Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Page Hometown » Iowa
Site Notices
Posted: 11/10/2011 9:33:36 AM EDT
The civilian staff at the Muscatine Co. Sheriff's office say I need a range target from an NRA approved instructor
in order to apply for a carry permit.

My understanding is that I do not.

I am not a trouble maker by nature, so what might be the way to resolve this with the least ruffling of feathers ?
Link Posted: 11/10/2011 9:37:56 AM EDT
sometimes you need to just bring in a copy of the iowa code and let them take a look. usually a kind tone and showing what it says and asking if you're right about your understanding will allow them no means to buffalo you.

if this continues to be a problem, then IM me and i can provide you some extra help.

being polite and using courteousy is your best bet.
Link Posted: 11/10/2011 11:04:46 AM EDT
Thanks Septic. I was hoping you would weigh in.

I'll report back with my results.

Link Posted: 11/10/2011 1:12:32 PM EDT
You may also place a call to the weapons permit section at DPS and discuss it with them. They have always been helpful with me on these issues in the past. Their number is 515-725-6230. You are correct that you DO NOT need to qualify on the range, or even touch a gun during the training for that matter.
Link Posted: 11/10/2011 3:51:10 PM EDT
The Sheriff here in Muscatine is very cool. He was issuing long before the Law was changed to shall issue,very cooperative man,but I think you will find they stick to their "guns" on this requirement. Just get him a target....it is worth it and probably easier than arguing about it. I know you are right,but as I said,this guy was issuing way before they were "forced" to issue by the new law.
Link Posted: 11/10/2011 4:10:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sd0324:
The Sheriff here in Muscatine is very cool. He was issuing long before the Law was changed to shall issue,very cooperative man,but I think you will find they stick to their "guns" on this requirement. Just get him a target....it is worth it and probably easier than arguing about it. I know you are right,but as I said,this guy was issuing way before they were "forced" to issue by the new law.


Tho I understand what you are trying to say, I think your wrong... alot of people worked very hard to get the law the way it is now, and we shouldn't allow people to pull this stuff.

He may require a target, but the law does not. And we follow the law not what he wants.

If we let this guy get away with this, where does it end? Next sheriff starts a list of approved classes he chose, increased fees? Let's hold people to the letter of the law.

Oh, and in before septic yells at you
Link Posted: 11/10/2011 4:13:39 PM EDT
It is really too bad this doesn't have DPS logos on it. http://www.dps.state.ia.us/asd/SF2379_FAQ.pdf

Middle of page 3

QUESTION: Is range qualification a part of the mandatory training requirements for a new Iowa professional or nonprofessional permit
to carry weapons?
ANSWER: No. Range qualification may be part of a training program identified above; however, range qualification is not a mandatory
element of training for initial issuance of a permit.
Link Posted: 11/10/2011 4:22:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JoelAC89:
Originally Posted By sd0324:
The Sheriff here in Muscatine is very cool. He was issuing long before the Law was changed to shall issue,very cooperative man,but I think you will find they stick to their "guns" on this requirement. Just get him a target....it is worth it and probably easier than arguing about it. I know you are right,but as I said,this guy was issuing way before they were "forced" to issue by the new law.


Tho I understand what you are trying to say, I think your wrong... alot of people worked very hard to get the law the way it is now, and we shouldn't allow people to pull this stuff.

He may require a target, but the law does not. And we follow the law not what he wants.

If we let this guy get away with this, where does it end? Next sheriff starts a list of approved classes he chose, increased fees? Let's hold people to the letter of the law.

Oh, and in before septic yells at you


For clarification, it isn't the sheriff that is denying his application. As stated, the sheriff has been cool about issuing permits for years.

It is a member of his staff. That person needs to be educated. Probably just asking this person to call the sheriff would clear it up.
Link Posted: 11/10/2011 4:48:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sd0324:
The Sheriff here in Muscatine is very cool. He was issuing long before the Law was changed to shall issue,very cooperative man,but I think you will find they stick to their "guns" on this requirement. Just get him a target....it is worth it and probably easier than arguing about it. I know you are right,but as I said,this guy was issuing way before they were "forced" to issue by the new law.


And we (IFC) will stick to our "guns" as well, of course we have the law on our side and he has absolutely nothing. The fact that he's a nice guy or he was issuing before the law "forced" him to has nothing to do with it.

