State of IA preemption law

[SLVR7]

Iowa Code Section 724.28:

A political subdivision of the state shall not enact an ordinance regulating the ownership, possession, legal transfer, lawful transportation, registration, or licensing of firearms when the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state. An ordinance regulating firearms in violation of this section existing on or after April 5, 1990, is void.

With this law on the books, all the city laws prohibiting lawfull ccw are against the law. Wonder how long it will take before some takes it to court?

[SaNdMaNsSi]

Just like everything else unconstitutional, something will have to happen to a lawyer/congressman/senator. Just like the red light camera stuff. But honestly, you don't have to abide by the signs on people's doors. I have had this argument quite a few times already. The signs saying you can't bring a firearm into a business have no legal merit whatsoever. The only thing a business owner can do is refuse you service if they see it, and ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, then you can be arrested for tresspass. But if you are carrying concealed, they shouldn't know you have a gun anyways. I've been arguing with the stupid commenters over on KCRG. I find it funny how many people say "its private property, those signs mean you can't carry." It's a STATE law. It doesn't matter if it's private property. If you posted a sign that said "no blacks in here" it would hold zero legal standing. The signs that say "no guns" are exactly the same ideological conception. Anyone that argues it's okay to keep gun holders out of businesses are also arguing for keeping minorities out of them. Use that argument sometime and watch people try to talk their way out of it while getting beet red.

[qoncept]

What about signs that say you have to wear a shirt for service? Or a movie theater that won't let you bring your own beer in? Or APR not letting people use the only AWD dyno in Alabama because they aren't driving an Audi? There's no law that says you can't do that.

Private businesses can refuse business to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. If you're carrying a concealed gun in to a store that forbids it, you're getting away with it. Just like the kid with gummy worms in the theater with gummy worms in his pants.

I mean, come on APR. Just let me use your damn dyno. Have someone come in after hours and charge me ridiculous rates. Just don't make me drive to Atlanta.

[SaNdMaNsSi]

Those aren't legally binding refusals. The owner of the establishment has to ask you to leave. Then you must leave or you can be arrested for criminal tresspass. A sign alone has no legal merit at all. It is just a statement warning a patron of the rules of the establishment itself, it has no legal standing on it's own.

[qoncept]

I'm not sure what you mean by "legal basis." Do you mean posting a sign that says "No Guns" isn't adequate notice that the owner doesn't want them on his property? I don't know that I buy that the owner has to notify the person verbally.

A cop isn't going to see a kid sneak candy in to the theater, look over at the sign that says "No outside candy" and arrest him. But the cop would see a guy in a gas station, look at the hours posted on the door that say the place is closed and arrest him. And we all know that he's going to at least talk to the crew hanging out outside a gas station next to a "No Loitering" sign and tell them to get lost. And if they argue, he'll go in and ask whoever is working if he wants them gone.

[SaNdMaNsSi]

No, what I'm saying is the sign that is posted is not legally binding in any way. Basically what I'm saying is a sign doesn't actually mean you have to leave your gun outside. If it is concealed, they can't do anything about it. If they see you have it, all they can do is ask you to leave. They can't charge you with tresspassing based upon their sign, they have to verbally ask you to leave before they can call the police. In other words, you can carry in any place that has these signs up until the owner asks you to leave the property. You do not have to leave your gun in the car or at home simply because someone posted a sign that you can't bring it on their property.

[JustinS]

I'm not sure what you mean by "legal basis." Do you mean posting a sign that says "No Guns" isn't adequate notice that the owner doesn't want them on his property? I don't know that I buy that the owner has to notify the person verbally.

A cop isn't going to see a kid sneak candy in to the theater, look over at the sign that says "No outside candy" and arrest him. But the cop would see a guy in a gas station, look at the hours posted on the door that say the place is closed and arrest him. And we all know that he's going to at least talk to the crew hanging out outside a gas station next to a "No Loitering" sign and tell them to get lost. And if they argue, he'll go in and ask whoever is working if he wants them gone.
Unlike in other states signs in Iowa do not carry the weight of the law, they are just like any other sign. The sign, in and of itself, is not enough to charge someone with a crime. Like sandman said, all they can do is ask you to leave and if you don't you can be charged with criminal trespass.

