Victory In Iowa Court for 2nd Amendment
In Iowa, a Federal judge has ordered the Osceola County Sheriff to issue a concealed handgun permit to a political activist and take a remedial course on Free Speech and the 1st Amendment.
Iowa Gun Owners member Paul Dorr, father of IGO director Aaron Dorr, successfully sued Osceola County Sheriff Douglas Weber, after his ccw permit application was denied.
Sheriff Weber testified that he denied Dorr?_Ts permit application because of Dorr's political activities and views -- the same grassroots activism that gun owners participate in.
In the ruling Federal District Judge Mark Bennett said: ?_oIn 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 ...?__
As a result of his outrageous infringement upon Mr. Dorr?_Ts rights, Sheriff Weber was ordered by Judge Bennett to complete a college level course on the U.S. Constitution, ?_oincluding -- at least in part -- a discussion of the First Amendment.?__ Sheriff Weber is also required to file an affidavit proving his completion of the course with the court.
This is a huge victory for the right-to-carry in Iowa.
It also tells us there are still judges that stand completely for the Constitution. Meaning judges need to be tested. Seek lawyers that will do it. When lawyers fail to apply the test, inform your community of their inadequacy and seek lawyers that will test courts with difficult Constitutional questions.
Iowa Gun Owners member Paul Dorr, father of IGO director Aaron Dorr, successfully sued Osceola County Sheriff Douglas Weber, after his ccw permit application was denied.
Sheriff Weber testified that he denied Dorr?_Ts permit application because of Dorr's political activities and views -- the same grassroots activism that gun owners participate in.
In the ruling Federal District Judge Mark Bennett said: ?_oIn 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 ...?__
As a result of his outrageous infringement upon Mr. Dorr?_Ts rights, Sheriff Weber was ordered by Judge Bennett to complete a college level course on the U.S. Constitution, ?_oincluding -- at least in part -- a discussion of the First Amendment.?__ Sheriff Weber is also required to file an affidavit proving his completion of the course with the court.
This is a huge victory for the right-to-carry in Iowa.
It also tells us there are still judges that stand completely for the Constitution. Meaning judges need to be tested. Seek lawyers that will do it. When lawyers fail to apply the test, inform your community of their inadequacy and seek lawyers that will test courts with difficult Constitutional questions.
0
-
Should have required him to sit in the corner wearing a dunce cap also .[}:)]
In all honesty ,the Sheriff should have been removed from office immediately .[}:)]0 -
Its good the guy challenged the Sheriff. 0 -
cops... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
In Iowa, a Federal judge has ordered the Osceola County Sheriff
to issue a concealed handgun permit
quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
It also tells us there are still judges that stand completely for the Constitution.
These two statements are a contradiction to each other.
A "Constitutional" judge would recognize that citizens of this country
ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ASK "PERMISSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT" (get any permit)
to carry, either openly or concealed.
I know, some people see what this judge did, as a good thing. I do not.
He is setting a precedent, using an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, that could possibly be used against us in the future.0 -
I see your point, the judge was not "completely constitutional" and if the country were operating Consitutionally, generally, the sheriff would be fired as trapguy points out.
However, once a social contract has been compromised as much as our Constitution, and a judge does something that respects it, it makes sense to praise the judge and demand other judges go further with the same kind of decison making.
By praising the good behavior, it encourages more of the same.
By demanding all we are due immediately, rather than showing moderation respective of the last 50 years or more it has taken to unravel the Constitutional government, if it actually did exist as purely as we might hope, we may be impeding a temporally proportional recovery of the Constitution if such is possible.
Let me limit that moderation in saying your points are very well made and cannot be allowed to be diminished in their ultimate accuracy and functionality. They are ideals and correctly can never be abandoned.
It's a matter of timing and patience to make it real.0 -
Well. If you really want to get down to it, the judge only applied state law. NOT. I say again. Not the constitution. The Constitution states that we have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Last I heard, you don't need the states permission to exercise a right. You need the states permission to untilize a priviledge. And as we all know a priviledge can be revoked at anytime. 0 -
If it had been a victory, the court would have found that the 2nd amendment to the constitution makes the ccw law unconstitutional. All citizens have a right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Maybe the judge should take a class on the constitution including a discussion of the 2nd amendment. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments