Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 90

Thread: Is there an open carry effort currently in Iowa?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    I came across this website from a thread at thehighroad.us. The Iowa subforum here seems a bit inactive. Is there any effort to enact an unlicensed open carry law in Iowa?

    I am aware that Iowa law permits unlicensed open carry in rural parts of the state, and that open carry is permitted within city limits with a Permit to Carry Weapons.

  2. #2
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    Please start one. I would love not to have the hassle of getting an Iowa license.

  3. #3
    Regular Member JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Central Iowa, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    I came across this website from a thread at thehighroad.us. The Iowa subforum here seems a bit inactive. Is there any effort to enact an unlicensed open carry law in Iowa?

    I am aware that Iowa law permits unlicensed open carry in rural parts of the state, and that open carry is permitted within city limits with a Permit to Carry Weapons.
    Not really. The only organization pushing for reform in IA is IowaCarry.ORG and they are mainly focused on getting shall issue passed. There are currently three bills in the IA house with rumor of a fourth bill in the works, all are regarding shall issue of carry permits. Unless I missed it, none of the current three bills mention unlicensed open carry in city limits.



  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    JD wrote:
    IA_farmboy wrote:
    I came across this website from a thread at thehighroad.us. The Iowa subforum here seems a bit inactive. Is there any effort to enact an unlicensed open carry law in Iowa?

    I am aware that Iowa law permits unlicensed open carry in rural parts of the state, and that open carry is permitted within city limits with a Permit to Carry Weapons.
    Not really. The only organization pushing for reform in IA is IowaCarry.ORG and they are mainly focused on getting shall issue passed. There are currently three bills in the IA house with rumor of a fourth bill in the works, all are regarding shall issue of carry permits. Unless I missed it, none of the current three bills mention unlicensed open carry in city limits.

    If the shall issue bills pass, the permit issued is the same as the permit issued today under discretionary criteria - allows open cand concealed carry in vheilces and on foot - currently unlicensed open carry is only allowed in unincorporated areas on foot.

  5. #5
    Regular Member JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Central Iowa, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    JD wrote:
    IA_farmboy wrote:
    I came across this website from a thread at thehighroad.us. The Iowa subforum here seems a bit inactive. Is there any effort to enact an unlicensed open carry law in Iowa?

    I am aware that Iowa law permits unlicensed open carry in rural parts of the state, and that open carry is permitted within city limits with a Permit to Carry Weapons.
    Not really. The only organization pushing for reform in IA is IowaCarry.ORG and they are mainly focused on getting shall issue passed. There are currently three bills in the IA house with rumor of a fourth bill in the works, all are regarding shall issue of carry permits. Unless I missed it, none of the current three bills mention unlicensed open carry in city limits.

    If the shall issue bills pass, the permit issued is the same as the permit issued today under discretionary criteria - allows open cand concealed carry in vheilces and on foot - currently unlicensed open carry is only allowed in unincorporated areas on foot.
    Right, I was just answering his question regarding organizations/movements supporting unlicensed open carry in city limits, to date there is none with that agenda that I am aware of.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    I read somewhere that there is a bill in the Iowa House to allow "Vermont Carry" in Iowa. Is this true? If so, what is the bill number?

  7. #7
    Regular Member JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Central Iowa, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    I read somewhere that there is a bill in the Iowa House to allow "Vermont Carry" in Iowa. Is this true? If so, what is the bill number?
    I don't think there's a bill matching that description.

    HF 559 is the latest bill regarding shall issue for carry permits which is a pretty darn good bill compared to the previous entries, but I've not seen mention of a bill with unlicensed carry.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    As for open carry, I don't see Iowa getting unpermitted urban carry in the near future.

    There were 4 major carry bills filed, of which one is an alaska/vermont style bill. It was not introduced, only filed. 2 bills reformed some things but did not have shall-issue in them. I assume the legislators who wrote them are trying for the incremental approach.

    Once we (iowacarry.org) get our "shall issue" law passed, you will have reciprocity, and the sheriffs will not be able to revoke a permit for legally open carrying (this is what currently makes urban open carry impossible - you can do it once, then your permit gets revoked). Our bill would pretty much fix your problem completely. The things standing in the way are several key democrats, and the ISSDA. Currently, the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association voted off the board all members who vocally support shall-issue. Their lobbyist actively opposes shall-issue. Also there are several democrats, including committee and majority leaders, who have vowed not to let any firearms bills come to a vote.