The preemption law that is on Iowa books is wishy washy and local governments seem to think they can ignore it. Iowa Firearms Coalition is working on passing a different version with stronger wording. I encourage all you gun owners to become members. :yawinkle:

Oh, and the preemption law only deals with Government entities, businesses are free to choose to allow or disallow firearms on their property as they so choose. Just like I am allowed to no longer patronize them if I disagree with their stance on the carry laws in this state. No harm no foul, just wont give my money to a business that wont support the effort.

[SLVR7]

Just like everything else unconstitutional, something will have to happen to a lawyer/congressman/senator. Just like the red light camera stuff. But honestly, you don't have to abide by the signs on people's doors. I have had this argument quite a few times already. The signs saying you can't bring a firearm into a business have no legal merit whatsoever. The only thing a business owner can do is refuse you service if they see it, and ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, then you can be arrested for tresspass. But if you are carrying concealed, they shouldn't know you have a gun anyways. I've been arguing with the stupid commenters over on KCRG. I find it funny how many people say "its private property, those signs mean you can't carry." It's a STATE law. It doesn't matter if it's private property. If you posted a sign that said "no blacks in here" it would hold zero legal standing. The signs that say "no guns" are exactly the same ideological conception. Anyone that argues it's okay to keep gun holders out of businesses are also arguing for keeping minorities out of them. Use that argument sometime and watch people try to talk their way out of it while getting beet red.

I wasn't refering to private business, just all the cities scrambling to make laws to disallow guns in many city owned areas.

As for private business, when they post a no weapons sign, they take the responsibilty of protecting the people in their establishment. Precidient has already been set that they are liable for your safety, when they take away your ability to protect yourself.

[SaNdMaNsSi]

Just like everything else unconstitutional, something will have to happen to a lawyer/congressman/senator. Just like the red light camera stuff. But honestly, you don't have to abide by the signs on people's doors. I have had this argument quite a few times already. The signs saying you can't bring a firearm into a business have no legal merit whatsoever. The only thing a business owner can do is refuse you service if they see it, and ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, then you can be arrested for tresspass. But if you are carrying concealed, they shouldn't know you have a gun anyways. I've been arguing with the stupid commenters over on KCRG. I find it funny how many people say "its private property, those signs mean you can't carry." It's a STATE law. It doesn't matter if it's private property. If you posted a sign that said "no blacks in here" it would hold zero legal standing. The signs that say "no guns" are exactly the same ideological conception. Anyone that argues it's okay to keep gun holders out of businesses are also arguing for keeping minorities out of them. Use that argument sometime and watch people try to talk their way out of it while getting beet red.

I wasn't refering to private business, just all the cities scrambling to make laws to disallow guns in many city owned areas.

As for private business, when they post a no weapons sign, they take the responsibilty of protecting the people in their establishment. Precidient has already been set that they are liable for your safety, when they take away your ability to protect yourself.

Cities are trying, but I',m relatively sure that they cannot bypass state law. I think they can ban guns on city owned property and government buildings, but I don't think they can regulate your right to carry beyond that. Don't quote me for sure, but I think that's the case.

[Ricky]

just got out of the class an hour ago.


the sign is not a legal sign but the teacher warned that if you are found to have a gun in a place where they said no guns allowed you will get some trouble. Most people are not used to people having guns and will assume anyone with a gun has it to do harm.

