Iowa Police Chief: We Won’t Stop and Search CCW Holders. Unless We Do.

Every now and then, with great but no longer alarming regularity, the British Nanny State gently presses down on the jackboot lying across their subjects’ throats. Individual freedoms within The Land of Hope and Glory have died by a process of gradual strangulation. For example, UK denizens lost their gun rights with a whimper, not a bang. Slowly, through ever tighter restrictions, the right to self-defense was eroded. Until it disappeared. Taken individually, on the face of it, none of the anti-gun laws were that bad. As Brits like to reassure themselves, “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear.” Truth be told, more dangerous words have never been spoken. Of course, Britain has no monopoly on weasel words and tolerant apologists. We take you now to Iowa City, Iowa, where the police chief reassures concealed carry weapons holders that they have nothing to fear from the new law banning guns from City property . . .

[Iowa City Police Chief Sam] Hargadine said enforcement of the law will likely be complaint driven. The city is looking at improving its camera systems in City Hall, which could help catch violators.

One thing officers won’t be doing is stopping people on city property, such as the Pedestrian Mall, just to see if they’re packing heat.

“We’re down there on foot patrol, anyway,” Hargadine said. “(Officers) are going to look for law violations of any kind, not just guns.”

Violators will be charged with criminal trespass, a simple misdemeanor. Officers will have the option of warning or citing and releasing violators, but could possibly seize their weapon or take them to jail if there are other factors. As with any other crime, officers will have to use their best judgment when deciding on a course of action, Hargadine said.

So, now that the state has removed local police chiefs’ discretion on whether or not to issue a concealed carry permit, unleashing a flood of applications., the Chief has decided that enforcement will be at his discretion.

Is this Police State gun control, where law-abiding citizens are worried about losing their gun rights in a warrentless stop and frisk, the brainchild of gun control advocates? It certainly seems as if Chief Hargadine has been listening to the Brady Bunch’s talking points, as the lede of the press-citizen.com story suggests:

Iowa City Police Chief Sam Hargadine said the city’s recently approved gun ban on municipal property was simply common sense.

“I think there are places where it’s somewhat inappropriate to take a firearm,” Hargadine said Wednesday. “Some people would assume a church would be one. Libraries, city public buildings — I think — are another.”

A government employee who can’t even discuss public safety without larding his remarks with qualifiers is in charge of CCW enforcement? What’s wrong with this picture? And how can we stop it from changing into something darker, and more malevolent?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

21 Responses to Iowa Police Chief: We Won’t Stop and Search CCW Holders. Unless We Do.

  1. avatarRalph says:

    Fourty pounds overweight and a shit-eating grin. Why is it that every “small town” police chief looks like he just stole a donut from a blind man?

  2. avatarJohn Fritz says:

    “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear.”

    If I’ve done nothing wrong, I have nothing to prove. To that dickhead or anyone.

  3. That’s wrong. “the right to self-defense was eroded. Until it disappeared.”

    You mean the right of self defense WITH A GUN has been eroded. And I would even question the disappeared part. Does that mean completely, 100%?

    • avatarMark says:

      Never bring a knife to a gun fight. Unless you are a law abiding British subject.

    • avatarJohn Fritz says:

      I think Robert is in a much better position to form an accurate opinion on that subject that any of us are.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      Sometimes I don’t know why I bother.

      Yes, Mike, the right to armed self-defense is gone. A civilian can’t own a handgun. The only long guns allowed civilians are for sporting purposes. If someone should shoot someone in self-defense with a sporting gun, they WILL be prosecuted. In fact, many victims have been successfully prosecuted for injuring robbers or other attackers. With their hands. So yes, the right to defend yourself generally has been removed.

      More to the point, why don’t you ever address the point of a post? In this case, do you agree that the police should be able to conduct a warrantless weapons search on public property where guns are banned?

  4. avatarPT says:

    I thought Iowa had pre-emption:

    Section 724.28
    “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.”

    • avatarBHirsh says:

      It does. This effort is purportedly justified by proprietary rights. Their problem is, THEY DON’T OWN THE PROPERTY. The citizens, who hold CCW permits, do.

