Clinton Iowa to conceder gun ban

[oneshooter]

CLINTON — City leaders are hoping to officially declare municipal properties as “weapon-free zones.”

The Clinton Rules and Regulations Committee discussed the idea at its meeting Tuesday. It comes from Police Chief Brian Guy and City Attorney Jeffrey Farwell, who recently met to review the city’s safety procedures. Farwell said that if the city was looking at overall safety, including security cameras in municipal buildings, it would be a good idea to establish a weapons ban for all buildings owned, leased or occupied by the city.

But committee members expressed concerns about how a ban on weapons or firearms of this nature could be challenged. Farwell said.

There would be exceptions to the new rules; active duty peace officers would still be allowed to carry weapons, as would anyone participating in an event sanctioned by the city, like a bow and arrow demonstration or a historical military reenactment in a park.


More here: http://clintonherald.com/local/x713546051/City-properties-could-become-weapons-free-zones

I believe that Iowa has a state preemption law.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[AlinPA]

1. Conceding or considering?

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Giving in, eh?

[JDPriestly]

3. That seems pretty normal to me.

In Los Angeles, we go through a metal detector and other things as we go into the courthouse.

It is a good thing. Years ago, I came down a staircase in the downtown courthouse just after an angry father had fought his estranged wife. I watched as officers led their young daughter (I think she was 5 and present at the shooting) away.

I do not favor all gun regulation, but the city could face a lawsuit if someone is shot on its premises and it has been allowing people to bring weapons into the building. Even if the city won the lawsuit, the cost of fighting it could be a hardship to a small city.

This is not at all the same as imposing a gun ban everywhere in the town. Not at all. I think that a city should be responsible for doing its best to insure the safety of people who visit the municipal buildings.

Hopefully, the city also shovels the snow away from the steps and sidewalks on the municipal properties. That's the same kind of thing.

[oneshooter]

4. From the article.........

There would be exceptions to the new rules; active duty peace officers would still be allowed to carry weapons, as would anyone participating in an event sanctioned by the city, like a bow and arrow demonstration or a historical military reenactment in a park.

This sounds like they want a ban on firearms on ALL city property, including parks.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[JDPriestly]

5. That would be reasonable since they could face a lawsuit

if their are problems with gun crime in parks too. Even if carrying a gun is legal, a city could face a lawsuit for damages if someone is shot in a park.

Government agencies are trying very hard to save money now.

You cannot take guns on planes.

I wouldn't try to take a gun into a federal building either.

[armueller2001]

6. You can take guns on planes.

They must be unloaded and locked in a hard sided container, and declared when checking baggage.

[JDPriestly]

7. Well, if you live in Clinton, Iowa, why don't you suggest that they permit

unloaded guns that are locked in a hard-sided container on municipal property?

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. I suggest Clinton, Iowa not try this as it's illegal under state preemption law:

Of course, if you think it's worthy of a legal challenge, feel free to donate some $ for the city of Clinton's legal costs...

[lawodevolution]

11. Imagine if they pass this illegal law, and someone then gets shot on city property where

they were not supposed to be able to get shot. I'd sue the hell out of the city for disarming me and then not protecting me.

[JDPriestly]

13. The city might owe you a lot of money if it did not enforce this law.

Hard to say what a jury would decide, but you might be able to sue. But the "disarming" bit would not be relevant. If the city passes this law, then it is up to them to enforce it. In fact, even if they considered passing it, it shows that they are aware that there is a danger of shootings on municipal property for which they could be liable. There must be some reason they are considering this measure. Have there been shootings or guns found in public buildings or parks?

We had a shooting in the courthouse here in LA. I think that is what set off a movement to prohibit weapons of all kinds. We are subject to security checks when we enter. No one seems to mind. Everyone feels safer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. No, for two reasons. 1.) The Supreme Court has held that police protection is *not* a civil right.

See Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

2.) The law itself would be illegal. Iowa state law explicitly prohibits towns, cities, and municipalities from passing any

sort of gun control law. The exact statute was already cited:

Statutes (Code Chapters & Sections)/2009 Merged Iowa Code and Supplement/TITLE XVI CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE/SUBTITLE 1 CRIME CONTROL AND CRIMINAL ACTS/CHAPTER 724 WEAPONS/724.28 Prohibition of regulation by political subdivisions.


724.28 Prohibition of regulation by political subdivisions.
A political subdivision of the state shall not enact an ordinance regulating the ownership, possession, legal transfer, lawful transportation, registration, or licensing of firearms when the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state. An ordinance regulating firearms in violation of this section existing on or after April 5, 1990, is void.
90 Acts, ch 1147, §9

[JDPriestly]

32. This is a shame. As I said in another post, I believe that

a property owner, including a municipality should have the right to prohibit guns on its premises. The right of the property owner to protect people on its premises as well as its property should, I believe, prevail over the right to carry a gun. I recognize both rights, but I think the right to prohibit guns on property belonging to you should be the most important.

There have been at least two murders in churches of which I am aware. Those churches should have prohibited guns on the premises. Would it have prevented the murders? Probably not, but it might deter those who could kill accidentally as well as people who kill on the spur of the moment in the midst of an argument or an emotional outburst.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. People who are out to kill don't usually check to see if guns are illegal beforehand.

Gun bans only work on the law-abiding.

And CCW permit holders are far more law abiding as a group than the public at large.

And in one church shooting, the shooter was stopped by an usher who had a permit.

[JDPriestly]

41. Let's say you own a bar in which there was a shooting a few years ago.

If you ban guns and ask people to leave guns at home even if permitted, then you have done something to try to prevent another shooting. Even if it does not work, you will have less responsibility and certainly feel less responsible should someone bring a gun into your bar against your rules and hurt someone with it. So that is why I think property owners should have the right to ban guns on their properties. It permits the property owner to protect him- or herself.

[SteveM]

48. Your outlook would run afoul of the Constitution and federalism...

"...a property owner, including a municipality should have the right to prohibit guns on its premises. The right of the property owner to protect people on its premises as well as its property should, I believe, prevail over the right to carry a gun. I recognize both rights, but I think the right to prohibit guns on property belonging to you should be the most important."

The "property owner" is the public, and public entities are arms of the government, subject to the provisions of the Constitution (see Amendment 14). Seen in this way, there is no need to find one right "the most important."

[JDPriestly]

12. Either way, the city of Clinton could incur legal fees and costs.

Too bad. This ban on guns in municipal buildings seems perfectly reasonable. I hope that guns are also banned in a lot of privately owned buildings open to the public like banks, just to name one example. I do not want the guy behind me in line at the bank teller's counter to have a gun.

[Glassunion]

14. "I do not want the guy behind me in line at the bank teller's counter to have a gun."

That statement does not make much sense.

If the guy in line behind you is carrying for self defense what is the problem? Chances are you would never know that they were carrying it.

If the guy in line behind you is carrying to rob the bank or do harm, they are not going to abide by the law and leave their firearm at home or in the car.

[JDPriestly]

24. How am I or the bank supposed to guess that the gun is for self-defense?

[oneshooter]

25. If it is concealed then you won't even know it's there.

I have a Texas CHL and carry daily. In Texas if you do not want my business then all you have to do is post a legal 30.06 sign at all entrances. This makes it illegal for a CHL holder to carry into the business.
Simple.

However it does NOTHING to prevent Goblins from carrying concealed. And they may be the one behind you!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[armueller2001]

26. It's pretty easy actually.

If the person at the bank brandishes his firearm, points it at a bank teller, and demands cash then their gun is probably not for self defense. However, if the person goes about their business normally and walks out the bank doors, then chances are they are a law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit.

The best part? You'd never know, because the gun is concealed.

If you live in a state other than Illinois or Wisconsin, about 2 or 3 out of every 100 adults you encounter has a concealed carry permit and is likely carrying. According to numerous studies, those law abiding citizens who go through the process of being fingerprinted and background checked are about 7-10 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population. What's the problem?

