ADVERTISEMENT

God and guns, Cedar county sheriff is off his fucking rocker

IaHawk44

HR MVP
Feb 20, 2006
2,191
2,933
113

Several eastern Iowa sheriffs endorse proposed gun amendment on Nov. ballot​


Six sheriffs on the eastern side of Iowa are endorsing adding a new amendment to the Iowa Constitution. Voters in Iowa will decide if an amendment is added on November 8 that has language similar to the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But opponents of the amendment argue it goes too far, adding language that would force any gun regulation to pass strict scrutiny, the highest legal standard. Critics of the amendment say it's passage would mean current gun laws would be struck down and new gun laws would be harder to pass.

The six Iowa sheriffs endorsing the amendment are listed below.

  • Sheriff Warren Wethington (Cedar County)
  • Sheriff Dan Tredrow (Van Buren)
  • Sheriff Quinn Riess (Muscatine)
  • Sheriff Keith Davis (Wayne)
  • Sheriff Jared Schneider (Washington)
  • Sheriff Robert Rotter (Iowa)
They call it the Freedom Amendment .

"The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental and God-given right and it's passed time that Iowans have the same state-level civil rights protections as Americans living in the rest of the country," Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington said.

They point out Iowa is only one of six states that do not have 'the right to bear arms' in the state constitution. Minnesota, Maryland, California, New York, and New Jersey are the other states without the language.

If passed though, Iowa would become only the fourth state to add 'strict scrutiny' language to the right to bear arms. That is what opponents, including Linn County Sheriff Brian Gardner and Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks fear.

In a release sent out Thursday, Sheriff Wethington took a shot at Sheriff Gardner without naming him. He said he believes the 'vast majority' of those who wear a badge support the amendment "despite the widely publicized condemnation of the Freedom Amendment by one eastern Iowa Sheriff, who is also a well-known activist within the Democratic party and partner of far-left out-of-state organizations in his crusade against Iowans' constitutional rights."

Gardner responded to Iowa's News Now with the following statement:

"If me speaking the truth about the negative consequences of adding Public Measure #1 to the Iowa Constitution makes other people nervous, then so be it. The “strict scrutiny” language would have negative consequences on all current and future common sense gun laws. This is confirmed by legal experts. Anyone who actually reads the wording of the proposed gun amendment and understands these confirmed negative consequences recognizes the need to vote “No” on this ballot issue because it greatly endangers, not enhances, public safety."

 

Several eastern Iowa sheriffs endorse proposed gun amendment on Nov. ballot​


Six sheriffs on the eastern side of Iowa are endorsing adding a new amendment to the Iowa Constitution. Voters in Iowa will decide if an amendment is added on November 8 that has language similar to the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But opponents of the amendment argue it goes too far, adding language that would force any gun regulation to pass strict scrutiny, the highest legal standard. Critics of the amendment say it's passage would mean current gun laws would be struck down and new gun laws would be harder to pass.

The six Iowa sheriffs endorsing the amendment are listed below.

  • Sheriff Warren Wethington (Cedar County)
  • Sheriff Dan Tredrow (Van Buren)
  • Sheriff Quinn Riess (Muscatine)
  • Sheriff Keith Davis (Wayne)
  • Sheriff Jared Schneider (Washington)
  • Sheriff Robert Rotter (Iowa)
They call it the Freedom Amendment .

"The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental and God-given right and it's passed time that Iowans have the same state-level civil rights protections as Americans living in the rest of the country," Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington said.

They point out Iowa is only one of six states that do not have 'the right to bear arms' in the state constitution. Minnesota, Maryland, California, New York, and New Jersey are the other states without the language.

If passed though, Iowa would become only the fourth state to add 'strict scrutiny' language to the right to bear arms. That is what opponents, including Linn County Sheriff Brian Gardner and Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks fear.

In a release sent out Thursday, Sheriff Wethington took a shot at Sheriff Gardner without naming him. He said he believes the 'vast majority' of those who wear a badge support the amendment "despite the widely publicized condemnation of the Freedom Amendment by one eastern Iowa Sheriff, who is also a well-known activist within the Democratic party and partner of far-left out-of-state organizations in his crusade against Iowans' constitutional rights."

Gardner responded to Iowa's News Now with the following statement:

"If me speaking the truth about the negative consequences of adding Public Measure #1 to the Iowa Constitution makes other people nervous, then so be it. The “strict scrutiny” language would have negative consequences on all current and future common sense gun laws. This is confirmed by legal experts. Anyone who actually reads the wording of the proposed gun amendment and understands these confirmed negative consequences recognizes the need to vote “No” on this ballot issue because it greatly endangers, not enhances, public safety."

