Police organizations and Iowans oppose concealed carry in Iowa.

[onehandle]

Susan Cameron, a lobbyist for the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association, said the change would give Iowa a very loose firearms law.
She said if the state is going to require sheriffs to grant concealed-weapons permits, it should include tighter criteria than those proposed in the new bills.

For instance, she said, the bill should ban permits to anyone addicted to alcohol. She also said her group opposes a section of the bill that would allow permit holders who are drunk to have concealed weapons if they could show they needed the guns to protect themselves or others.

snip...

An Iowa Poll published in the Des Moines Register in February found that Iowans are split on the idea of easing the concealed-weapons permitting process:

50 percent of Iowans said they opposed the idea, 43 percent favored it, 7 percent were unsure.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100318/NEWS10/3180350/1001

[bluestateguy]

1. Cops have a vested interest in keeping the people disarmed

I'm pretty much for anything that the cops are against.

[jeepnstein]

3. It's all about power...

Right now the local Sheriff has the power to issue the permit, or not, depending on his whim. Politicians never like to give up any little bit of their power. That's the heart of the problem.

It's not that Iowa is some seething cauldron of high and fine weirdness that has to be clamped down on lest the locals start committing unspeakable atrocities. Most folks from Iowa are level headed and genuinely nice. It's all about an elected official balking at being told to do something.

[spin]

4. Depends on where you live ...

here in Florida, all the cops I know (and I know a good number) support concealed carry.

None have ever had a problem with a person with a concealed weapons permit using his/her weapon in an irresponsible manner.

Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since 1987.

[shadowrider]

7. That simply can't be

Anti-gunners tell us all the time concealed carry will lead to a wild west scenario where guns are brandished and fired at the drop of a hat. You mean that isn't true?? :sarcasm:

[spin]

19. People who dislike concealed carry and firearms often exaggerate ...

since the facts and statistics don't support their argument, they appeal to emotion and fear.

“The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.”
George Bernard Shaw

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Is that a fact?

http://www.vpc.org/studies/cccrimst.htm

Oh, I get it. They didn't say there were no crimes committed by CC holders in Florida. Just that they didn't have a problem with it.

[cowman]

15. From VPC?

Yeah, like I'll believe anything they or the Brady Bunch or the NRA say

[eqfan592]

18. LOL

Seriously, the VPC? Why not source fantasy land while you're at it? :P

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Sure, they play with the numbers, but there are numbers there to play with.

Looking at their reference to cases, there are five 'cases' involving gun crime by a licensed CC holder - it does look like those 'cases' may all refer to the same individual (being charges, rather than cases) but nonetheless, ONE is not NONE - as the poster I was answering claimed. And besides the one (possibly more) gun crime there are numerous other crimes listed as committed by CC holders.

Which is not surprising, considering the number of COPS who are convicted of crimes EVERY YEAR. I would assume the requirements for becoming a cop are slightly more rigorous than for being issued a CCP.

Fantasy land?

[eqfan592]

25. WTF are you even talking about?

Go back and actually READ the post you're replying too! He never said that NO CCW permit holders have EVER committed a crime in Florida! He simply said that of the law enforcement officers he knows in Florida, none of them have ever had an issue with a CCW permit holder using their firearm irresponsibly! Those are two VERY different statements.

So yes, Fantasy Land, where you get to reply to statements you like to THINK somebody made, when in fact they never said any such thing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. His implication was, of course, that CC holders don't commit crimes.

Obviously, they can and do. His argument for 'shall issue' was based on his personal observation, not on verifiable facts. That is a Fox News worthy style of argument, and no more valid than saying 'There is no problem with illegal immigrants from Nigeria' simply because the only undocumented you've met are from Central America.

Anecdote is not evidence.

[eqfan592]

35. I agree that anecdote is not evidence.

But his implication was NOT that CCW holders "don't commit crimes." At least not in my opinion. However, there IS evidence, from the VPC itself in fact, that CCW holders are far less likely to commit a crime than the general public.