    Our law has 4 main points:
    1) sheriff shall issue if criteria are met (age, background check, mental, etc)
    2) sheriff must justify denials in writing within set time. applicant has right to appeal denial to a magistrate, who shall overturn denial if applicant meets criteria in law
    3) honor all states' permits - not reciprocity, rather, like Missouri's law
    4) standardize training

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    At a recent gun show I was able to have a chat with the people from Iowa Gun Owners.

    http://www.iowagunowners.org/

    I think I just found the right group to get open carry in Iowa, Iowa Gun Owners.

    I went to the Iowa Carry web page and forum and was not impressed. Don't get me wrong, the website looks wonderful and the forum appears well laid out. What I didn't like is that the web forum has many places locked out unless one is a member. There is also issues of lost or deleted posts. The entire Linn County sub-forum was wiped clean. It seems odd for a civil rights organization to be so secretive about it's motives and actions that only registered members can view the sub-forum announcing it's future venues. It is also odd that the sub-forum on Iowa law and politics is locked out to those not registered. Unregistered visitors can view Iowa Carry's sub-forums on county specific topics but not the one on statewide issues.

    I had a chat with both the Iowa Carry people and the Iowa Gun Owners people at the gun show. The Iowa Gun Owners seemed better informed, more organized, and more motivated. They had petitions for people to sign and had a very nice newsletter explaining their position and recent events. I liked that so I gave them my name and some money.

    Ok, I gave them money not just because of the pretty handouts, I gave them money because I liked their message. While Iowa Carry wants everyone to have to have training and a permit to carry a firearm openly there's Iowa Gun Owners that believes every person that is legally permitted to own a firearm should be able to carry it openly without government sanctioned training and permits.

    Since this forum is visited by high up members of Iowa Carry I think that this is as good of a place as any to ask those people to reconsider Iowa Carry's stance on open carry. Iowa law already permits one to legally open carry a firearm outside city limits, what really changes as one crosses that invisible line that should make open carry a crime?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Something too about Iowa Carry... is, that, well, they are pro-Firearm and all, but they tend to not really push the issue as strongly as I think they should in an effort to optimize the results.

    Iowa Carry is very well laid out though, as, in fact, I visited their website today!


    Remember, in Iowa, you may openly carry any Firearm, including Pistols,provided you are in a rural area of the State that is not part of any City, per 724.4.

    However, once you conceal a Firearm or Weapon or place one in your Vehicle you must have a Permit. Also, in order to carry a Pistol in a City, you need a Permit.


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post


    "Is there an open carry effort currently in Iowa?"

    The short answer is "yes," introduced by Representative Kent Sorensen as HF596 . . . Here is a link to the bill as introduced: http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=BillInfo&Service=Billbook &ga=83&menu=text&hbill=HF596

    The bill is not perfect, but it is a vast improvement over anything else that has been introduced in recent years. It keeps the permit system, but only for "reciprocity purposes" for those states that might not recognize an Alaska/Vermont style law.

    I will state right up front that I am an Iowa Gun Owners member, lest there be any doubt. In my opinion, anyone who would like to see the law on open carry changed in Iowa can look only to Iowa Gun Owners for a legislative solution. To my knowledge, there is no other gun group in Iowa pursuing a change in the law that would affect open carry.

    In 2009, Representative Kent Sorensen (R - HD 74) introduced HF 596, which the folks at IGO refer to as "The Real Right to Carry" Bill. The short explanation of this bill is that it fully recognizes the God given second amendment right of all Iowan's to carry firearms for their own self-defense, whether concealed or open, anytime, anyplace, anywhere, without a "permission slip" from the government . . . As long as they are not otherwise barred by criminal history from owning or possessing firearms. In other words, the conditions for BEARING arms under this law, should it pass, would be the same as the conditions today for KEEPING arms.

    In the 2009 legislative session, HF 596 experienced a rather remarkable history. After Rep Sorensen introduced it, it was referred to the Public Safety Committee, where it was killed in sub-committee by Baudler (R), Olsen (D), and Reichert (D). It remained dead until late in the session, when Sorensen and Rep Jodi Tymeson (R) deftly and skillfully, through a mastery of the House rules, brought the bill to a floor vote (actually a vote to suspend rules to allow a vote on the bill), where the vote failed . . . BY ONE VOTE . . . 49-to-49 . . .

