Help Interpret This Law

[gunnutery]

Hello everyone. Recently, Iowa passed a "shall issue" law and it went into effect January 1, 2011. In wake of the law, the counties and cities have complained to the Iowa Attorney General to question whether or not they have the right to keep people from carrying on county/city property.

The new law does not change an already existing statute (Iowa code) 724.28, which states: (Imphasis mine on the bold)

724.28 Prohibition of regulation by political subdivisions.
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.
90 Acts, ch 1147, §9

In 2003, the Attorney General's office wrote an opinion that stated that counties/cities could not enact ordinances that covered their jurisdictions, but said that they could pass ordinances against weapon carrying on county/city owned property.

I just received an email reply from the AG's office stating that they cannot give me legal advise on city ordinances and that I should refer to my County Attorney. I had originally asked them to clarify the above law (not a city ordinance) about whether the term "lawful transportation" would include NOW-lawful carry with a permit.

My questions are:
Am I correct in reading into the "lawful transportation" term literally to include transportation on one's hip?

If I am correct in my thinking, does that then void any ordinances passed (as long as I can get a court to agree)?


I appriciate any responses, especially since I'm addressing the city council on Monday night.

You don't have to be an Iowan to respond! In case you wish to read the whole weapon law, here is the search tool and the code section pertaining to weapons is 724, (although I don't believe SF2379 has been updated into the search engine on this site yet).

 

[COLOSHOOTR]

I would say no.... After reading some of Iowas laws there were parts that specifically used the word "carries or carried" within the different sections. I'd consider the way it is written as legally transporting from location to location by vehicle. On the other hand possession could be considered carrying so you still have a good argument.

As far as your second part... Yes, it would void any ordinance passed on or after that date.

It sounds like something we had going on here actually. The some of the cities here went by "Home Rule" allowing a more restrictive law then the State statutes. A law was passed requiring the cities to follow the State law regarding weapons laws due to concealed carry issues and some cities having bans deemed unconstitutional. The State laws were upheld in the State Supreme Court too so the cities had to play ball.

Was this AG a state one (since some states use the term) or the Federal AG for your area? If it's the Federal side I'm not surprised they refused to answer since its a State matter. Contact your local State or District Attorneys office for clarification and they should be able to give you a answer.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The words that you want to focus on are REGULATE and POSSESSION. If a city or county says that you can't wear the gun on your hip, they are regulating the method of possession of that firearm.

For instance, they may say that you can possess that firearm in public so long as it is concealed, or so long as it is unloaded in a case. That would violate the state preemption law in that such an ordinance would REGULATE the method a person possess his gun. It's OK to possess it in a case, but not OK to possess it in a holster on his belt - that is regulation.

Of course, the city ordinance will use the word "carry", but I don't think that would hold up in court.

Since the state law says both possession and transportation, I would think that would strengthen your case.

Washington state's preemption law is similar, and our Attorney General has opined that our preemption law also applies to carrying a firearm openly in a holster:

RCW 9.41.290:
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components.


BTW: you never posted the city ordinance in question.

 

[wishin]

Does the State law have any provision governing carry on government property? Because it seems to me they're are hanging their hats on "county/city owned property".

 

[NavyLCDR]

Does the State law have any provision governing carry on government property? Because it seems to me they're are hanging their hats on "county/city owned property".

I know it's not Iowa, but Seattle tried that. The Washington courts told Seattle their gun ban was nullified by state preemption and forced them to take down their no guns signs on Seattle city "owned" property.

 

[gunnutery]

Thanks for the help. I will definately use this on Monday.

I didn't post the ordinance in question because there isn't one drafted for our city yet. The county past an ordinance last week and they'll probably base it off of that. I really don't plan on them listening to me. The fact that they don't FEEL safe around guns is probably enough reason for them.

Wish me luck.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You might want to check here:
www.opencarry.org in the forums. Scroll down and you'll find state specific forums. You can probably get others to go to the meeting with you or get more advice there.

 

[wishin]

I'd be interested in reading how you made out at the meeting. Please update after.

 

[gunnutery]

Thanks Wishin, I'll definately post on how it goes.

 

[powell&hyde]

I live in Iowa and right now as I write this, my county board of supervisors is having a meeting regarding exempting the state clause of ccw on government property and it even includes libraries. As I get more info I will update.

 

[gunnutery]

UPDATE- sorry, kind of long winded

Okay, well to better fill you in, I'm a police officer in the aforementioned town.

