KASPER v. CEDAR COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 699 N.W.2d 685 (Iowa App. 2005)

No. 5-334 / 04-1553Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed May 25, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, C.H. Pelton, Judge.

James Kasper appeals a district court order sustaining the decision of the Cedar County Sheriff’s Office to deny him a permit to carry weapons. AFFIRMED.

Sean P. Moore and Rebecca A. Brommel of Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Lee W. Beine, County Attorney, and Jeffrey L. Renander, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.

VAITHESWARAN, J.

In this appeal from the denial of a certiorari petition, James Kasper challenges the Cedar County Sheriff’s refusal to issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon. To obtain the relief he seeks, Kasper must show the Sheriff “exceeded [his] jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401. An act is illegal if lacking in substantial evidence, based on application of an incorrect rule of law, or “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.” McIntyre v. Page County Sheriff’s Office, 538 N.W.2d 305, 307 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).

The Sheriff’s decision is governed by Iowa Code section 724.7
(2003), which authorizes the issuance of a nonprofessional concealed weapons permit if the applicant “can reasonably justify going armed.” Section 724.7 affords a sheriff discretion in issuing a permit. Id.

Kasper provided the following justification for his application:

My reasons for requesting this permit are for purposes of protecting myself and my family. We live in a rural area, which is not frequently patrolled by the authorities. It is necessary to be prepared in the event of an attack, as proper self-protection requires advance preparation. The most effective tool for self-protection and the protection of others is a firearm. A firearm is the best tool for someone to use in situations involving multiple assailants and/or lethal force from another party. I would like to obtain this permit in order to be prepared for such situations in which self-protection and the protection of my family is required.

The Sheriff rejected this justification for two reasons: (1) the absence of “an actual or probable threat to personal safety” and (2) the lack of need for a permit to carry a weapon in one’s home or business. See Iowa Code § 724.4(4)(a). Specifically, the Sheriff stated:

It has been the past policy of the Cedar County Sheriff’s Office, and remains the present policy, that Cedar County does not issue Nonprofessional Permits for the sole purpose of self-protection in the absence of other facts and circumstances showing an actual or probable threat to personal safety exists. The information provided shows no basis for believing an actual or probable threat to your safety exists and for that reason I am not approving your application for a permit to carry weapons. . . . The law restricting the carrying of weapons does not apply to persons who are in their own dwelling or place of business or to persons on land owned or possessed by them, therefore, a Permit to Carry is not needed for the protection of one’s own property.

The Sheriff’s reasons are consistent with a written policy requiring an applicant to show a “reasonable justification and need” for the permit. His reasons are also consistent with an unchallenged Department of Public Safety rule requiring nonprofessional permit applications to be supported by “clear and convincing evidence that the applicant needs to go armed.” Iowa Admin. Code r. 661-4.2(7). Finally, the Sheriff’s reasons do not contravene the statutory mandate to issue nonprofessional permits only to those who can “reasonably justify going armed.” Iowa Code § 724.7.

In sum, the Sheriff exercised the discretion afforded him under the statute to deny the permit application, did so after specifically considering the justification proffered by Kasper, and furnished reasons for the denial that were not illegal, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

We find it unnecessary to address the remaining arguments proffered by the parties. We affirm the district court’s denial of Kasper’s petition for writ of certiorari.

AFFIRMED.