Concealed Carry permits....the unintended consequences.

[Rembrandt]

I've been a long supporter for concealed carry laws and have carried for years.....but something happened this last weekend that showed the ugly side or loopholes people are using to support unethical behavior.

While deer hunting last weekend four of us were exposed to the new side effects of the changed Iowa law. One of the kids was in a wooded ravine when two pickups came down the adjoining property fence line blowing their horns and emptying handguns into the woods on our property.

Apparently a larger group of 15 vehicles (using 2 way radios) were hunting coyotes and this is how they scare coyotes into the open for taking with rifles.

We were in a position to use our vehicle to quickly block the drive of the neighboring farm before they left the property. This allowed us to identify the two trucks, get pics of the occupants and license plates with our cell phones. Naturally they denied shooting into our property and we turned it over to the DNR.

Strange as it may seem, DNR says if they have concealed carry permits, these coyote hunters can have uncased, loaded firearms in the seat next to them and can shoot out the truck window if on private property. If they are on a public road the only restriction is they can't shoot across or from the roadway. No hunter orange is required. Since we have no proof the rounds went into our property....nothing the DNR can do. They can't be charged with hunter harassment unless we can prove they knew we were in the area.

Apparently the new pastime (since concealed carry laws have changed) is to roam the countryside shooting from trucks. DNR says their hands are tied since the concealed carry laws don't specify handguns but include long guns. Unless you have irrefutable photographic evidence there's little that can be done to file charges.

Guess this is what they call unintended consequences.....

 

[tyeo098]

People driving 2 ton death machines firing blindly in your direction?

Shoot back. Thats the definition of imminent danger/bodily harm if one of those rounds strikes you.

 

[MarkDido]

Strange as it may seem, DNR says if they have concealed carry permits, these coyote hunters can have uncased, loaded firearms in the seat next to them and can shoot out the truck window if on private property. If they are on a public road the only restriction is they can't shoot across or from the roadway.

Where the hell do you live, Mosul?

 

[NavyLCDR]

I fail to see how concealed carry laws have anything to do with the situation. You are equating carrying a firearm with the discharge of a firearm. That is like equating being drunk with car keys in your pocket with drunk driving. Iowa Statute:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/section/2013/724.30.pdf

724.30 Reckless use of a firearm.
A person who intentionally discharges a firearm in a reckless manner commits the following:
1. A class “C” felony if a serious injury occurs.
2. A class “D” felony if a bodily injury which is not a serious injury occurs.
3. An aggravated misdemeanor if property damage occurs without a serious injury or bodily injury occurring.
4. A simple misdemeanor if no injury to a person or damage to property occurs.
94 Acts, ch 1172, §58

 

[Sam1911]

Yeah, the issue here seems to be proving to a law enforcement officer that they were firing those guns in a reckless manner.

The matter of arresting them for simply having the weapons in the vehicle is a side issue, and really not one any of us want to encourage. I mean, it SHOULD be perfectly lawful to have a loaded firearm with you in your car, at all times, anywhere.

It should NOT be (and IS NOT) lawful to discharge it recklessly. But if they weren't observed doing so by someone who can bring charges, that's kind of hard to prove. Yeah, maybe they fired the guns, and maybe the bullets crossed onto your property. Hate to say it but, "Prove it." They'll have to be caught in the act of actually violating a law. Simply driving around on private property and firing guns isn't actually against the law (it seems), so it is going to be difficult to get the law to hassle them over it.


...

The bigger picture here I think, is that we DON'T want folks just to be able to be locked up for having a weapon in their cars. Sure, that might make it a scootch easier for some to bend the laws (or even break them and get away with it) or just annoy the heck out of you -- but in the end that's WHOLE WORLDS better than folks being locked up because they're caught with a loaded gun in the truck.

 

[Akita1]

Surprised it's legal there to discharge a weapon from a moving vehicle, even on private land. Private land is not endless, per say, and bullets tend to travel a bit. Does anyone know the definition of a "reckless manner" in the statute?

 

[Rembrandt]

The DNR is telling us that before the new and improved CC law, they could have charged these guys with uncased loaded firearms in the vehicle.....now they can't.

Because they can now carry loaded rifles and shotguns in the seat next to them, the new sport of chasing game with pickups has taken over. It's become so widespread with the coyote hunters that they're using the same method with deer.

DNR did bust a few for using radios, but that was all they could write up.

Last year same thing happened to some other hunters....but they shot back. Assault charges were brought against the deer hunters and a charge of hunter harassment against the pickup hunters.