Just looking at the numbers provided by the VPC of crimes committed by CCW holders, and comparing them to the number of CCW holders in the nation, you will see exactly how low they are.

This has been pointed out time and time again on this very message board, something I'm sure you're well aware of.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Absolutely, and i agree.

I will further posit that CC holders in IA are even less likely to commit crimes than in FL - for two reasons. In IA, the Sheriff (who knows the people he's dealing with) can refuse a permit to someone who he knows to be a nutcase - even if that person has not committed any crime as of yet. (Such people exist - I'm sure there is somebody you know who would fit that category. I know more than a couple I wouldn't want to see within 10' of a firearm.) That's how they have it set up, and it works. The other reason is that IA is not FL, and (as borne out by crime statistics) southern culture is inherently more violent.

I'm not one of those who thinks CC permits will lead to bloodbaths in the street. I don't think they deter crime, either, otoh.

And frankly, IMO, those who are most adamant about carrying everywhere they go are in the category of those I don't want to have guns around me. They're too hair-trigger for me. It suggests instability. After all, the idea behind concealed carry is anonymity. When a so-called proponent talks about flashing his weapon, I have to wonder (and I have seen such posts here) if they are not just more interested in intimidation. I have to assume that if someone is a bully on a message board, they'd be a bully in real life.

[eqfan592]

38. But that's just it, it DOESN'T work in IA.

You can't treat people like criminals just because you have a "gut feeling" about somebody. That's just not the way it's ever supposed to work in a free country. The cost of freedom is occasionally dealing with those who may choose to abuse those freedoms. We have a legal system in place to deal with such people for a reason. Vesting that sort of power in the hands of any elected official is just wrong, IMNSHO.

I will agree with you though that CCW does not appear to be a major deterrent to crime. It simply acts as a means for people to be able to defend themselves. This could be in part because of the small number of people, overall, that carry in states where it is legal. But either way, the evidence isn't there at this time to support CCW being a major deterrent to crime.

If my state were to allow CCW, then I would be one of the first in line to sign up, and I would likely carry at all times. Not because I feel the need to shoot somebody, but because I would never stop kicking myself in the ass if I were to not carry in spite of my permit and suddenly have a need to defend myself (assuming I survived any such attack long enough to kick myself in the ass).

[pipoman]

43. So what other

rights or privileges should a sheriff be allowed to dictate? Driving? Why not? Driving by some could easily be as dangerous as a gun. No, I am pretty much against anything which violates equal protection. What if a particular sheriff isn't too fond of long hairs? Or blacks? or....? Why would we want to give him authority to arbitrarily decide anything?

[shadowrider]

44. Would you mind linking to those posts?

"When a so-called proponent talks about flashing his weapon, I have to wonder (and I have seen such posts here) if they are not just more interested in intimidation."

IMHO, if someone brandishes their weapon purely for intimidation purposes, they should be revoked. I've not seen one proponent of CCW here publicly state they've brandished.

Could you shed some light with a link or 5?

[PavePusher]

47. Golly, you paint with a very broad brush.

Pot, kettle.

Carry on...

[spin]

29. You need to check Florida's monthly concealed carry report ...

at:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

This report covers a time frame from October 1, 1987 - February 28, 2010. During this period a total of 167 licenses have been revoked due to a "Crime After Licensure" in which a firearm was utilized. 1,723,590 licenses have been issued and 701,088 licenses are currently valid. 4,655 licenses were revoked for a crime committed after the license was issued, but these crimes didn't involve a firearm.

The VPC is an organization with a bias against guns similar to the Brady Campaign. The NRA-ILA is an organization with a pro-gun bias. Any comments, statements and reports from any of these organizations MUST be taken with a grain of salt until researched. The VPC has received a lot of criticism for its reports. Several recent threads here on DU dealt with flaws in VPC reports. Use the search function to find them.

Nobody says that CCW holders don't commit crime in Florida or any other state. If that were true, they would be angels. Having wings and a halo is not a requirement for a carry permit.

