The case is Dorr v. Weber, decided yesterday (some citations omitted); the court ordered the sheriff to grant the permit, but also wrote:
Paul [Dorr] was denied a permit precisely because Sheriff Weber believed that his free speech rights offended the majority of voters in Osceola County….In denying Paul a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections. Ironically, Sheriff Weber, sworn to uphold the Constitution, in fact retaliated against a citizen of his county who used this important freedom of speech and association precisely in the manner envisioned by the founding members of our Nation who ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. In doing so, this popularly elected Sheriff, who appears to be a fine man and an excellent law enforcement officer, in all other regards, blatantly caved in to public pressure and opinion and, in doing so, severely trampled the Constitution and Paul’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views….
[Footnote:] Following trial, the court alerted the parties to the possibility that it might order Sheriff Weber to take a class to educate him on the First Amendment. It provided the parties with 10 days to file briefs relating to the court’s authority to order such remedial relief. Sheriff Weber did not file a brief.
Sheriff Weber’s dramatic and stunning failure to appreciate, and to protect and defend, Paul’s basic First Amendment rights, compels remedial relief…. Sheriff Weber … must complete [a class that] … must provide college level instruction on the United States Constitution, including — at least in part — a discussion of the First Amendment. Sheriff Weber shall attach his transcript or other proof of completion to the affidavit — Sheriff Weber must obtain a passing grade or obtain an otherwise satisfactory assessment of his participation in the class.
More of the court’s legal analysis follows:
The court also finds that withholding a concealed weapons permit from an applicant [based on his past speech] would chill the speech of a person of ordinary firmness. The court recognizes that, “it would trivialize the First Amendment to hold that harassment for exercising the right of free speech was always actionable no matter how unlikely to deter a person of ordinary firmness from that exercise.” Naucke, 284 F.3d at 928 (citations omitted). However, the nature of a concealed weapons permit convinces the court that an applicant, who presumably seeks the permit in order to carry a pistol or revolver on their person, would reasonably be deterred from exercising their First Amendment rights if it led to a denial of the permit. Denial of the permit would prevent the applicant from carrying a pistol or revolver under the circumstances provided for in the permit …. and such a denial leaves the applicant with an unremedied concern for their own safety, or the safety of others….
Sheriff Weber has been generally consistent on his reason for denying Paul’s applications. In his deposition, which was admitted into evidence, Sheriff Weber was asked what had changed between 2006, the last year that he approved Paul’s application for a permit, and 2007, the year Sheriff Weber first disapproved Paul’s application for a permit. Sheriff Weber explained:
Well, you brought up the OCTA, Mr. Dorr’s affiliation with
that. He started sending out letters to the editor, emails, [flyers] on doors and cars, handing out brochures. People talked about it….He interjected himself into the public view or conscience or whatever you want to call — the consciousness, whatever you want to call it. People started talking about him….
So to answer your question, that’s what’s changed, is that he was a lot more active locally. I think a lot of his activities — I read a newspaper article, “The Gospel According to Paul Dorr,” where he does other work in other towns, other states and so forth. So we don’t really hear that here, but — so he was kind of out of the public view, I — in my opinion.
Following this response, Sheriff Weber was asked whether it was “his
work with the OCTA that brought him into your public view?” Sheriff Weber replied, “Correct, and people started talking about it saying things like, ‘Oh, that guy’s a nut job. Oh, that guy’s whacko.’” At trial, Sheriff Weber provided the same rationale for denying Paul’s permit: Paul’s involvement with the OCTA and the concern Sheriff Weber received from the public due to his involvement with the OCTA.
I blogged in May about an earlier decision in the case. Iowa still has a discretionary concealed carry permit system, though it is shifting to a shall-issue system next year. Thanks to Fred Ray for the pointer.
Dave M. says:
I’m guessing headline ought to read “denied”, right? [Whoops, fixed, thanks! -EV]
July 8, 2010, 3:58 pmChrisTS says:
Shouldn’t that be “DENIED’ rather than ‘designed’?
July 8, 2010, 3:59 pmnotaclue says:
And that’s why we need shall-issue laws. It sounds as if the sheriff denied the permit not out of personal animus but because of community pressure. Citizens need protection from both.
July 8, 2010, 4:03 pmrachel says:
I thought so, too, Dave M., until realizing it could’ve been a customized denial. You know, with shades of meaning, stonewalling counters and calling out on the carpet (pulling out the rug from under?) the applicant.
Pillars of justice and all.
July 8, 2010, 4:09 pmcboldt says:
Interesting case. Exercise of the right to bear arms bootstrapped from the First Amendment.
July 8, 2010, 4:11 pmSteve says:
I had a case before this federal judge, Mark Bennett, a few years back. He ruled against my client, but even if I might disagree with him on matters of substance I can’t say enough in praise of his diligence and his respect for the law. Really a credit to the bench.
It’s telling that the judge didn’t just order the sheriff to take a First Amendment class on a whim, but actually gave the parties an opportunity to brief the issue of whether the court had the power to issue such an order. That sort of thing is the mark of a deliberative judge.
July 8, 2010, 4:19 pmMN Lawyer says:
According to a press release announcing the verdict, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Bennett ruled from the bench for the first time in his life, calling Osceola County Sheriff Doug Weber’s denial of Paul Dorr’s concealed weapon permit in 2007 “the most egregious violation of the First Amendment he has witnessed in his 16 years serving on the bench.”
In his ruling, the judge also announced, “If I had the legal authority I would order punitive damages be paid as well.” He also reportedly announced that if the law permits he may order the sheriff to a take a remedial class in the First Amendment.
http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2010/07/02/mohrman-kaardal-attorneys-in-the-news/
July 8, 2010, 4:19 pmTim from Philly says:
How much is Mr. Dorr getting paid for this violation of his 1st and 2nd amendment rights? I hope the people of this county get to pay right from the rectum. Along with the Sheriff that should know better.
July 8, 2010, 4:22 pmEH says:
It sounds as if the sheriff denied the permit not out of personal animus but because of community pressure.
I’d think institutional animus can play a role here. “People started talking about him” as a hidey-hole for a discretionary denial.
July 8, 2010, 4:24 pmBob from Ohio says:
I don’t care much for sending people to re-education camps, no matter the good motives.
July 8, 2010, 4:29 pmJWB says:
Entertaining sentence from n. 6 of the opinion: “The court finds Paul Dorr to be a much more effective right wing gadfly than an accurate historian.”
July 8, 2010, 4:38 pmcboldt says:
– How much is Mr. Dorr getting paid for this violation of his 1st and 2nd amendment rights? –
July 8, 2010, 4:39 pmNothing. He waived claims to money damages.
Anderson says:
I don’t care much for sending people to re-education camps
Yeah, but this is without the “re-” it seems.
July 8, 2010, 4:40 pmSteve P. says:
I can understand the sentiment. Still, you’re okay with the people who are sworn to uphold the Constitution not actually knowing the Constitution?
July 8, 2010, 4:46 pmCaptain Haddock says:
I’m against sending people to re-education camps too. Not sure what that has to do with this case, though.
July 8, 2010, 4:55 pmArchitectJS says:
He’s a public servant, subject to greater scrutiny and responsibility.
July 8, 2010, 4:58 pmElliot says:
Interesting characterization of universities – reeducation camps.
July 8, 2010, 5:02 pmmoh456 says:
Not necessarily related to this case, but is there such a thing as First Amendment protected speech that WOULD be grounds for denying a concealed carry permit? If I believed and advocated that politician X was an alien from Jupiter and must be stopped by any means, would that be grounds to deny me a concealed carry permit? If I believed my property to be independent from the United States, advocated for sovereign recognition, and warned that any entry upon my land would be considered an act of war– would the state still be obligated to issue me a conceal carry permit?
July 8, 2010, 5:05 pmNot hte Attorney General of Georgia says:
“In doing so, this popularly elected Sheriff, who appears to be a fine man and an excellent law enforcement officer, in all other regards, blatantly caved in to public pressure and opinion and, in doing so, severely trampled the Constitution and Paul’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.”
No, not really. How does one appear to be “a fine man” whose oath of office likely included supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, and the laws and statutes thereof (and so forth) and violate his oath of office? How does one whose profession is supposed to be (‽)—(yes an interrabang) the upholding of the law stoop so low and be such a coward as to intentionally violate the very law he is to uphold.
Sort of like AG Holder quashing the prosecution of New Black Panthers for voter intimidation by making spurious excuses.
July 8, 2010, 5:08 pmArchitectJS says:
If you really believed this, why would a sovereign state require permission from another for weapons of defense?
July 8, 2010, 5:08 pmLib says:
I guess it would be accurate to say that Sheriff Weber got schooled by Judge Bennett.
July 8, 2010, 5:16 pmzuch says:
Paul Dorr’s convictions of multiple crimes might have been a better (and more legal) reason for denying the permit.
Cheers,
July 8, 2010, 5:17 pmfalafalafocus says:
Bah! Beaten to the punch!
July 8, 2010, 5:18 pmEugene Volokh says:
zuch: These were non-violent crimes, presumably things like trespass and the like (the opinion mentions blocking abortion clinic doors in the same passage — perhaps some of the convictions stemmed from that). The Sheriff might well have a practice of not refusing concealed carry permits to others convicted of similarly minor and non-violent crimes.
July 8, 2010, 5:27 pmGino says:
Spook? WTF?! I’ve always understood that word (used in that way, when not talking about ghosts) to be a racial epithet.
July 8, 2010, 5:29 pmSteve says:
Maybe, maybe not, but the sheriff forthrightly admitted that that wasn’t his reason. Indeed, the sheriff had previously issued permits to the very same guy notwithstanding the convictions.