 

[gbran]

I do a lot of handgun hunting and take advatage of my ccw permit which allows me to have a loaded handgun in a vehicle. I can already have a loaded long gun, but not chambered. It's nice to not have to load and unload every time in and out of the vehicle. I do a lot of Jeep hunting.

CA, however, does not allow shooting from a vehicle. They can and do write folks for just shooting from the hood of a vehicle. It makes no difference if it is private or public property. You can't hunt from a vehicle

 

[Sam1911]

The DNR is telling us that before the new and improved CC law, they could have charged these guys with uncased loaded firearms in the vehicle.....now they can't.

And that's a very good thing.

It has a minor semi-related downside in that having a loaded weapon in the vehicle isn't a crime which would make it easy to make an arrest in cases like this.

But it has a major upside in that having a loaded weapon in a vehicle isn't a crime.

 

[Rembrandt]

Just to make clear what the "unintended consequences" are.....the improved CC law has lead to the new sport of chasing game with and shooting from vehicles.

 

[gym]

The only DNR I know of is "do not recessitate". Which someone would need if they were shooting towards my family or home. Sounds like you need a good video set up with an audio feed.

 

[Sam1911]

If the DNR guys are blaming their inability to arrest and charge someone for reckless endangerment because of the new concealed carry law, they're just making bad excuses for their lack of action.

Seriously, this just sounds like, "Aww man, before we could arrest someone for just having a loaded gun, and now we can't. Boo hoo."

If chasing game from vehicles and shooting from vehicles is A) against the law, and B) a rising new sport (...really?), then they will find a way to enforce the law.

It kind of sounds like you wish the the bad old law was back so the DNR would have something to hassle these guys with -- when whatever they're doing isn't actionable otherwise.

 

[MedWheeler]

Gym writes:

The only DNR I know of is "do not recessitate"

I believe you're referring to "Do Not Resuscitate". In Florida, this term is being replaced by "Allow Natural Death", or "AND".

 

[MedWheeler]

Florida has permitted loaded long guns in vehicles for probably as long as vehicles have been around, even for those not licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

Passing its trend-setting concealed-carry licensing law in 1987 does not seem to have had any of the consequences you describe.

The issue is in the guns' use, or misuse.

Gym writes:

The only DNR I know of is "do not recessitate"

I believe you're referring to "Do Not Resuscitate". In Florida, this term is being replaced by "Allow Natural Death", or "AND". Still, staff at the facilities in my response area mostly call it a "DNR", too. (For the benefit of others, the concept of a DNR Order, known as a DNRO, is to have a state-standardized form that declares a person's wish not to be resuscitated by artificial means, such as CPR, intubation (passing of a tube into the airway to keep it open), or defibrillation (using electricity to "re-start" a heart rhythm.)

 

[slumlord44]

My question is would this better be handled by the county sheriff? No game laws broken but if I start shooting and the bullets land on property other than my own, there should be a definitely be a legal problem. Being in a vehicle has nothing to do with it. I hate law enforcement who do not want to enforce laws because it is too much work and not quick and simple.

 

[mrvco]

The shell casings laying on the ground next to the tire tracks should make it pretty obvious which direction they were shooting.

 

[strambo]

Sam nailed it. Having loaded firearms in vehicles shouldn't be a crime. Whatever I do on private property that doesn't endanger others shouldn't be a crime (even if I want to do some shooting from a moving vehicle, into a safe backstop, on my property). Recklessly discharging firearms is (the part where they were shooting into someone else's property)...and that is what they should be charged with.

 

[JRH6856]

When new laws have unanticipated consequences (and the usually do) more new laws and regulations are needed to deal with those consequences. It keeps lawyers, legislators and regulators busy and make the wheels on the government bus go round and round.

 

[Davek1977]

South Dakota law allows uncased loaded firearms in vehicles regardless if one has a permit or not, and also allows shooting coyotes from vehicles on private land, etc etc. It has not led to a rash of incidences like the OP has described, as SD law has been this way for as long as I can remember (at least since I was 14, old enough to drive in SD, so for at least 22 years, if not "forever"). I don't think its an unintended consequence of CCW's, I just think the group you encountered were (self-edited). Regardless of the law, some people will be idiots. As ranchers, we like being able to take a shot at a coyote if one is presented, and oftentimes, when checking pastures and whatnot, that IS from the cab of a truck. We routinely carry loaded longguns for just such a purpose, and I'd hate to lose that privilege. Cattle prices are at a high right now, with numbers of beef cattle being lower than ever before. Coyote depredation can cost ranchers serious money, and with their numbers seemingly on the increase, we like to eliminate all we can. Again, I don't think this is an unintended consequence thats going to cause widespread issues so much as it is a group of idiots pretending they're hunters. I'm sure if it becomes a widespread issue, the laws will be amended to reflect that. Hopefully, that doesn't become the case here...I like living in a free state

 

[Rembrandt]

If the DNR guys are blaming their inability to arrest and charge someone for reckless endangerment because of the new concealed carry law, they're just making bad excuses for their lack of action.