I had a phone conversation with my chief after I got off work at 0700 this morning. He had called because he had noticed my name on the agenda under the firearms ordinance topic. He wanted to let me know that he was dead set against people carrying firearms in city buildings because it could be intimidating. I advised him that I wanted to adress some of my concerns.

After the phone conversation, I was worried that he wouldn't want me to speak (on duty).

I caught up to my chief as he was walking into city hall before the meeting at 1900. I told him that I was going to speak against the ordinance and that if he didn't want me to speak, I wouldn't (since I would be on duty). He said that he was for the ordinance but that he wouldn't keep me from speaking my opinion.

Once the firearms topic came up on the agenda, I was given the floor. I had a typed sheet of points I wanted to make, including the area of interpretation of the law mentioned in the OP. However, it looked like a tough crowd including the city attorney. So I decided not to address my concern about any such ordinance being lawful or not based on the wording discussed above. I didn't want to sound too arrogant right off the bat.

I instead moved ahead to my other points. I addressed the topic of "public safety." When reading the other cities and counties ordinances prohibiting carrying of firearms on government property, it was in the interest of "public safety" (as stated in the ordinances). I said that a holstered weapon is not a safety issue, and then motioned to my duty holster and gun and advised them that I've carried a holstered firearm almost everyday for the last 8 years and haven't had any accidental discharges. I also reminded them that the people carrying guns with permits, have had background checks and a safety training course.

I then moved into my second point of "weapon free zones." I reiterated the facts that people who are determined to kill others, won't heed any such laws or signage. I addressed the recent shootings in FL and AZ and how if someone present had been armed, the killer(s) would not have been as effective. Imagine if the woman who swung her purse had had a firearm instead.

On the same topic of "weapon free zones," I reminded the council that schools have been "weapon free zones" federally since 1995. Since 1996 (according to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html), 122 students and teachers had been killed and 156 students and teachers had been wounded in the U.S. WITHIN "weapon free zones." I also gave the world wide stats (including the U.S.) of 208 killed and 212 wounded. I pointed out that I wasn't trying to compare city buildings to schools, but rather point out that criminals will not obey "weapon free zone" laws.

I left them with the thought that we (the police department) are not always in city buildings and in fact, could be at the other end of town when a killer goes to work. I urged them to trust permit holders to address the threat much more quickly than we could.

Of the 4 council members present (out of 6), all 4 were scared and apprehensive of people being armed on city property. Some even called the legislature stupid for making it easier for people to get carry permits. They also questioned the chief if high capacity magazines were legal. I informed them they were legal. The city attorney spoke up and said that hi-cap magazines were illegal until 6 years ago. I then (respectfully) corrected him and advised him that hi-cap mags were only illegal to manufacture (except for government agencies), but that ownership had always been legal.

One of the council members questioned why Iowa even came up with the new carry law. I informed him that it was in part due to the Supreme Court decisions against D.C. and Chicago.

Throughout the discussion, EVERYONE agreed that people who are bent on killing others are going to do so regardless of laws in place... They're just missing the point of how to combat that.

Not to toot my own horn, but I believe I came off quite respectful, while still seeming to have done my homework and know my subject, even though no one listened to me.

In the end, we (pro 2A) lost. They motioned and carried to draft an ordinance.

 

[gunnutery]

Thanks for all the advise and support.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Thanks for trying! It takes bravery to stand up for what's right, especially when your boss won't. I guess the ordinance will just have to go the way of Seattle's gun ban and get struck down in court. I love how the city council expects criminals to obey foolish gun bans, when they, themselves, won't obey state laws. Oh well. Hopefully they are never inside one of their "safe" buildings when a pissed off nutjob with a gun comes in to seek vengence on those that wrote him a citation for too much junk in his yard.

 

[powell&hyde]

Update, in my county in Iowa the board of supervisors passed an ordinance that allows firearms on county and city govt properties. Common sense prevailed.

 

[wishin]

Update, in my county in Iowa the board of supervisors passed an ordinance that allows firearms on county and city govt properties. Common sense prevailed.

Good for you and your fellow law abiding and gun loving citizens.

Originally posted by gunnutery

In the end, we (pro 2A) lost. They motioned and carried to draft an ordinance.

You put up a good fight. That's the best we can be expected to do! Thanks for letting us know the outcome.

 

[gunnutery]

Powell&hyde,

Congrats on having common sense ordinance. I'm really glad someone, somewhere is going to be able to defend themselves on goverment property should the situation arise.