What the unions in Wisconsin are saying
What Iowa City does.... Waste taxpayer time and money

Local gun bans based in paranoia, not reason

The Real View by Mike Thayer (that means this is an opinion piece for those of you who live in University Heights)

It's amazing how misguided and common sense lacking some local leaders really are.  But then again, they're liberal.  In light of Iowa's new gun law, Iowa City and Johnson County have needlessly issued gun bans on city and county government property.

That's paranoid knee-jerk reaction, not reasoned response.  If I didn't know any better (and I do), I would say that this is anti-gun agenda driven, a manipulation (playing on people's fears) of the new gun law has taken place to push that agenda, and some people just followed along with it in ignorance instead of really thinking about it.

The new state gun law, enacted in January, changed Iowa from being "may issue" to "shall issue."  What does that mean?  The process to obtain a concealed weapon permit has been streamlined.  Any Iowan, who meets a list of specific qualifications, can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon if they apply.  It's no longer up to the local sheriff to decide, it's now a uniform state law of "shall issue" once it's been determined the specific qualifications have been met.

Here's where the local paranoia comes in.  Members of the Iowa City Council and Johnson County Supervisors have made public comments implying they will be shot as a direct result of the law change and hence, the necessity for a gun ban.  The Iowa City Depressed-Citizen has helped push this agenda. 

What a load of crap.

PC News Piece:  County approves ban of weapons

Snippet:  "I just think I don't know how I would feel being up here trying to make a decision knowing there are people in the audience who have a gun," supervisor Sally Stutsman said.

My Two Cents:  My goodness Stutsman, prior to January 1st, there's no doubt in my mind that on ocassion, there were people in the audience with a gun.  The new gun law didn't change that reality.  People with carry permits going about their daily business weren't suddenly going to carry because of the new law when they've perhaps already been doing it for years.  Yes Sally, people have carried guns before January 1st!  The new gun law doesn't change that and funny, you weren't worried about it in years past.  You weren't sitting there in 2008 wondering if there was a gun holder in the audience before making a supervisor decision and there is no logical reason to wonder about it now. 

From that same Iowa City Depressed-Citizen report:  "I don't think weapons belong in public buildings where hard decisions and difficult situations arise on a daily basis," supervisor Janelle Rettig said.

Another of my two cents:  Isn't that pathetic?  Like Stutsman, Rettig is playing on your fear to push an anti-gun agenda. It's obvious.  Rettig's implication is an insult to law abiding, responsible people.  She KNOWS that the new Iowa gun law doesn't change the fact that anyone bent on doing what she implies (somebody shooting a supervisor because they don't like the *hard* decision that supervisor(s) made) will do so no matter what the law is.  The new law doesn't change/alter/prevent OR increase the chances of that dreadful scenero from playing out.

But Sally Stutsman, Janelle Rettig, Rod Sullivan (his nonsense below) and other officials want you to believe it does and the Iowa City Depressed-Citizen has been playing the background music to help set the mood.

So again I ask, people have been carrying weapons in and out of, around and about area facilities, buildings and businesses for years and wasn't given a second thought.  What's really changed?

Answer:  Nothing.

Question:  How many shooting incidents have occurred in the county admin building?  Zero and it's not because guns weren't present.

PC Editorial Board Piece:  Our View - Guns don't belong in the public library

Snippet:  What possible threat do gun owners think they will face at the library that they would need to come in packing heat?

More of my two cents:  To repeat, people have been carrying concealed weapons in, out, around and about all kinds of facilities, buildings and businesses in this community for years.  NOBODY gave it a second thought until this change in the gun law.  Think about that.  I'm sure a number of people have carried their gun in the library, going about their daily business with no ill-intent.  Did a librarian say to herself one day in 2005, "Gee, I wonder how many people have carried guns in here, I'm suddenly afraid!"  No, that's sheer nonsense.  Take note of the Depressed-Citizen's use of language like "packing heat" and posing the propaganda question of, What possible threat do gun owners think they will face at the library....?   The Depressed-Citizen knows full well the law abiding responsible citizen carrying a gun isn't doing so solely for fear of facing a threat in the library.  It's much more likely about threats outside the library a person might encounter as they go about their daily business. 