I don't want to be an dick about it but a lot of us worked our asses off for many years to finally get one of the best and strongest shall issue laws in the entire nation passed and we WILL protect it no matter how minor the infringement seems to be because history shows this is exactly how we lost our rights in the first place, one tiny little step at a time. If we don't nip it in the bud then someone else takes another tiny step and another and another...........
Link Posted: 11/10/2011 5:08:40 PM EDT
Jesus Christ,didn't mean to fire up the Minutemen. Should have known that my innocent advice would cause a "firestorm" of controversy! Now,let us all descend on probably one of the few Sheriff Departments in the State that issued long before the Law that you guys all by yourselves fought so hard for. Excuse the fuck right out of me for offering some advice/an opinion. I did not realize the sacrifices you made for me since I have had a CCW from a very reasonable Sheriff for over 10 yrs. Christ.
Link Posted: 11/10/2011 7:20:23 PM EDT
Its a sad day...the first Iowa member has joined my ignore list

Nobody really jumped down his throat, maybe he shouldn't take a disagreement of opinion so personally
Link Posted: 11/11/2011 12:54:54 AM EDT
No one is jumping down anyone's throat. It is just a fact of law that a target is not required and the law must be adhered to or we will lose ground on the law itself. For years our feet have been held to the fire in this state. We are regaining lost ground and we cannot allow any variances from the mission at hand.
Link Posted: 11/12/2011 3:34:07 PM EDT
I agree. If one of us civilians doesn't follow the law guess what happens to us? Doesn't matter if the sheriff is nice guy or not he still needs to know the law and abide by it.
Link Posted: 11/13/2011 5:53:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2011 5:58:20 AM EDT by septic-tank13]
Originally Posted By sd0324:
Jesus Christ,didn't mean to fire up the Minutemen. Should have known that my innocent advice would cause a "firestorm" of controversy! Now,let us all descend on probably one of the few Sheriff Departments in the State that issued long before the Law that you guys all by yourselves fought so hard for. Excuse the fuck right out of .me for offering some advice/an opinion. I did not realize the sacrifices you made for me since I have had a CCW from a very reasonable Sheriff for over 10 yrs. Christ.


I'm tickled the sheriff had a decent stance during "shall issue" of PTCs... Good deal. There are some troubling points in this thread though.

Firstly, the sheriff of the county is the responsible for issuance whether his staff does the work or he does. So if the staff screws up, he screws up. Period. He's the boss and the buck stops with him. This notion that " you better do what he says " even though we all know it is wrong shouldn't wash with anyone including LE... The rules are in place for us all to follow, so follow them. Besides, we're 11 months into this so the excuse that somebody didn't understand the law correctly is pretty darn thin...

I'm proud as punch at the "minutemen" that responded to the thread. We as free born men have lost rights granted us by God and insured us by our constitution over many years and incremental rollbacks will no longer be tolerated. For those that don't like it, you can go pound sand....
Link Posted: 11/13/2011 1:11:03 PM EDT
Nice job minutemen. Now go after Polk County for charging too much for the permits.

...and yes I am pot stirring septic.
Link Posted: 11/13/2011 5:44:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By yammerschooner:
Nice job minutemen. Now go after Polk County for charging too much for the permits.

...and yes I am pot stirring septic.


i can live with that... ;)
Link Posted: 11/13/2011 7:16:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By septic-tank13:
Originally Posted By yammerschooner:
Nice job minutemen. Now go after Polk County for charging too much for the permits.

...and yes I am pot stirring septic.


i can live with that... ;)


Hypocrite

I think we should of pushed them to offer the paper permit for $50, and give folks the option to pay for the fancy card...I would of payed $30 extra to get the card...

Hold them to the letter of the law and all that.



Im going to add some of these so I don't get yelled at
Link Posted: 11/13/2011 7:41:31 PM EDT
The Sheriff in Muscatine gives you the card free since he knows paper does not last five years...some departments charge more to get a card?
Link Posted: 11/13/2011 8:04:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sd0324:
The Sheriff in Muscatine gives you the card free since he knows paper does not last five years...some departments charge more to get a card?


yup. some are charging fees not allowed by law. i suppose if folks can't manage to realize they just took in $50 for the same thing they were getting $10 for before and having to fuck with it one time in five years instead five times in five years, we'll have to make an adjustment...

hell of a note isn't it?

Link Posted: 11/13/2011 8:07:36 PM EDT
if you knew what the fuck you were talking about joel, it would make a bigger impact... lol.

and while i'm feeling extra snarky, quit suggesting we pay more for something already being done for free all over the state... running your yap about over exposed pictures is one thing, but seeding the 'minutemen' with bullshit notions simply won't do.



