No changes for now after supervisors hear firearms discussion

The Benton County Supervisors heard from Tom Boeckmann and several others about their new resolution banning guns from the courthouse and other county property.

The discussion on this issue included several speakers and an audience of more than 30 people. Because of the large crowd, the meeting moved upstairs to the main courtroom.

Boeckmann began the discussion by reading the several pages (which were published on the opinion page of Vinton Today yesterday). He urged the supervisors to rescind their firearms prohibition as he said a few other government bodies have done.

But the supervisors did not take any action. All three said that while they support gun rights, they feel that keeping firearms away from the courthouse is an employee safety issue.

While the ordinance mentions the prohibitions set by county parks, it is up to the Benton County Conservation Board to set policies governing firearms in facilities under the control of the Conservation Board. Some at the meeting expressed an interest in attending the next Conservation Board meeting to discuss allowing the carrying of firearms into county parks.

One man in the audience said he was surprised to learn that there has been for years a rule banning firearms in county parks (with the exemption for hunting). Leaders discussed the need for putting up signs advising park users of the rules.

Of the audience, only one person stood to praise the supervisors for passing the resolution barring guns from the courthouse. Rosemary Schwartz said the supervisors should be "commended for their courage" in passing the resolution. While she said that most of the people in the room were capable of safely handling firearms, Schwartz told the supervisors that not everyone should be allowed to carry a gun.

"You would not want a gun in my hands," she said.

But every other speaker disagreed with Schwartz. Several told the supervisors that keeping law abiding citizens disarmed would only result in guns being held by lawbreakers.

While there was no specific action taken, the participants left with a consensus: The firearms ban would stay in effect for the courthouse and county buildings, while the Conservation Board will discuss the policies for county parks. Under Iowa law, each county conservation board has the authority to set rules for its parks.

Concerning firearms at courthouses, Vinton Police Chief Jeff Tilson told the supervisors that virtually every other courthouse he has been inside -- including federal and county courthouses -- prohibits weapons, even for law enforcement officers.

Comments

Submit a Comment

LAV January 18, 2011, 4:25 pm Unfortunately resolution #11-2 was written to include more than just the courthouse. If a resolution prohibiting all weapons had listed specific buildings, including the courthouse, I wouldn\'t have objected. Listing \"all\" county properties as weapons free is heavy handed and excessive. If the supervisors we\'re concerned about gun rights they failed to include that in resolution #11-2.

Ut January 18, 2011, 6:44 pm Ms. Schwartz was correct in at least one instance. No one would want to see a gun in her hands. She has, with her political rhetoric, proven that many times over through the years. Fortunately, she recognizes it herself. What I found enlightening was the supervisors rather sheepish admission that the reason for the introduction of this resolution was largely due to the hysteria induced by the media over the last legislature\'s reform of the concealed carry law and not through any actual evidence of need for such in Benton county.

B January 19, 2011, 5:10 am Just wondering....Are the miles and miles of county roads considered \"county property?

I January 19, 2011, 11:22 am To answer Barnstormer\'s question, no, they aren\'t. They are clearly exempted from the resolution (a copy of which you can obtain, and read for yourself, from the County website.)

U January 19, 2011, 3:49 pm Federal Law, through our constitution gives us the right to own/carry guns. State law does the same. In my feeble mind does not state law trump county law and federal law trump state law. How ridiculous is it that we, legal citizens, born with unalienable rights, have to get a darned permit to carry in this liberal freakin\' state in the first place. It\'s our constitutional right. And oh my gosh... the state is allowing us the privilege to pay $100+ in order to take a class so that we can practice our God given right to carry, and now some county over-protectors are attempting to take that away. I don\'t think so! Truly, the County Supervisors, the conservation board - none of them have the right to say \"You can\'t carry!!\" Guess what...law abiding citizens probably wouldn\'t anyway except for personal protection, which is also guaranteed by out STATE RIGHTS...yet the criminals will, even with all the county signs and resolutions you post. Do you know why? They\'re criminals...they don\'t care...they want to hurt, and consequences mean nothing to them...duh! You don\'t want guns in the courthouse...fine! Post your signs and I will not carry in the court house, and I\'ll shut up about the court house, but just so you know, the bad guys will sneak them in anyway, and if they want to kill someone they will. But, if I\'m hiking on a trail, or fishing at a lake in a county park and I am attacked by some crazed lunatic who wants to rape and murder me (which btw happens a lot in parks across the country, more so than shootings in schools or courthouses from my understanding), shouldn\'t I have the right to protect myself legally, which in my case most likely would involve my use of my semiauto? Darn right I should! It\'s my right under the State Constitution and The United States Constitution. So, our forefathers have set up a way for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from evil, but politicians today establish ways for evil to flourish...go figure. So I suppose if I carry in a county park, I turn from a law abiding citizen into a criminal...hmmmm. Our founding fathers were all criminals too...when they were fighting for their rights, yet they were not. The South, when they rose up to fight for their rights were deemed criminal by the North, yet they were not. The blacks when they fought for equal rights were deemed criminal, yet they were not. So what does that say? Who knows...I\'m just sayin\'...

C January 20, 2011, 8:32 am Again, Do you really think that an individual that intends to cause someone harm is going to abide by the resolution? Wouldn\'t you think that someone would be less likely to attempt what they are trying to prevent with the resolution, if they knew that the courthouse or any other area was protected by properly trained and armed citizens? Rescind this before something really bad happens that will put Benton County in the national news.

JZ January 20, 2011, 1:21 pm Thank you, Supervisors.
Although there may be cheaters who bring in guns anyway, a prohibition is a step in the right direction. The thought that some will break the law (or disobey posted signs) is not a reason to abandon rules. I find no reassurance in thinking protection in public buildings is based on random volunteers who carry their own weapons.
Business owners should have the right to decide for their own businesses and I thank the supervisors for their decision on public buildings.
Someone argued that it would frighten the public if they de-armed themselves outside of stores and public buildings. I would guess this could happen in their vehicles and no one would even notice.
What really frightens me is the addition of more guns and leaving decisions (about where and when to use them) in the hands of anyone and everyone.

S January 25, 2011, 8:20 am Julie, by your own admission, you say people will break the rules and bring in guns anyway, and you find no reassurance in protection from \'random volunteers\' That leads me to believe that you are comfortable with criminals sneaking guns into places where responsible, trained, sheriff approved citizens are defenseless. Yeah, bravo supervisors

News : No changes for now after supervisors hear firearms discussion

Comments