Is there an open carry effort currently in Iowa?

Straight_Shooter · Dec 5, 2009

imported post

amaixner · Dec 5, 2009

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.

Straight_Shooter · Dec 5, 2009

imported post

IA_farmboy · Dec 5, 2009

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.

Straight_Shooter · Dec 5, 2009

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 . . .

Mike · Dec 5, 2009

imported post

Definitely people in Iowa should consider hosting some open carry events - unincorporated areas are bet as no permit is needed to open carry there.

Its chilly now, so maybe in the Spring?

IA_farmboy · Dec 5, 2009

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

IA_farmboy . . . I couldn't have said it better myself . . . . I am really getting to like you . . .

I'm liking your words as well. I do have to point out that amaixner has a point, releasing proposed legislation piecemeal does have a hint of grandstanding.

Definitely people in Iowa should consider hosting some open carry events - unincorporated areas are bet as no permit is needed to open carry there.

Its chilly now, so maybe in the Spring?

Great idea. I had the same in mind. Getting insurance for such an event is likely to be a HUGE problem. I know a few people that organized some events before so I might just have to ask around for ideas.

I also want to emphasize to the IowaCarry people watching this thread on how little I care about compromising our permit to carry system to appease those seeking recognition in other states.

According to this Opencarry.org map half of the states in the union allow for unlicensed open carry. That includes our neighbors, Wisconsin, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota. North Dakota, Minnesota, and Indiana require a license to carry openly or concealed but according to this map from usacarry.com those states offer permits to non-residents on a "shall issue" basis. That map also shows at least a dozen more states that have shall issue permits for non-residents. Illinois is a problem when it comes to carrying self defense arms but it seems there are plenty of people working on that right now.

Given the choice between no training requirement and recognition in other states I'll choose no training.

Mike · Dec 5, 2009

imported post

Great idea. I had the same in mind. Getting insurance for such an event is likely to be a HUGE problem.

huh? Insurance? What for? I know of no group which has ever gotten insurance to host such an event.

Just reserve a park pavillion or somebody's back yard and host a little picnic or, organize a litter pick up, etc.

This is just like organizing any other event except people are told they are welcome to open carry if they want.

seanm-ia · Dec 5, 2009

imported post

My beef over the years with Iowa Carry is that they have always been willing to accept terrible compromises that hurt Iowa gun owners as the price for "Shall Issue." It is a Faustian bargain.

Pretty good claim on your part. Would you care to share some specific examples of this? Keep in mind before you do, that IC never had a bill of our own until last year, when we parted ways with Rep. Baudler because of what we perceived as a lack of strength in his bill. Because we were very new, with very limited resources, we usually curtailed our activities to attempting to garner support for Baudler's bills.

By way of example, you can see the "laissez-faire" attitude of Mr. McClanahan about the insidious incursion of anti-gun federal laws into Iowa code . . We live in a time when true freedom fighters need to band together and resist the federal incursion into our lives, not embrace it. Is Iowa merely a federal enclave, or are we a sovereign state, with representative government and the right to form our own set of laws without the intrusion of Washington bureaucrats? Simply saying "it is already federal law, so it doesn't matter if it is Iowa law" doesn't cut it. I, for one, will be standing up for the tenth amendment. Hopefully, others will join me.

We've made quite a leap from the original issue of open carry, to shall issue, to standing up for the 10A. So in the IGO bill, will there be wording that totally repeals any of the current federal regulations? Will you remove the requirement for a 4473? NICS check? Lautenberg requirements?

I agree that it would be wonderful to see all states stand up and retake their rights. We've allowed the feds to criminally have their way for far too long. But you've still failed to address the real problem. (And I'd address you by name, but unlike me, you've yet to actually provide it.) If you want to remove the problem, you either specifically write legislation that repeals it at the federal level, or you simply ignore it at the state level and be prepared to put up with the fallout from doing so.

In the NRA's legislation (which you claim to have), there is nothing in there that goes beyond what is already required by the feds. True, there is nothing in there that specifically removes what the feds require, either. But unless I'm mistaken, neither does the IGO legislation. If it does, then I apologize.

Mr. McClanahan . . . and IA_Jack for that matter . . . get ready to defend your bill.

Again, it's not really OUR bill. It's the NRA's. We've just agreed to support it and help push it along. It is what we feel has the best chance of passage during this session.

----

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?

I'm not sure how I could have made my original post more clear.

