Clinton, IA proposing its properties to be weapons-free

Gary L. Griffiths · December 12, 2010, 10:52 PM

Some people just don't understand the concept of "shall not be infringed." The latest from a city that can aptly be described as "120 miles left of Chicago" is that it's rules and regulations committee is considering a proposal to declare all of its properties to be weapons-free zones. According to the Clinton Police Chief, "It's about protecting both the public and city employees."

Read all about it here: http://clintonherald.com/local/x7135...ons-free-zones

Reminds me of another reason I left Iowa in the first place. :barf:

csmsss · December 12, 2010, 11:04 PM

Your link isn't working. Perhaps this one will: http://clintonherald.com/local/x7135...ons-free-zones

Gary L. Griffiths · December 12, 2010, 11:07 PM

Sorry 'bout that. Fixed it. Thanx.

csmsss · December 12, 2010, 11:21 PM

Since in theory these are all facilities owned or operated by the city itself, I would imagine this policy would be difficult to overturn. That said, what's the point of this? If someone is planning to shoot up a city office or building, how would this policy deter or dissuade them? No, this will only have the effect of deterring law-abiding folk from carrying.

Pahoo · December 13, 2010, 11:20 AM

Quote:

According to the Clinton Police Chief, "It's about protecting both the public and city employees."

What a bunch of hog-wash. It's about bucking the new law that will go into effect, in January. Every LEO knows that for the most part, they are there to clean up the mess afterwards. ......

Be Safe !!!

C Philip · December 13, 2010, 06:02 PM

Yes, I imagine this is reactionary due to the new CWP law that goes into effect 1/1/11, when IA becomes shall issue and will recognize all other states permits.

**44 AMP** · December 16, 2010, 04:17 PM

Is there a pre-emption clause in IA law?

In WA, the city of Seattle tried to ban CCW from city parks. They got slapped with a lawsuit from the state AG.

Under the law, localities cannot pre-empt (be more restrictive) than general state law.

Many states have this, but not all do.

Interestingly enough, it wasn't a hue and cry from gun owners that got the state to sue Seattle. The state AG jumped on them about the same time we heard about their plans to ban CCW from the parks. It seems that it wasn't a gun rights issue to the state, but a usurpation of powers issue, something that apparently they take rather seriously!

C Philip · December 16, 2010, 09:31 PM

Just looked it up. Iowa does have pre-emption:

Quote:

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.

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/coo...3&input=724.28

Unless they change this law, it doesn't look like Clinton city will be able to stand up to a lawsuit.

pichon · December 16, 2010, 10:56 PM

If a city cant get away with a CCW ban in a park, how does the state university get away with it? IIRC most state institutions of higher learning prohibit CCW on campus. The state university I attend tried and it ended up in the Utah Supreme Court. The university lost.

ripnbst · December 16, 2010, 11:04 PM

Yeah, these bans don't ever help the situation. If a person wants to go into a building and start spraying a sign on the door stating no firearms allowed isn't going to do anything.

The only people who follow the signs are the law abiding citizens so what exactly do laws like these do?

Nothing.

December 12, 2010, 10:52 PM	#1
Gary L. Griffiths Senior Member Join Date: April 7, 2000 Location: AZ, WA Posts: 1,466	Clinton, IA proposing its properties to be weapons-free Some people just don't understand the concept of "shall not be infringed." The latest from a city that can aptly be described as "120 miles left of Chicago" is that it's rules and regulations committee is considering a proposal to declare all of its properties to be weapons-free zones. According to the Clinton Police Chief, "It's about protecting both the public and city employees." Read all about it here: http://clintonherald.com/local/x7135...ons-free-zones Reminds me of another reason I left Iowa in the first place. :barf: __________________ Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) Last edited by Gary L. Griffiths; December 12, 2010 at 11:07 PM.

December 12, 2010, 11:07 PM	#3
Gary L. Griffiths Senior Member Join Date: April 7, 2000 Location: AZ, WA Posts: 1,466	Sorry 'bout that. Fixed it. Thanx. __________________ Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)

December 16, 2010, 04:17 PM	#7
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,846	Is there a pre-emption clause in IA law? In WA, the city of Seattle tried to ban CCW from city parks. They got slapped with a lawsuit from the state AG. Under the law, localities cannot pre-empt (be more restrictive) than general state law. Many states have this, but not all do. Interestingly enough, it wasn't a hue and cry from gun owners that got the state to sue Seattle. The state AG jumped on them about the same time we heard about their plans to ban CCW from the parks. It seems that it wasn't a gun rights issue to the state, but a usurpation of powers issue, something that apparently they take rather seriously! __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

December 12, 2010, 11:04 PM	#2
csmsss Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Orange, TX Posts: 3,078	Your link isn't working. Perhaps this one will: http://clintonherald.com/local/x7135...ons-free-zones

December 12, 2010, 11:21 PM	#4
csmsss Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Orange, TX Posts: 3,078	Since in theory these are all facilities owned or operated by the city itself, I would imagine this policy would be difficult to overturn. That said, what's the point of this? If someone is planning to shoot up a city office or building, how would this policy deter or dissuade them? No, this will only have the effect of deterring law-abiding folk from carrying.

December 13, 2010, 06:02 PM	#6
C Philip Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2005 Location: USA Posts: 784	Yes, I imagine this is reactionary due to the new CWP law that goes into effect 1/1/11, when IA becomes shall issue and will recognize all other states permits.

December 16, 2010, 10:56 PM	#9
pichon Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2009 Posts: 439	If a city cant get away with a CCW ban in a park, how does the state university get away with it? IIRC most state institutions of higher learning prohibit CCW on campus. The state university I attend tried and it ended up in the Utah Supreme Court. The university lost.

December 16, 2010, 11:04 PM	#10
ripnbst Senior Member Join Date: November 24, 2010 Location: Spring, TX Posts: 1,552	Yeah, these bans don't ever help the situation. If a person wants to go into a building and start spraying a sign on the door stating no firearms allowed isn't going to do anything. The only people who follow the signs are the law abiding citizens so what exactly do laws like these do? Nothing.