Question:  How many shooting incidents have occurred in the library building?  Zero and it's not because guns weren't present.

Here's some absolute nonsense from Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan, on his Sullivan's Salvos blog:  The extremists claim 2 year olds should be allowed to have guns. They claim people who are seriously mentally ill should be allowed to have guns. They claim no background checks should be done, no training should be required, and no proficiency should be required. They claim that each of us has a right to nuclear weapons.

More of my two cents:  Check out the bogus claims by Sullivan!  This is his habit, his "M.O."  He makes wild and outlandish claims in arguing his agenda, without providing anything of substance to back it up.  He plays with your emotions as a means to an end, facts or reality be damned.    Sullivan needs to be questioned on his made up out of thin air claims.  What extremists claimed 2-year-olds should be allowed to have guns?  In his supposed conversations with area gun ban opponents, who has told Sullivan such things as he implies?  When?  Where?  Who claimed no background checks should be made?  Who, where, and when has someone made the ridiculous charge that the seriously mentally ill should be allowed to have guns?  Huh Sullivan? 

And here's the kicker of it all.  This part of the law hasn't changed - the disqualifiers preventing people from carrying - but local officials pretend there has been a change, given their omissive rhetoric:

  • A felony or domestic violence conviction
  • A conviction for any assault in the last three years
  • You can't have any mental impairments that caused your committal to an institution
  • You can't be addicted to drugs or alcohol

Note the Sullivan completely ignores bullet (pun intended) #3 with his rhetoric.  You still can't LAWFULLY (key word, lawfully) get a carry permit if you've been convicted of a felony or domestic violence.  You still can't get a carry permit if you've been convicted of assault, have mental impairments (would Rod Sullivan qualify?) and you can't be a drug addict.

But local officials pretend that as a direct result of the new gun law, some loony-toon is now suddenly going to be able to walk into council or supervisor chambers and shoot someone, whereas they couldn't before.

NEWSFLASH:  A loony-toon would have been able to do what officials fear BEFORE the gun law change.  And if somebody REALLY wanted to do what all these liberal officials supposedly fear, THEY WOULDN'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW to do so. 

NEWSFLASH II:  a loony-toon or anyone bent on committing a gun crime is NOT going to care about signs on the door saying "NO GUNS ALLOWED" and they're not going to obey any gun ban ordinance.

Do people like Rod Sullivan actually BELIEVE that a guy thinking about shooting him is now going to refrain from doing so because Johnson County government enacted a gun ban?  That's absurd!

Criminal mind:  OH shoot (pun intended), I can't fire my weapon at a county supervisor now because I don't want to be in violation of the gun ban rule on government property.

These gun bans aren't based in sound reasoning.  They are based either ignorance or an agenda.  Those pushing an anti-gun agenda manipulated the new gun law to get what they want, and some ignorant people followed along.

We should challenge these silly gun ban laws, we need to push for repeal.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This one I agree with you on. All people have a right to have a concealed weapon. The new state gun law isn't new at all. It was a response to overzealous Sheriffs, which I won't name, who would not issue a concealed carry permit to qualified people. The Democrats gutted the law, they were so lazy they didn't even add a sentence saying municipalities had the right to determine where a gun could be carried. But they made sure it wasn't in the capital. Our Representatives let us down, their answer now is I didn't vote for it, yea right, you were looking the other way while Culver took the campaign contribution. Now we have a people wanting to put signs up, it's silly a sign is not going make you any safer. Republicans are always accused of taking the money & the public be damned, this time our own Democrats let the citizens of Iowa scramble. Step up and say you made a mistake you were too lazy to write a fair law.

Here is a show we just did about this issue, thought your readers might be interested in it. Feel free to post it if so inclined. Thanks.

Oops! Forgot the link.


Great article here

Thanks for sharing

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)