    The petitions mentioned above being collected by IGO are to hand deliver to state Senate members in the next session to support the Senate version of the bill. IGO does have a Senate sponsor, and Rep Sorensen will be introducing the bill once again this year.

    As far as Iowa Carry helping support open carry, theirPresident, Sean McClanahan, recently appeared on WHO radio's Jan Michaelson show with Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek. Pulkrabek, one of the most openly anti-gun sheriffs in Iowa, stated flatly that "the Second Amendment does not recognize a right to carry firearms." When Michaelson asked McClanahan for a rebuttal, McClanahan demurred and said that he did not disagree with that statement. The bottom line is, Iowa Carry wants to keep the permit system intact, but only change it to "shall issue," which, by default, would continue to make open carry inside city limits in Iowa without a permit . . . "verboten" (even someone with a permit in Iowa should probably not attempt to carry openly inside city limits - you are likely to get to see the inside of the "graybar motel" up close and personal . . . Even though you might not technically be violating the law . . Such as has been happening in Wisconsin lately).

    As a side note, apparently the NRA has decided to "team up"with Iowa Carry and is planning on introducing a "shall issue" bill this session (I think the NRA is only getting involved because IGO has been so successful in their efforts - The NRA has shownabsolutely nointerest in helping changeIowa's CCW law for years). Everything I am hearing is that the NRA is loading it up with all kinds of "extra" restrictions, new classes of "gun crimes,"etc. With "friends" like these, who needs enemies.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    In the interest of complete accuracy, I went back and reviewed the interview/debate between IC presSean McClanahan and Johnson County Sheriff Pulkrabek from Tuesday, May 5th, 2009. My quotation is not an exact quotation of what either said, so rather than try to transcribe the discussion, I am providing a link to that program podcast, so that people can hear exactly what was said. The portion of the discussion that I mentioned starts at about 50:00 minutes in the podcast. In it, you will hear radio personality Michaelson take a stronger position on the second amendment then IC's McClanahan . . . In fact, Michaelson accuses McClanahan as being "further to the left" than Pulkrabek.

    http://mickelson.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=474403

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    West Des Moines, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Well, if we’re going to make this into a “he said – she said” thing, or a stumping ground, then I suppose I should counter the last two posts.


    For those who do not know, Iowa is a discretionary issue state. There are 99 counties, and 99 different sets of rules for obtaining an Iowa Permit to Carry Weapons. (Not a “CWP” or a “CHP” – ours is a carry permit.) Once you do obtain a PCW (which in some counties is very difficult to nearly impossible), you are free to carry a handgun. Whether or not you can carry any other type of “offensive weapon” is strictly up to the Sheriff that issues the permit. Open carry is legally allowed at that point, but most Sheriffs will take away your permit for doing so. It is their discretion to do so. Also, each Sheriff can further restrict your PCW to certain locations, certain activities, and so forth.

    That said, Iowa Carry (and the NRA, and the SAF) recognize that going from the current situation in Iowa to a full Alaska-style system is a long reach. All of the officers of Iowa Carry recognize the effort that IGO is pursuing, and we wish them the best of luck. However, we feel that for a short-term gain that will benefit ALL citizens of Iowa, going from the currently broken (or “almost working”) system to a system that is working in 80% of the country is the most logical and most realistic approach. And again, that opinion is shared by both the NRA and the SAF – two of the most influential gun rights groups in the country.

    The NRA’s decision to come to Iowa is not really open for debate. Neither Straight_Shooter nor I know the real reason that the decision was made to show up for this legislative cycle. I have my *opinion* on why they have chosen to do so, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains that they are here, they’ve already done a great deal of homework, and Iowa Carry has agreed to assist them in any way possible with their drive. Our leadership has seen their proposed legislation, and it offers a substantial improvement over what we currently have in Iowa.

    “Everything I am hearing is that the NRA is loading it up with all kinds of "extra" restrictions, new classes of "gun crimes,"etc. With "friends" like these, who needs enemies.”

    This is pure speculation on the writer’s part. Until he (or she) has seen the legislation, there is no way to for him know what is really there. Again, we have it, we’ve seen it, and it does nothing of the sort. In the meantime, making statements like the above do nothing but spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (“FUD”) and play to emotions instead of sticking to facts.