Originally Posted By JoelAC89:
Originally Posted By septic-tank13:
Originally Posted By yammerschooner:
Nice job minutemen. Now go after Polk County for charging too much for the permits.

...and yes I am pot stirring septic.


i can live with that... ;)


Hypocrite

I think we should of pushed them to offer the paper permit for $50, and give folks the option to pay for the fancy card...I would of payed $30 extra to get the card...

Hold them to the letter of the law and all that.



Im going to add some of these so I don't get yelled at


Link Posted: 11/13/2011 8:13:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By septic-tank13:
Originally Posted By sd0324:
The Sheriff in Muscatine gives you the card free since he knows paper does not last five years...some departments charge more to get a card?


yup. some are charging fees not allowed by law. i suppose if folks can't manage to realize they just took in $50 for the same thing they were getting $10 for before and having to fuck with it one time in five years instead five times in five years, we'll have to make an adjustment...

hell of a note isn't it?



Hell of a note. I'll be darned.
Link Posted: 11/13/2011 8:30:58 PM EDT
So does this mean im off the invite list for thanksgiving dinner?

If they wanted to offer the nice cards for free that would be great, id just like them to follow the law...like I do

Here is a few more


Originally Posted By septic-tank13:
if you knew what the fuck you were talking about joel, it would make a bigger impact... lol.

and while i'm feeling extra snarky, quit suggesting we pay more for something already being done for free all over the state... running your yap about over exposed pictures is one thing, but seeding the 'minutemen' with bullshit notions simply won't do.



Originally Posted By JoelAC89:
Originally Posted By septic-tank13:
Originally Posted By yammerschooner:
Nice job minutemen. Now go after Polk County for charging too much for the permits.

...and yes I am pot stirring septic.


i can live with that... ;)


Hypocrite

I think we should of pushed them to offer the paper permit for $50, and give folks the option to pay for the fancy card...I would of payed $30 extra to get the card...

Hold them to the letter of the law and all that.



Im going to add some of these so I don't get yelled at




Link Posted: 11/13/2011 8:32:29 PM EDT
Yes some counties are charging extra for the haed card. Clinton County charges $50 for the paper permit and n extra $10 for the hard card. When I f=got mine I told them that it was robbery that they were charging extra. The didn't like that much.
Link Posted: 11/14/2011 6:07:13 AM EDT
But as we all should understand, as long as they give the option of a DPS-standard paper permit at the cost listed in the law, they can offer plastic at whatever price they want –– after all, it's optional.

Hopefully we can get a standardized hard card put in the law in the not too distant future.

Originally Posted By river_rat:
Yes some counties are charging extra for the haed card. Clinton County charges $50 for the paper permit and n extra $10 for the hard card. When I f=got mine I told them that it was robbery that they were charging extra. The didn't like that much.


Link Posted: 11/14/2011 12:33:57 PM EDT
I believe the Muscatine Sheriff has been corrected, but for others ...

I have had calls and correspondence today, first from instructors in Iowa, and now two from Wisconsin, stating that one or more Sheriffs are demanding proof that if you are an NRA instructor, then the class you do for the permit to carry applicant MUST include a range exercise because the NRA requires it. Apparently, this is in response to the NRA memo of 11-7 regarding on line courses where the NRA outlined certain requirements they expect their instructors to follow, including in-person classes (no on-line) and a range exercise.

The Sheriffs were either misunderstanding the memo, or using it as an excuse to require a range exercise even if the course were not an official NRA class.

So, I contacted the NRA instructor training department for clarification. Here is the response:

––
Paul,

If you are referring to the memo sent out November 7, 2011

The NRA Training department does not want its name associated with
any on-line training due to our methodology of hands on face to face, objective based training.

If an NRA Certified Instructor conducts a course that is NOT NRA approved, they can still list their credentials and ID # as long as they have the appropriate disclaimer posted.

The NON NRA course does not have to contain a shooting portion if that is not what the instructor is teaching.

The NRA Training department does not dictate to instructors what they can and can not teach when conducting NON NRA courses, but we do have Policies concerning the use of the NRA name and trade mark.

I hope I have answered your question if I understood it correctly.

NRA
Mark M Richardson
National Rifle Association
Instructor Program Coordinator
Link Posted: 11/14/2011 2:08:43 PM EDT
The only thing that comes to mind is that these people need to quit fucking the people, the law and the Constitution.
Originally Posted By phorvick:
I believe the Muscatine Sheriff has been corrected, but for others ...

