What Shawn Johnson can Teach Us About Iowa’s Concealed Carry Bills

Friday, March 27, 2009, 6:30
Battleground Iowa
1,566 views
8 comments

By Emily Geiger

I have to say I was shocked and a little shaken when I heard the horrible news story about the man who is apparently obsessed with Iowa’s golden girl, Shawn Johnson. Earlier this week, this man was caught attempting to jump a fence to get to the Dancing with the Stars studio to meet her. The police found one loaded handgun, one loaded shotgun, duct tape, plastic zip ties, love letters addressed to Shawn, and a map of Shawn’s whereabouts in the trunk of the man’s car. He has been arrested and charged with one count of stalking and two counts of carrying loaded firearms within city limits with no permits in California.

One of the things that jumped out at me in all the news coverage is the fact that the perpetrator presented police with an expired concealed carry permit. It made me think about what would have happened if all this had occurred in Iowa. More specifically, it made me think about what the consequences would have been for this disturbed man under the two competing concealed carry permit bills that were introduced in the Iowa Legislature this year.

Now, keep in mind that neither concealed carry bill made it out of committee before the funnel deadline, so they both appear to be dead. But there’s always a possibility that someone could try to revive either of these bills via the amendment process.

First I have to issue a disclaimer. There is only so much we know about the facts of this case thus far. It is very likely that there is more to this that we don’t yet know. For example, it is possible that this man might have been following Shawn around for several days or tried to make contact with her in the past. But, as far as we know right now, this was a one-time incident.

Under Iowa’s stalking law, this man might not have done anything wrong, particularly if this was the first time he attempted to communicate with Shawn. Further, it is debatable whether or not he actually “communicated” with her (which is a requirement of this law) given that the love letters were still in his trunk (i.e. not delivered to Shawn) and given that it does not appear that the man actually got to talk to Shawn in person.

It’s also not clear that Iowa’s harassment law would apply. Once again, it’s not clear that this guy actually communicated with Shawn. It’s also not clear that this man had “personal contact” with her.

So, what Iowa law would this sicko have violated? Well, under the current law, he would be guilty of firearms violation. But, if HF 596, backed by the Gun Owners of America, were law, he wouldn’t even be guilty of that. Under this bill, it would not be illegal to be transporting loaded weapons, even without a permit. Some might argue that this bill would classify what this guy did as felony under this legislation since it could be argued that he was intending to commit a “crime of violence.” The problem is that you probably couldn’t prove that the guy was intending to commit a crime of violence as that phrase is defined under this legislation. You could probably only prove he intended to stalk or harass, and physical force is not an element of those crimes, so under this bill, those aren’t crimes of violence.

It also appears that HF 596 might have superseded the part of the stalking law that views the criminal conduct as more severe when the perpetrator stalks while in possession of a dangerous weapon, such as a gun. The ironic thing is that, given this muddied-up scenario, stalking with a razor or a stiletto could actually be viewed as worse than stalking with a gun.

So basically, in Iowa , if HF 596 were in place, this guy would probably be charged with a relatively minor misdemeanor, or nothing at all, and he’d probably be back out on the streets right now… still obsessing over Shawn, or perhaps moving on to being obsessed with one of your kids.

This is why there needs to be some reasonable rules that could prevent certain deranged people from carrying guns around. I don’t think a sheriff in Iowa should have total discretion to deny permits, but there are certain cases in which permits should be denied, which is why I supported HF 193 instead.

If there’s anyone out there who disagrees with this, I’ll be waiting for you to publicly volunteer to bring Shawn’s crazy stalker back his guns. And then I’ll watch as hoards of Shawn’s loyal fans beat some sense into you. Watch out… little girls in leotards can really pack a wallop.

About the Author

Battleground Iowa has written 222 stories on this site.

Emily Geiger writes from a conservative perspective on everything from politics to religion to pop culture. Like the original Emily of Revolutionary War era, this Emily is delivering important messages crucial to winning the raging war of the time, but today, this is a culture war rather than a traditional one. And, like the original Emily, sometimes it takes a woman to do (or say) that which lesser men lack the courage and tenacity to do.

8 Comments on “What Shawn Johnson can Teach Us About Iowa’s Concealed Carry Bills”

steve right wrote on 27 March, 2009, 8:48
Oh. My. God.

