Federal Judge Orders iowa Sheriff to Re-Issue HCP to Citzen

[DarrellG]

U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett has ordered Osceola County Sheriff Douglas L. Weber to issue a gun permit to a resident and to complete a college-level course involving the First Amendment.

This is a good read...

Federal judge orders Osceola County sheriff to issue gun permit

[Guest jackdm3]

"Bennett noted that sheriffs have the discretion to withhold permits from anyone under majority age."

So, if more herman beans apply for and get permits, a twenty-year-old will cease to be of minority age. There will be more carriers less than 21, thus lifting the average age of carriers to an age allowed by the court, but the sheriff controls that and as long as he does, 20 will always by minority because he won't allow them the opportunity to advance the levels of the minority. Someone call the NAACP: National Association for the Advancement of Carrying People.

Edited July 8, 2010 by jackdm3

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good going, judge!

[DarrellG]

I think any of us that have worked or attended public meetings for governmental purposes have run into very abrasive or "kooky" people who were attending or actually speaking. I can remember listening to a guy who use to show up at every meeting to rail at the school board and cry malfeasance each month. This guy did this for years stating the same things over and over and it annoyed me to no end. Then one day I realized that as crazy as this guy was he had a right to be there no matter how abrasive he was because it's guaranteed by federal law. We really do have a great country that allows us to speak freely without threat of reprisal by government officials.

[Defender]

I googled Iowa's carry law and the site I picked was a PDF file ( www.dps.state.ia.us/asd/weapons/wbrochure.pdf) was dated 2005. Seems like their laws are as bad or worse than ours...sheesh. But it's refreshing to see that some Federal judges are not nuts.

[midtennchip]

"Bennett noted that sheriffs have the discretion to withhold permits from anyone under majority age."

So, if more herman beans apply for and get permits, a twenty-year-old will cease to be of minority age. There will be more carriers less than 21, thus lifting the average age of carriers to an age allowed by the court, but the sheriff controls that and as long as he does, 20 will always by minority because he won't allow them the opportunity to advance the levels of the minority. Someone call the NAACP: National Association for the Advancement of Carrying People.

I think when they use the term "majority age," they are referring to the age on which a person is no longer a minor (i.e., age 18 in TN, but may be different in Iowa).

Edited July 8, 2010 by midtennchip

[94user]

A judge that actually upheld the United States Constitution !!! This man needs to be be appointed to the SCOTUS.

[eapking]

Appointing a judge to SCOTUS? You mean someone with experience? AND someone who knows and respects the 2A? Wow!

[tnhawk]

Appointing a judge to SCOTUS? You mean someone with experience? AND someone who knows and respects the 2A? Wow!

This exactly what obama wants to keep out of the court.

[JAB]

Before we carve a likeness of this judge on Mt. Rushmore, are we really so sure that this case was judged on the basis of protecting the Second Amendment? Maybe the judge supports the Second Amendment, maybe he doesn't - I really don't see anything in the article that gives any indication, either way.

Honestly, it really sounds to me like it hinged much more on the First Amendment. Basically, the judge appears to simply have said that, as an elected official sworn to uphold the Constitution, the Sheriff couldn't deny Mr. Dorr something that is available to other citizens based solely on Mr. Dorr's excercise of his First Amendment rights. That 'something' is probably immaterial to the judge's decision and could just as easily have been a driver's license, a burn permit or a building permit. In other words, the judge couldn't have ruled against Mr. Dorr without striking at least a minor blow to the First Amendment.

Because carry permits are legally available in the state and there was no other, valid reason to deny (other than the fact that the applicant had used his First Amendment rights in a manner that others in the community did not like) the only way to support the First Amendment was to support Mr. Dorr's bid to get his permit reinstated. That doesn't mean the judge supports the 2A. For all we know, he 'held his nose' and rendered a decision that pained him because he didn't want to be in a position of arguing against the 1A (which even most antis seem to hold dear.)

Notice, in fact, that the judge ordered the Sheriff to take a class on the Constitution that includes - at least in part - a discussion of the First Amendment. The judge didn't set out any requirement that the class have any discussion of the Second.

Edited July 9, 2010 by JAB

[BryanP]

And that right there is the difference between "Shall Issue" and "May Issue."

[Fallguy]

Iowa will be "Shall Issue" and recognize TN permits on Jan 1, 2011

[tnhawk]

...Notice, in fact, that the judge ordered the Sheriff to take a class on the Constitution that includes - at least in part - a discussion of the First Amendment. The judge didn't set out any requirement that the class have any discussion of the Second.

Most classes on the Constitution are likely to include several of the Amendments in addition to the First.

[kb4ns]

Most classes on the Constitution are likely to include several of the Amendments in addition to the First.

I'm sure the other amendments will be covered. The question is how will they be covered? :-\

[tnhawk]

Most of the instructors I've endured had never been out of a classroom in their life and were liberal.