I’m not sure if anyone has noted that the court separately upheld the sheriff’s decision to deny a permit to the guy’s son, based upon a blanket policy of not granting permits to people under the age of 21.
July 8, 2010, 5:30 pmRPT says:
What’s the VC position on the bumper sticker variation on this case? That is, what if the person had a anti-Bush bumper sticker on his car? Denied a permit? Or access to a 2A rally?
July 8, 2010, 5:38 pmKen Arromdee says:
I would suggest that a good rule to follow is that the standards for taking away a dangerous person’s gun rights should be similar to the standards for taking away other rights.
It is possible to involuntarily commit someone for being dangerous. However, the sheriff can’t go around just naming people he doesn’t like and using his discretion to get them involuntarily committed. It takes a hearing.
July 8, 2010, 5:45 pmruuffles says:
Strangely enough only Justice Thomas managed to carve out an exception to cross-burning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black
July 8, 2010, 5:47 pmcboldt says:
– However, the sheriff can’t go around just naming people he doesn’t like and using his discretion to get them involuntarily committed. –
July 8, 2010, 5:53 pmHe’s not supposed to, but if he and a judge cooperate, they can do this sort of thing. See the PA case of judges sending juveniles to jail. Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for Profit
If one can get higher levels of “the system” to cooperate, then infringements of substantial scale can be perpetrated. See Federal Courts misread of Presser and Miller.
yankev says:
I was impressed by the way the judge had a kind word for everyone involved — even when it came to correcting the plaintiff’s faulty ideas about the Copperheads, and the judge’s complementing the Sheriff for his forthrightness even while depolring the disregard of the first amemndment.
July 8, 2010, 6:06 pmyankev says:
I don’t know whether he has an anti-Bush sticker or not, but the current governonr of Ohio supports concealed carry and was endorsed by the NRA over his Republican opponent. Where do get your stereotypes?
July 8, 2010, 6:10 pmFiftycal says:
Well, this guy had “beliefs” that differed from the good Sheriff. And the “potential” to commit mayhem. Of course, the same could be said about a male being a “potential” rapist. Think this judge could be transferred to Kalipornia for a bit to rule on their “may issue if you donate enough money to the sheriff” concealed handgun license system?
July 8, 2010, 6:11 pmMalvolio says:
Does the judge have the authority to do this? The sheriff either works for the elected executive or is elected himself, should the judiciary be allowed to manage him on this level?
He wasn’t “carving” an exception. He wished to include cross-burning with a pre-existing exception for threats. I think that as a factual matter, he’s wrong, but he’s not out on some periphery.
July 8, 2010, 6:27 pmzippypinhead says:
Hmmm… good question. How about if Dick the Butcher applies for a CCW permit while publicly advocating that “the first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers?”
;~)
July 8, 2010, 6:45 pmzuch says:
I understand that, and in fact, some states may well allow CCPs for those convicted of only non-violent offences and/or misdemeanors. If there’s some discretion involved as to whether someone’s too much off the deep end and not a permissible candidate for a CCP, they might take into account Hill, Rudolph, Griffith, Salvi, Kopp, Roeder, anonanon….
Cheers,
July 8, 2010, 6:48 pmzuch says:
Agreed. As I essentially said, “if you want to make it plausible….” The fact history here kills the sheriff’s case. The sheriff wasn’t even seemingly upset about Dorr’s anti-abortion activities; it was pretty clear that it was Dorr’s being anti-government (and not generally, but the specific local government in office here) that was the big beef. Classical political speech on that count.
Cheers,
July 8, 2010, 6:51 pmHelen says:
I find it a little off-putting that the opinion repeatedly refers to the plaintiff by his given name, Paul, rather than as “Dorr” or “Mr. Dorr.” Is this common usage in Iowa courts?
July 8, 2010, 6:54 pmBob from Ohio says:
“Still, you’re okay with the people who are sworn to uphold the Constitution not actually knowing the Constitution?”
The sheriff should know it of course. The courts provided the remedy for his ignorance by ordering the permit. The sheriff need only obey, he need not agree with the judge.
I don’t like ordering people, public officials or not, to “learn” things.
Dorr, the wronged part here, has anti-abortion views and done actions (“the opinion mentions blocking abortion clinic doors in the same passage”) that violate the apparent constitutional rights of clinic patients. Maybe Dorr should have been ordered to take classes to learn about Roe v. Wade or Casey as a condition of probation? I don’t think so in that case nor should the sheriff here.
The sheriff has to “satisfactory” complete the class. Maybe the teacher reads this case and decides to “teach” the sheriff some more by failing him. Then what, send the sheriff to jail for contempt?
Its just a slippery slope I don’t think we should go on.
July 8, 2010, 7:08 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Well, one alternative would be to charge him under 18 USC 242. Which would certainly make a lot of other sheriffs pay more attention the the Constitution.
July 8, 2010, 7:10 pmSteve says:
I’m sure it was to distinguish him from his son, who was also part of the case.
