In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Supervisors under fire proposed fee for gun permit
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Supervisors under fire for proposed fee for gun permits
By JAMIE RASMUSSEN,Courier staff writer
OTTUMWA -- The Wapello County Supervisors encountered resistance when they attempted to pass a resolution to impose a fee to obtain a gun permit this week.
Resolution #224-2002 states that a majority of Iowa counties already impose such a fee and that "it would be in the best public interest for the Wapello County Sheriff's Office to implement a fee to be charged for the issuance of an annual permit to acquire pistols and revolvers."
At last week's meeting, the supervisors heard testimony from Wapello County Sheriff Don Kirkendall in favor of the resolution.
His main objective was to cover the cost of processing the requests for the permits.
But at Tuesday's meeting, James McDonald of the National Rifle Association spoke out in opposition of the resolution.
"I consider the $5 fee a tax," he said.
McDonald said a majority of Iowa counties did not impose such fees and that the cost of processing the permits was nowhere near $5.
"I'm the NRA," he said, "and I vote."
Since the information provided by McDonald and Kirkendall did not match up, Supervisor Steve Siegel suggested that the supervisors postpone action until next week so that they can get their facts straightened out.
"It's never good to make a decision without all the information," said Supervisor Jerry Parker.
In an interview after the meeting, Parker said the county would do an independent investigation through the Iowa State Association of Counties that would address two questions: Is there a need for a fee? And is the amount proposed appropriate?
In another matter, the board unanimously passed a resolution offering the county's support for the Polk County Project Labor Agreement.
In 2001, Polk County constructed a civic center under a project labor agreement. The Master Builders' association filed suit, claiming that the agreement violated their rights, and lost. They are now in the process of appealing that decision to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Since the Wapello County Supervisors entered into a Project Labor Agreement in July regarding the construction of the Bridge View Project, the board wanted to show their support for Polk County.
In other business, the board:
Approved the Cooperative Agreement for Recreational Trail Construction by which Wapello County will construct a paved trail connecting Dahlonega Road and Bladensburg Road and the Iowa Department of Transportation will reimburse the county for the expenses.
Approved a measure to finalize the rezoning application for Stellar Avenue.
Approved resolution making Ringgold County a part of the Southeast Iowa Response Group.
Accepted and filed the county recorder's fourth quarter report.
http://www.ottumwacourier.com/display/inn_news/supervisors.txt
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By JAMIE RASMUSSEN,Courier staff writer
OTTUMWA -- The Wapello County Supervisors encountered resistance when they attempted to pass a resolution to impose a fee to obtain a gun permit this week.
Resolution #224-2002 states that a majority of Iowa counties already impose such a fee and that "it would be in the best public interest for the Wapello County Sheriff's Office to implement a fee to be charged for the issuance of an annual permit to acquire pistols and revolvers."
At last week's meeting, the supervisors heard testimony from Wapello County Sheriff Don Kirkendall in favor of the resolution.
His main objective was to cover the cost of processing the requests for the permits.
But at Tuesday's meeting, James McDonald of the National Rifle Association spoke out in opposition of the resolution.
"I consider the $5 fee a tax," he said.
McDonald said a majority of Iowa counties did not impose such fees and that the cost of processing the permits was nowhere near $5.
"I'm the NRA," he said, "and I vote."
Since the information provided by McDonald and Kirkendall did not match up, Supervisor Steve Siegel suggested that the supervisors postpone action until next week so that they can get their facts straightened out.
"It's never good to make a decision without all the information," said Supervisor Jerry Parker.
In an interview after the meeting, Parker said the county would do an independent investigation through the Iowa State Association of Counties that would address two questions: Is there a need for a fee? And is the amount proposed appropriate?
In another matter, the board unanimously passed a resolution offering the county's support for the Polk County Project Labor Agreement.