I just plan on not shopping at those places and not saying anything to them. I will still carry there and right for my rights

[SLVR7]

Just like everything else unconstitutional, something will have to happen to a lawyer/congressman/senator. Just like the red light camera stuff. But honestly, you don't have to abide by the signs on people's doors. I have had this argument quite a few times already. The signs saying you can't bring a firearm into a business have no legal merit whatsoever. The only thing a business owner can do is refuse you service if they see it, and ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, then you can be arrested for tresspass. But if you are carrying concealed, they shouldn't know you have a gun anyways. I've been arguing with the stupid commenters over on KCRG. I find it funny how many people say "its private property, those signs mean you can't carry." It's a STATE law. It doesn't matter if it's private property. If you posted a sign that said "no blacks in here" it would hold zero legal standing. The signs that say "no guns" are exactly the same ideological conception. Anyone that argues it's okay to keep gun holders out of businesses are also arguing for keeping minorities out of them. Use that argument sometime and watch people try to talk their way out of it while getting beet red.

I wasn't refering to private business, just all the cities scrambling to make laws to disallow guns in many city owned areas.

As for private business, when they post a no weapons sign, they take the responsibilty of protecting the people in their establishment. Precidient has already been set that they are liable for your safety, when they take away your ability to protect yourself.

Cities are trying, but I',m relatively sure that they cannot bypass state law. I think they can ban guns on city owned property and government buildings, but I don't think they can regulate your right to carry beyond that. Don't quote me for sure, but I think that's the case.

Waterloo banned guns in city parks, amoung other areas. According to the preemption law, wouldn't that ordinance be void?

[JustinS]

Best option if you want to patronize a business with a "no guns sign" is...concealed means concealed. Problem solved.

[Sleeping]

just got out of the class an hour ago.


the sign is not a legal sign but the teacher warned that if you are found to have a gun in a place where they said no guns allowed you will get some trouble. Most people are not used to people having guns and will assume anyone with a gun has it to do harm.

I just plan on not shopping at those places and not saying anything to them. I will still carry there and right for my rights

What kind trouble did he say? Im not sure theres much they can do than tell you to kick rocks.

[SaNdMaNsSi]

Just like everything else unconstitutional, something will have to happen to a lawyer/congressman/senator. Just like the red light camera stuff. But honestly, you don't have to abide by the signs on people's doors. I have had this argument quite a few times already. The signs saying you can't bring a firearm into a business have no legal merit whatsoever. The only thing a business owner can do is refuse you service if they see it, and ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, then you can be arrested for tresspass. But if you are carrying concealed, they shouldn't know you have a gun anyways. I've been arguing with the stupid commenters over on KCRG. I find it funny how many people say "its private property, those signs mean you can't carry." It's a STATE law. It doesn't matter if it's private property. If you posted a sign that said "no blacks in here" it would hold zero legal standing. The signs that say "no guns" are exactly the same ideological conception. Anyone that argues it's okay to keep gun holders out of businesses are also arguing for keeping minorities out of them. Use that argument sometime and watch people try to talk their way out of it while getting beet red.

I wasn't refering to private business, just all the cities scrambling to make laws to disallow guns in many city owned areas.

As for private business, when they post a no weapons sign, they take the responsibilty of protecting the people in their establishment. Precidient has already been set that they are liable for your safety, when they take away your ability to protect yourself.

Cities are trying, but I',m relatively sure that they cannot bypass state law. I think they can ban guns on city owned property and government buildings, but I don't think they can regulate your right to carry beyond that. Don't quote me for sure, but I think that's the case.

Waterloo banned guns in city parks, amoung other areas. According to the preemption law, wouldn't that ordinance be void?

I believe they can ban guns in parks because it is city or county owned property, but not entirely sure.

[SaNdMaNsSi]

just got out of the class an hour ago.


the sign is not a legal sign but the teacher warned that if you are found to have a gun in a place where they said no guns allowed you will get some trouble. Most people are not used to people having guns and will assume anyone with a gun has it to do harm.

I just plan on not shopping at those places and not saying anything to them. I will still carry there and right for my rights

What kind trouble did he say? Im not sure theres much they can do than tell you to kick rocks.

There is absolutely nothing they can do but ask you to leave. It's not illegal to carry into a store with a sign saying "no guns." The only "trouble" you can get in is if the owner calls the police on you, and you know cops; Even though they know you've done nothing wrong, they'll try to intimidate you any way they can to make you fear going to jail so that you'll never carry into a place with one of those signs again.