There will no longer be a requirement that the Sheriffs provide training. There will be many different ways to fulfill the training requirement. Sheriff's training is one way. Other ways include previous LEO or military experience/training; NRA courses; or participation in organized shooting competitions. I alluded to that when I said to consider what Virginia requires for training. Or perhaps that was overlooked.

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.

I am glad that you are not concerned with reciprocity. Others are, however. You always have the right to choose who you wish to support, just as others do.

We are not touching the unpermitted open carry issue this time around. We'll save that for another battle on another day. Same with universal recognition (although we did have that in the bill that we drafted). Shall issue for non-residents is covered in the NRA's legislation. I suppose if Straight_Shooter (whoever he is) wants to leak that out before it is posted in full, he can do so. Otherwise, I can tell you that it's there. When we get the approval from the NRA to post it, you will be able to see it.

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.

I disagree with your first sentence. Nobody is asking to get rights restored. It is a fight, and as in any battle, there are calculated moves that must be made, even if they only make small advancements, so that the larger goal can be achieved. failure to recognize that means failure of the entire campaign. Which dovetails nicely to your second sentence, which I also disagree with. Being politically expedient, in this case, is still doing the right thing if it bring everyone one step closer to what we all want. We didn't lose our rights overnight in one fell swoop. We certainly won't get them back again that way either, at least in a peaceful manner.

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.

Pure speculation on your part, just as it is pure speculation on our part that the course we are taking is the logical one. Since we all seem to be pointing to Alaska in this thread, nobody has yet to acknowledge that Alaska took this very same approach. No issue, shall issue, then no permit required at all. They took the little steps along the way that in the end won the rights back for everyone. It can happen here (and everywhere else for that matter) as well. But we have to prove to the Sheriffs and the legislators in Iowa first that taking away a Sheriff's discretion is not going to cause massive amounts of crime, civil unrest, plagues of locusts, or any other malady that they like to assume will happen.

Sean

IA_farmboy · Dec 5, 2009

imported post

Pure speculation on your part, just as it is pure speculation on our part that the course we are taking is the logical one. Since we all seem to be pointing to Alaska in this thread, nobody has yet to acknowledge that Alaska took this very same approach. No issue, shall issue, then no permit required at all. They took the little steps along the way that in the end won the rights back for everyone. It can happen here (and everywhere else for that matter) as well. But we have to prove to the Sheriffs and the legislators in Iowa first that taking away a Sheriff's discretion is not going to cause massive amounts of crime, civil unrest, plagues of locusts, or any other malady that they like to assume will happen.

Did they take this same approach? Did they require training to get a permit? What you say may be true, I just have my doubts.

'm not sure how I could have made my original post more clear.

There will no longer be a requirement that the Sheriffs provide training. There will be many different ways to fulfill the training requirement. Sheriff's training is one way. Other ways include previous LEO or military experience/training; NRA courses; or participation in organized shooting competitions. I alluded to that when I said to consider what Virginia requires for training. Or perhaps that was overlooked.

Perhaps I did overlook your description of the proposed training requirement. I still have my doubts until I can see the law as proposed. I am still opposed to state recognized training as a condition to carrying self defense tools. My opposition to the training requirement would be minimal if the training is available for free and offered widely. I would be especially pleased if the training can be waived for emergency/temporary permits like in Minnesota.

We've made quite a leap from the original issue of open carry, to shall issue, to standing up for the 10A.

As long as the state of Iowa requires the same permit for open carry and concealed carry these issues will be linked.

huh? Insurance? What for? I know of no group which has ever gotten insurance to host such an event.

Just reserve a park pavillion or somebody's back yard and host a little picnic or, organize a litter pick up, etc.

This is just like organizing any other event except people are told they are welcome to open carry if they want.

I'm not exactly sure what the insurance is for but everyone I know that has held an event on private property explained they needed it in case of injury, fire, meteor impact, or something.

Holding such an event on public property, like a park pavilion, will either be illegal or require the permission of a government agency. I certainly don't want any government agency involved in dictating the conditions of our meeting. That's assuming any concerned government agency would even allow us to meet.

You are correct that organizing such an event would be like any other. As in any other event the property owner will need to be satisfied with our meeting, that will very likely involve some sort of insurance to limit liability.

IAJack · Dec 5, 2009

imported post

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/29/us/alaska-legalizes-concealed-guns.html

May 29, 1994

To carry a concealed handgun legally, an Alaskan will first have to obtain a permit from state troopers. Applicants have to be at least 21 years old, pass a criminal record check and a gun-safety course, as well as paying $125 for the permit. Additional restrictions inserted into the bill at the request of the state police require that the applicant be fingerprinted and photographed.