Despicable
 
  • Like
Reactions: IaHawk44
This amendment is much more than just affirming the 2nd amendment. It several restricts any current regulation on the carrying of guns, and severally restricts any future gun laws.

Some quirks. Looks like a simple majority is all that is needed to pass. However it is on the back of the ballot. I am curious to see the number of people that do not flip over the ballot, and the % of each political party to do such. The other is I have seen very little publicity regarding this amendment. I would have thought there would be much more out there.

My understanding is individuals will essentially be able to open carry anywhere. Hospitals, schools, mental institutions. This appears to be a major accident waiting to happen.
 
This amendment is much more than just affirming the 2nd amendment. It several restricts any current regulation on the carrying of guns, and severally restricts any future gun laws.

Some quirks. Looks like a simple majority is all that is needed to pass. However it is on the back of the ballot. I am curious to see the number of people that do not flip over the ballot, and the % of each political party to do such. The other is I have seen very little publicity regarding this amendment. I would have thought there would be much more out there.

My understanding is individuals will essentially be able to open carry anywhere. Hospitals, schools, mental institutions. This appears to be a major accident waiting to happen.
From the Iowa Secretary of State, hiding it on the back of the ballot was intentional.

Pate is crooked AF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chishawk1425
From the Iowa Secretary of State, hiding it on the back of the ballot was intentional.

Pate is crooked AF.
These amendments are always the last thing on the ballot, right? not odd that it would be on the backside of the ballot. I don't see anything else online regarding this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IaHawk44
I voted no, just from reading it. However I know many will not fully understand with the amendment is stating. Law enforcement will no longer have anyone looking at whether individuals should legally have a gun or not as it sets them up to be sued. Missouri has already had several lawsuits regarding this. When no only is looking into proper gun ownership, you can only imagine what is going to happen. More people who shouldn't have guns will have them and be carrying them into places they shouldn't be carrying them.
 
I voted no, just from reading it. However I know many will not fully understand with the amendment is stating. Law enforcement will no longer have anyone looking at whether individuals should legally have a gun or not as it sets them up to be sued. Missouri has already had several lawsuits regarding this. When no only is looking into proper gun ownership, you can only imagine what is going to happen. More people who shouldn't have guns will have them and be carrying them into places they shouldn't be carrying them.
But, Iowa is different. Kim gas told me more than once that “Iowans just naturally do the right things.” And dammit, if you can’t believe Kim, who the hell can you believe?
 
Why not? Since no one seems to correlate guns to crime why do these law enforcement guys care who has a gun and what they do with it?
 
My understanding is individuals will essentially be able to open carry anywhere. Hospitals, schools, mental institutions. This appears to be a major accident waiting to happen.
Accident? As the 2A proponents like to point out that its not the weapon that kills, its the person using it. So when people kill with guns its rarely an accident. We're just making it easier for those who would want to do harm if we open up who can have weapons.


Also, for the record, I am a strong believer in the 2A, but I believe reasonable legislation over their control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IaHawk44
"The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental and God-given right"

Sheriff Wethington speaks for God now? Phuck off ya damn heretic. I wouldn't trust this asshole as county dog-catcher let alone sheriff. Be suspicious of anyone who declares that they speak for God and interpret what God has given us in his absence. Cedar County is full of rot and it starts with Jeff Kaufmann and just trickles down from there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: win4jj and IaHawk44
I really wish all of these sheriffs would stay out of these elections. That is unless it's their own.

A couple weeks back I posted an article that addressed the political activism by Iowa sheriffs in state and federal elections. While not illegal, I believe it's dumb nonetheless.

Part of their job is to build trust. Appearing in ads for Liz Mathis or Brenna Bird only alienate a large portion of the people they serve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jedhawk77
From the Iowa Secretary of State, hiding it on the back of the ballot was intentional.

Pate is crooked AF.
No it wasnt. And furthermore, Pate is the one responsible for this taking so long to make it to the ballot - he dropped the ball in 2019 delaying it until this election cycle.
 
I sure as hell hope so.
It's as if y'all really believe that an ounce of gun control will totally repeal the 2A. The NRA has imbedded fear into those who are afraid of being controlled and it's like watching babies cry.
 
It's as if y'all really believe that an ounce of gun control will totally repeal the 2A. The NRA has imbedded fear into those who are afraid of being controlled and it's like watching babies cry.

