An online course? I'd have a problem with that myself.
This is a discussion on Well, great, just great... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Just this past Saturday I sat in on a meeting of constituents with my State Legislator... The state house apparently has no real bad gun ...
Just this past Saturday I sat in on a meeting of constituents with my State Legislator... The state house apparently has no real bad gun bills coming forward at this time... Link Here
I haven't seen anything from my state Senator, so I don't know if the senate has come up with any bad bills...
Now the Sheriffs in our area are talking about our Shall Issue law being "Broken" for 2 reasons. One is the fact that you can take an online course to get your permit... having never held or fired a gun... the other is that:
Story with video hereBut online training isn't the only issue with "shall issue". "We don't want the mentally ill and the people with criminal records carrying the weapons out in public," Pulkrabek [Johnson County Sheriff] said.
Linn County Sheriff Brian Gardner supports “shall issue”, but he shares Sheriff Pulkrabek’s concern. They argue that taking away all discretion for sheriffs forces them to give permits to individuals with mental illness and questionable criminal histories.
"We should be allowed the ability to use our discretion to say no," Gardner said.
Before 2011, sheriffs had that discretion. But now, if you aren't a convicted felon, or have a history of violence or domestic abuse - it's difficult for sheriffs to deny you a permit. "I think that's a fair standard across the state, as oppose to complete discretion where it was all over the board,"
However, the Sheriffs fail to recognize that they actually can deny a permit... It may be difficult as I highlighted above, but they can do it under this section of Iowa code:
So, as you can see in 3, above the Sheriff has some discretion, and the applicant can appeal if they are denied... it goes before an Administrative law judge.724.8
Persons ineligible for permit to carry weapons.
No professional or nonprofessional permit to carry weapons shall be issued to a person who is subject to any of the following:
1. Is less than eighteen years of age for a professional permit or less than twenty-one years of age for a nonprofessional permit.
2. Is addicted to the use of alcohol.
3. Probable cause exists to believe, based upon documented specific actions of the person, where at least one of the actions occurred within two years immediately preceding the date of the permit application, that the person is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or in such other manner as would endanger the person’s self or others.
4. Is subject to the provisions of section 724.26.
5. Has, within the previous three years, been convicted of any serious or aggravated misdemeanor defined in chapter 708 not involving the use of a firearm or explosive.
6. Is prohibited by federal law from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm.
I'm sure the Sheriffs know this, they just miss being able to say "NO! You can't have one, I don't like you, Neener neener, Boo boo!"
It could be worse!
An online course? I'd have a problem with that myself.
I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
1 Thess. 5:16-18
yeah i dont agree with an online course.. even if it has a requirement that you actually fire live rounds.. how does anyone validate any of that? You cant.
One of the things I would be willing to let go by as it relates to "gun control" is a requirement for increased training for those lawfully carrying a pistol..look at all you go through to be certified to get a drivers license.. and thats a privilege not a right!
I dont see mandatory increased training with live rounds fired an infringement for carrying a firearm. I dont think it should be extended to OWNING a firearm, but if you want to carry it in public, you should be well trained and prepared to use it if necessary.
Sounds like the law dog doesn't fully understand "shall issue" or he does and he wants more power than he should have.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
“The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
You can't legally drive a car with out demonstrating you are skilled enough for a license, why should a carring a gun be any different?
"I got a problem with that" =
I got a problem with citizens having "Assault weapons," "weapons of war," "weapons of mass killing," Who needs that?
I got a problem with "huge bullet magazine clips." If you need more than 7 shots to kill a deer you need to quit hunting. If you need more than 7 shots to stop an intruder in your house, you shouldn't have a gun... Who needs more than 7 rounds anyway?
I got a problem with people that don't have to prove they know which end of the gun to point, and that can't prove they can hit a target and score 75 at 50 feet... They don't need a permit to carry...
Well, I got a problem too.... I got a problem finding the Bill of Needs in the Constitution... If you're looking in the Bill Of Rights, it says this:
Oh, you might be able to make the argument that well regulated means well trained, with some regular frequency. Like the musters of the founding era, after the revolution... The men would show up at the edge of town and do some target practice once or twice a year.... failure to show would result in a fine... and that's okay with me... To prove that I can shoot the enemy at distance with my rifle... or to train to get better at it...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You do know, not every current military soldier or cop is, ahem, "proficient" with a weapon, right?
