the county who were afraid of him.

Weber said he would not comment on the lawsuit because he had
not yet been served and he had not consulted an attorney. Robert
Hansen, the county attorney, did not return a phone call Thursday
seeking comment. [emfasis added by David]

In that county,
a citizen's rights to defend his life
depend upon the emotions of other citizens in the county.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,533 • Replies: 28

No top replies

So, David , does this suit potentially open gun carry permits to those who are deranged, are criminals, or who have a history of violence? That would make this a really fun country. Wed have to redefine the rules under which deadly force is sanctioned, no?

3 Replies

@farmerman,

I thought the 2nd did that.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

umm those people dont bother with permits of any kind, your logic is sort of flawed.

i dont know if anyone understands how criminals work, they ignore laws.

thats the whole reason for the title of criminal....

0 Replies

OG-That wasnt the remotest point of my post. I was inquiring as to the extent of the effect of the suit under question. I believe that we are all familiar with the concept of outlaw. Does that mean we ignore where this suit may go?

Im expecting that such a suit may ultimately hyave USSC written on it, which would, should they hear and adjudicate it, extend an almost limitless condition of public weapons brandishing by anyone .

IT is the leagl opinion of several constitutional experts that the 2nd A doesnt confer limitless "rights" wrt gun ownership and use.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

So, David , does this suit potentially open gun carry permits to those
who are deranged, are criminals, or who have a history of violence?

I think it does not, Farmer.
I don 't deem it likely that a court will make that the applicable law,
as to " permits "
which is a very different concept than their actually arming themselves
according to their personal taste, as thay do now.
Let us focus upon the fact that practicing criminals have no interest
in carrying paper permission slips, when thay knock over liquor stores.

How many muggees have u heard of
whose muggers had shown them paper permission slips to carry a gun,
from a government while thay were robbing them ?

Will u inform me as to the proportion of the deranged
who are committed to keeping government happy,
obaying its rules, as thay go about their perverted activities ?

There is no question
that criminal predators will continue to arm themselves,
REGARDLESS of the state of the law or the law of the state.
The ONLY question has ever been whether the victims
will be ready to defend their lives and property from those attacks.

Addressing your question about folks with a history of violence,
I suggest that if someone is attacked on his way to the corner
for a gallon of milk, he has a natural right to defend himself,
regardless of whether he got into a fight a few years or months before ?
That is equal protection of the laws.

More broadly, I wish to address your question this way:
when society finds a man (in ANY state of mental health)
who is intolerably dangerous because of his history of chronic violence,
society shoud prevent that man from having access to decent people,
with no thought of his tools nor instruments.
Society shoud act upon the man himself, by isolating him.
His tools are of no consequence; this was the old paradigm.
This was how we addressed demonstrated chronic violence
in the 1800s and in the first third of the 1900s.

However, what I expect to eventually happen,
is that the status quo ante will be restored,
in that government will be denied power to take cognizance,
or to interfere in any citizen 's choices of defensive personal armament.

In other words, every citizen will have his freedom restored
to just buy whatever gun he chooses (as criminals can and do now,
on the black market) just the same as he can buy a hammer in a hardware store
or a knife in a cutlery shop. Just pay the money, no questions asked, as it was.
Gun control will be dismissed as a failed experiment,
like the Prohibition of the 1920s.

If he commits a crime, he shoud be dealt with for that offense,
being isolated for several decades. In some jurisdictions,
violent criminals have been sentenced to several centuries in prison.

Comprende ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

funny, most the people who rob armed with guns are officers of the state anyway.

good game. were screwed.

anyone remmeber when the d.e.a. i think it was wanted to hand out leathermans inscribed with the words "think forfeiture"?

wtf is going on there?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I thought the 2nd did that.