July 8, 2010, 7:10 pmLarryA says:
The “this guy has enemies so he doesn’t need to defend himself” criteria.
Not under the First Amendment, which protects speech, not belief.
OTOH if what you believe leads to a diagnosis for mental illness you’re federally prohibited from possessing a firearm.
That’s one of the primary problems with a discretionary law. When a legislature passes a shall-issue law they have to spell out reasonable qualifications, since once a person meets those standards a license must be issued. With a discretionary law the bureaucratic discretion can block applicants with minor records. Since most people who get licensed under such systems are politically connected, the tendency is to write minimal laws that don’t disqualify anyone, and depend on the discretion. Then politically-connected applicants get licenses even with records that would disqualify a shall-issue applicant.
I agree we need to be careful of this. However, if it’s a “go to school or face worse” situation it’s fairly standard, as in a defensive driving class instead of a citation.
July 8, 2010, 7:14 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
It’s common everywhere when you have two parties of the same gender with the same last name, as was the case here.
July 8, 2010, 7:21 pmMatthew Carberry says:
“I agree we need to be careful of this. However, if it’s a “go to school or face worse” situation it’s fairly standard, as in a defensive driving class instead of a citation.”
What would the “worse” be? A class on Torts? Contracts?
;)
July 8, 2010, 7:25 pmKatahdin says:
Is that because it is a judge ordering it? Because police departments require quite a bit of ongoing training for officers, annual quals, updates on the law. In fact ‘being given additional training’ seems like a common response to an officer making an oopsie.
July 8, 2010, 7:32 pmjack burton says:
It may also mean a “spy” which would be a stretch… possible but not likely in this instance.
July 8, 2010, 7:34 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The judgment was reasonable, but in two respects the judge seemed to go overboard.
First, the lead plaintiff was (1) a convicted criminal (for willful anti-social conduct, in some circumstances) who (2) openly paid homage to racist rednecks, was (3) determined by the judge to be somewhat delusional (or perhaps the judge was too kind to refer to use disingenuous), and (4) had engaged in conduct that led other citizens to report concerns about him to the authorities. These are not disqualifying factors, in my judgment, but appear to have deserved consideration by a law enforcement official confronting an application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon (particularly in light of the legal authority extant at the time of application). It would be easy to construct a set of facts that, tested by this decision’s standards, would generate substantial outrage were its applicant to obtain a permit. Unless the applicable rule was that no judgment is to be exercised with respect to permit applications, the defendant’s conduct was questionable but not outrageous.
Second, requiring a college-level course (three months of study) and imposing that requirement publicly (rather than discreetly) seems harsh. Is every judge who makes a misjudgment to be held to a similar standard? If this judge is ever reversed in severe fashion, would he decide to take a refresher course at law school? Is that Wisconsin district attorney who immediately announced an extreme position regarding Second Amendment rights to be loudly banished to remedial class if a number of the statutes he unilaterally (and, I believe, improperly) trashed are vindicated?
A number of elements of this decision were strange. The use of first names seemed odd, the photographic footnote on a weird sidebar was odder, $1,500 in cash isn’t remarkable (I withdraw $1,000 each time I visit the bank and return when it is halved) and 90 minutes seems reasonable to photocopy more than 200 pages that cannot be automatically fed, particularly if spines and tabs are involved.
July 8, 2010, 7:51 pmmoh456 says:
LarryA– the hypo was “believed and advocated”
Those two hypos were just off the top of my head. More than a specific answer to either, I’m interested in whether or not anyone else can come up with a hypothetical under which a person could rightfully be denied a conceal carry permit on the basis of his or her protected speech.
I was specifically trying to think of Brandenburg type situations– could the sheriff have denied a CCW permit to someone who strongly advocated “reveangance” against some group of people?
July 8, 2010, 7:56 pmEugene Volokh says:
Apropos “spook,” the Random House lists one definition as being, “an eccentric person.” I’d never heard that before, but perhaps it’s more common in Iowa than in California.
July 8, 2010, 8:15 pmFlavius Aetius says:
How about Sheriff Weber not being able to carry his department issue firearm for the same length of time that the plaintiff was denied his RIGHT to carry a concealed firearm.
I think that compensation should be awarded to Mr. Dorr. Also, Sheriff Weber should be given a test on the First Admendment rights, that both he and Paul Dorr both enjoy, after he completes that the course. If the Sheriff doesn’t pass that test, then he should look for another profesion he a lot less responsibility than upholding and defending the Constitution.
Personally, I believe that many people who are or were denied a concealed carry permit over the years have on occasion NOT had the money or resources to challenge an unjust and arbitary ruling such as a deniel for an application for a CCW.
July 8, 2010, 8:21 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Does Iowa recognize a right to carry a concealed firearm? Federal law does not and there is a substantial chance it never will.
July 8, 2010, 8:34 pmHenry Bowman says:
“OTOH if what you believe leads to a diagnosis for mental illness you’re federally prohibited from possessing a firearm.”
