Judge Gives Sheriff Unusual Punishment for Illegally Denying CCW Permit

[LanceORYGUN]

U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett has strongly condemned Sheriff Douglas Weber of Osceola County in Iowa for illegally denying a CCW permit to Paul Dorr, a local father of 11, and also an avid anti-abortion activist. Judge Bennett said that Sheriff Weber violated Dorr's 1st Amendment right to free speech, by citing Dorr's participation in numerous anti-abortion protests to justify his denial of a CCW permit.

Many local people labeled Dorr "weird", for holding such strong anti-abortion beliefs. However, Dorr had no criminal record at all in Iowa. And had only been cited in other states of minor violations at anti-abortion protests, such as blocking doors and blocking vehicles. Dorr was also very active in local taxpayer watchdog groups, that criticized the Osceola County budget.

Dorr quietly fought his denial for the past 3 years in the court system, taking his appeal all the way to the Federal Court level. So strong was Judge Bennett's criticism of Sheriff Douglas Weber, that he not only ordered that Dorr's CCW Permit be issued, but he also sentenced the Sheriff to take a mandatory course on the US Constitution within the next 5 months.

So after waiting for 3 long years, Paul Door will now get his CCW permit. Sadly, I guess that this sort of thing can happen in a "may issue" state.

Here is a link to the full news report about this case:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...ing-gun-permit

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[OldVet]

Previously posted, but we need more judges like him.

[LanceORYGUN]

It was? Sorry, I somehow overlooked it.

[HK Dan]

Yah, there's more to this than meets the eye. The guy is volatile, and yeah, hr's freaking "Wierd". When I met him, my first thought was "am I sure I chambered a round?"

I'm not saying that the sheriff was justified, but he was within his rights as defined in Iowa law, which sucks. Right now, until Jan 1, if he don't like ya face, you ain't carrying. Period. No appeal, no questions asked, no reason required.

So, my experience with Mr. Dorr was that he is an asshat (his son, however, is an outstanding individual). Frankly, given what I've seen this Jackwagon, I don't blame the sheriff, butI'mglad the 2nd Amendment has been reaffirmed.

[press1280]

The sheriff was a little too honest about the denial and did it because of Dorr's speech activities. That's a big no no with the courts. He had also issued permits to these folks before, so because they had no convictions in between, he was really in a box on this one. He should have taken a page out of the NJ denial book and just said that "need" wasn't proven and left it at that.
On Jan 1st this will be moot in IA.

[Andy W.]

So strong was Judge Bennett's criticism of Sheriff Douglas Weber, that he not only ordered that Dorr's CCW Permit be issued, but he also sentenced the Sheriff to take a mandatory course on the US Constitution within the next 5 months.

How about making the bums in Washington take that course.

[cz75luver]

Cited for blocking doors and vehicles during protests . . . sounds like someone that would instigate and/or escalate a tense situation. I would have denied him.

[ccw9mm]

If you're not a felon, you're not a felon ... no matter what irrational fears the sheriff might hold. So far as the CHL law is concerned, end of story.

SHALL issue means just that, sheriffs. Suck it up and do what's right.

Good ruling, IMO.

[QKShooter]

Just a little preemptive reminder to members that post in this thread. Don't shift the topic over to abortion "yea or nay" because that is grounds for a surefire rapid DELETE of your post.
So far...so good.

[ICTsnub]

U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett has strongly condemned Sheriff Douglas Weber of Osceola County in Iowa for illegally denying a CCW permit to Paul Dorr, a local father of 11, and also an avid anti-abortion activist. Judge Bennett said that Sheriff Weber violated Dorr's 1st Amendment right to free speech, by citing Dorr's participation in numerous anti-abortion protests to justify his denial of a CCW permit.

Many local people labeled Dorr "weird", for holding such strong anti-abortion beliefs. However, Dorr had no criminal record at all in Iowa. And had only been cited in other states of minor violations at anti-abortion protests, such as blocking doors and blocking vehicles. Dorr was also very active in local taxpayer watchdog groups, that criticized the Osceola County budget.

Dorr quietly fought his denial for the past 3 years in the court system, taking his appeal all the way to the Federal Court level. So strong was Judge Bennett's criticism of Sheriff Douglas Weber, that he not only ordered that Dorr's CCW Permit be issued, but he also sentenced the Sheriff to take a mandatory course on the US Constitution within the next 5 months.

So after waiting for 3 long years, Paul Door will now get his CCW permit. Sadly, I guess that this sort of thing can happen in a "may issue" state.

Here is a link to the full news report about this case:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...ing-gun-permit

Should be mandatory for any new Sheriff.

[usmc3169]

ccw9mm - I wouldn't call the Sheriff's fears "irrational", I think he is probably exercising good judgment in questioning this particular individual's motives - HOWEVER- I would say that the man has a right to carry a firearm that should not have been infringed.

[gottabkiddin]

It's good to see a judge stand up for the rights of the people. I agree, we need more like him!

[mprp]

When things like this happen in a "May Issue" state, I think the decesion of the Sheriff is more of a CYA move on his part. I can see the thoughts of bad publicity with his decision making running through his head if something bad were to happen because he allowed this person, whom he thinks is risky, to carry. In a "Shall Issue" state, it wouldn't matter but if the Sheriff is allowed to exercise his judgement on someone and feels that he doesn't like this person's character, his move to deny at least gets any bad happening off of his shoulders and is now a result of a judges decesion, not his. Did this judge not know that Iowa is a "May Issue" state and it is up to the Sheriff? Hmm Seems like if the process was going to be like this and the Sheriff is going to be punished, then they need to eliminate the "May Issue" part. I like the judges approach to 2A but I disagree with any punishment because the Sheriff was only doing what was legally his decesion. The judge needs to take this issue up with Iowa State legislature, not the Sheriff.