    In regards to the vote on HF 596 last year, I would point out that during the prior year, the exact same tactic was used with Rep. Baudler’s legislation, and it died by a similar 49-49 vote. Those who know Iowa politics will see the tactic for what it truly is, and know that the “game” that is played on the floor of the House when the Standings Bill comes along ensures that it is a crap shoot at best for getting legislation passed. In fact, the 49-49 vote on either bill was not a true reflection on any particular lawmaker’s stance on gun rights. As accurately pointed out by the author, the vote was simply to suspend the rules to allow a vote on the bill.

    Now, in regards to my show with Jan Michelson. Currently, the Second Amendment is a “regulated right.” Try calling into Jan’s show sometime and ask him about that. It would be wonderful if we could use the 2A as our permit, but in reality, that is simply not the case. So the question of “Does the Second Amendment give you the right to carry a firearm?” can only be answered, truthfully and in the present tense, as no. If anyone doubts that, I would ask that you try to carry your firearm and use the 2A as your permit and your defense in court. Let us all know how that turns out. Until that fact changes, I cannot, and will not, tell anyone that the 2A guarantees a right to carry firearms. Just because I want it to be that way (and in fact believe it should be that way) does not in reality make it that way.

    In the interest of state’s rights versus federal rights, the best way to fix all of this is to create an amendment to the Iowa Constitution that provides the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is a dangerous, slippery slope when we try to use the 14A to apply (or “incorporate”) the Heller decision to the states. Doing so allows SCOTUS to use their case law to override state’s rights. That is simply not right. Every state should have their own laws for their own citizens. That is how the framers of our country wanted it to be, and we’ve ventured way off that path. Perhaps that is something that can be accomplished in the near future. Iowa Carry is very supportive of that idea, and we’ll do what we can when the time comes to push that forward.

    Also, for the record, Sheriff Pulkrabek has softened up on his anti-carry stance. While his policy is not as good as the Sheriffs of Polk, Dallas, Jones, Cedar, Linn, or other counties like that, he is not nearly as bad as the Sheriffs of Emmet, Dubuque, Louisa, or similar counties. Giving credit where credit is due, Sheriff Pulkrabek has come around somewhat in the days since our radio show together. I would suggest that publicly calling Sheriff Pulkrabek one of the “most openly anti-gun sheriffs [sic] in Iowa” is incorrect, as he is clearly not. Sheriff Pulkrabek should be commended for trying to become more understanding of a citizen’s rights. There are plenty of other Sheriffs in Iowa that are more deserving of the ire of pro-gun activists than he is.

    I invite anyone who would like to know more about Iowa Carry to visit our website (http://www.iowacarry.org) for more information.

    Sean McClanahan
    President
    Iowa Carry, Inc.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    West Des Moines, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    aadvark wrote:
    Something too about Iowa Carry... is, that, well, they are pro-Firearm and all, but they tend to not really push the issue as strongly as I think they should in an effort to optimize the results.
    Any grass-roots effort depends not only on the leaders, but on those who care about the cause. If you believe that Iowa Carry can be doing more, and you agree with the stance that we maintain, then we could always use another hand to be "stronger."

    Sean


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    "Our leadership has seen their proposed legislation, and it offers a substantial improvement over what we currently have in Iowa.

    “Everything I am hearing is that the NRA is loading it up with all kinds of "extra" restrictions, new classes of "gun crimes,"etc. With "friends" like these, who needs enemies.”

    This is pure speculation on the writer’s part. Until he (or she) has seen the legislation, there is no way to for him know what is really there. Again, we have it, we’ve seen it, and it does nothing of the sort. In the meantime, making statements like the above do nothing but spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (“FUD”) and play to emotions instead of sticking to facts."

    Mr.McClanahan - Yes . . . let's "stick to the facts." If you have it, and have seen it, and portend that "it offers a substantial improvement over what we currently have in Iowa" . . . then why aren't yousharing it widely,particularly with your own members, who I am toldare also wondering why they cannot see it? . . .if this is to be introduced into the Iowa legislature as intended public policy, then whynot post it on your forum, in the open, and here as well? If you think I am spreading FUD as you put it, thenlet's put that misinformation to rest here and now, andpost the bill!The more time we have prior to the legislative session to contact our representatives to support the bill, the better.

    I am looking forward to reviewing the bill after you post it . . . and thanks for being willing to clear up this misinformation in advance.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post


    "In regards to the vote on HF 596 last year, I would point out that during the prior year, the exact same tactic was used with Rep. Baudler’s legislation, and it died by a similar 49-49 vote."