Exactly. And the actual DIAGNOSIS step can’t just be hand-waved away on the basis that a number of loud (but medically unqualified) citizens declare you “a nutjob” and “wacko” — even if those citizens include a sheriff and a judge.
If you really think a politician comes from Jupiter and must be disintegrated, and I think you ought not to be licensed to carry a gun because of it, I need to take the appropriate steps to give you INDIVIDUAL DUE PROCESS in front of a psychiatrist and a judge — not just take it upon myself to streamline the destruction of your rights.
July 8, 2010, 9:14 pmFormer Law Student says:
Here is an article I found from a couple years ago that briefly discusses Judge Bennett (towards the middle of the article) and that might be of interest:
http://www.slate.com/id/2207071
July 8, 2010, 9:15 pmUrbanGrounds | Iowa Sheriff Ordered To Take First Amendment Class says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy, a report on a Sheriff who denied a citizen a concealed handgun license because of his political [...]
July 8, 2010, 9:44 pmArchitectJS says:
Would those threats if prosecuted make him a felon? If so, then we still havent found a situation in which free speech mitigates the right in question.
(Unless i missed something in another comment)
July 8, 2010, 9:45 pmDavid G Epstein says:
You could put this to music:
“He may be a gadfly or even a kook,
July 8, 2010, 10:04 pmA weirdo, a nut job, a whacko, a spook,
But girl, just love him
Don’t pretend you’re above him–
‘Cause now he’s packin’ heat . . . “
Katahdin says:
Is that the issue, or is the issue that government officials may not discriminate in the issuance of permits (CCW, parade permits, building permits, barber licenses, driver licenses, …) based on the first amendment protected content of the applicant’s speech?
July 8, 2010, 10:11 pmKatahdin says:
I think you have to be pretty careful with that line of reasoning – change ‘racist redneck’ to ‘uppity coloreds’ and I can imagine a Jim Crow sheriff using those words to explain why he refused to renew the permit for someone who started participating in lunch counter sit ins and otherwise advocating desegregation. I wouldn’t want such a person’s permit yanked, because I don’t want to make the Klan’s job easier.
FWIW, I think it is a little tragic that sheriffs in may-issue states have used their discretion so poorly. If sheriffs had used that discretion wisely – granting permits to the vast majority of people who would qualify under shall issue, and only withholding them for particularly problematic people – I think the shall issue movement would never have gained traction.
[a problematic person would be, e.g., someone with a long, documented history of anger management issues, a drinking problem, and a long history of misdemeanor assaults]
July 8, 2010, 10:27 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The discrete issue was someone’s reference to a “RIGHT” (emphasis in original) whose violation warranted stringing the sheriff up by the shorties.
July 8, 2010, 11:16 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I agree that care should be devoted to applications to carry concealed guns. This application, in particular, warranted careful review.
July 8, 2010, 11:19 pmGasman says:
What other regards are there for a law officer? He manages to deprive a law abiding citizen of his first and second amendment rights simultaneously. And for this violation of the highest law of our country he can be subject to a grade school primer in civics.
July 8, 2010, 11:24 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Surely there is a right not to have government agents deny your requests on the basis of your speech even if the things you are requesting are not things you are entitled to by right.
July 8, 2010, 11:44 pmKatahdin says:
Ah, got it. The jury’s out on that one. I hope such a right is found amongst the penumbras, but I’m not making any bets about it :-).
July 8, 2010, 11:51 pmShelbyC says:
Er, yes, subject to conditions including the discretion of the sherrif. The case is about the sherrif denying him that right by abusing his discretion by considering the guy’s constitutionally protected speech as a part of making that judgement. Try to keep up, eh? :).
July 9, 2010, 12:08 amLarryA says:
Under Texas law you don’t qualify for a CHL if you are chemically dependent or have a misdemeanor conviction in the last five years.
July 9, 2010, 12:29 amNelson Kerr says:
The worse would be a felony trial under 18 USC 242 for willfully depriving someone of their rights under color of authority.
July 9, 2010, 1:47 amRob says:
What about if he came in to apply while wearing this T-shirt?
http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-80707182936312_2111_101957975
July 9, 2010, 2:06 amrosignol says:
Someone who sincerely held that view would have renounced their US citizenship, which is one of the ‘no’ questions in a Form 4473. Not sure about a CHL, but if it would disqualify you from purchasing a firearm from an FFL, it might disqualify you from holding a CHL.
July 9, 2010, 8:32 amPraetorius says:
Nor do I. A better solution would be permanently preventing this ‘law enforcement officer’ from EVER serving in a public position again. He’s violated his oath of office and denied others the rights he swore to uphold, he does not deserve the public trust he holds. In fact, he should be booted from office and denied his pension, for his clear violation of the law and his denial of the Constitution.