[onehandle]

6. Yes. Some DUers do have a knee jerk reaction to hate the police.

Meanwhile in the real world...

[eqfan592]

10. Hmmm, are you really one to be calling out others...

...about knee jerk reactions and the "real" world, onehandle? ;)

[cowman]

12. Yeah

meanwhile in the real world the vast majority of street cops support citizens right to carry concealed, while most of the cop-o-crats are the ones who oppose conceal carry

[jody]

2. When attacked by a criminal and seconds count, police or only minutes or hours away. n/t

[shadowrider]

5. the bill should ban permits to anyone addicted to alcohol.

Unless it can be proven they've gone to rehab how are they going to prove someone is addicted to alcohol? Would this include those that have a glass of wine every night with dinner? Are they addicted?

She also said her group opposes a section of the bill that would allow permit holders who are drunk to have concealed weapons if they could show they needed the guns to protect themselves or others.

Guns and alcohol never, never, ever mix. Anyone that has a concealed weapon and is drunk needs to have the license revoked. If someone needs a gun to protect themselves or others, they darn sure better be sober.

[eqfan592]

8. You mean the Sheriffs DON'T want to turn over their absolute power...

...over concealed carry permits?!?! SHOCKING!

Seriously though, unless somebody can provide the exact wording of a poll, then I say there's a solid chance the poll is bunk.

[onehandle]

9. Polls are never accurate unless they are in my favor.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[eqfan592]

11. Wow, at least you came out and admitted it. ;)

Seriously though, I never fully trust a polls accuracy unless how the poll was conducted can be verified.

[DissedByBush]

48. Aw, there goes the good ol' boys network

Where only the rich or well-connected can get a permit.

Poor sheriff can't dole out the favors anymore and get that payback later.

[brewens]

13. I agree with the alcohol part. A bed wetting mama's boy that

was never taught how to hold a glass shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun! I'd go along with prohibiting wife beater too.

[shadowrider]

16. I agree with the alcohol part too, however,

I wonder how the Sheriff will determine someone is addicted to alcohol, and can he merely suspect it? If so, he has reason to turn everyone down regardless.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Name calling - did you think I was referring to you?

Doesn't that say something?

[eqfan592]

26. Umm, no, it doesn't say something.

Because you WERE referring to just about anybody here who has opposed you and your ignorant view point. Trying to imply otherwise at this point is childish.

[shadowrider]

24. I am responsible for my own safety

Call my pistol a security blanket if you wish, but that blanket may very well one day save my life.

Calling people bed-wetting mama's boys that are PRO 2A is going overboard, IMHO.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Where did I say I was anti-2nd amendment?

And where did I accuse all 'pro-2A' people of being mama's boys?

It is a common tactic of the right to conflate any opposition to any part of their agenda with ALL opposition to ALL of their agenda - kinda like those who were calling Dennis Kucinich a right-winger because of his opposition to a fundamentally flawed HCR bill.

If what I said struck a nerve, you might ask yourself why.

[shadowrider]

31. LOL common tactic of the right

Nobody on the left feels this way. Right. Gotcha.

Your gun loving mama's boy statement left me with the distinct impression that's what you were trying to say without saying it. If I misinterpreted that, my bad.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Well, obviously, one of the above posters - an ex-SEAL - is no mama's boy,

but I really do think that there are some represented here. I was not, however, making a direct reference to any one poster.

If you can't be brave without a gun, you're not going to be brave with one. It's about character, will power, not fire power.

[shadowrider]

41. Your view. Mine differs somewhat.

If you can't be brave without a gun, you're not going to be brave with one. It's about character, will power, not fire power.

It's pretty difficult to be brave when the only thing separating you from a bullet is your skin and the gun is pointed in your general direction, unless, at the funeral you want them to say, "Man, was he brave. Stupid, but brave."

[Euromutt]

42. I've heard that notion before.

If you can't be brave without a gun, you're not going to be brave with one. It's about character, will power, not fire power.