    Not . . . quite . . . thewhole story: HF 596 was brought to the House floor in its ORIGINAL, un-compromised version - pure Vermont/Alaska carry, no permit required, and NO ANTI-GUN amendments. The 2007 Baudler bill (which he never introduced as a"shall issue" bill anyway, but simply put in the famous Iowa Carry "you get a letter from the sheriff telling you why you can't have a permit" nonsense) was loaded up with all kinds of poison amendments by the anti'ssuch as inclusion of thefederal Lautenberglaws (loss of gun rightsex-post facto a misdemeanor conviction)into Iowa Code, etc.. . . I personally called as many gun owners as I could tocontact theirHouse members toget this one killed . . . thank goodness we got it done, as this bill was much, muchworse than current law. Hardly anything I would think that IC should be proud of . . . but then . . .

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    West Des Moines, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Mr.McClanahan - Yes . . . let's "stick to the facts." If you have it, and have seen it, and portend that "it offers a substantial improvement over what we currently have in Iowa" . . . then why aren't yousharing it widely,particularly with your own members, who I am toldare also wondering why they cannot see it? . . .if this is to be introduced into the Iowa legislature as intended public policy, then whynot post it on your forum, in the open, and here as well? If you think I am spreading FUD as you put it, thenlet's put that misinformation to rest here and now, andpost the bill!The more time we have prior to the legislative session to contact our representatives to support the bill, the better.

    We have asked for permission to post it, and to spread it wherever possible. However, the NRA is still working with a number of legislators beforehand, and they have specifically asked that we not release it to the general public just yet. Frankly, it is their work, not ours. It should be pre-filed within the next week or two. Once that happens, it will be posted on our website for free inspection and download. There is still politics at play here, and certain things that have to happen in the correct order. Those who understand that will be patient for a couple more weeks. Those that do not - well, I apologize in advance, You'll just have to be angry (or skeptical) I suppose.

    I can tell you that we have asked for five things in any legislation that we support - Shall Issue, Appeals Process, Reciprocity, Standardized Training, and Privacy of Records. All five items are covered in the NRA proposed legislation. We made the decision before we met with the NRA that we would not lend our support to their efforts if it did not satisfactorily meet all of those criteria. No games, no bull, just do what is done in nearly every other state. They have done that, and with the exception of those who are willing to throw away a step in the right direction in exchange for holding out for perfection, this will be an excellent piece of legislation.

    In our world, this is not about party politics. This is not about completing the journey of 1000 miles in the first day. Instead, this is about making a positive change that will affect every Iowan who makes the conscious choice to defend him or herself. To us, waiting many more years for Utopia to arrive (e.g., an Alaska-style system) while passing up the opportunity to do something about it NOW is irresponsible to our citizens. Even Alaska did not do it all in one session. They went from non-issue to shall issue, and *then* to their current system.

    Also, for those who have a short memory, Iowa Carry did not back Rep. Baudler's bill in the last session. It did not address our criteria to our satisfaction, so we chose not to support it. We filed our own version, which removed Baudler's shortcomings. We were ready to push harder for that this year until we saw what the NRA is bringing to town. Had their legislation been substandard, we were ready to keep moving forward with our own. It might have been totally unsuccessful, because the NRA was willing to go forward regardless of our intentions (or anyone else's). But we could not in good faith as representatives of our members support anything less.

    So you see, there is no FUD to be spread from our camp. I am not proclaiming that the NRA bill is fraught with things like more restrictions, more gun crimes, etc. That came from you, not me. Instead, I'm saying that the proposed legislation is truly something that will be worthy of attention and support. No fear of being dismal, no uncertainty because we do know what's in there, and no doubt about what it will accomplish if passed.

    .
    Not . . . quite . . . thewhole story: HF 596 was brought to the House floor in its ORIGINAL, un-compromised version - pure Vermont/Alaska carry, no permit required, and NO ANTI-GUN amendments. The 2007 Baudler bill (which he never introduced as a"shall issue" bill anyway, but simply put in the famous Iowa Carry "you get a letter from the sheriff telling you why you can't have a permit" nonsense) was loaded up with all kinds of poison amendments by the anti'ssuch as inclusion of thefederal Lautenberglaws (loss of gun rightsex-post facto a misdemeanor conviction)into Iowa Code, etc.. . . I personally called as many gun owners as I could tocontact theirHouse members toget this one killed . . . thank goodness we got it done, as this bill was much, muchworse than current law. Hardly anything I would think that IC should be proud of . . . but then . . .

