After trying to link the availability of carry permits and the loosening of restrictive gun laws with crime and police murders, they leave us with this:
Iowa is a "may issue" state when it comes to concealed weapons permits. The sheriff may issue a permit if an applicant meets the requirements, but he doesn't have to. May is the operative word here. The decision is left to the sheriff. The right to a permit is not automatic. Iowacarry.org wants to change "may" to "shall" -- effectively taking away the sheriff's discretion.They must mean those counties where only the sheriff's family and friends receive permits. Obviously no one on the editorial board has ever tried to apply for a permit.
That's not a good idea. Responsible gun owners have every right to carry a concealed weapon. Still, we'll sleep better knowing someone in law enforcement is weighing each case and making that determination on an individual basis.
Shootings, intentional and unintentional, happen every day in this country. As states give more rights to gun owners, it's imperative that sheriffs maintain their discretion over the right to carry.And some sheriff's abuse this everyday.
I can't wait until they read the Vermont-style carry bill endorsed by Iowa Gun Owners.
2 comments:
Whoever wrote that editorial is woefully ignorant or intentionally dishonest. There is no other option. I will point to only one idiocy the idiot idiotized in writing.
"As states give more rights to gun owners, it's imperative that sheriffs maintain their discretion over the right to carry."
States don't "give" rights, though they are charged with protecting them. That they don't do their jobs does not equal the assumption of legitimate power to own our rights and then dispense them as privileges or not at their whim.
This editorial writer isn't just ignorant about guns or gun rights, he/she is ignorant about rights, law, constitution, liberty and America. This dolt should not be given an avenue to spread such ignorance, but guess what, he/she enjoys the right of free expression which is guaranteed in our constitution as a pre-existing right, but not granted by it.
How ironic is that? The editorialist gets to spew false, emotional, unfactual blatherings because of rights, but wants the rights of others to be turned into state authorized privileges.
Now we must ask why he should not support a permitting process for editorial writers. You know, the kind where he undergoes a background check to determine his character and police record, take an editorial safety course, pay fees all along the process and then apply for a "may issue" permit to state his opinions in publications which are approved by the may or may not issuing authority. Of course, every one of his opinions must have a serial number, every opinion must be vetted for signs of plagiarism and when that background check is completed he must undergo a 30 day waiting period before putting his opinion is any permanent record.
Now, let's see if he approves of rights being reduced to privileges that may be withheld at the whim of only one person in his entire county.
I can't disagree with anything you wrote, SA.
Regarding the "issuing authority" of a county propaganda minister that would grant an editor the "right" to publish his/her opinions, that minister has the authority to deny (even after paying the required fees) any person for any reason the ability to express his/her opinions in any format available.
I doubt very much that this same editorial board would tolerate that.
It's strange how some people tolerate denying anyone their 2nd Amendment rights, but when the same restrictions would apply to their own pet right, they go all ape-shite.
Post a Comment