[JDPriestly]

29. No problem provided they have a permit, but how do you know they

have a permit if the guns are concealed?

[armueller2001]

31. Huh?

I'm sure people carry concealed illegally as well. But the problem with banning guns on a premises is that those law abiding citizens are disarmed, while those who are carrying illegally or are interested in committing crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, etc. don't really give a shit about a little "no guns" sign.

Did a "no guns" sign stop any of the shooting sprees on U.S. campuses in the last few years? No, but it did make sure that those who may have had concealed carry permits were rendered defenseless and were essentially fish in a barrel.

[JDPriestly]

33. I can just imagine what would have happened in those campus

shootings if a number of other individuals had carried concealed weapons. No one would have been safe. People would have been shooting wildly. Sorry, but you don't have me persuaded on this. I still believe that individual property owners should be able to ban guns on their premises. And property owners should include municipalities.

[armueller2001]

35. Can you elaborate on why you think

people would have been "shooting wildly"? Has this happened in any of the times a concealed weapon permit holder has defended themselves with their firearm?

I have no problem with property owners banning firearms on their premises, I can take my business elsewhere and will definitely let the business owner know exactly why they are losing my money.

[X_Digger]

36. You mean like at the Appalachian School of Law in my home town?

Two separate students went to their cars, retrieved their weapons, and along with a third, unarmed student, subdued the shooter.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. "People would have been shooting wildly." It has never happened in the real world.

The 'friendly fire' canard has been around for years, and no one yet has ever given an example of it happening.

Oh, sure, they're convinced it will happen sometime Real Soon Now- but somehow, it never seems to.


But permit holders really have stopped school shooters. Just Google "Appalachian School of Law shooting" or Pearl, Missisippi.

Oh and in case you are unaware of it, forty or so college campuses allow students with permits to carry guns on campus,

including state universities in Utah, Washington, and Alaska. They haven't had much of a problem.

[PavePusher]

40. "I can just imagine..."

Uh, no, you can't.

Because it's never happened. Think about that for a while.

[Euromutt]

43. Well, if I may be pedantic for a moment...

Actually, JD over there can imagine, but the fact that one can imagine something doesn't make it real. I can imagine that Salma Hayek will roll up to my house in huge limo, whisk me away and ravish me on the back seats, but it's not going to actually happen.

[SteveM]

50. So, is Meghan Fox chopped liver? Sheesh....

"I'll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours" -- B. Dylan

[jazzhound]

42. If you consider yourself to be a fair-minded person

permit me to invite you to give this page a thorough read, argument by argument..........and share your thoughts on the content:

http://www.concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php

Thank you.

[SteveM]

49. You don't, and no "gun-free zone" will make it otherwise. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. It's also rather funny coming from someone with an Eleanor Roosevelt avatar:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x268138

[JDPriestly]

30. I am not anti-gun. I just believe that property owners including

a municipal government should have the choice to bar guns from their premises.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion- but the State of Iowa disagrees.

And I would point out that parks are actually owned by the citizens via whatever polity that might technically 'own' them.


If Iowa laws allows the prohibition of guns in courthouses while providing armed security, I would have no problem and

believe it would pass Constitutional muster.

[X_Digger]

37. The municipal government is not the owner- the people of the municipality are the owners. n/t

[oneshooter]

44. Do you also agree that if they do then they are responsible for the

safety and protection of all of those who enter? That the liability rests on the property owner if something happens?
After all they can not defend/protect themselves.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

22. Hmm, any other Civil Rights that should be denied? n/t

[SteveM]

47. I lived in Clinton, IA, I would suggest dropping this law or face a challenge...

...which will cost the city a lot more than some fanciful injury/liability.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. They have no choice in the matter. Iowa state law preempts local regulations

Statutes (Code Chapters & Sections)/2009 Merged Iowa Code and Supplement/TITLE XVI CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE/SUBTITLE 1 CRIME CONTROL AND CRIMINAL ACTS/CHAPTER 724 WEAPONS/724.28 Prohibition of regulation by political subdivisions.