    I was not referring to the *content* of either bill, but rather, the tactic used on both. Re-read my original post, quote it correctly, and you will see that.

    Regarding the Lautenberg laws - that's already Federal legislation, so regardless of whether or not it's on any piece of state legislation is irrelevant. Codifying it on the state level is simply restating what is already a requirement, but it makes some folks (read: legislators) feel better, and more willing to accept the package. It also potentially aids with reciprocity. The way to get rid of that is to either A) kill it at the federal level, or B) have a state get a large enough set of cojones to stand up to the Feds and say, "Sorry, this is our state, and this is the way it's going to work for our citizens!" like Montana and Tennessee are trying to do.

    Frankly, I believe it is best if we agree to disagree and move on. IGO stands for Alaska-style carry, with no compromise to that. Iowa Carry stands for something a little less perfect than that while still allowing all law-abiding citizens to obtain an Iowa PCW with no discretion. We'd like the former, but realize that we might have to take the latter for the time being while the Sheriffs and legislators get used to the idea that carrying weapons will not cause blood to flow in the streets. Someday, I hope we all get to enjoy our freedoms totally restored. But until that day arrives, we'll work within the system we have been given and take advances where we can find them. On our five core issues, we will not compromise either.

    I think we've hijacked this thread long enough.

    Sean



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    However, the NRA is still working with a number of legislators beforehand, and they have specifically asked that we not release it to the general public just yet. Frankly, it is their work, not ours.
    So, what exactly is the value add that IowaCarry provides?

    I can tell you that we have asked for five things in any legislation that we support - Shall Issue, Appeals Process, Reciprocity, Standardized Training, and Privacy of Records.
    I can agree on all counts except standardized training. I have seen how that training requirement has been abused in certain jurisdictions and I fail to see any advantage to having training required by law. I do think that anyone that wishes to arm themselves should seek training, I just don't think the state should decide what training is appropriate.

    As an example of the issues with a training requirement we can take the Linn County sheriff requirements as an example. Iowa law requires that one have a permit to carry weapons for the carry of a knife. The sheriff requires that one applying for a permit to carry must fire a handgun onto a target at a specified distance, hit 8 out of ten times, and do so in 90 seconds. This test can be taken at only one facility and only on one day out of the month. This is after having classroom instruction and a written test, again it is available at only one facility and only one time every month.

    So, to carry a knife legally in Iowa I would have to show proficiency in the use of a handgun. I have a single action revolver that I purchased primarily for hunting but it should be suitable for self defense as well. To legally carry that I would have to take a marksmanship test that is nearly impossible to pass with that weapon. (Ten shots fired on target in 90 seconds from a six shooter that must be loaded one cartridge at a time is quite the feat.) I don't think the testing meets the "privileges" granted by the permit. (It's not a privilege to carry arms, it is a right, but the state has decided that certain rights must be taken from us under the threat of time in prison.)

    Do that training requirement statewide and the sheriff can still deny a permit by denying training, or having the training in a time and place that one cannot get to because of other obligations. In my case, the permit can be denied because the tools needed for passing the test is currently out of my financial reach. The training could also be made impossible because of a physical disability. IIRC, a North Dakota man was unable to obtain his permit because the training and testing required shots fired from one knee and he could not bend his knee because of an injury.

    I think we've hijacked this thread long enough.
    This is not a hijack in my opinion. I was asking if there is an effort to enact unlicensed open carry in Iowa. This is exactly the kind of things I want to know, such as what groups exist and what their goals are, and what laws were proposed by those groups.

    I would like to ask that IowaCarry reconsider its stance on unlicensed open carry. Unlicensed open carry is already permitted in unincorporated parts of the state so it should not be too much of a stretch to allow that in towns and cities as well.

    I also have to ask if IowaCarry gets the law it wants will the group continue to seek more freedoms (such as unlicensed open carry), or will it disband upon reaching "shall issue"?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    The standardized training will make it so that a person can take a class anywhere in the state. No more games from Sheriffs not offering a class or making it an impossible standard. Standardized training will also aid in gaining reciprocity with other states.

    If you want a permit to only carry a knife then just go ask the sheriff to issue a permit limited to such? Iowa only requires a permit for a blade over a certain length.