July 9, 2010, 8:55 amTen says:
It appears that one degree or another, most of the Press in this country is working under Weber’s principle…
July 9, 2010, 9:00 amSemper Why says:
Tempting… but do consider that the Sheriff’s duty firearm is part of his kit that he uses to enforce the law in his jurisdiction. You are impeding his ability to do his job for that time period. And considering a large portion of his job is public safety, you are essentially robbing the community of the full services of their sheriff just to make a point.
Believe it or not, the job of sheriff does not solely consist of issuing CCW permits. I’m sure you can think of several other services your local sheriff provides and a range of ways that your particular sheriff could excel or slack.
July 9, 2010, 9:04 amSayUncle » First and second amendment says:
[...] [...]
July 9, 2010, 9:44 amAndy Rozell says:
I’ve heard the adjective “spooky” used to describe a person who the speaker thought was nuts. I’ve never heard the noun “spook” used in a similar way, but it seems to make sense.
I also had a law school professor who used to call students who didn’t attend class regularly “spooks.”
July 9, 2010, 10:10 amDDS -- NRA Life member says:
Excellent point! And to carry it a step farther, laws to allow employee owned firearms in their locked vehicles on company property came from Weyerhauser’s searches of employee vehicles on the first day of hunting season in Oklahoma. Castle doctrine laws have been passed as a result of DA’s chargeing homeowners with crimes because they didn’t retreat from their own homes. In fact, we have no shortage of laws passed because people we trusted with authority, expecting them to use proper discretion and common sense, didn’t.
July 9, 2010, 10:20 amPeter says:
What did this guy say that was so bad ?
Right wing stuff or left wing stuff ?
July 9, 2010, 10:40 amPeter says:
I don’t know about this one, I would be upset if a concealed weapons permit was granted to a New Black Panther whereas they called for “killing of crackers and cracker babies” ?
July 9, 2010, 10:43 amAndy Rozell says:
From reading the opinion, it looks like he said the sheriff’s office was spending too much money.
July 9, 2010, 10:46 amdemocratsarefascists says:
It shouldn’t matter. Obama lets the Black Panthers keep their FFL.
That said, the OCTA is a taxpayers’ association. They protest when the government takes too much of their money and doesn’t deliver on services. Hardly controversial, except to liberal scum.
July 9, 2010, 10:47 amPeter says:
In NY State, which is a may issue state, you would be DENIED solely on the feedback of the investigator, and if they did not like you, which can be a LEO or civvy. There are instances where a person would pass a NICS check no problem, but if they are on certain meds (such as anti-depressants or tranquilizers) or have a bad driving record, or have/had multiple DATs/FATs (open container, discon, trespass) you would probably be denied a pistol license, and it’s not even a CCW, but strictly for target/hunting. a Full carry is impossible to get in NY, unless you are a politician or celebrity.
July 9, 2010, 10:48 amPeter says:
The sleeping giant is still sleeping, but the sun is starting to come up.
July 9, 2010, 10:52 amdemocratsarefascists says:
The NBPP not only already has firearms, they sell them and possess full auto weapons. When you’re a left-wing racial organization, what Democrat official is going to say no to you?
July 9, 2010, 10:53 amPeter says:
Part of NY’s licensing approval requires you to be of “good moral character” which is partially determined by the investigator that interviews you, so if he/she is having a bad day, good luck. Also, you are required to submit 4 character references, which are affidavits from friends in the same county that attest to your moral character. The entire process is subjective, which may have some conflicts with the latest SCOTUS ruling.
July 9, 2010, 10:59 amPeter says:
Kind of like “Islamberg” in upstate NY, crazy stuff is going on that is being hidden/ignored by the media.
July 9, 2010, 11:01 amStu Strickler says:
Since Iowa passed and Governor Culver signed the “Shall Issue” carry bill into law, this should not be a problem after the law becomes effective 1 January, 2011.
Some Sheriff’s abused the law and now they are whining about it! Sheriff’s don’t make law!
July 9, 2010, 11:12 amwackypowpow says:
Well there you go then! He is in charge and you have only the rights he says you can have and he’ll tell you when and if you can have them!~!
YUP! That sounds like the America I want to live in! The only thing missing is the government issued RED BERET and that little hammer and sickle pin on it!
Comrade Sheriff I salute you! With my middle finger.
July 9, 2010, 11:25 ammec says:
“Spook. WTF???”
No. Absolutely NOTHING in the contexts suggests a racial slur or even reasonably evokes the ghost of an image of a racial slur.
July 9, 2010, 11:25 amMaureen says:
Re: spooks in law classes
That’s clearly a reference to elusiveness — a ghost fading away and coming back, the name on the transcript but the person not there.
I think I’ve also heard it as “spook man”, a variant of “ghost man on second base”. (That’s what you do when there’s not enough kids in your neighborhood to play baseball — ghost man advances automatically to the next base if the batter does, but can’t steal bases or get tagged out.)
July 9, 2010, 11:33 amVEGAS says:
It is also, and perhaps quite as commonly used to denote a person of uncertain identity pursuing an agenda other than that which is the ostensible, and expected. In other words, a spy. Remind of you anyone?