724.28 Prohibition of regulation by political subdivisions.
A political subdivision of the state shall not enact an ordinance regulating the ownership, possession, legal transfer, lawful transportation, registration, or licensing of firearms when the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state. An ordinance regulating firearms in violation of this section existing on or after April 5, 1990, is void.
90 Acts, ch 1147, §9

And let me break another thing to you as gently as I can:

People that think it's a good idea to engage in gunplay in public generally don't check beforehand to see if carrying a gun

is legal

[SteveM]

46. "You cannot take guns on planes?" Uh, I did. Legally, too.

[Euromutt]

10. I'll be bloody surprised if the city plans to put metal detectors in every city facility

With secured areas like court buildings, (certain) federal buildings, secure zones of airports and the like, all visitors are actually screened for weapons. There is a point to gun bans when they are backed by physical security. Declaring a building a "gun free zone" without actually implementing physical security is worse than useless because there is nothing to physically prevent someone intent on harming others from bringing in a weapon, and frankly, an additional misdemeanor or civil offense charge is hardly going to deter someone who's already knowingly intent upon committing one or more felonies.

By way of illustration, consider that it's a misdemeanor to carry a gun into a post office; hell, it's a misdemeanor to even park your car in the post office parking lot if you have a firearm inside. And yet, there have been something in the order of a hundred post office robberies annually for the past six years. The reason there aren't more is primarily because the U.S. Postal Inspection Service has a clearance rate close to 100% for post office robberies, and the offense carries a prison sentence of up to 25 years. The fact that they do happen, however, is evidence that the extra misdemeanor charge of possessing a weapon on USPS property is no deterrent for someone stupid enough to try anyway.

I think that a city should be responsible for doing its best to insure the safety of people who visit the municipal buildings.

The thing is that declaring municipal buildings to be "gun free zones" doesn't ensure anybody's safety if it isn't enforced by physical security. Those intent upon doing harm won't obey the rule, and the people who do obey the rule are the one's who weren't going to cause trouble anyway (but might at least be able to offer some resistance to any "active shooter"). Let me put it this way: Virginia Tech was a "gun free zone"; how much good did that do for the Seung-Hui Cho's victims?

[SteveM]

45. "Gun-free zone" signs have been disappearing around here...

...probably the authorities in Austin, TX., have seen the light that such zones are counter-productive advertisements.

[AlinPA]

15. IMO, it's a good idea to ban them at courthouses and places where local government

people meet, even school board meetings. That shooting in Florida being an example.

[spin]

16. It is important to have armed security in the building ...

as illustrated by the Florida example. If you create a gun free zone without any protection, you have effectively a shooting gallery.

[AlinPA]

17. Yes,agree. But guns should not be allowed in courthouses and government meeting places,

there are some people who go after those places when they have strong disagreements and see the gun as an equalizer. Some call it gun grabbing, but it's common sense in my view.

[spin]

20. As I said, I have no problems with a no gun policy if armed security is present.

When I attend town meetings, the local sheriff is there in uniform and carrying a sidearm. I have no problem with not being allowed to carry my weapon.

Town meetings often get rowdy.

[PavePusher]

23. Perhaps government should try not doing things....

that make people want to shoot them.

Just an idea.

[X_Digger]

18. If access were controlled, I'd agree.

If there are metal detectors and guards at all entrances, I'd agree- like at a court house or a prison.

If not? No.

[Glassunion]

19. In PA our courthouses have lockers so you can check your firearm.

If I were to go to the courthouse there are metal detectors at the door. You declare your firearm with the deputy, you go and check your firearm, and place it in a locker. You keep the key. Then you go through the metal detectors like everyone else.

The only people in the building with firearms that I have seen are deputies. I have seen many local and state PD and detectives with empty holsters in the building, so I am not sure if they are allowed to carry.

[X_Digger]

21. That would be ideal. Glad someone's got it right. n/t