I agree with “Emily Geiger.”
Iowa Cynic wrote on 27 March, 2009, 8:55
This is very reasonable. Some militia-wannabes and gun fetishists will probably jump down your throat, but you are absolutely right. Giving sheriffs unlimited discretion leads to a rubber stamp in reddist counties and a dead end in the blueist counties. It could use a fix, but this isn’t it. Giving them no discretion means that it won’t just be gun fetishists with cold metal under their clothes but other, more dangerous crazies like this stalker.
Anonymous wrote on 27 March, 2009, 11:12
Emily,

Your argument has some very basic issues.

You seem to be trying to make the case that this guy wouldn’t have been arrested had this happened in Iowa and HF 596 were law.

Not so. I know of no jurisdiction in this country where jumping a fence doesn’t constitute criminal trespass.

As for the phrase “crime of violence,” it’s a term that’s borrowed from federal law (it doesn’t occur once in the Iowa Code), and it means a crime where violence, or the threat of violence (with or without a weapon), is an essential component.

Force is not an integral part of stalking, but threat of force certainly is.

In any event, this guy had no prior criminal record, and had in fact gotten a permit (albeit an out-of-state one that he’d allowed to expire) to carry a gun, so your precious permitting laws wouldn’t have actually done all that much.
anon wrote on 27 March, 2009, 11:49
A crime in which “threat of force” is an element is not a “crime of violence” under the definition provided in HF 596. Only crimes in which actual “physical force” is an element are “crimes of violence” under this bill. That’s part of the problem with this bill.
If this guy had been stopped at the side walk outside Shawn’s home or gym (since we don’t have too many gated, fenced TV studios here in Iowa) trespassing would not be an issue either.

Permit laws may not have stopped this from happening, but they sure help prosecutors throw the book at the guys like this when it does happen, especially when the criminal didn’t get far enough in his sceme to have fulfilled all the elements of another crime, like stalking, harassment, or assault, and he would otherwise get off scott free.
Anonymous wrote on 27 March, 2009, 15:13
Anon,

If he hadn’t trespassed, he would still be at large, permit laws or no. He was stopped by security guards at the studio after jumping a fence.

The point of laws isn’t to give prosecutors the power to “throw the book at someone.” That’s the purview of sentencing. To have it any other way opens the door to all manner of abuse as prosecutors and sheriffs use “discretion” as a bludgeon against people they don’t like.
Phil Roe - Eldora wrote on 27 March, 2009, 22:33
I would like to comment that as a member of Iowa Gun Owners, and a proponent/advocate of HF 596, I have made repeated attempts to obtain permission from Craig Robinson to “op ed” Emily Geiger’s continued pro-victim disarmament rantings on this website, with no avail. I challenge here and now in full view of the public (assuming that my post is not removed) that every single point raised by Ms. Geiger above, or anywhere else for that matter, can easily be refuted as flawed and dangerous logic if the debate is simply opened for both sides to present arguments. But, much like the mainstream media that many “conservatives” and “Republicans” are always to quick to dismiss as “biased and untruthful,” clearly Robinson and “TheIowaRepublican.com” are also unwilling to allow the light to shine on all sides of this issue. So be it

The sad fact of the matter is that Iowa is one of only a handful of states left that have not yet supplied statesmen from either party, “Republican” (though Kent Sorenson is a good start; we simply need more like him) or Democrat, intelligent enough to see fit to follow the wisdom of our nation’s founders and recognize the God given right of its people to protect their lives and those of their families from the malevolent element in our society.

Iowa, thanks to the archaic mindset of people like Geiger and Robinson, remains a state lost in the dangerous backwater of “victim disarmament.” To date, 39 states have adopted at the very least the idea of “shall issue” carrying of weapons where EVERY law abiding citizen who has no record of a criminal past, can get a permit to carry a weapon. Two states, Alaska and Vermont, had the wisdom and courage to end (or in the case of Vermont, never have) the practice of requiring ANY permit at all.

In these states, any otherwise law abiding citizen can carry a firearm virtually anywhere they want to go without fear of being arrested for doing nothing more than having the means to defend their lives in the event of need (and by the way, HF 139, that Ms. Geiger so proudly supports, does not. It continues to allow a county sheriff to deny Iowa citizens of their God given right to self defense for no reason at all!). Yet . . . and here is a very important point that anyone with just a little more intelligence than Ms. Geiger can understand . . . . in all of those states that have wisely chosen to fully realize their second amendment freedoms . . . . where the victim disarmament crowd like Ms. Geiger pitifully cried “there will be blood in the streets!!” . . . absolutely NOTHING of the kind has happened. In virtually all of those places where unrestricted concealed gun carry has been tried, it has been an unmitigated and unchallenged success. That simple fact alone discounts every “the sky will fall!” victim disarmament “argument” that Ms. Geiger raises.

