More than 150 with criminal convictions can now carry guns - "shall issue" GOP/NRA insanity, Iowa

[jpak]

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/03/08/Metro/21872.html

More than 150 people with criminal records now have the right to carry guns in Johnson County.

In the two months since Iowa became a shall-issue state, drastically limiting sheriffs’ authority over to whom to grant gun permits, Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek has issued licenses to 733 people. This is a dramatic increase from the 500 issued in all of 2010.

A Daily Iowan analysis shows at least 30 people who have been convicted of violent crimes may now legally carry guns in public. Twenty-two people convicted of an aggravated misdemeanor — one step below a felony and punishable by up to two years in prison — also have that right.

In total, the DI analysis shows roughly 100 people who have been given the right to carry guns in Johnson County in the past two months have been convicted of at least a total of 167 crimes at some point in their past. All of these convictions happened more than four years ago; the new law automatically disqualifies those who have received a serious or aggravated within the past three years.

<more>

Guns are the answer for criminals in Johnaon County Iowa

Thank you NRA

Thank you GOP

not

:puke:

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Former felons are still disqualified unless the right is restored by a judge.

These people are not felons. Should people be banned from XYZ civil right, forever, or what?

I don't assume these people are likely to re-offend. They've gone at least 4 years without a problem, right?

[jpak]

2. Convicted criminals with guns makes us safer

not

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Well, clearly convicted criminals should forever be second class citizens.

That will certainly help the recidivism rate won't it?

[DrDan]

9. second class citizens and the right to carry a gun are two different things

[AtheistCrusader]

30. No, they aren't.

Citizens can vote, citizens can carry firearms, among other civil rights.

We are not subjects, enjoying the freedoms offered to us by the monarchy.

[jpak]

11. Don't do the crime if you ever want to carry a concealed weapon

yup

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Including being a teenager imbibing alcohol?

Yeah, boy, that should abrogate a civil right forever. Oh boy.

[jpak]

38. Coddling criminals if NRA/GOP Job 1

yup

[PavePusher]

41. Cite to evidence, please. n/t

[right2bfree]

60. Exactly. Thousands dead or crippled every year by guns. nt

[right2bfree]

76. Exactly, But each year hundreds of these guns end up in the WRONG hands...

stolen or lent to someone. Next thing you know, someone gets shot.

[right2bfree]

73. Damn tootin they do. I just love knowing that felons can carry guns....

NOT!!!

[petronius]

3. The sheriff seems to be stretching a bit - at the end of the article he apparently defines

"law-abiding" as not more than 2-3 convictions over 10-15 years, but he also refers to people with one or more 4 year old conviction as "criminals." And he includes PAULAs (which the article neglects to define, but is apparently underage alcohol possession) in order to get to his 150+ number...

[jpak]

6. This stupid GOP law removes the sheriff's discretion to prohibit gun permits to known criminals

He has to give them a CONCEALED GUN PERMIT - to convicted criminals

just plain stupid

yup

[petronius]

7. How old should a conviction be before a person stops being a "known criminal"?

And I ask that completely separately from the issue in the OP - is a convicted person a "known criminal" for life in your view? Do underage drinkers count as "known criminals"?

Reading the article, it sounds like the changed law is at least as strict (and less arbitrary) than this sheriff's discretion...

[jpak]

10. Yeah - criminal convictions should be grandfathered so criminals can carry concealed handguns

dumb

yup

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. "grandfathering" has to do with avoiding ex post facto situations. WTF are you talking about??

[petronius]

18. So in your world-view it's "once a criminal, always a criminal"?

:shrug:

[jpak]

22. When it comes to issuing a permit to carry a concealed deadly weapon, law enforcement should decide

yup

[PavePusher]

23. Ah, I see. Let the police decide your Civil Rights.

Yes, that's worked out so well in the past...

[jpak]

25. Do you have a civil right to give CCW permits to felons? - nope - a CCW permit is not a civil right

yup

[PavePusher]

27. Keeping and bearing arms is a Civil Right.

Permits for a Civil Right are Unconstitutional.

Civil Rights may only be denied under strict conditions, and there must be an avenue to apply for relief of the restriction.

You fail on so many levels, it's really quite amazing.

[jpak]

28. The 2A is not absolute - it has limits, like keeping felons from bearing. CCW is not a "right"

nope

[armueller2001]

35. Felons can't vote.

Does that mean voting is not a right because it has limits?

[Callisto32]

63. No.

It means that is a violation of their rights, too.

My take on this is "if someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm or a ballot, he should still be in prison."

[PavePusher]

39. Au Contraire, mon ami...

In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged.