In 2001, Polk County constructed a civic center under a project labor agreement. The Master Builders' association filed suit, claiming that the agreement violated their rights, and lost. They are now in the process of appealing that decision to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Since the Wapello County Supervisors entered into a Project Labor Agreement in July regarding the construction of the Bridge View Project, the board wanted to show their support for Polk County.
In other business, the board:
Approved the Cooperative Agreement for Recreational Trail Construction by which Wapello County will construct a paved trail connecting Dahlonega Road and Bladensburg Road and the Iowa Department of Transportation will reimburse the county for the expenses.
Approved a measure to finalize the rezoning application for Stellar Avenue.
Approved resolution making Ringgold County a part of the Southeast Iowa Response Group.
Accepted and filed the county recorder's fourth quarter report.
http://www.ottumwacourier.com/display/inn_news/supervisors.txt
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Wednesday, August 7, 2002
By JAY AMBROSE, Scripps Howard News Service
The way I figure it, antique stores are bad for the public. I don't have any way of proving that. But that's how I feel, and therefore I think Congress should pass legislation complicating sales and threatening store owners with stiff penalties if they don't comply with lots of stuff that's hard to comply with. I know this may make the stores go out of business, but, well, that's fine with me.
Jay Ambrose is director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers.
Actually, it's not, and actually, I don't feel that way at all. I like antique stores and would not dream of doing them in for no good cause. I also like gun shows, and I would not dream of doing them in for no good cause, either. But some people are seeking measures that could end their existence, and what I'd like to get across is that this is just as arbitrary as ending the existence of antique stores.
The people arguing for tough new laws at gun shows do, of course, contend that the gun shows do harm. They say criminals and even terrorists can and do purchase guns at these shows, and they make it sound as if a new law may be effective in keeping these dangerous people unarmed.
From the personal experience of attending gun shows, I can tell you that the sorts of people frequenting them are mainly ordinary folks, mainly hobbyists and hunters. Criminals? Well, I cannot say they never show up, but I know from reported surveys of prison convicts that precious few of them turn to gun shows to get their weapons.
The best calculation is that of all those who have used guns in the commission of crimes, somewhere between 2 percent and less than 1 percent purchased their guns at gun shows. Why not at least stop those people? The answer is that the proposed laws will not do any such thing. The same surveys I just alluded to also show that something like 25 percent of the criminals got their guns at gun stores.
That figure is interesting because the federal Brady law, which requires background checks, is in effect at the gun stores. Advocates of gun show laws want it to govern private sellers at gun shows, too. But if criminals are not stopped by the law at gun stores, why will they be stopped by the law at gun shows? And if a criminal tries a gun show and does not get his gun there, what's to keep him from going to the store or - more likely - buying the gun on the street?
The Brady law (which, by the way, has never been shown by an academic study to decrease the number of homicides) already regulates licensed gun dealers whether they are operating at shows or stores or anyplace else. It now exempts private deals. Legislation introduced in Congress would bring private transactions at the gun shows under the law. This could slow down purchases by hours and damage show attendance because people may not want to wait as long as it takes for the checks to be completed.
Even so, this requirement is not the worst of the proposed law. As an expert explained the legislation to me, operators of the shows would be required to register all vendors, even those selling books. If a couple friends walked in as prospective customers and made a deal that maybe they would consummate later and outside the facility, they would be vendors under the law.
Because operators would face tough consequences if they did not comply with the letter of the law, they might well end up registering all customers. This is going to keep some away - and make some operators wonder whether the shows are worth the risk.
Lots and lots of people enjoy these shows. I myself have enjoyed them, and one reason I made an analogy to antique stores is that my search was for antiques. Buying an antique gun does not require a background check under the proposed legislation, but because few of the shows sell only antiques, the law could ruin my searching, too.
Maybe you hate guns of any kind or shape, and that's OK; I understand why some people do. But it is not OK to limit activities others find enriching unless there is strong evidence of public harm. http://www.naplesnews.com/02/08/perspective/d803438a.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
the young people are fleeing the state.