I have had calls and correspondence today, first from instructors in Iowa, and now two from Wisconsin, stating that one or more Sheriffs are demanding proof that if you are an NRA instructor, then the class you do for the permit to carry applicant MUST include a range exercise because the NRA requires it. Apparently, this is in response to the NRA memo of 11-7 regarding on line courses where the NRA outlined certain requirements they expect their instructors to follow, including in-person classes (no on-line) and a range exercise.

The Sheriffs were either misunderstanding the memo, or using it as an excuse to require a range exercise even if the course were not an official NRA class.

So, I contacted the NRA instructor training department for clarification. Here is the response:

––
Paul,

If you are referring to the memo sent out November 7, 2011

The NRA Training department does not want its name associated with
any on-line training due to our methodology of hands on face to face, objective based training.

If an NRA Certified Instructor conducts a course that is NOT NRA approved, they can still list their credentials and ID # as long as they have the appropriate disclaimer posted.

The NON NRA course does not have to contain a shooting portion if that is not what the instructor is teaching.

The NRA Training department does not dictate to instructors what they can and can not teach when conducting NON NRA courses, but we do have Policies concerning the use of the NRA name and trade mark.

I hope I have answered your question if I understood it correctly.

NRA
Mark M Richardson
National Rifle Association
Instructor Program Coordinator


Link Posted: 11/14/2011 2:45:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By amaixner:
But as we all should understand, as long as they give the option of a DPS-standard paper permit at the cost listed in the law...


Polk doesn't.

C'mon minutemen, let's hear about no compromise. Make the public aware of the extra 10k that was pocketed before the end of March, not to mention the skim that has happened since. Shout it from the rooftops, until it becomes apparent that sometimes it is just a little easier to just smile, bend over, and take it a little at a time. If it stings just a little, it ain't hurting a lot.

Rally round the family, pocket full of shells and all that... bah!

No compromise ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Link Posted: 11/15/2011 8:06:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By yammerschooner:
Originally Posted By amaixner:
But as we all should understand, as long as they give the option of a DPS-standard paper permit at the cost listed in the law...


Polk doesn't.

C'mon minutemen, let's hear about no compromise. Make the public aware of the extra 10k that was pocketed before the end of March, not to mention the skim that has happened since. Shout it from the rooftops, until it becomes apparent that sometimes it is just a little easier to just smile, bend over, and take it a little at a time. If it stings just a little, it ain't hurting a lot.

Rally round the family, pocket full of shells and all that... bah!

No compromise ain't all it's cracked up to be.


Sounds like you need to take this up with an administrative law judge. That is where you go when a civil servant is incorrectly administering something that is proscribed by law. It should be a simple case for the judge.

Link Posted: 11/15/2011 8:55:51 AM EDT
On page 71 of the current issue of American Handgunner is a very good write up of how we as pro gunners should start approaching "common sense" gun laws. You can read it online here. The aspect of using laws and the need for new gun legislation to counter the anti-gunners is an incredible shift in thinking.
Link Posted: 11/15/2011 8:58:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2011 9:31:41 PM EDT by yammerschooner]
Originally Posted By amaixner:
Originally Posted By yammerschooner:
Originally Posted By amaixner:
But as we all should understand, as long as they give the option of a DPS-standard paper permit at the cost listed in the law...


Polk doesn't.

C'mon minutemen, let's hear about no compromise. Make the public aware of the extra 10k that was pocketed before the end of March, not to mention the skim that has happened since. Shout it from the rooftops, until it becomes apparent that sometimes it is just a little easier to just smile, bend over, and take it a little at a time. If it stings just a little, it ain't hurting a lot.

Rally round the family, pocket full of shells and all that... bah!

No compromise ain't all it's cracked up to be.


Sounds like you need to take this up with an administrative law judge. That is where you go when a civil servant is incorrectly administering something that is proscribed by law. It should be a simple case for the judge.


Feel free to; I was pointing out that vigilance isn't entirely no-compromise, no matter how cut and dried folks like to make it sound.
Link Posted: 11/16/2011 4:01:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By yammerschooner:
Originally Posted By amaixner:
Originally Posted By yammerschooner:
Originally Posted By amaixner:
But as we all should understand, as long as they give the option of a DPS-standard paper permit at the cost listed in the law...


Polk doesn't.