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does attempt to convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

[jpak]

45. But...but...but.. guns are banned in the Supreme Court - so there are limits to the "right" to bear

yup

[Euromutt]

57. But we're not talking about felons; we're talking about people convicted of misdemeanors

Nice bait and switch you're trying to pull there.

[ManiacJoe]

33. Felons are not allowed CCW since they are not allowed to own guns.

Here is the key to the problem:

"The law also disqualifies citizens with felony or domestic-abuse convictions from obtaining a permit, but numerous people in Johnson County received permits after an original felony or domestic-abuse charge was lowered to a misdemeanor."

Complain to the prosecutors for doing a poor job.

[jpak]

34. But the Holy 2A says no one can infringe on sacred holy gun rights!!111

oops

never mind

yup

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

36. Due Process and Strict Scrutiny can be used to justly curtail just about any right.

But without incorporation of those tools, infringing on any right would be illegal.

[jpak]

37. Nope - any business owner should be able to ban guns on premises without restriction

property rights

yup

[PavePusher]

40. Dodge.

No-one is arguing against that.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

42. You describe private property rights.

Just about every state that allows concealed carry has provisions to bar firearms from private premesis.
You have every right to ban guns from your business and home... I agree 100% with this.

[jpak]

46. I can post my land and keep gun-toters off it - property rights

Business owners can do the same thing

guns

stay

out

yup

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. I agree... just don't be too surprised if someone decides not to comply with your personal ban.

People who carry guns illegally with criminal intent probably don't care about breaking your house-rules...

[jpak]

48. No to worry - I've dealt with trespassers - I call the cops, game wardens or forest rangers

and problem solved

yup

[oneshooter]

54. As long as they get there in time. n/t

[krispos42]

58. Your land does not have public access.

You can also post signs on your private property that say "No Ni**ers or fa**ots allowed on premises", too.

Try doing that at your private business. Try claiming "private property rights" to keep blacks and gays out of your business and see how much legal trouble you land in.

[Callisto32]

64. Yes, you can.

But...I thought YOU were a gun owner. Do guns stay out, or just other people's guns?

[rl6214]

53. Same...old...shtick

YUP

YUP

YUP

[one-eyed fat man]

59. It did not say felons

Nowhere in the article does it say felons, only you say felons. Anyone who claims the law "gives CCW permits to felons" is a LIAR!

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. And just who are you to promote fact above faith-promoting rumor?

Just another gun heathen- like me!

[petronius]

68. Well, to be strictly correct, it does mention felonies:

"The law also disqualifies citizens with felony or domestic-abuse convictions from obtaining a permit"

So anyone who says otherwise is not just a liar, they're a bare-faced liar (whatever that means, exactly :) )...

[one-eyed fat man]

70. I think if you look up 'bare faced liar'

you'll find the OP's picture.

[right2bfree]

61. Pretty much.....Hell Yes !!!! No guns for criminals!

[krispos42]

56. Insufficient funds in the 3rd degree.

Following too closely.

Speeding.


The three crimes I have been accused of and plead guilty to. So, am I a known criminal? A convicted criminal? How long am I a known/convicted criminal?

[Callisto32]

65. Does that first one mean....

"accidentally bounced a check?"

[krispos42]

69. That summer we (ex and I) bounced a LOT of checks.

One person decided to make a legal issue of it.


I bounced a $21 check for mini-golf.

[gejohnston]

67. So you disagree with Canada

which allows felons to own a gun after five years?

[DrDan]

4. insane

[Flyboy_451]

8. hmm...sounds fishy...

according to ATF Form 4473, those persons are prohibited, at the federal level, from possession of firearms. Reference question 11c..

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf

Question 11c:

Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?

(emphasis added)

It would seem that the actions of the the issuing agent are not in compliance with federal law, therefor these people would not be "legally" allowed to carry concealed. It may even be argued that the issuing agent was in violation of law by issuing a permit to such applicants.

JW

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. Depends... many were underage alcohol charges.

Are all 150 convictions felonies? Were they eventually granted reprieve through due process? There alot of legitimate questions that should be addressed before any pearl clutchers get thier panties in a wad.

I'm not sure many of these "convicted criminals" are quite as hardcore as the OP would lead us to believe.

[X_Digger]

16. That pertains to purchase..

Possession (over 18 / 21) is usually up to the states, if I recall correctly.

[Flyboy_451]

19. according to 18 USC...

