[Gray Peterson]

I sent an email to the Iowa Department of Public Safety. I realize that I'm probably not going to get anywhere with them in regards to a non-resident non-professional permit to carry weapons, but hey, might as well try. Also put them in the position of looking like homophobes if they refuse. Considering the failure of the legislature to introduce CCW reform, it looks like we need to look to the DPS to change their policy for non-residents. Anyway, here's the email I sent to the DPS Weapons Permit division:

Dear Iowa DPS,

I am interested in acquiring a non-resident non-professional permit to carry a weapon (hereinafter referred to as PTC).

My reason for wanting to acquire a PTC is for the purpose of visiting through and into the state of Iowa.

I am a concealed hangun license holder in the state of Oregon, and also seeking licensure in several other states, including Florida, Washington, Utah, Nevada, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, and Rhode Island.

The provision of the law is:

"A person who can reasonably justify going armed may be issued a nonprofessional permit to carry weapons. Such permits shall be on a form prescribed and published by the commissioner of public safety, which shall be readily distinguishable from the professional permit, and shall identify the holder thereof, and state the reason for the issuance of the permit, and the limits of the authority granted by such permit. All permits so issued shall be for a definite period as established by the issuing officer, but in no event shall exceed a period of twelve months."

The purpose I wish to acquire a PTC for myself is for the purposes of lawful self defense. Though I do wish to visit the state of Iowa, I cannot do so without my self defense firearm. There are various elements of society who despise my very existance (being that I'm a homosexual) and that as a result, there are those in society who generally will attack me in a physical manner, typically by multiple assailants (who generally would not be able to be dispatched by non-lethal methods, including whistles, personal alarms, cell phones, pepper spray and mace, and so on).

I believe that my case would fit under the statutory definition of reasonable justification. Given the current state of the budget in the of Iowa, granting permits may be a method of revenue generation for the Department of Public Safety.

I certainly hope the Weapons Permit Division will seriously consider my request.

Regards,

Lonnie Wilson
Portland, OR

[Gray Peterson]

ATTN: Lonnie Wilson

Iowa's issuance policy for a non-resident permit to carry includes the following justification requirement:

Professional permits to carry will only be issued to qualified applicants if their need to go armed is employment based and is a critical element in the protection of life and property.

Nonprofessional permits to carry will only be issued to:

a. nonresident peace officers, correctional officers and other public officials who are currently employed fulltime in the administration of criminal justice

b. other nonresidents with a demonstrable viable threat to themselves or their family as verified by a law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the threat occurred.

We define "demonstrable viable threat" as circumstances in which you have already been threatened or victimized as documented by a law enforcement agency where the threat or criminal act occurred. This can be in the form of a police report, letter of verification from the chief or sheriff, or other documentation that verifies your need to go armed in order to protect yourself from that existing threat while in Iowa.

The complete issuance policy appears on the Iowa DPS web site at:

http://www.state.ia.us/government/dps/asd/permits.htm

If you meet the criteria and wish to make application under the above stated conditions, please provide a mailing address. An application packet will then be sent to you. Permits issued for the first time must be picked up in Iowa so that identity can be verified. Renewals can then be done by mail.

Sam Knowles, Bureau Chief

Program Services Bureau

[Gray Peterson]

Mr. Knowles,

Far be it for me to question your policies, but how does "reasonably justify going armed" equate to "we will only issue permits to those who can demonstrate a specific threat or criminal act towards such person"?

Is there a justification for this restrictive policy? Or is it just generalized fear of citizens carrying firearms for their self protection?

Let me add, before you answer, that there's another state that is generally discretionary in permit issuance, but issues them fairly without putting such onerous requirements onto applicants, especially those who are not resident of that state. That state is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Their State Police is given broad discretion in terms of permit issuance, but chooses to excercise them in a fair manner to applicants, with no requirements for direct threat.

30 states issue permits on a non-discretionary basis. 13 more states issue them on a discretionary basis, including the state of Iowa. However, 2 states, though discretionary, issue them in a fair manner. These states include the state of Connecticut, and the state of Alabama.

I might also add that states are removing discretion from issuing authorities more and more. On top of 32 that issue permits to carry based on fair statewide standards, 6 more states are likely to join the ranks this year. This includes every state which borders Iowa with the exception of Illinois and Nebraska. The reason the discretion is being removed is because of policies like the Iowa DPS which has unreasonably high standards for getting a PTC.

