Sheriff rejects concealed handgun permit in retaliation for public criticisms
"In denying (Dorr) a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections," Bennett wrote in the ruling.
Anger over the sheriff's denial of the gun permit was a factor in inspiring some grass-roots activists to push for changes to Iowa's weapons law. Starting Jan. 1, a new law requires sheriffs to issue gun permits except under a narrow set of circumstances.
Bennett ruled that Weber's denial of Dorr's gun permit in 2007 trampled his free speech rights because the sheriff was retaliating against Dorr for publicly protesting, passing out leaflets and writing letters to newspaper editors on a variety of topics.
"The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber's own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of ... Paul Dorr," Bennett wrote in the decision.
"This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views," he added. . . .
Labels: ConcealedCarry
2 Comments:
Kudos to U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett!
Even with the fact that the Sheriff overrides all other law enforcement agencies within his physical area of jurisdiction, it is still the sheriffs duty to uphold the law, and apply it fairly to all.
I must say that this is the first time I have ever heard of where the First Amendment was cited in a firearms case.
Hopefully issues like this will be rendered moot next year when shall-issue takes effect.
Sadly, I can even see something like this happen in Alabama because we're a de jure may-issue state (mostly shall-issue in practice).
Post a Comment
<< Home