18 U.S.C. § 922(g) & (n). Punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. May
receive minimum sentence of 15 years without parole if the felon has 3 or more
prior convictions for a felony crime of violence (e.g. burglary, robbery, assault,
possession of offensive weapons) and/or drug trafficking felony (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)).
Elements
A. Possession or receipt of a firearm or ammunition;
B. By a person who falls in one of the following categories:
- Convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year (persons under indictment or information for such
a crime are prohibited from receiving firearms or ammunition);
- Fugitive from Justice (requires interstate flight to avoid prosecution

JW

[X_Digger]

29. Ahh, I was thinking of 922(r) I believe.

Most of the 'felon in possession' cases I've seen are state cases.

[lawodevolution]

14. It depends on the nature of the crimes, you , Jpak, for example probably

Like the rest of us break several laws per day without knowing it

CHL holders have been shown to commit very few crimes

[jpak]

20. "CHL holders have been shown to commit very few crimes " umm they are giving criminals CCW permits

fail

yup

[WatsonT]

43. I know you aren't a fan of factual information

but here:

[Ken_Fish]

50. Cant explain away the numbers. its not oped.

so his claims have no bearing on the real world stats.

[oneshooter]

55. His claims have no bearing on the real world, period! n/t

[right2bfree]

62. BINGO!!! We have a winner !!! nt

[right2bfree]

75. More "law-abiding citizen" nonsense from the gun give-away crowd...

well, they got what they wanted, and now we all have to pay the price.

[Scout]

80. you don't know any more than i do how many crimes are COMMITTED

by gun owners/CHL holders, whatever group ... we only know how many times they've been CAUGHT.

:eyes:

[X_Digger]

81. CHLs as super-ninjas evading arrest?!? LOL!!! n/t

[Scout]

83. no, just people....

how many crimes have i committed?

how many crimes have i been caught for?

two totally different things, shouldn't be too hard to understand

:eyes:

[X_Digger]

84. Are CHLs any less likely to be caught for a crime than the general public?

No? Then it's a moot point.

[Scout]

89. not a moot point ... directly disproves this statement that i replied to:

"CHL holders have been shown to commit very few crimes."

prove it.

[X_Digger]

90. Semantic masturbation, now?

Is that what you're left with?

You're reduced to attacking people's less-than-perfect choice of words?

*snort*

[Scout]

91. yeah, 'cuz words don't really mean anything ... we can just spew whatever nonsense

we want, and then when called on our shit, just complain about semantic masturbation.

one should really say what one means, don't you think? unless one just does not possess the vocabulary for it, i don't see why one should not say what one MEANS.

there really is a big difference between crimes committed and crimes one is caught and convicted of committing. just seems some gun owners like to throw around the supposed truth that gun owners/carriers are somehow just better, safer, less prone to crime than everyone else. and i say "prove it." if you want to accuse me of semantic masturbation, seems to me YOU have no argument.

so *snort* your own self.


ETA: can i accuse ya'll of semantic masturbation when ya'll are arguing the finer points of the meaning of "well-regulated militia"? :rofl:

[X_Digger]

92. It is a moot point in comparison to the general public unless..

.. you assert that CHLs are some kind of super-ninjas who commit crimes without being detected / caught / convicted at a rate different than the general public.

It is a distinction without meaning when compared to the general public, but I'm sure you know that.

That's what you're left with? I'm glad to know that's the extent of your argument, then.

[Straw Man]

94. I'm sorry, but you have totally missed the point.

ALL criminal profile stats are based on arrest info. Gun owner stats are not unique in that regard. When you compare gun owners to the general public based on such stats, you are dipping into two data pools that are both subject to the same limitations. The comparisons are completely valid.

See? I knew you could.

[Straw Man]

93. All crime stats have that same limitation.

We're talking comparative rates here. It's a wash.

But you knew that...

[PavePusher]

15. The line was drawn at felonies and misdemeanor domestic violence.

Were any of those people convicted of felonies or misdemeanor domestic violence?

Are you making shit up again?

[ileus]

17. sounds like more anti's trying to stack the deck...

[WatsonT]

21. I'd prefer to see a list of the actual crimes committed

Getting caught with a beer when you're 20 doesn't mark you as being a physical threat to anyone else.

[rl6214]

24. "shall issue" GOP/NRA insanity, Iowa"

More of the shtick.

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAM

[jpak]

26. The OP is the latest GOP/NRA douchebaggery of the day

yup

[WatsonT]

44. I'm seeing some douchebaggery on this page

although it isn't related to the NRA or the pro-2nd amendment crowd.

[speltwon]

32. That's the case in WA state too

and much of the nation.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. people who have paid their debt to society and have proven that they

can be a contributing member to society have just cause. Are you sure you are liberal? progressive? democratic?. I truly do wonder sometimes about you.

[Kennah]

51. I call bullshit

http://www.dps.state.ia.us/asd/weapon_permits.shtml
http://www.dps.state.ia.us/asd/weapons/WP5.pdf

The form clearly states, in Yes/No question #2, "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime involving a firearm or explosives for which the court could have sentenced you to imprisonment for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?"

It asked "Have you ever ...", not "In the past couple of years, have you ever ..."

Then, in Yes/No question #3, "Have you been convicted in any court within the previous three years of a serious or aggravated misdemeanor defined in Iowa Code Ch. 708 not involving a firearm or explosives for which the court could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?"

Then, in Yes/No question #9, "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?"

Right above the signature line there is this:

"I certify that all information, including supporting documentation, provided in this application is true and correct, and I understand that I may be convicted of a class 'D' felony pursuant to Iowa Code section 724.10(3) if I make what I know to be a false statement of material fact on this application or if I submit what I know to be any materially falsified or forged documentation in connection with this application."

If there is some weird kink in the law prohibiting the sheriff from searching records older than two years, that's just plain fucked and I can't imagine why no one raised that issue sooner. However, once they find out the person lied, as per the questions above from the form on file, they can charge 'em with a new felony.

[virginia mountainman]

52. In many states, minor traffic tickets, are misdemeanors..

For example, get an "improper equipment" ticket, for having a burnt out tail light..

That is a criminal offense in Virginia..and you are REQUIRED to go in front of the judge. Yes it is a very MINOR "crime"..But still you MUST appear..If you don't you will simply be found guilty in absentia, and have a summery judgment against you...That you have ten days to pay up on...

O..And by the OPs standard, you should LOOSE a Civil Liberty for life because of a burnt out taillight..

How very "Progressive" of you..

[right2bfree]

74. Works for me. Whatever it takes to get the guns out of the hands of law-breakers...

if you get a ticket you better show up for court, if its the law!

[virginia mountainman]

77. Yes!!

And you should loose your civil rights for life, if you don't show up.... After all, a dirty headlight (improper equipment) is a precursor to so much violent crime...

How very "democratic" of you..

[right2bfree]

78. Owning guns is NOT a civil right. Its a right resevered to the militia. nt

[DonP]

79. At least two branches of the Government say you are absolutely wrong

Both the Supreme Court and the President have confirmed that gun ownership is not related to service in a militia.

But hell, that's just two branches of the government what do those dumb fucks know compared to your constitutional scholarship, right?

Of course most of the Senate and House have A ratings from the NRA so I don't know if I'd count on their vote if I were you.

[right2bfree]

82. A "Right" is: A; Something you dont pay for. B: Something that cant be taken away.....

so you gunners LOSE on Both counts.

And the really funny thing is that you have done so
with the support of the NRA and other gun lobbies, as well. B-)

[PavePusher]

86. So, because UnConstitutional fees have been applied to a Right...

it is no longer a Right?

Your "Right" to vote can be taken away. Does that mean it's not a "Right"?

Your "logic" is teh fale.

[X_Digger]

87. What legal dictionary did that "definition" come from?

You have to get a license to set up a demonstration.. not a right?

Voting can be taken away.. not a right?

You can be executed for treason.. is life not a right?

[rrneck]

85. How does one form a militia?

You find some people so serve in it. People.

Here's the text of the Second Amendment (as if it hasn't been posted here about a million times.)

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.

Any militia you care to name has a right to arms because the people from whom its numbers are drawn have that right. Every militia member can be armed, but every armed person need not serve in the militia.

[Kennah]

71. The world will not end over this

I recall a similar issue in Florida back in the early 90s.

Tallahassee would receive a report of an arrest for an applicant, but the window under law in which to issue or deny would close before they got the final outcome of the arrest: dismissal, acquittal, conviction, overturned on appeal, etc.

They issued the license, and only later did they learn that the applicant was convicted. Division of Licensing then would issue a revocation.

Now under Florida law, and probably since about 1994 or sooner, if the authorities get an arrest report for an applicant, and the charge if one were convicted would prohibit one from getting a license to carry, then the application remains on hold until final disposition of the arrest is determined. Real life ain't like the movies where everything is computerized.

A fairly simple law change was enacted, and voila problem solved.

[VoteProgressive]

72. Private hand guns sales worry me more than any other. nt

[benEzra]

88. Ummm....

one step below a felony and punishable by up to two years in prison — also have that right.

Ummm, Federal law says that you can't legally touch a gun or a single round of ammunition if you've been convicted of a crime punishable by more than 365 days in prison, as I recall, even if you weren't sentenced to that.

Which means that some of this info may be bogus?