C'mon minutemen, let's hear about no compromise. Make the public aware of the extra 10k that was pocketed before the end of March, not to mention the skim that has happened since. Shout it from the rooftops, until it becomes apparent that sometimes it is just a little easier to just smile, bend over, and take it a little at a time. If it stings just a little, it ain't hurting a lot.

Rally round the family, pocket full of shells and all that... bah!

No compromise ain't all it's cracked up to be.


Sounds like you need to take this up with an administrative law judge. That is where you go when a civil servant is incorrectly administering something that is proscribed by law. It should be a simple case for the judge.


Feel free to; I was pointing out that vigilance isn't entirely no-compromise, no matter how cut and dried folks like to make it sound.


Well said.
Link Posted: 11/16/2011 5:37:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By yammerschooner:
Feel free to; I was pointing out that vigilance isn't entirely no-compromise, no matter how cut and dried folks like to make it sound.

Are you in Polk county? I don't know if someone not affected by the missadministration of a law can take it to an administrative law judge. Since this abuse appears to be happening, we will need to find someone that can challenge it.
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 12:53:43 PM EDT
There are a few FFL dealers who need to be slapped regarding permits too. Some are claiming that our new carry permits are only good for purchases for a year, and starting Jan.1 we need to maintain a yearly purchase permit as well.
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 1:36:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shack357:
There are a few FFL dealers who need to be slapped regarding permits too. Some are claiming that our new carry permits are only good for purchases for a year, and starting Jan.1 we need to maintain a yearly purchase permit as well.


I would say they can learn the easy way, or the hard way.

The easy way is to make a quick call to the governing sheriff department- problem solved.

The hard way is to immediately start losing business...
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 2:25:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By wantone:
Originally Posted By shack357:
There are a few FFL dealers who need to be slapped regarding permits too. Some are claiming that our new carry permits are only good for purchases for a year, and starting Jan.1 we need to maintain a yearly purchase permit as well.


I would say they can learn the easy way, or the hard way.

The easy way is to make a quick call to the governing sheriff department- problem solved.

The hard way is to immediately start losing business...


I'm hoping the easy way works-phone calls have already been made. Other than the permit thing, they're a good shop with decent prices(the first place I dealt with this anyway). If they want to have such a rule as a store policy then fine. I don't like it but if they can legally add restrictions to gun sales based on what they feel I don't like it, but their shop, their rules an all that. If they want to take that same policy and tell people it's state law then they need whatever comes. I'll wait to see if the phone calls change anything before spreading their names around.
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 6:38:51 PM EDT
if they can't read the 6th page of the 4473 document they work with daily they don't deserve to be in the business...

period...

Originally Posted By shack357:
Originally Posted By wantone:
Originally Posted By shack357:
There are a few FFL dealers who need to be slapped regarding permits too. Some are claiming that our new carry permits are only good for purchases for a year, and starting Jan.1 we need to maintain a yearly purchase permit as well.


I would say they can learn the easy way, or the hard way.

The easy way is to make a quick call to the governing sheriff department- problem solved.

The hard way is to immediately start losing business...


I'm hoping the easy way works-phone calls have already been made. Other than the permit thing, they're a good shop with decent prices(the first place I dealt with this anyway). If they want to have such a rule as a store policy then fine. I don't like it but if they can legally add restrictions to gun sales based on what they feel I don't like it, but their shop, their rules an all that. If they want to take that same policy and tell people it's state law then they need whatever comes. I'll wait to see if the phone calls change anything before spreading their names around.


Link Posted: 1/7/2012 1:30:20 PM EDT
I got it the mail today.

Thankyou septic!!!
Link Posted: 1/7/2012 4:09:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bolboda:
I got it the mail today.

Thankyou septic!!!


When did you actually get your application turned in? They only get 30 days by law. Either way you have it and that is the main thing. Congrats! Don't forget your Wally World walk if this is your first permit. It is a rite of passage.
Link Posted: 1/8/2012 8:15:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sd0324:
Jesus Christ,didn't mean to fire up the Minutemen. Should have known that my innocent advice would cause a "firestorm" of controversy! Now,let us all descend on probably one of the few Sheriff Departments in the State that issued long before the Law that you guys all by yourselves fought so hard for. Excuse the fuck right out of me for offering some advice/an opinion. I did not realize the sacrifices you made for me since I have had a CCW from a very reasonable Sheriff for over 10 yrs. Christ.


I'm not one that should probably throw any stones - but - are you unable to say anything without curse words? I'd assume your name is Richard Head or something close to that.
Page Hometown » Iowa
Top Top