But then we come to self defense.... and that is the "natural right" upon which the guarantee is predicated... Can you define proficient? Is it to your level of training... or Gabe Suarez's? Or is it simply the knowledge of which end to point at the bad guy... and hope for the best?
Fact is, trained cops and others, including really "proficient" armed forces, have had their weapons taken from them... and in some cases, used against them... So proficiency is a nebulous term... and subjective...
Anyone who has a permit to carry a weapon, has the ability to protect themselves. If they fail in that endeavor, it's on them... If they shoot an innocent bystander, it's on them... If they are so adventurous as to try to save another who may be in danger of grave bodily injury or death, and they are wrong.... it is on them.
LEOs have the color of law to operate under... and if those things should happen to them, it's on us, all of us, the taxpayers.
Man has to know his limitations.... If you got a rambo complex and want to save the world with your sidearm... go for it.... whatever happens as a result of that is on you... In fact, no matter what you do with your sidearm, long arm or any other weapon... unless you are at war, or a sworn officer of the law... it's on you... live with it, deal with it... IT's ON YOU.
It could be worse!
But then, blacks had no rights at all, women had no rights, children had no rights... tenants had no rights.... it was male property owners who had the rights...But I do know of children, not old enough to legally drive a car, who drive tractors, plow fields, and drive the pickup on the ranch... and most of them can handle a gun too ... maybe not 5 years old... but not of the age of majority...
And then of course, in 2010, there was that Houston 15 year old who used daddy's AR 15 to save his home, his life, and his 13 year old sister's life From the home intruders... Wonder what kind of proficiency he had to prove to do that?
How about the what, 12 year old girl who had to hide in the closet with mommy's Glock... and shot the BG right thru the closet door.... what kind of proficiency did she have to prove?
No, if you have the right, you have the right... and, the responsibilities that go with it... and, like I said ...It's on YOU.
And, in all fairness, and full, honest, disclosure; I too used to think it wasn't a bad idea to have to prove proficiency at the range... I've changed my mind...
It could be worse!
US Army 1953-1977
‘‘We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’
— Abraham Lincoln
Somehow in our society, this mentality that says we have to save everyone from themselves and we can somehow legislate "safety" for everyone has even crept into the conversations of those who traditionally would defend our individual rights and the responsibilities that come with them. We need to remember, folks, that every authority and responsibility we give up to government has a tradeoff in freedom.
Of course we need to have order and rule of law in our society, but where is the line between seeking a higher degree of order and giving up too many freedoms? That is where this debate is centered, and it seems that the anti-freedom crowd keeps gaining in tiny increments as our society becomes less and less connected with personal responsibility for things like protection, provision, education, and employment, and more dependent on our government to somehow keep these things flowing.
Whenever I walk out the door with my gun, I am aware that I am responsible if it gets used. If I get it wrong I could spend the rest of my productive years behind bars. That means I get training and I meditate on the possibilities and prepare myself for decision making beforehand. Even with all that, I may still get it wrong. That is part of the risk of having freedom. We exercise RIGHTS, and the take RESPONSIBILITY for our actions. The less government interference in the natural workings of that system the better, as far as I'm concerned.
I bought and paid for my cars. I pay for my own gasoline (and a crapload of taxes on it).
I pay all manner of Property, Income, and Sales taxes and fees to cover my "share" of the cost of the roads (which are built on PUBLIC property, i.e., 'Belonging to the People').
My car, as well as every single item I buy in any store, whether groceries, hardware, housewares, clothes, or anything else, has fuel taxes and road use taxes built into the price.
My taxes pay for upkeep of the roads, and for the salaries of the LEO's and First Responders who help keep them safe.
I, for one, do not acknowledge that driving is a "privilege".
BTW - These days, they are teaching our kids that gun ownership is a privilege, and one that's only exercised by hate-driven, bloodthirsty, psychotic, racist right-wing nuts. If another generation is adequately indoctrinated, repeal of the Second Amendment will be a slam-dunk.
NRA Life Member
Charter Member (#00002) of the DC .41 LC Society - "Get Heeled! No, really!"
He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave. - Andrew Carnegie
Miko Andres (1) WORLD'S YOUNGEST SHOOTER 6 years old - YouTube
I'm just sayin'...
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member