It does,
but the theory of this part of the Constitution
was judicially ignored; it was not put into practice,
because of judicial indifference, and a distortion of legal
interpretation of a USSC case called US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939)

This distortion is now being rectified
thereby restoring the freedom promised by the Constitution,
but some anti-freedom people are resisting.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im expecting that such a suit may ultimately hyave USSC written on it,

Agreed.
In the HELLER case, altho the USSC subtly implied that the right
to possess defensive gunnery is nationwide, not just reserved
to those citizens in federal enclaves,
it was not explicit on that point because the facts being adjudicated
by the court did not require the court to render a finding on that.

In my opinion, more than one evolution of this principle
adjudicating more than one case will be required
before the status quo ante of laissez faire personal freedom
of defensive gun possession is restored.

Quote:

which would, should they hear and adjudicate it,
extend an almost limitless condition of public weapons brandishing by anyone .

Agreed, as to extending an almost limitless condition
of citizens' personal weapons POSSESSION as it was before

" WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This brandish

noun
1. the act of waving [syn: flourish]

verb
1. move or swing back and forth; "She waved her gun"
2. exhibit aggressively; "brandish a sword" "

Farmer,
I doubt that it was ever the law
that a man coud act in an erratic, perhaps threatening manner,
without police taking a professional interest in the matter,
such as if a man brandished a chair, or a table, for that matter:
acting in strange ways tends to receive public attention.

I had my girlfriend brandish her giant radio at me
before she hit me on the head with it, about 25 years ago.

I do not predict that government will ever recognize a right
to BRANDISH things, including weapons,
unless there is a sane reason for it.

For instance, while driving home from another girlfriend 's house,
out on Long Island, alone on the highway around 12m, some years ago,
someone in another car put a bullethole in my left front window.
The car then drove abreast of mine for several seconds
until thay saw that I had a rather reflective stainless steel mirror
.44 revolver in my hand, whereupon I noticed a hasty departure.

Is brandishing OK in that circumstance ?
as distinct from just opening up on them ?

0 Replies

I see. Now I even have a greater concern that we will become a nation of gun brandishers and subsequent users on each other.

You are making decisions about the use of deadly force in your last few examples. What happens after the gunfire is over? How can we, living on the Island, be certain that we have a relatively safe existence if we can only rely upon waving guns around (Your example of a "mirror finish 44 Mag will do to serve as a demo of "BRANDISHING")

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I see.
Now I even have a greater concern that we will become
a nation of gun brandishers and subsequent users on each other.

U c that, huh ?
Do u live on Long Island ?

Quote:

You are making decisions about the use of deadly force
in your last few examples.

My decision was not to return fire,
unless I received additional gunfire.
Do u disagree ?
What is a better resolution to this situation ?

Quote:

What happens after the gunfire is over?

Well, hopefully, the good guy remains intact.
The 2nd Amendment does not warrant
that u wil win every gunfight; it just promises
u can stand on an equal footing with the predator,
because government did not get into bed with him,
to protect him, at your expense.

Quote:

How can we, living on the Island, be certain that we have
a relatively safe existence if we can only rely upon waving guns around
(Your example of a "mirror finish 44 Mag will do to serve
as a demo of "BRANDISHING")

Well, I did not limit u as to what u can "only" do.

If u wish to return fire,
or to wave a white flag at him,
it remains within your discretion to handle the situation as u c fit.
As Groucho Marx used to say: " You bet your life."

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

IT is the leagl opinion of several constitutional experts that the 2nd A doesnt confer limitless "rights" wrt gun ownership and use.

That's very true. Indeed, five of these constitutional experts make up the Supreme Court's majority in DC v Heller:

In DC v. Heller, pages 54-55, the Supreme Court wrote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26

26) We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Source (PDF)

The minority of the Supreme Court, who held the DC ban constitutional, would certainly have upheld the restriction David complains about. But even the majority might uphold them if the class action suit comes before them. Although the court doesn't mention concealed carry regulations explicitly, regulations of this kind do seem to fit in among the "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" the majority lists here.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Duh! In the paragraph just before the one I quote, the Court's opinion does mention prohibitions on concealed weapons:

In DC v. Heller, page 54, the Supreme Court wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152"153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (Emphasis added -- T.)

Under the originalist approach the court majority is taking here, this means the justices would probably uphold prohibitions on concealed carrying as constitutional.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26

This does not have the binding force of precedent
upon the USSC, because these issues were not presented
by the facts of this case for the Court to adjudicate.
Indeed, during oral argument, one of HELLER's attorneys,
Alan Gura, explicitly refused to challenge
any government jd qua carrying guns in the street,
but Mr. Gura has no power to nullify, or to waive
the constitutional rights of citizens other than his own client.
What u quoted
are only "obiter dicta": statements which are not
necessary to support the Court 's conclusion
(which was to find a gun control ordinance unconstitutional).
I think thay were thrown in to calm the losing side, for a while,
(a sugar coating on the pill of freedom)
until thay finish the job within the next few years.
" The wheels of the gods grind slowly,
but they grind exceeding fine."

I believe that the Court is taking an incremental approach
based upon the facts of each case that it will adjudicate.
Indeed, the leaders of the pro-freedom movement
have not kept it secret, that our strategy is to win one victory at a time
until the shining bright freedom of the status quo ante has been fully restored.

I will quote other sections of the opinion
that show a probability of the success of freedom
to carry guns in the streets, but now I am going to vote for Sarah Palin and McCain
and then attend a local restaurant; I am in the mood for fish.

C u later.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I am not saying that the Supreme Court is legally bound by its precedents to strike down bans on concealed carrying. I'm saying that as a practical matter, it isn't likely to, for two reasons:

1) The reasoning of the majority's Heller opinion is hedged with exceptions that concealed carry bans are likely to fall under -- because the "status quo ante" you're talking about already contained exceptions for restrictions on concealed carring.

2) Only one justice of the Heller would have to switch sides for the court to hand down a pro-gun-control verdict.

The future of your class action suit is looking dim to me.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

I am not saying that the Supreme Court is legally bound
by its precedents to strike down bans on concealed carrying.

I know that u r not saying that it is bound to do so, Thomas.
I did not mean to suggest that u had said that.

Quote:

I'm saying that as a practical matter, it isn't likely to, for two reasons:

1) The reasoning of the majority's Heller opinion is hedged with exceptions that concealed carry bans are likely to fall under -- because the "status quo ante" you're talking about already contained exceptions for restrictions on concealed carring.

2) Only one justice of the Heller would have to switch sides

Admittedly, I have not read the decision for several weeks,
but, as I remember, the only exceptions were obiter dicta.
If I am incorrect,
I hope that u will point out where I went rong.

As a good, conservative court,
it chose not to step outside of the case before it,
which was limited to possession of handguns in a citizen's home.

As I said, Alan Gura, explicitly chose not to challenge
any prohibition of gun possession in the streets,
and the Court noted that in its opinion.
However, Mr. Gura cannot waive MY constitutional rights,
nor yours, since he does not represent u or me.
As I said before I voted, I 'll cite to quotes of the opinion
which I believe exhibit the justices' desire to expand protection
of the right to self defense universally, to all citizens,
the same as freedom of speech.

Lemme get back to u in a little while,
while I gather some of the good stuff for exhibition.
As a better man than I once said: " I shall return."

David

0 Replies

Quote:

As a better man than I once said: " I shall return."

he was fired for not knowing the difference between military and presidential authority.

1 Reply

As I see it, Thomas,
there are 2 issues before us for consideration in this matter.
Please tell me whether u agree.

1 ) Whether a citizen has constitutional protection
for his right to carry handguns in the streets
(the issue of home possession already having been resolved in HELLER)

and

2 ) Whether the 2nd Amendment curtails the power of the states,
as does the rest of the Bill of Rights.

David

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

At the time,
I thought Truman shoud have been impeached and removed.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

At the time,
I thought Truman shoud have been impeached and removed.

yes I'm sure that's what you thought, the constitution is not really that important to you unless it involves guns.

1 Reply

NEW SUIT TO EXPAND FREEDOM OF GUN POSSESSION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know