Just like "libel" and "slander" laws will eliminate the 1A entirely....

They lie and misrepresent what "regulation" is to gut what the 2A actually says (and "well regulated" is in the text of the 2A, NOT in the text of the 1A)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IaHawk44
I have seen very little valid reasons why this amendment is needed from republicans, what is the valid reasons why we need this amendment? What will it improve?
 
I really wish all of these sheriffs would stay out of these elections. That is unless it's their own.

A couple weeks back I posted an article that addressed the political activism by Iowa sheriffs in state and federal elections. While not illegal, I believe it's dumb nonetheless.

Part of their job is to build trust. Appearing in ads for Liz Mathis or Brenna Bird only alienate a large portion of the people they serve.
Some in law enforcement understand the stress that semi automatic weapons place on law enforcement day in and day out and they have no choice but to speak out in an effort to protect law enforcement officials. I think promoting weapons is the last thing a sheriff would want to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
I really wish all of these sheriffs would stay out of these elections. That is unless it's their own.

A couple weeks back I posted an article that addressed the political activism by Iowa sheriffs in state and federal elections. While not illegal, I believe it's dumb nonetheless.

Part of their job is to build trust. Appearing in ads for Liz Mathis or Brenna Bird only alienate a large portion of the people they serve.
And for Jake
Chapman Despicable.
 
Just like "libel" and "slander" laws will eliminate the 1A entirely....

They lie and misrepresent what "regulation" is to gut what the 2A actually says (and "well regulated" is in the text of the 2A, NOT in the text of the 1A)
Free speech has gone woke now that "free thinking" (misinformation and conspiracy theories) has gained popularity in convoluted right wing minds.
 
I voted no, but I had no idea it was going to be on the ballot before I showed up for early voting. My thought process was that if the federal government bans assault weapons, I don't want this ballot measure to get in the way of that.

I assume most gun owners/pro 2nd Amendment folks will blindly vote yes, without understanding what it actually means for current and future laws.
 
I'll just address it by saying there have been numerous law suits filed against the dept over the last few decades and settlements paid.
I know of one that you speak of with a previous sheriff and there was a bit more to that story. But curious about the others.
 
Another "Trust me on this one" brought to you by Mitch.
I'm guessing Mitch is thinking of the State trooper that the Cedar County Sheriff called out and pushed for criminal charges against. This trooper 'retired' I believe due to pressure from higher ups within the Iowa State Patrol and went to work for a small police department in Cedar County (Durant). Wethington drew attention to the case by not accepting any prisoners from this officer or anyone else in their police department. This caused the former trooper to retire. This also brought a lot of praise and support from not only his constituents but from people everywhere. He's quite popular in Cedar County.

He's really a good guy. A bit over the top and if you want to criticize a few things you can look at his support for blind people being able to get an open carry permit. I've gone back and forth with him with his thoughts that Ragbrai should pay law enforcement to bring them through their county and that Ragbrai is not welcome in Cedar County. But if you are thinking of the Robert Smith state patrol incident you might want to recheck your facts. If you are thinking of something else I'm legitimately curious what you are speaking of.
 
I'm guessing Mitch is thinking of the State trooper that the Cedar County Sheriff called out and pushed for criminal charges against. This trooper 'retired' I believe due to pressure from higher ups within the Iowa State Patrol and went to work for a small police department in Cedar County (Durant). Wethington drew attention to the case by not accepting any prisoners from this officer or anyone else in their police department. This caused the former trooper to retire. This also brought a lot of praise and support from not only his constituents but from people everywhere. He's quite popular in Cedar County.

He's really a good guy. A bit over the top and if you want to criticize a few things you can look at his support for blind people being able to get an open carry permit. I've gone back and forth with him with his thoughts that Ragbrai should pay law enforcement to bring them through their county and that Ragbrai is not welcome in Cedar County. But if you are thinking of the Robert Smith state patrol incident you might want to recheck your facts. If you are thinking of something else I'm legitimately curious what you are speaking of.

I know of one that you speak of with a previous sheriff and there was a bit more to that story. But curious about the others.
Yep, Wethington became Sheriff after the sexual harassment thing in 2007. And from having relatives in the area, there was more to the story then was made public. He isn't as "squeaky" clean as you imply. Guessing you know him personally.

Cedar County law enforcement isn't any worse than probably the majority of small towns in other rural parts of Iowa.

I'm done debating this because we won't find common ground.
 
ADVERTISEMENT