Seriously, this just sounds like, "Aww man, before we could arrest someone for just having a loaded gun, and now we can't. Boo hoo."

If chasing game from vehicles and shooting from vehicles is A) against the law, and B) a rising new sport (...really?), then they will find a way to enforce the law.

It kind of sounds like you wish the the bad old law was back so the DNR would have something to hassle these guys with -- when whatever they're doing isn't actionable otherwise.

Think you're right Sam.....I can agree with that.

 

[Lex Luthier]

That isn't unintended consequences, it is egotism run riot, blatant ignorance, and stupidity. I hope those fine fellows are not relatives of the law enforcement who will hopefully reprimand them.

If they were shooting out the window, couldn't their casings be located and traced back to them as evidence? Good luck.

 

[hso]

You're making too many assumptions.

What did they say that gave you any indication that any of them had a carry permit or that they "needed" one to do what they were doing on private property? If they have permission to be on the property they don't need a permit to carry as guests of the owner as long as they're not on a public road or right of way.

What you have is some very reckless "hunters" who are breaking the law since nothing allows you to recklessly discharge a firearm and nothing allows you to shoot recklessly onto another person's property.

 

[berettaprofessor]

If you have cell phones for pictures, next time video them shooting from their trucks on your land. Problem solved.

 

[Torian]

I fail to see how concealed carry laws have anything to do with the situation. You are equating carrying a firearm with the discharge of a firearm. That is like equating being drunk with car keys in your pocket with drunk driving. Iowa Statute:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/section/2013/724.30.pdf

724.30 Reckless use of a firearm.
A person who intentionally discharges a firearm in a reckless manner commits the following:
1. A class “C” felony if a serious injury occurs.
2. A class “D” felony if a bodily injury which is not a serious injury occurs.
3. An aggravated misdemeanor if property damage occurs without a serious injury or bodily injury occurring.
4. A simple misdemeanor if no injury to a person or damage to property occurs.
94 Acts, ch 1172, §58

Indeed. The two issues are completely unrelated. These shooters were completely negligent in discharging their firearms, potentially to the point of it being unlawful.

The issue here is the use of common sense when discharging a firearm, not whether they hold a valid CHL.

 

[NavyLCDR]

What did they say that gave you any indication that any of them had a carry permit or that they "needed" one to do what they were doing on private property? If they have permission to be on the property they don't need a permit to carry as guests of the owner as long as they're not on a public road or right of way.

In most states that would be incorrect. The private property exception for when a permit is required in most states applies only to the private property that is owned or under control of the person carrying the firearm - not to invited guests.

Washington is one example:

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.

(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

Just because someone is in my house or business by invitation does not make it their abode or business.

Since this discussion is about Iowa, here is Iowa's exception:

724.4 Carrying weapons.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who goes armed with a dangerous
weapon concealed on or about the person, or who, within the limits of any city, goes armed
with a pistol or revolver, or any loaded firearm of any kind, whether concealed or not, or
who knowingly carries or transports in a vehicle a pistol or revolver, commits an aggravated
misdemeanor.
2. A person who goes armed with a knife concealed on or about the person, if the person
uses the knife in the commission of a crime, commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
3. A person who goes armed with a knife concealed on or about the person, if the person
does not use the knife in the commission of a crime:
a. If the knife has a blade exceeding eight inches in length, commits an aggravated
misdemeanor.
b. If the knife has a blade exceeding five inches but not exceeding eight inches in length,
commits a serious misdemeanor.
4. Subsections 1 through 3 do not apply to any of the following:
a. A person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon in the person’s own dwelling or
place of business, or on land owned or possessed by the person.

Again, no exception for invited guests.

Here is the exception to the permit requirement in Iowa that the OP is referring to (same chapter):

g. A person while the person is lawfully engaged in target practice on a range designed
for that purpose or while actually engaged in lawful hunting.

Again, though, I believe the real issue isn't whether or not a permit is required to carry the loaded gun...