IA_farmboy · Dec 5, 2009

imported post

Thanks, IAJack. Still curious though, that law permitted concealed carry by Alaskans that submitted themselves to training, fingerprints, and a background check. Was open carry allowed without permits prior to that? A quick Google search turned up nothing.

From the article:

"It would equal the odds, John Wayne fashion," said Lou Maloney, a Fairbanks motorcycle shop manager. "Nobody says you have to kill the guy dead, but you shoot the guy and stand on his hands until the cops get there."

I love it, "stand on his hands" puts an interesting picture in the mind.

IA_farmboy · Dec 5, 2009

imported post

I finally took the time to listen to the interview that Straight_Shooter linked to earlier.

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

That interview just about had me screaming a the computer. Perhaps I did I was so angered at what I heard. Sheriff Pulkrabek stated that the Second Amendment does not guarantee our right to carry a weapon outside the home and Mr. McClanahan AGREED with him! What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is being misunderstood here?

I'll attempt to quote Mr. Ted Nugent here. Keep means its mine, you can't have it. Bear means it's right here on me. Shall not be infringed is so obvious it does not need explanation.

I would interpret the Second Amendment to mean that the bearing of arms cannot be denied to a free person. I will admit that the means of that carry, and any felonious intent of that carry, can be regulated. The government may regulate the carry of a concealed weapon only if open carry is unrestricted. I would say the inverse is also true but given historical precedent the regulation of concealed carry would be preferred over regulating open carry.

Getting back to the interview, I am pleased that the host expressed a disagreement with the restriction of bearing arms. He points out that recognition of the right to self defense predates the Constitution and it is merely codified by it. It is a part of our history going WAY back that people cannot be denied the ability to carry arms by the government.

Another frustrating thing in the interview is that the term "concealed carry" was used and no one seemed concerned as Iowa does not issue concealed carry permits but issues permits to carry.

I fail to see how my rights can change based on where I live and where I go. Depending on the county my chances of getting a permit change, as does the requirements to get that permit. I can legally carry a loaded weapon openly outside the city but if I cross that imaginary line at the city limits I am now in violation of the law.

It's late so I'll stop ranting here and look for any rebuttal later.

seanm-ia · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

That interview just about had me screaming a the computer. Perhaps I did I was so angered at what I heard. Sheriff Pulkrabek stated that the Second Amendment does not guarantee our right to carry a weapon outside the home and Mr. McClanahan AGREED with him! What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is being misunderstood here?

Yes, I did say that. Way back at the beginning of this thread, I also said

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.

Jan and I chatted about my original show and the concept of 2A being, right now anyway, a "regulated right" on a follow-up show. Perhaps you should also listen to that.

It would be wonderful if we could ever get this country back to the way the founding fathers had envisioned it. Including the RKBA. The unfortunate part is that right now, it's simply not that way. That is part of the problem. And unless you (or S_S) is advocating civil disobedience (or armed insurrection), how do you propose that it be done? If you choose to go about it peacefully, then you put your resources into fighting the battles that you can win, with the overall objective of winning the war. That is what the NRA is doing with their bill, and what IC is supporting. That is why SAF has not brought about a lawsuit in Iowa yet. We've already worked with them to put the pieces in place so it will be a go when the time is right.

Would you advocate keeping an unfair system in place that discriminates against citizens for a longer period of time, so the ultimate goal can be achieved in one event? Or would you advocate making small advances that taken together change the perception of weapon carry in general and lead to the desired goal? It is an easy question to answer - it's either one way or the other. The strategy of IC is to take the second path.

And again, I've not seen any evidence where the IGO legislation will do anything to end the "encroachment" of Federal policy into state law. I'm still waiting to hear if I'm mistaken on that.

I'll attempt to quote Mr. Ted Nugent here. Keep means its mine, you can't have it. Bear means it's right here on me. Shall not be infringed is so obvious it does not need explanation.

I agree with the literal translation of Mr. Nugent. Again, I desire that to be the case. Please exercise your right as described above, and let me know how it works out if you are confronted by an LEO while doing so.

As S_S has pointed out though, the bigger problem is with the feds butting into state actions. I mentioned a while back that Iowa doesn't even have the RKBA in our state constitution. That's what needs to change. From a state's rights perspective, if the wording of the 2A was in our own constitution, we would be in a much stronger position to tell the feds to butt out.