    Also are you so shortsighted that simply because you cannot pass the current Linn county training course with your single shot that you believe the testing is to rigid? The Linn Co. course is actually one of the better in the state. Asking people to demonstrate that they know how to use their gun is asking to much? A gun is not a talisman that can be put in a purse or glove box and chase off bad guys by itself.

    There are a lot of other improvements that need made in Iowa that Iowa Carry will continue to work for. The Castle doctrine needs strengthened. We need a Stand your ground law and my personal opinion is that the permit to purchase is a tax!

    As far as open carry -licensed or unlicensed we need to get this state conditioned and issuing permits fairly first. As Sean stated it is just unrealistic to believe that Iowa will go from what we have now to no permit needed. My granddad used to tell me crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up faster. Shall Issue seems to be working pretty well for 38+ other states. If AK and VT was easy to get then why haven't states more liberal (or Conservative) gone to that standard?

    Open carry in iowa WITH a permit is "technically" legal right now. As Straight_Shooter mentioned this will likely get you a inside tour of the county jail.

    As far a the State Legislature. It is an overused analogy but ever watch sausage being made? Both Baudlers Bill and the IGO Bill went through the same process of the Standings Bill and a procedural vote. The standings bill each year is the equivalent of a hail mary pass. I believe it is intended to take care of the remaining budget items. It is also to allow them to hurry items along last minute to end the session, or it is used that way. It is also used as a catch all to try to tack on items that didnt make it through the normal process due to time or leadership.

    Again both the Baudler Bill and the IGO Bill were both presented in a standings Bill. They go through each one and then vote whether to attach it to the overall standings Bill. After it is all gone through then the entire standing Bill is voted up or down. The entire Standings Bill is always voted aye to pass due to this process of elimination and as a final product.

    In order to attach an item to the standings Bill items are usually "called out" for a vote as to if the attachment is germane or not. This is the "procedural" vote. It is not a vote on the attachment itself but rather if the attachment is related to the overall standings Bill and relevant. Here is the nasty "secret" though. These votes are not any indication of who is for or against any given Bill. This is because some Legislatures are "allowed" or instructed to vote for or against any given item through party leadership. If the leadership knows that a Bill wont pass then a anti-gun Senator for example may vote for this in order to be able to tout their pro-gun record. They can then tell and show their constituents that yes-they voted for that Bill even though they may not agree with it!

    The second "secret" is that no Bill is ever brought to the floor by leadership before they know what the final vote count will be. Yes, you read that correctly. The leadership wants to know before hand what the count will be and WILL NOT bring any piece to the floor unless they are reasonably sure of the outcome!

    Ok so this is probably more than most people wanted to know but it is the ugly reality of politics in Iowa. I really do wish the IGO the best of luck. For now I believe in working on the most realistic option we have to remove discrimination in the permit process.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    West Des Moines, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    And, to add one more thing about the training part... right now, it is up to every Sheriff to decide what kind of training he will accept. In the new legislation, that goes away. If anyone is familiar with the kind of training that is required in Virginia to get their CHP, that is essentially what you will find here.

    I also want to triple emphasize what was said about the future of IC and our value added part. Pretend for a moment that the NRA bill magically becomes law tomorrow. There are many other things that we want to do. Unlike IGO, which appears to be a "single issue" group (and I might be wrong about that), we have many things still on our radar. IAJack mentioned castle doctrine and stand your ground. There's the Permit to Acquire that needs to be visited. My personal pet peeve is school grounds. Why should I have to disarm just because I'm taking my kids to school? As a permit holder, I should be allowed to drive up to the school, drop them off, then go on to work. In IA, it's illegal for me to have my gun on my person or in my car while doing so. That needs to change. Then there's legal defense. As the law changes, some Sheriffs are not going to back down willingly. IC would like to be there to help those who have the temerity to exercise their rights and get wrongfully harassed because of it. And finally, there's the vigilance required to make sure that no local or state lawmaker does something to trample on the rights that we've been able to win back.

    As for the "right now" value add, who do you believe is going to do the legwork for the NRA? They now have a lobbyist devoting nearly full-time to getting their bill passed. But they didn't bring in an army of workers. Who will be that army? IGO? It doesn't sound like it. ISF (Iowa Sportsmen's Federation)? Maybe, but so far, ISF seems to have been absent from most drives to make any changes to the PCW law. It look like it's going to be Iowa Carry. Once the bill is pre-filed, it will be time to start knocking on doors, ringing phones, and sending e-mails. We need people to help with that and make a difference.