    • Pre-emption is w`hat is going to void all of these “resolutions” that these locals are passing. AG Miller wrote a opinion that they could pass a resolution banning guns. A resolution has no weight of law and all they can do is ask you to leave. A ordinance would be a direct violation of 724.28 and wouldn’t hold up in court. We have a stronger pre-emption bill in congress that we hope to get passed this year. If you are a resident of Iowa, check out the IFC web site and contact your Representatives.

  5. avatarMagoo says:

    I could never endorse allowing you guys to carry firearms into government buildings. In my weeks visiting TTAG, I have learned that you don’t have the skills, training, or especially the temperament. Among other things, you have no set rules of engagement and a number of you openly espouse using your weapons to break the law. A few of you display reasoning of McVeigh caliber. And I want you in government buildings with your guns? No, thanks.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      Back under the bridge, troll! Actually, I’ll let it stand, cautioning our Armed Intelligentsia that I will delete flames against Magoo. For my part, I’ll say this: it is not up to Magoo or anyone else to determine if U.S. citizens are “safe enough” to carry weapon in government buildings. The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear arms. Period. While private bans do not contravene the letter of the law, banning guns in government buildings is a slap in the face of the people who employ the people who work within these structures. The government—and the workers employed by same—is obliged to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

      • avatarBHirsh says:

        The nexus of the issue is, Robert, that government buildings belong to the very people the government’s operatives wish to deny proprietary rights (i.e. to carry guns on their own property). This is the tack that needs to be taken in court.

    • avatarBat sh*t crazy says:

      Hey Magoo… I don’t need you to tell me if I can or cannot handle my firearms. As far as telling us that we do not have the ‘skills, training, or especially the temperament’ to carry a firearm on property WE ALL OWN is just ignorant and misinformed. I’d be willing to bet I’ve fired more rounds, have more range time, and participated in better training scenarios than many cops you know personally.

      • avatarMagoo says:

        “I’d be willing to bet I’ve fired more rounds, have more range time, and participated in better training scenarios than many cops you know personally.”

        Those are the very qualifications that impress me the least. What makes you so sure you have the most important element, judgement? After all, your screen name is Bat Sh*t Crazy. What are you trying to project there?

    • avatarfled says:

      Here in Texas we are allowed in State Government buildings armed. There’s even an express lane through security at the Capital for CHL holders. I actually trust armed citizens more than armed “professionals” we actually practice more than anyone I know other than the special operations branches of the military. At a recent pistol class we had 5 law enforcement officers qualifying. Most were from out of state. The instructor had to constantly ride them for not following range safety procedures and for ignoring range commands. They were complacent and juvenile in their attitudes and as the instructor predicted they shot the “worst scores of the class. My wife shot high score just 3 points under perfect and I shot second at 5 points under. As Ronnie James Dio once sang “If you listen to fools, the mob rules.”

  6. avatarhomobangbangamus says:

    Well, this “chief” was appointed so I suspect that “thumpin” his daddy or daddies, would be the next order of business, since he serves at his/their pleasure and he/they obviously agree with him.

    • avatarfled says:

      That would be City Council turds more than likely. Gladys and the When’s 21 “Sustainable Development” crowd who take their orders from a foreign NGO. Yeah we have em here too, only they catch so much heat here if yhey mouth off publicly that they usually go back into hiding and scheming behind closed doors until the County proscecutor threatens to bring them up on charges of violating their own transparency ordinances put forth in their charter!

  7. avatarScott says:

    We don’t lose our rights to bear arms quickly. We lose them in increments, just like this fat ass, pathetic excuse for a LEO is promoting.

    It’s a shame we still can’t ride worthless sheriff’s like this out of town on a rail.

  8. avatarJohn says:

    Yes, Iowa has preemption, but we also have lawless local governments that think they are above the law. Interesting they, who would have their subjects obey their local laws, find it totally appropriate to flaunt state law, isn’t it?

  9. avatarDave K says:

    I would like someone to tell me what has changed that has caused the hue and cry. All the talk about the new law causing the need for “protecting the citizens” from PTC holders. Hey people, the PTC holders who had them before 01 Jan 2011 could legally carry in all the places the stuff is flying around about now. Yes, that is correct, unless a particular county sheriff put in writing on the permits that specific places were not permitted. Most did not put restrictions on carrying in certain buildings on the permits, so the result of the “99 men in 99 counties deciding” was people who did have a permit for the most part could carry anywhere not restricted by Federal law or State law.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.