The original concept of our country was to be a united States. No capital U. Strong states, providing for their people with their own laws. That has been bastardized over time, and that's what we need to get back to, somehow.

I would interpret the Second Amendment to mean that the bearing of arms cannot be denied to a free person. I will admit that the means of that carry, and any felonious intent of that carry, can be regulated. The government may regulate the carry of a concealed weapon only if open carry is unrestricted. I would say the inverse is also true but given historical precedent the regulation of concealed carry would be preferred over regulating open carry.

I agree with most of what you say here. If taken at it's literal core, the 2A should be interpreted to mean that concealed or open, so long as you are not doing so with criminal intent, no regulation is permitted at all. The government (State, not Federal) should not even be concerned with regulating concealed carry, as there is no distinction made between open and concealed. It is bearing, period. But all of this went awry somewhere along the line. The GCA of 1968, perhaps? Where was the outrage then?

Getting back to the interview, I am pleased that the host expressed a disagreement with the restriction of bearing arms. He points out that recognition of the right to self defense predates the Constitution and it is merely codified by it. It is a part of our history going WAY back that people cannot be denied the ability to carry arms by the government.

The right to self defense is a God given right. Of that there is no disagreement.

Another frustrating thing in the interview is that the term "concealed carry" was used and no one seemed concerned as Iowa does not issue concealed carry permits but issues permits to carry.

What is truly unfortunate is that you do not have the opportunity to see the legal pad on which I was (furiously) scribbling notes once Sheriff Pulkrabek called in. If you notice, at that point, it became the Jan & Lonnie show. Oh yeah - there was some other guy on there too that got to say a few words here and there. (Me.)

What you reference was in my list of "wanting to address" notes. I simply had no time, no opportunity.

Since the cat is obviously out of the bag in this thread, one of the things that IC has purposely done is to NOT overly emphasize the fact that our PCW does not address the difference between open & concealed carry. We don't want to give the politicians any additional fodder to change that. While most prefer concealed carry, I've lived in Virginia for 40 years. I exercised my right to open carry many times, and wish the same for Iowa citizens. Continuing to bring attention to that fact may have a negative effect in Des Moines. Therefore, we chose to just shut up about it, and let that sleeping dog lie. Unfortunately, we can't seem to get others to do the same.

I fail to see how my rights can change based on where I live and where I go. Depending on the county my chances of getting a permit change, as does the requirements to get that permit. I can legally carry a loaded weapon openly outside the city but if I cross that imaginary line at the city limits I am now in violation of the law.

Again, I agree with what you are saying. 724.4 needs to be changed to rectify the last sentence of your quote. It's just not something that we feel is best to poke at until the rest of Chapter 724 is fixed to address the first sentence of your quote. You may feel differently, and that is your right to do so.

There is only so much that you can bite off, chew, and swallow at one time. You (apparently) and IGO (evidently) believe that the Iowa legislature can swallow more than we believe it can. As has been stated here more than once, we wish IGO no ill will toward that goal; we simply feel that it is unrealistic in the current political climate, so we will continue to work toward a goal that we believe will provide the maximum amount of gain in a short amount of time, then roll up our sleeves and continue with the next set of goals.

I also believe that I have fairly well documented why Iowa Carry is pursuing our course of action. There is not much to gain by continuing to debate why we are or are not doing something, unless there is new ground to be covered. As this was originally a thread about open carry, if open carry is all that you care about, then you will obviously not be happy with the NRA's bill. If, however, you are someone who lives in a county that has been oppressed by a Sheriff who feels that it is his right to determine your right to defend yourself outside the home, then you will likely be rooting for a change in the status quo. Regardless of how that Sheriff exercises his will to restrict his citizens, through the non-issuance of permits, or through the non-existence of "authorized training" - the NRA bill will solve that problem. I would surmise that there are more citizens out there who would be happy just to get a PCW than there are who are interested in carrying open inside incorporated areas.

Sean

Mike · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

I finally took the time to listen to the interview that Straight_Shooter linked to earlier.

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

That interview just about had me screaming a the computer.

The discussion illustrates how early it is in the right to carry movement in Iowa - none of the 3 people talking clearly articulated the curent state of Iowa's carry law (open on foot ok without permit in unincorporated areas on foot, and folks with carry permit can open or conceal carry generally in all of Iowa and in vehicles) ; none explained that teh S. Ct. said in heller that "bear" means "to carry"; none benchmarked the laws of other states as being far more liberal on gun carry that iowa, e.g., vast majority of states are shall issue for conceal carry, and allow open carry without permit.

