Gun prohibitions only followed by law-abiding
The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that it will allow guns to be carried into county courthouses under certain circumstances. This is a change from a previous ruling that banned guns in courthouses.
Under the ruling, county supervisors or other local government officials can file a written request to allow guns in the buildings. The chief judge of the judicial district then must write an order allowing guns in public areas of courthouses not totally occupied by the court system. In other words, guns will be allowed in courthouses, just not in courtrooms, judges’ chambers or other court offices. The Iowa Supreme Court says it has a duty to promote safety in the courts.
Is that what it is doing? What makes it think so?
Consider the situation in Woodbury County, where the county supervisors voted 3-1 to allow guns in courthouses. The holdout, Democrat Marty Pottebaum, said the following: “There are situations where people are not real thrilled to be there (at the courthouse) and it’s just not a place for guns.”
So he assumes that if government just tells an angry person to leave his or her gun at home, then, of course, that person will listen? If a person is angry enough, a prohibition on guns isn’t going to stop him or her from carrying or using one wherever they wish. The prohibition will, however, stop law-abiding citizens from doing so. So the guilty are armed and the innocent are defenseless.
Every citizen has a right to self-defense. It’s as fundamental as life, liberty and property. Government that undermines basic human rights is not desirable.