For Robinson and Geiger to continue to refuse the full discussion and debate on this issue is a disservice to the readers here, and is a slap in the face to all true Iowa conservatives. For those individuals who are not locked in the grip of a medevil statist mindset, you might want to go on over to http://www.iowagunowners.org and see what this exceptional group is doing to try and take Iowa “out of the dark ages.”

Phil Roe
Eldora, Iowa
Straight Shooter wrote on 1 April, 2009, 21:18
Republicans continue to serve wrong recipe when it comes to gun rights

By Jeff Knox

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6606

The Republican Party lost big in 2006 and lost even bigger in 2008. They didn’t lose because of opposition to the war in Iraq. They didn’t lose because of the floundering economy. They didn’t even lose because of a “culture of corruption.” Those were symptoms and side issues. The reason Republicans lost, and continue to lose, is because they have failed to keep their promises, live up to their stated beliefs, and they have provided little reason to their base a reason to get excited about keeping them in office.

From taxes to abortion to free trade to fiscal responsibility, Republicans have routinely betrayed the trust of important issue groups and constituencies. But no group betrayed, ignored, and taken for granted by Republicans more than gunowners.

Republicans sought out support from gunowners, promising to protect the Second Amendment, but in eight years of a nominally pro-gun Republican Administration and six years of a nominally pro-gun Republican Congress, the only pro-gun legislation to get to the President’s desk was the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Even as an opposition party the Republicans have shown little stomach for a fight. They didn’t even offer token resistance to the appointment of virulent anti-rights extremist Eric Holder as Attorney General – the defender of the Constitution.

Thankfully the Democrats have thrown our opposition, anti-rights movement under the bus – at least for now. The Democrats still feel the sting from their losses in 1994 after they passed the Clinton “assault weapons” ban. What they learned from that mistake is that we GunVoters are only dangerous when we’re really mad, as we were in 1994. We as a movement have demonstrated a lack of resolve when there is nothing to really fire us up and make us angry.

With that knowledge, Democrats have developed a strategy of paying lip-service to the Second Amendment while avoiding hard votes on controversial gun issues. That strategy has served them well.

Meanwhile Republicans appear to have learned nothing at all. They watched as Democrats, and a fair number of anti-gun Republicans, were swept from office in 1994 in the wake of the “assault weapons” vote, but the Republicans missed the significance of this landslide because they made no effort to reverse that highly motivating vote or to push for more votes guaranteed to rally GunVoters.

Sadly, much of the blame for wishy-washy politicians offering little more than lip-service to GunVoters rests with GunVoters themselves, and with pro-rights organizations who have failed to push for clear votes on widely supported issues.

It’s hard to hold politicians accountable for votes they are never asked to cast.

We have allowed politicians to dodge hard votes with deceptive procedural maneuvers and backroom deals. We have been convinced to soften our demands and ask for less in order to supposedly attract the necessary votes for passage, only to see the measures fail regardless. Our own organizations have failed to learn the lessons of 1994. GunVoters don’t get outraged when a wimpy effort toward some minor reform fails. And when the next election rolls around, how one politician voted on such wimpy legislation isn’t really a factor.

Current legislative action in Iowa exemplifies the problem: Republicans, with the support of pro-rights groups are dodging a vote on a serious CCW reform bill in favor of a watered-down compromise bill. While the compromise bill isn’t terrible, it isn’t nearly as good as it ought to be and is nowhere close to the Alaska-style alternative. But “pro-gun” legislators argue that they can’t get the votes for the Alaska-carry bill and that forcing the issue could harm some of their friends in the next election.

Meanwhile a third and even less appealing bill is being used as a wedge to further weaken the already anemic compromise bill. In the end, it is likely that none of the bills will pass or, at best, a very weak bill might squeak through, but there will be no clear picture of who our friends and enemies are in the legislature and there will be no clear targets for frustrated GunVoters – the politicians win again.

If all of the state’s gun-rights advocates were to rally around the best bill and push for its passage, demanding clear votes in both houses, they might not win this year, but the effort would activate the grassroots GunVoters resulting in some changes in the makeup of the legislature in the next elections and a better shot at passage of a good bill.

Compromising principles to avoid a fight.
Pushing a weak bill rather than making a stand for a strong bill.
Letting politicians dodge hard votes to avoid being held accountable for their actions.
This is the recipe for training bad behavior in our elected servants. We need to avoid such traps. We can and must do better by forcing the politicians to do better.

Permission to reprint this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit is included. ©Copyright 2009 Neal Knox Associates