The focus should be on getting these facts out ad pushing for reform - open carriers are key to getting this conversation going - holding open carry events created media opportunities to get the press to explain the facts and force iowa elected leaders to respond.

DAA · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

In regard to the open carry effort in Iowa, here is my 2 cents on the subject.

We already have a shall issue system, that granted is not perfect, but it is a start.

Open carry in public does nothing more than worry people, far better is the permit to carry, which to me means concealed carry.

For anyone to criticize one group or the other just does not make sense, to say that any one effort is the best again does not make sense. Why do this unless you are pot stirring? If you don't like what is cooking in the kitchen go eat somewhere else, but do it respectfully.

Let me explain it like this, I don't want to know whodoes or does not have a permit, what I do want is the legal option of carrying a firearm that is fair, and is independent of each county sheriff's interpretation. Open carry brings on a lot of comments and unneeded attention, so when folks want to stir the pot up they bring this issue out.

There are different groups with different views, support the one you agree with and do not worry about the ones you don't. I tend to associate with "like minded" folks, and I am not worried about those whose viewpoints are different.

There will always be differences, and opinions, I think I have stated mine pretty clearly, but should there be any doubt feel free to inquire or visit the other sites where I regularly post on such issues.

You have a choice of where to look for information on these issues, and you are always free to make your own judgements, but you cross the line of common decency when you outright attack one group or the other. Get your facts in order and address them with those you have an issue with don't just post on another site to stir things up.

Mods, if you feel this post should be deleted then by all means do so, but if I read your rules andunderstand them, then the posts in this thread that attack another site should be deleted as well.

We will all get more support if we work togather.

Straight_Shooter · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

DAA wrote:

Open carry in public does nothing more than worry people, far better is the permit to carry, which to me means concealed carry.

For anyone to criticize one group or the other just does not make sense, to say that any one effort is the best again does not make sense. Why do this unless you are pot stirring? If you don't like what is cooking in the kitchen go eat somewhere else, but do it respectfully.

You have a choice of where to look for information on these issues, and you are always free to make your own judgements, but you cross the line of common decency when you outright attack one group or the other. Get your facts in order and address them with those you have an issue with don't just post on another site to stir things up.

DAA -

It is pretty common knowledge that the IC website is heavily censored; many of my friends have had their posting privileges terminated there simply becausethey attempted to point out the heavy handed, rights restricting legislation that Baudler, ostensibly with the support of IC, has promoted over the years,when they did so without any violations of proper and decentcivil discourse. Toimply thatexposing legislative activities that undermine my, and other Iowan's rights is "pot stirring" is beyond the pale.

I will assume that you hale from the IC website, since you alsoseem to be against open carry, which is whatTHIS website is about . . . . until and unless the moderators feel the need to remove my posts here (and I am willing to discuss this with them at their convenience), I will continue to exposeany unconstitutional (both federal and state) second amendment relatedlegislation that is being promoted by either the NRA, IC or both (or any other group for that matter). In my posts, I have not used any profanity, nor have Imade anypersonal attacksagainstANY member, executive, or other interested party in any group. Yes, I am attacking the NRA and IC's legislation and related activities . . if you believe that doing so is somehow "immoral" or "indecent" . . . then you need to study American history more closely.

I have read the rules of posting here, and I have not violated any of them. I am not attacking individuals personally, but the actions of groups that I believe are pursuing changes in the law that will deprive me of fundamental, Constitutional rights should they succeed. While I accept that this is NOT a "free speech zone," I do believe that most folks who are serious about their second amendment rights want to know all that is going on with this issue. So . . . I will continue to expose IC for "supporting" or whatever word Mr. McClanahan wants to use to describe IC's involvement with, the upcoming NRA bill, as well as any other issues that I believe are contrary to supporting the RTKBA.

You say "get your facts in order and address them with those you have an issue with don't just post on another site to stir things up." By "Another site," you must mean "not on IC's website." Sorry, but IC doesn't control the universe. My facts are in order,and I am getting ready to address them here, right out in the open, for anyone to see, and very truthfully, I will be trying to "stir things up" to get people to stand up against this onerous and Draconian legislation by contacting their legislators and asking them to help defeat it.That, sir, is the essence of freedom in America . . . and it is certainly a large part of defending the right to keep and bear arms.