July 9, 2010, 11:58 amDozer says:
would this case have any effect on those cases where people were video taping cops out in public where they had a right to be and the cops had no expectation of privacy?
July 9, 2010, 12:42 pmN says:
Personally I think the idea of forcing the Sheriff to take a civics class is right on target, although I do agree that it is a very slippery slope.
The Court has the authority to compel remedial actions – this could certainly be considered one, albeit it somewhat unusual.
Personally I’d rather see the local DA bring the Sheriff up on charges of violating his Oath of office, seek to have him removed, and permanently barred from public service. His pension should also be yanked, and he should be fined, AND given jail time. That would send a message to the rest of the Oath-breaking yahoos out there…
July 9, 2010, 1:24 pmMatthew Carberry says:
If only there had been a clear and concise entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the 1st Amendment to which the Sheriff could have referred…
July 9, 2010, 1:39 pmLes says:
Simple Fire the Son of a B#*ch. He violated his oath. Zero Tolerance as they say. Do onto others.
Another classic example of the Nation Wide political office abuse that is taking place in every area of government in this United States.
It’s time to clean house and start fresh. Screw up and your out! Simple.
Bad Cops make me vomit.
July 9, 2010, 1:56 pmGeodkyt says:
Not denying based on First Amendment basis.
Denying on teh fact that both of these cases represent individuals who are known (by their own admission) to be clear, present, and imminent dangers of unlawful violence towards others.
#1 is crazy — as long as he is having these psychotic delusions (or is prone to them), he shouldn’t even be outside a mental hospital. (Once his delusions are treated, such as by daily supervised medication, or cured, such as by removeal of a brain tumor, we can revisit the issue of his involuntary commitment to the Happy House and legally restore his full sovereignity.)
#2 is indirectly threatening to KILL anyone who enters his land – whether it is tresspass or not. (What other response would you expect a “sovereign land” to make when invaded by foreigners, especially the armed official agents of a foreign nation, if not to repel the invasion with force?) Lost hikers, hunters from a adjacent property chasing a wounded prey animal or a lost tracking dog, meter readers, or the sheriff delivering a summons to appear for failure to pay property taxes, ALL are classed by this guy as “foreign invaders”.
Besides, there are two inconsistancies in “Mr. Sovereign Land’s” position:
A. Why would he petition a “foreign government” for a carry permit? He doesn’t think he needs their permission to carry on his land. . . I’m certainly not about to ask Mexico or Germany for a carry permit to use HERE.
B. Why does he think he can enter the “foreign nation” without first establishing diplomatic relations, agreements as to what visa or passport requirements will be required, agreements as to where official border control and customs inspection points are, etc?
July 9, 2010, 2:33 pmDave says:
The Sheriffs free speech ?? He not only violated civil right, but the colors of authority clause, he should lose his job. Under the colors of law he cannot base a decision like that, he is bound by the law and legally has no authority to deny anything given to the citizens by the law, free speech is ok if not in uniform on his own time and not acting as authority.
July 9, 2010, 4:25 pmHamster-Style says:
I still stand firm on my opinion that it should be the State/County/City that should provide good cause on why they should deny you your 2nd amendment rights. Citizens having to provide good cause on why they should be allowed to carry is basically the same as saying guilty until proven innocent, which in the U.S. is supposed to be the opposite.
July 9, 2010, 6:18 pmLicense and permit battles around the country - The Crimson Pirate says:
[...] by Weber, an Iowa sheriff. The reason? Dorr’s political activity and speech. As reported on The Volokh Conspiracy, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa Western Division ruled that the [...]
July 10, 2010, 1:10 amWe Are Legend » Blog Archive » License and permit battles around the country says:
[...] by Weber, an Iowa sheriff. The reason? Dorr’s political activity and speech. As reported on The Volokh Conspiracy, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa Western Division ruled that the [...]
July 10, 2010, 1:36 amLarryA says:
If a state CHL requires that applicants pass an NCIS background check and are valid for no more than five years then BATFE rules allow the licensee to purchase a firearm from an FFL without the dealer calling in the NICS check. Therefore almost all CHL laws require meeting the federal qualifications.
July 10, 2010, 1:54 amStu Strickler says:
The Sheriff got exactly what he deserved! We have changed the Iowa law to a “Shall Issue” law that has been signed by Governor Culver. If a Sheriff is going to deny a permit to carry now, he must do so in writting and state *factual* documented reasons. This will cause a few trips to see the Judge by a few of more beligerant Sheriff’s. Had all the Iowa Sheriff’s acted in a responsible way,this law would not have been necessary! Most Iowa Sheriff’s are good and responsible peace officers. It only takes a few, to taint all 99 of them. The new law is effective 1 January, 2011.
July 10, 2010, 9:07 amDavid Gross says:
What Ho!
I submitted a trial brief, Wednesday, in a Minnesota permit to carry denial case, where the Sheriff denied on the statutory basis that “there exists a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit.” One of the essentially two pieces of evidence he submitted was the client’s petition to the Park Board that they recognize that the Ordinance prohibiting possession and carry in the Parks was preempted and made invalid by state law allowing carry in public places by permit to carry holders. (Regulation of discharge of firearms to a safe place, a shooting range, is OK according to state law.) The Sheriff went so far as to suggest (preemptively to the client’s petition to the Park Board, but after the client had brought it up with him in terms of enforcement of an invalid Ordinance), that the Park Board post a “Bans Guns” sign in the Parks pursuant to state statute authorizing “private establishments” to do so; with private establishment being defined as “a nongovernmental entity” and “for nongovernmental purposes,” something he is unaware of, apparently. Why bother with the definitions in the law, when you are the law! This Sheriff was every bit as candid as the Sheriff in the Iowa case, but not as extreme. Minnesota Nice, you know.
The Park Board Director referred to the Sheriff’s recommendation as “legal advice” in his testimony, and admitted that he did not consult with the County Attorney. They decided to follow the Sheriff’s legal advice.
This well-reasoned decision will help immensely and will supplement the trial brief on Monday, especially as to “chilling effect” and “retaliation.” My client is a gadfly, too, which is a word I used in my discussion on the First Amendment implications of the evidence. No, I didn’t argue full-blown retaliation, but rather that it should be held against the Sheriff’s proferred reasoning and basis by the judge. I stipulated to the admission of the evidence, because I wanted to use it as a sword in my argument, which I did. But this is a new and sharper tip.
Thanks for the link.
July 10, 2010, 3:34 pmWilliam Douglas says:
Peter
July 10, 2010, 4:53 pmUnless they watch Fox News, most of these people have no idea about about voters being threatened in Philly by the New Black Panther party, or the case being dropped by Holder, and one of his lawyers resigning because he was told they would only investagate claims where blacks were threatened by whites. Big news on Fox and talk radio all week, not one word from ABC, CBS, NBC, or the New York Times.
Ron Joy from Ohio says:
Hey! I’m in college right now for Criminal Justice even though I am a volunteer Special Deputy. The Constitution of the United States is one of the required courses in Government. So there is no excuse for the Sheriff to NOT know the First, second,tenth and 14th amendments of the constitution. upholding the Law and the Rights of the Citizens of the United States is one of the priorities of a Law Enforcement Officer whether he has an opinion of the person or not.
July 10, 2010, 10:22 pmI agree! If he has no recogning of the First Amendment then he should be given a copy of the Constitution and made sure he UNDERSTANDS every bit of it. If it means going back to school for him then it should be at his OWN expense. Not the taxpayers.
Ramah G. Martin says:
The sheriff should not be issuing permits in the first place! You all know the wording; “shall not be infringed”. OK… any rule, fee, or so called, law that restricts your right to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise, is illegal. The English language can’t be written any clearer than “SHALL NOT” and maybe everyone should go to a class that defines the word “infringed”.
If you allow anyone to issue you a permit, you automatically grant them the privilege of revoking that permit (for no reason at all). Remember; British citizens already had the right to carry arms (unspecified arms or terms) when the Declaration was written (also remember King James and the Glorious Revolution?). The Constitution IS your permit folks!! Don’t’ be duped into believing otherwise.
July 12, 2010, 1:48 amLarryA says:
Philosophically I agree. However the perfect is enemy of the good.
Had everyone refused to compromise on concealed handgun licenses we’d still be limited to carrying in Vermont. The 39 states with shall-issue licenses created a discrete group of gun owners that could be studied. The overwhelming results showed that the anti-gun gloom-and-doom predictions were completely without merit. And so we have right-to-carry in 40 states, constitutional carry in three.
July 12, 2010, 2:48 amPeter Courtenay Stephens says:
I believe that this Sheriff would benefit from a study of the Oath Keepers site and after proper submersion in The Constitution, as ruled, membership.
July 12, 2010, 8:21 amMatthew Carberry says:
July 12, 2010, 12:29 pmJOE says:
Too bad David Korresh and the branch dividian didnt have a Judge Bennet in their lives.I guess it all depends on how wacky the ATF believes you to be wether or not they can trample your first and second amendment rights.Right?
July 13, 2010, 12:17 amJOE says:
Maybe the ATF needs to take that first amendment court orderd refreshment course with the sherrif?
July 13, 2010, 12:25 ampeterkuck says:
Gee, kind of sounds like Connecticuts “suitability standards” that vary from Town to town and city to city.
July 17, 2010, 7:42 pmMy note to the Board of fireams permit examiners at the following link for your review http://www.peterkuck.net/pdf/2010_07_08BFPEcommentsl.pdf
regards
Peter
Jemsje says:
Iowa is a must place you have to visit. It provides you a lot of fishing and hunting opportunities.
Almost all of the outdoor enthusiasts
across the country come to Iowa each year for searching bountiful species.
You can find affordabe hunting land for sale here.
August 30, 2010, 12:40 pm