Clinton, IA proposing its properties to be weapons-free

G

Gary L. Griffiths

New member
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." :rolleyes:

Read all about it here: http://clintonherald.com/local/x713546051/City-properties-could-become-weapons-free-zones

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

csmsss

New member
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.
 
P

Pahoo

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

C Philip

New member
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.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
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

C Philip

New member
Just looked it up. Iowa does have pre-emption:
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.
Click to expand...

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/co...=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=724.28

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

pichon

New member
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.
 
R

ripnbst

New member
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.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top