But thanks for you comment anyway . . .

SS

ethies · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

I joined IC because they are supportive of our right to keep and bear arms, and are an organization with a good size paying membership base that is growing and becoming more and more influential in the statehouse. I agree with IGO on the following: there should be no regulated right. I want open and concealed carry without a permit, reciprocity, and a permit if I want one to travel to other states. My problem with IGO starts with the fact that they seem unwilling to change laws incrementally (which is how laws are changed). You eat the elephant one bite at a time. My other big problem with IGO is that they seem to be more excited to put down IC and the NRA than they are to get any postive change made. Every time I hear IGO on the radio, or talk to a rep at a booth I get mention of how IC isn't 'really' trying to help. You don't like IC's approach, mobilize your own. As for me, I will continue to support IC in its goal to get people armed. Normalize people to the idea of permit holders around them all the time, and open carry and Alaska carry will be that much easier to achieve. This is my .02 and each person must decide for themselves if they will support IGO in theirsweeping, altruistic single bill approach or ICin their incremental, patient multi-bill approach. I hope IC and IGO can bury this beef and stop fighting each other (especialy in public) so that Iowans can regain their rights.

Mike · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

DAA wrote:

Open carry in public does nothing more than worry people, far better is the permit to carry, which to me means concealed carry. . . .
We will all get more support if we work togather.

So Let's work together for supporting both open and concealed carry - open carry has the positive upside of promoting public recognition of rights, concealed carry does not, but it is stil youchoice.

DAA · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

DAA wrote:

Open carry in public does nothing more than worry people, far better is the permit to carry, which to me means concealed carry. . . .
We will all get more support if we work togather.

Click to expand...

So Let's work together for supporting both open and concealed carry - open carry has the positive upside of promoting public recognition of rights, concealed carry does not, but it is stil youchoice.

I agree, but what I worry about is the public perception of this. From what I have read here on this site there seems to be a lot of places that do not favor open carry?

Now I might be wrong on this and may have only read those posts that speak of the many times folks have been haseled for open carry.

If Iowa Carry is successful in getting the shall issue law improved, then it might have some positive effect on open carry.

I am not the defender of Iowa Carry, but I do see a lot of merit in their position, and the reason I am a supporting member is that I do believe they are doing something positive for gun rights. They have some very good folks over there, and I to me it was worth the small amount to be a supporting member. Granted, it is probably not for everyone, but on the issue of improving the shall issue law in Iowa I think they are making a decent and well thought out effort.

Being a reasonable person, and knowing how people react to firearms, I think a step forward in improving the laws we have now is worth the effort. A lot of people do not understand what open carry is and it scares them. It brings to mind a period in our history during the wild west when everyman had a six gun, and disputes were settled with an exchange of lead. Now that is over simplified, but that's what a lot of folks think of when you mention open carry.

Yes, in an ideal world we would all have that freedom to do pretty much as we please and carry our firearms anywhere we wanted. But we live in a time when that just is not possible. Each right we have has to be defended in the court of public opinion, and against a public which has been conditioned by years of media exposure to fear the right to keep and bear arms.

We have gotten away from the mindset we had when this nation was founded, and no matter how much we wish it to change, it won't change over night or over a period of years. It took a generation or more to errode these rights, and until we can all better educate our fellow men and women, and their children it won't change.

Once we as citizens can demonstrate that legal carry of firearms is not a bad thing then perhaps we can demonstrate that an armed population is a good thing. By and far the majority of folks who own firearms are VERY responsible people. They are also more misunderstood by the public than any other group.

I guess where I differ is inmy belief that folks need to have some degree of training and proficency before being able to carry. Much the same as I believe in folks having a drivers license. Note that by having a drivers license though, nobody ensures you have any proficency in operating a vehicle. Were that the case perhaps there would be fewer accidents? Simplistic analogy, but with some validity.

Education and the sharing of ideas can only improve the cause. Sometimes how we share these ideas causes some of us to disagree, and that disagreement is a part of the freedom we still enjoy in this great nation.

I was not attacking anyone or open carry, what I was trying to do is convey a point that by any of us attacking each other we are giving our enemies just what they want, disention in the ranks when what we need is a little more unity.

Some will work very vocally, while others will work very quitely, in the end the goal is the same to preserve our rights?

Is there an open carry effort currently in Iowa?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

New member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Site Co-Founder

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

New member