Several Iowa gun rights groups are working to change the way concealed weapons permits are issued by local sheriffs.
Sean McClanahan, president of Iowa Carry, a Clive-based gun rights organization, said his group is working to change Iowa law from a "may issue" to a "shall issue" system.
Under current law, each sheriff has broad discretion in whether or not they issue permits to carry.
Under a shall issue system, the sheriff would have to grant the permit to an applicant who has taken the required training, passed a background check and is not otherwise disqualified.
McClanahan believes the current system turns the legal tradition of innocent until proven guilty around.
"Until I do something stupid," he said. "I should be allowed to get the permit. ... You have to prove that you're innocent."
The lack of discretion in issuing is the biggest objection that local sheriffs have to the "shall issue" concept.
Webster County Sheriff Brian Mickelson objects to losing the ability to deny permits to people who he has reason to believe should not be carrying a firearm.
"I'm not going to give a permit to somebody who might hurt somebody or themselves," he said.
Humboldt County Sheriff Dean Kruger has the same concerns.
"We usually know our people," he said. "The state would have no clue."
Pocahontas County Sheriff Robert Lampe's sentiments are similar.
"The sheriff knows the people in his county," he said.
All three emphasized that they are not against people having guns, or carrying them. Mickelson explained that he is a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights.
Another proposed change would require standardized training throughout the entire state. Currently, the law lets each individual sheriff define adequate training. Some departments conduct their own training classes; others send applicants to private training courses.
"People want to know that those carrying at least know which end goes bang," McClanahan said.
Standardized training requirements would be welcomed by Mickelson.
"That, to me, makes sense," he said. "If somebody wants to carry a gun, eight hours of training isn't too much to ask."
Under current law, if an applicant is denied a permit, there is no formal appeal process. If the applicant feels something on their background check is in error and the cause of the denial, they can take the issue up with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
McClanahan would like to see that change.
"There is no recourse if you're turned down," he said. "We're not saying the sheriff can't deny, but the final decision should be the judges' job."
In Webster and nearby counties, rejection of applications for reasons other than failed background checks or inadequate training seem to be a rarity.
"In nine years of issuing," Lampe said, "there's only been one refusal."
According to Humboldt County's Kruger, there's a gulf between the public perception of the difficulty of obtaining a permit and the reality.
"I don't think there's as many refusals as people think," he said.
An Iowa permit to carry a concealed weapon is valid in all 99 counties. It's also recognized by 13 other states, including neighbors Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota.
Iowa, on the other hand, recognizes no other state's permits, something that would change under the proposed law changes.
McClanahan said the Iowa attorney general's office would be tasked with determining which other states had issuing requirements that met Iowa's standards before deciding which permits to honor.
"Iowa should recognize those permits," he said.
He would also like to see changes made to the availability of the personal data on the permits. It's currently considered a public record. While it would still be open to inspection, publication of the data in the media would be prohibited. He cites danger to the permit holder's safety and the already extensive list of professional carry permits that are off limits.
Richard Cook, sheriff of Rice County, Minn., was in office when Minnesota changed its law from may issue to shall issue in 2003.
His concerns at the time were similar to the concerns of sheriffs in Iowa: losing the ability to have discretion in issuing permits. Some of those concerns were addressed when he was invited to meet with lawmakers while the law was being drafted.
"We were able to gain some concessions," he said. "We have the ability to disqualify somebody if they presented a danger to themselves or others."
Sheriffs in Minnesota have to state in writing why a permit was denied and be able to show documentation in case the applicant appeals the decision. The final decision is made by a judge after a hearing.
Another aspect of Minnesota's law with which Cook has become more comfortable is that sheriffs and trainers, if they practiced "due diligence" during the permit process, have immunity from liability if the permit holder harms someone or misuses the permit.
In Iowa, McClanahan is optimistic that the legislation will be passed by the Iowa House and Senate.
"Chances are pretty good," he said.
State Rep. David Tjepke, R-Gowrie, rates the chance for passage of the legislation at about 50-50. While he supports the basic concept of the law, he said he also believes that sheriffs still need some control over the process.
"You can't put the sheriffs in limbo," he said.
He is also concerned about the lack of an appeals process under current law.
"Any criminal has a right to appeal," he said. "With a gun permit, why should that not be allowed?"
State Rep. Helen Miller, D-Fort Dodge, is still in the process of becoming more familiar with the issue. She said she understands the sheriffs' concerns, as well as those of the public.
"I think it should be fair," she said.
She would welcome input from people on both sides of the issue, she said.
"I want to hear from all sides," Miller said. "You gotta talk to me."
Aaron Dorr, the leader of the Des Moines-based gun rights group Iowa Gun Owners, would like to see more aggressive changes to the law than those McClanahan's group supports. His proposal, which he calls the "Real Right to Carry Bill," would eliminate the need for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Only two states allow that. They are Alaska and Vermont.
McClanahan, while he agrees with the basic concept, doesn't believe there's much chance of such a drastic change.
"We've had a hard enough time going from may issue to shall issue," he said. "It's just not politically feasible."
McClanahan and Dorr both believe that much of the issue comes down to people wanting to reclaim what they describe as lost rights. McClanahan cited such examples as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the 1994 Clinton Assault Rifle Ban, which was allowed to sunset in 2004 by the Bush Administration, as examples of the attrition of rights.
"We lost rights a little at a time," he said. "We have to take them back little by little."
Contact Hans Madsen at (515) 573-2141 or hmadsen@messengernews.net