I would also point out that discretionary concealed weapons issuance laws has it's roots in racism. Much of the discretionary permit issuance laws on the books in many states were created with racist and anti-immigrant intent, as many of these laws were passed right after the Civil War ended, with the express intent of disarming the newly freed slaves. This also included northern and midwestern states, including Iowa.

The US Supreme Court, in the cases of Arlington Heights vs. Metropolitan Housing (1977) and Hunter vs. Underwood (1985), determined that laws drafted with racist intent, on it's face racially neutral, and enforced even without racist intent in modern times, to any disparity against who the originally targetted, must be struck down.

By enforcing impossibly high standards for acquiring a PTC, it is very likely that the issuance scheme in the state of Iowa is in violation of the intent and spirit of those two cases. Though not specifically addressing PTC's in those cases, any agency who arbitrarily sets such high standards for getting permits are on dicey ground in terms of the federally protected classes of persons (including by sex, race, and other federally protected classes).

Any discretion based on unreasonably high and unfair standards could subject a person to being unable to get a permit simply based on socio-economic factors in terms of race, sex, and other classes. Women often are violently attacked by spouses, gain restraining orders, and document attacks. Due to socioeconomic factors, men are not attacked, or rather, they are not able to document it for various reasons. Does this mean that men are less likely to get a permit than women?

It is also well known that people who live in discretionary issuance states at times attempt to "bribe" their way into getting a permit.

An example of this kind of abuse of discretion is in what are called the Colofrancesco Papers, which can be viewed here:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/colafrancescopapers.pdf

Some also have "star power", such as Steven Tyler and Dave Perry of Aerosmith, who were processed for New York City Unrestricted Pistol Licenses, even as non-residents of the city and state of New York.

I am afraid that it may be the case that the Iowa DPS will only issue permits to political contributors of whoever appoints or funds the DPS. New York City and other states that issue on a discretionary basis and make the same requirements on the surface like you've described, but have often have secondary, "behind the scenes" rules for those who are politically connected. Often, these are political contributors to the party or administration in power.

From a review of the decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as the history of the Iowa PTC statute, I believe that the only way for Iowa DPS to be in compliance with the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution to go from it's current policy of requiring a high amount of need for a permit, to an informal policy of issuing licenses with all lawful purposes (including personal protection). That is the only way that the Iowa DPS can issue permits to address the concerns of possible racism, sexism, homophobia and corruption in terms of issuance of PTC's.

I do not doubt your intentions, Mr. Knowles. I believe you are just enforcing policy that has been policy for many decades. However, I ask that the Iowa DPS seriously consider a change in policy. Issuing based on reasonable and fair basis (such as for personal protection) is the only way that these issues that I have made light of can be addressed.

That way there is no suspicion, doubt, or belief on the part of applicants that their permits will be considered fairly by all applicants, whether they be someone like myself, or anyone else, without the possible thought of discrimination against applicants.

Regards,

Lonnie Wilson
Portland, OR

[Gray Peterson]

*bump*

[labgrade]

Rock on, Lonnie.

You'll :banghead: , but it starts the balls rolling.

May I suggest you change "for personal protection" to "all lawful purposes?"

Likely, you've already looked into this (certainly much more so than I), but wordings may be important down the road. Merely a thought regards semantics.

I have "wasted" many an hour (year?) with some success (at times), usually not, but worst case, cheap entertainment is where you find it. ;)

(& not to disparage one iota your go at it.)

[Hawkeye755]

Lonnie, You have done an excellent job with your letters and I wish you the bast of luck. I live in Iowa and am well aware of what you are going up against. Here is a link to a group that may be able to help you out

CCW4Iowa
http://www.webspawner.com/users/ccw4iowahomepage/index.html

I have been doing some work on getting the Iowa State Police Association on board with supporting the change in the code to shall issue permits. It doesn't look like it will happen this legislative session, but we can hope. If they sign on the I would think that we would have a good chance.

Keep us posted on what happens, also what were your responses from the other states?

[spacemanspiff]

Lonnie, if you have any further correspondance with Iowa's DPS office regarding this, you could also inform them that a few states (such as Alaska) allow concealed weapons permit holders from ALL other states to carry concealed while in Alaska as a visitor. theres a time limit, something like 90 days i think.

given the response from iowas DPS, wouldnt you rather vacation in alaska, than iowa? :D