The First (?) Amendment Right to Carry a Gun
By Jacob Sullum
Iowa is one of the relatively few states where local police still have wide discretion to decide who is allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public. In a vivid demonstration that such policies can have First as well as Second Amendment implications, a federal judge this week ruled that Osceola County Sheriff Douglas Weber violated a man's right to freedom of speech by denying him a carry permit based on his political activism.
Paul Dorr, well known locally for demonstrating at abortion clinics and agitating against government spending, applied for a permit because he carries large amounts of cash as part of a balloon-selling business. Weber decided Dorr was too "weird" to carry a gun, although he had held a permit without any problems from the late 1990s until 2006. The sheriff put this notation on Dorr's rejected application: "Concern from Public. Don't trust him."
U.S. District Judge Mark W. Bennett concluded that the "concern" was related to Dorr's political activities, especially his attacks on excessive county spending and his inquiries about the sheriff department's budget:
The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct, uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber's own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of...Paul Dorr....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.
Bennett ordered Weber to issue Dorr a carry permit and to complete a court-approved course on the U.S. Constitution. The case has had broader consequences as well, spurring the state legislature to limit police discretion regarding carry permits. A new law that takes effect in January lists specific reasons for denying a permit application. Weirdness is not one of them.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
That's right, if you want to keep your gun rights , this same law applies to everybody. Not just the "normal" people.
Bone-up on the Constitution is a slap in the face.
Where I live, the Sheriff is elected. If the same thing occurs in Osceola County, I don't see this Sheriff winning a reelection any time soon.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
is that a slap in the face? Even if he won't get reelected, he still has to understand the laws in which he is enforcing while he's still in that position, doesn't he? :/
1) A sheriff should not need a judge assigning constitution -based homework, (s)he should already know peoples' rights backward and forward. He is, after all, the head of the county's law enforcement division.
2) Sheriff, while 1 part alpha-male and 2 parts politician, is an elected job (in my county). The first part was humiliated by a judge, (which is not to say I am not inwardly pleased to see the sheriff get dressed down.) and the second part watched as any hopes of a reelection vanish into thin air.
I wasn't defending the sheriff, or sticking up for him.
The tool is on his own and if there is any justice (pun intended) in this world, a wiser person will succeed that sheriff.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
what you meant now! :) Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you.
need to be protected. But that is the thing, EVERYONE'S rights. It would only make sense to question why someone that has a tendency towards extreme and often violent activism, wants to carry a gun.
If it was just carrying the gun, it probably would not be an issue, what people worry about is what it is that makes one discharge the gun.
Nowhere in this account, or other accounts of this story that I have read, does it say or insinuate that Mr. Dorr is involved in any kind of "violent activism." He is indeed an activist, but it clearly states that he had a permit for around 15 years "without any problems." And the definition of "extreme" is also a matter of opinion and is shaded by your particular position on a subject.
It'd make sense that he'd just carry one.
Seems to me that he wanted to carry AND remain firmly within the law at the same time. Protesters are Americans also.
However, I do agree that every other American also has rights. I'd like to point out that a gun-carrier-free sidewalk is NOT one of them.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.