There are numerous historical examples of military commanders relying on a doctrinal belief that willpower would triumph over firepower: Russian generals in the Crimea and Manchuria had faith in the bayonet; the French in 1914 believed cran (loosely, "guts") and l'offensive à l'outrance (all out offensive) would deliver victory; Hitler insisted in 1945 that sufficient willpower would allow the Wehrmacht to stop the Red Army.

Unfortunately, those of us who understand the laws of physics know that willpower cannot make one invulnerable to blades, bullets, shrapnel, etc. and the results were largely predictable. Relying on "character" does not compensate for inadequate preparation due to a willful failure to acknowledge reality, and crosses the fine line between courage and stupidity.

[msongs]

20. imagine all thos people NOT obsessed with guns n playing with guns lol nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

27. No one is forcing them to - I don't see how this bill effects their daily lives.

Don't like guns? Don't own or carry one.
I don't like abortions... but I'm not running around trying to ban them either.

Civil liberties and freedoms is the crux of the matter - not people's obsessions and preferences.

[shadowrider]

32. I'm just wondering

Why DU doesn't have an anti-gun forum. That way the anti-gunners could all go there and leave us alone.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. Anti-gun forums aren't popular for the same reasons slavery forums aren't popular.

Factually, statistically, and logically - gun control is stupid, regressive, and refutable.
The "anti-gun" forum would exist for about a week before the RKBA crowd mopped the floor with them and renamed it the RKBA forum.
The stragglers and zealots would do nothing beneficial for their cause and set Guinness Record for cumulative moronic posting.
Come to think of it, why doesn't some progun group start an Anti-gun website for nothing but target-practice and pwnage?

When your political position is severely flawed on several levels, transparency and public discussion is swept under the rug. ;)

IMO, this subforum should be called the "Firearms" or "2nd Amendment" forum - instead of "Guns"

[Euromutt]

37. Correction to OP title: Police organization and some Iowans oppose "shall issue" CCW in Iowa

Iowa already permits concealed carry, and the article doesn't mention anyone being opposed to that; the question is whether the permit system should become "shall issue" or remain "may issue."

Moreover, despite reference to "police organizations"--plural--being opposed to the "shall issue" legislation, only one organization is mentioned as taking that position, which is not coincidentally the one composed of the very people whose power would be reduced and thus have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. And even they seem to be more concerned with the details than with the general principle. (And that said, I have no objection to prohibiting being in possession of a firearm while legally "under the influence"; if you're concerned about a potentially imminent threat, why would you be drinking in the first place, rather than keeping your wits about you?)

[onehandle]

39. So you're the hyperbole police?

Then you have your job cut out for you, because this is hyperbole central.

Oh, and sorry to use the word 'police' to describe you. In hyperbole central, using this descriptor is probably thought of as an insult.

Or is that just hyperbole on my part?

[Euromutt]

40. No, I just like being precise (or at least as precise as possible)

And your OP title was not an accurate representation of the state of affairs as described in the article you quoted. If you'd directly quoted an inaccurate headline, that would have been one thing, but since the headline was "Democrats resurrect concealed weapons measure," I can see why you chose to assiduously avoid quoting that.

You also seem to have omitted any mention of the fact that Iowa already has a concealed carry permit system in place. In fact, one might be forgiven for wondering whether you were deliberately trying to mislead any readers who didn't bother to read the original article.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Faith-based arguments *require* ignoring or eliding fact when it conflicts with dogma.

You really wouldn't expect an accurate account of current thought in geology from a young-Earth creationist, would you?

To acknowledge that Iowa Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy are both Democrats
and introduced the "shall-issue" bill in the OP is just too much to expect from someone who would post this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x303316#303387

onehandle (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-19-10 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. I love how this room celebrates the actions of Republicans and the right. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. I'd like a cogent defense of the supposed virtues of "may-issue' laws.

As far as I can tell, they are:

They keep power and money flowing toward the authority figure responsible for issuing permits, and keep people with
unpopular ethnic backgrounds from legally carrying concealed handguns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. What is the title of the story in your link?