    Other than that, IAJack pretty well said what I was going to say.

    Sean


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    One piece at a time? Either release it or don't, but no grandstanding please. I signed the IGO petition at the last gun show because they sound like straight shooters who want to make positive changes. "releasing it on thisthread. . . .slowly . . .onepiece at a time" is attention whoring. Put it out there and let us decide what we think of it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    The standardized training will make it so that a person can take a class anywhere in the state. No more games from Sheriffs not offering a class or making it an impossible standard.
    Pardon me if I don't believe you. Even if the sheriff cannot deny anyone the training they don't have to make it easy. Here in Linn County there is likely to be enough people to make a business of providing that training viable but not every county enjoys such a population. Will sheriffs be required to offer the training themselves? How much will this training cost?

    Standardized training will also aid in gaining reciprocity with other states.
    I am not concerned with reciprocity. There are so many states that offer unlicensed open carry, universal recognition, and/or shall issue to non-residents that going armed in other states does not concern me. If Iowa offers unlicensed open carry, universal recognition, and shall issue to non-residents then that is good enough for me.

    If you want a permit to only carry a knife then just go ask the sheriff to issue a permit limited to such? Iowa only requires a permit for a blade over a certain length.
    If the law you propose is passed I would not have that choice. I would be required to take handgun training to carry a knife. If I am mistaken then please show the law that you propose to correct my erroneous assumption. Yes, I suppose I could ask the sheriff to provide a permit limited to carrying a knife and not have the training but I don't believe I should have to ask anyone's permission to carry a self defense item. Given the discretionary nature of the current law there is no obligation for the sheriff to comply with my request.

    The point I'm trying to get across is that the training is just another tax on my right. The training, no matter what it is, is going to be a one size that fits no one. Everyone's situation will be different and no state mandated training is going to be suitable for anyone except for possibly some large minority.

    Also are you so shortsighted that simply because you cannot pass the current Linn county training course with your single shot that you believe the testing is to rigid?
    Considering that the sheriff accepts only one course of training and testing then, yes, I believe the testing is too rigid. Any testing that does not account for every kind of person with every kind of weapon is too rigid.

    I have seen too many places that use the training requirement as merely a roadblock to getting a permit to see a training requirement as more than just another tax and hoop to jump through. Maybe I'm being too much of a cynic but it seems that states with no training requirement aren't having a whole lot of issues with people carrying weapons. Alaska and Vermont are perfect examples, as are a number of unlicensed open carry states.

    The Linn Co. course is actually one of the better in the state.
    I guess that depends on your point of view and your definition of "better".

    Asking people to demonstrate that they know how to use their gun is asking to much?
    Yes. I should not have to prove to the government that I am talented enough to defend myself. My right to self defense is inherent.

    A gun is not a talisman that can be put in a purse or glove box and chase off bad guys by itself.
    Agreed. That is why I advocate that anyone that wishes to go armed should seek training. I just don't think that some politician in Des Moines should decide what training I need.

    There are a lot of other improvements that need made in Iowa that Iowa Carry will continue to work for. The Castle doctrine needs strengthened. We need a Stand your ground law and my personal opinion is that the permit to purchase is a tax!
    I agree. I also think that the permit to carry is nothing more than a tax.

    As far as open carry -licensed or unlicensed we need to get this state conditioned and issuing permits fairly first. As Sean stated it is just unrealistic to believe that Iowa will go from what we have now to no permit needed. My granddad used to tell me crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up faster. Shall Issue seems to be working pretty well for 38+ other states. If AK and VT was easy to get then why haven't states more liberal (or Conservative) gone to that standard?
    Perhaps it is because of some mistaken belief that asking for our rights back is too much for people to handle. Perhaps it is because people are too interested in being politically expedient than doing the right thing.

    One big reason I don't like the training requirement to get a permit to carry is because you will be going around telling people how vital it is that people get training to get this law passed. Then once passed the next logical step is to get that training removed. This tactic is quite likely to end up shooting ourselves in the foot since by being politically expedient for this "shall issue" it would only make it more difficult to get "Alaska carry" (as IGO proposes) or just unlicensed open carry in the future.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    Perhaps it is because of some mistaken belief that asking for our rights back is too much for people to handle. Perhaps it is because people are too interested in being politically expedient than doing the right thing.
    IA_farmboy . . . I couldn't have said it better myself . . . . I am really getting to like you . . .

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •