• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is there an open carry effort currently in Iowa?

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

DAA wrote:
If Iowa Carry is successful in getting the shall issue law improved, then it might have some positive effect on open carry.
You have things reversed - you have the right toopen carry - exercise it and the movement will grow, as will political power. Has worked like this in many states.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
imported post

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?

That is a false dilemma. Your statement is based on two assumptions, that a permit to carry weapons does not discriminate against citizens and that it would take longer to pass unlicensed carry than it would to get shall issue. It seems to me that from the success that IGO has had that the Iowa legislators are very concerned about their ability to get into office, and stay there, if they ignore the civil rights lobby.

Switching gears a bit here, you go demand to the sheriff that he/she issue your permit to carry and see how that works for you.

Oh, wait, that was rather childish, petty, and non-productive. Much like this was.
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.

For someone that speaks for a civil rights organization like Iowa Carry I would expect something better than that. As for myself I'm just an Iowa farmboy out standing in his field, I speak for no one but myself. If you wish to be taken seriously as a representative of Iowa Carry then I suggest you choose your words more carefully in the future.

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 suggest you change your tactic because that same mentality did not turn out well in Minnesota. People, including LEOs, were not accustomed on the fact that the permit allows open carry and that ended up creating some very unfortunate police encounters. Just hang out for a bit in the Minnesota portion of this site for how well that works out.

It is partly because of the silliness seen in Minnesota that I advocate unlicensed open carry. Any "man with a gun" call should end very quickly and people will learn that the carry of a weapon is not a crime. If open carry is stigmatized then we get the confusion that we see in Minnesota.

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.

I don't see why you think that unlicensed open carry and shall issue concealed carry is too much to handle at one time. Do you have some surveys of legislators, sheriffs, and voters to back up your claim?

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.

Again a false dilemma. We can have both. It would be helpful if Iowa Carry got on board with that effort.
 

Miller14STL

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike wrote:
DAA wrote:
If Iowa Carry is successful in getting the shall issue law improved, then it might have some positive effect on open carry.
You have things reversed - you have the right toopen carry - exercise it and the movement will grow, as will political power. Has worked like this in many states.

I have read through most of your comments like this and I agree. Open Carry is an important statement and a great tool to bring about public awareness.

But it comes at a price. The average citizen in the US is a complete sheep. Seeing a gun can freak some of them out. They associate them with "bad people". We need to work on changing that image and perception. The town hall demonstrations have brought about a lot of publicity to Open Carry. Some good and some bad. When participating in one of these demonstrations, one has to consider the pros and cons.

Under thecurrent laws in Iowa, the price to paid could possibly be forfeiture of your permit to carry. To me that is too high of a price for a politcal statement that I feel won't be accepted very well at this time. I cannot risk my family's safety to make a political statement. If that makes me a hypocrit or a coward, than so be it.

Once Iowa has a full "shall" issue legislation in place, I will do whatever it is that I can to help promote open carry to allow people to increase publicawareness of average citizensgoing armed to protect themselves.

It is however also a "Catch-22" andopen carry advertises too much in many circumstances, so it must weighed and used appropriately. Right now, it cannot be used as a stepping stone to "shall" issue. Unless we did it in an unincorprated area with people who didn't have permits to lose. But would the corn change its mind?

Alaska/Vermont style is very unlikely to be renamed Alaska/Vermont/Iowa style very soon so I'm not too excited about the IGO's "no compromise" stance. Iowa Carry has shown promise and I think the NRA's decision to pursue Iowa as a battleground against the antigun laws is a huge plus going into the next legislative session.

Our biggest problem right now is that Iowa has a long standing system that works for some and not all. I am lucky enough to be living in a county which will give an average citizen a permit. I only figured this out after I became "aware" of the needs for such a thing. Katrina was an eye-opener for me. I was shopping for a gun and heard some of the people at the shop talking about IowaCarry. After learning how to shoot, I applied for a permit.

I became a member of Iowa Carry because I want all other Iowans to have the same freedom of defending their lives if called upon.

I'm a member of the NRA for the same reasons. I don't agree with every stance they take, but they are fighting for our rights. Sure there are organizational aka family squabbles about what the perfect situation would be, but as long as we're moving forward at any pace, I'm willing to participate in the cause of both organizations.

Let's not lose sight of who the real enemies are... gun fearing and gun grabbing politicians.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
imported post

Maybe it's just me but DAA smells like a puppet.

DAA,
What compelled you to come to an open carry advocacy forum to state your opposition to the idea?

We will all get more support if we work togather.

I can agree with that, however, work together to what goal? I'm asking that Iowa Carry, Iowa Gun Owners, and anyone else involved here all get together to support unlicensed open carry. You are asking that we not advocate for open carry on an open carry advocacy forum.

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

Yes, let's not startle the cattle. You know, in some places of the world it is considered rude, or illegal even, for a woman to go outside the home without a related male escort. I am glad that America got past that nonsense some time ago.

I do not believe that not exercising our right to bear arms because of some people's objections is conducive to restoring our rights. I must ask how we are to regain our right to arms unless people know that we have them and people, of all shapes, colors, and sizes, are exercising them?
 

Topgear

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
22
Location
, ,
imported post

I am a lurker on a lot of 2nd amendment sites and stumbled on a link to this thread today. After reading all of the posts as of 11:30 PM Sunday night here's how I see the two positions:

Iowa Carry's position:

"We think IGO's idea is good but don't think it will fly right now. We wish them luck but will continue to support the NRA bill for an incremental and positive change."

Iowa Gun Owners position:

"You guys suck! Your ideas suck! They suck so much that we're going to do everything we can from to keep them from passing."

You know, I hate to say this but IGO is beginning to sound a lot like our good friends "[font="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"]The American Hunters and Shooters Association[/font]" which as we all know is a front for the gun control side.

This tactic is straight out of the gun control groups operations manual. Split the people by spreading lies and telling rumors. Use the people you can control to help stop the legislation you don't want passed.

Straight Shooter and IA_farmboy are having a love fest telling each other how great they are and what true heroes they are. Straight Shooter says he's going to release the NRA bill slowly bit by bit. I read that as saying, "Slowly bit by bit so I can take portions of it out of context and spread lies about what it really says." Prove me wrong by releasing the whole thing unedited. Then comment on it to your hearts content.

Sorry folks. I smell a rotten fish in IGO and their stance. If they truly want to support the 2nd Amendment I don't think they would be trying so hard to discredit a fellow warrior for the cause.

Tread carefully,

Topgear
 

AKAK

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

I too am a gun forum lurker who stumbled upon this thread. As a former Iowan I must agree with the previous poster that after reading all three pages something stinks. Why does IGO not comment on their own proposal and ideas. Anytime one group (or persons) have to cut down another in order to prop themselves up and get ahead then that says a lot right there! They are like the whiny complainer at work who wants a promotion so they constantly complain about co-workers.

I have read a couple instances here of the IC group agreeing with IGO and even wishing them good luck. The reverse is not true and IGO has not commented on Shall Issue being a step in the right direction or an incremental step. It was even shown that in AK Shall Issue was passed first. Also agreeing with the previous poster that what kinda Second Amendment supporter tries to cut down the NRA?
 

Straight_Shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
266
Location
, Iowa, USA
imported post

Topgear wrote:
Iowa Gun Owners position:

"You guys suck! Your ideas suck! They suck so much that we're going to do everything we can from to keep them from passing."

You know, I hate to say this but IGO is beginning to sound a lot like our good friends "[font="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"]The American Hunters and Shooters Association[/font]" which as we all know is a front for the gun control side.

This tactic is straight out of the gun control groups operations manual. Split the people by spreading lies and telling rumors. Use the people you can control to help stop the legislation you don't want passed.

Straight Shooter and IA_farmboy are having a love fest telling each other how great they are and what true heroes they are. Straight Shooter says he's going to release the NRA bill slowly bit by bit. I read that as saying, "Slowly bit by bit so I can take portions of it out of context and spread lies about what it really says." Prove me wrong by releasing the whole thing unedited. Then comment on it to your hearts content.

Sorry folks. I smell a rotten fish in IGO and their stance. If they truly want to support the 2nd Amendment I don't think they would be trying so hard to discredit a fellow warrior for the cause.



TG -

First of all, I am NOT an officer nor official spokesperson for IGO . . . and I think that is pretty clear from my posts. I do not portend that my posts are in any way an official position statement from IGO. All I have said here is that I am a member of IGO. Nor am I aware that anyone who has posted here IS an official spokesperson for IGO.

I also have never said "You guys suck! Your ideas suck! They suck so much that we're going to do everything we can from to keep them from passing."So don't post that as a quotation. It simply isn’t true, and amounts only to an Ad Hominem contention.

As far as comparing IGO to AHSA, that is simply laughable . . . IGO has NEVER pursued or supported in any way the reductions in rights that AHSA has . . . nor has IGO ever supported any of theexpansions of state power that Baudler, and, ostensibly with the support of IC, has supported.

As Ipresent the NRA bill, which is apparently fully supported by Iowa Carry according to Mr. McClanahan, with direct quotations of the language from the bill, then it will become clear that it is dangerous to Iowa gun owner's liberties.

I wouldsuggest that you shouldbe careful about assuming that this bill is "A Ok" because it comes from the NRA and the support of Iowa Carry. . you may find yourself having to back pedal some. Frankly, if you find that the contents of this bill are acceptable, even I will find that amazing.

BTW, For the Record, I 100% support Iowa Carry (or IGO or anyone else for that matter) in pursuing a clean"Shall Issue"bill to modify ICA 724 . . . To date I have yet to see a bill that did not include expansions of unconstitutional laws that deprive Iowan's right against being deprived of liberty or property without due process under our state Constitution. In particular, automatically confiscatingpeople's guns for the sole reason that some court or"other authority"has issued a restraining order or other piece of paper without trial by jury, the right to cross examine, present witnesses in your own behalf, etc. This provision is included in Lautenberg, and Baudler wants this legislation included in Iowa law. It is a police state tactic, and is simply not acceptable.

By all means, though, I do support the IC guys sending as many of their members to comment hereas is possible . . . then they will see the NRA bill in all its “splendor.” No doubt some will continue to try to defend it, as “Constitutional literacy” is not very common these days. Perhaps some will be educated to start standing up for their own rights and freedoms instead of unwittingly working to tear them down.

Who knows? . . . maybe you IC members will actually tell McClanahan to tell the NRA that you won’t support the bill if they don’t clean out the police state tactics . . . Then we really will be "working together" . . . . one can only hope.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Miller14STL wrote:
I have read through most of your comments like this and I agree. Open Carry is an important statement and a great tool to bring about public awareness.

But it comes at a price. The average citizen in the US is a complete sheep. Seeing a gun can freak some of them out. They associate them with "bad people". We need to work on changing that image and perception.
The only way to o thatis for more good people to open carry - this has worked in every state where open carry has grown more popular.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Miller14STL wrote:
Under thecurrent laws in Iowa, the price to paid could possibly be forfeiture of your permit to carry. To me that is too high of a price for a politcal statement that I feel won't be accepted very well at this time.
There is no permit loss risk for people without permits who opn carry on foot in unincorporated areas - this is where to have events - where you have the freedom that most states have even in cities.
 

Straight_Shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
266
Location
, Iowa, USA
imported post

By the way . . . also for the record and right here in front of the IC folks . . . If Iowa Carry will establish a policy that they will not acceptun-Constitutional restrictions and police power expansionsbe included inANY legislation that they support, including the NRA legislation. . . I will gladly join IC, and I will paytriple their normal membership fees. If Mr. McClanahan will announce, publish and retainsuch a policy, I will personally drive to wherever he would like to meet and hand him the payment, with photo ops and the whole nine yards.

How about it Mr. McClanahan? . . . is this not a reasonable request?
 

ethies

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
32
Location
Ottumwa, Iowa, USA
imported post

Topgear wrote:
Sorry folks. I smell a rotten fish in IGO and their stance.

Topgear, I've met quite a few members of IGO, and they are genuine. I agree there are some concerns about their methods, but I don't doubt their motivation.

SS, I'd love to see the bill and have been waiting for IC to release it. If you're going to post it, post it. You ARE grandstanding. You want to comment on it? Please do. If it contains all the stuff you're saying, then show it. Also, I'd like to know how you obtained it as that goes to the reliability of your claims.
 

Straight_Shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
266
Location
, Iowa, USA
imported post

ethies wrote:
Topgear wrote:
Sorry folks. I smell a rotten fish in IGO and their stance.

Topgear, I've met quite a few members of IGO, and they are genuine. I agree there are some concerns about their methods, but I don't doubt their motivation.

SS, I'd love to see the bill and have been waiting for IC to release it. If you're going to post it, post it. You ARE grandstanding. You want to comment on it? Please do. If it contains all the stuff you're saying, then show it. Also, I'd like to know how you obtained it as that goes to the reliability of your claims.


If you think it is"grandstanding," thenso be it . . . I am far more concerned about the rights of my Iowa neighbors. I also have a job and cannot spend all my time in blogs, and yes, I do want as many people, IC and others (since they won't release it to their members), to see what is in it, so that those who are concerned abouttheonerous provisionscan spread the word.

BTW . . . if you are an IC member, why don't you put pressure on them to release it? Why all the secrecy with a bill intended to affect public policy and laws that affect YOU? AllI have seen is"because the NRA doesn't want us to release it yet" . . . WHY?

If you are that interested, then please stopworrying about my"grandstanding" and find out whyIC won't show it to you . . . All my "grandstanding" will cease as soon as IC releases the bill . . . .

Where I got the bill is immaterial. . . it is printed on "NRA-ILA Research& Information" letterhead and that is good enough for me. If you doubt my credibility, then you have the choice to ignore me.

My greatest hope is that the NRA (and IC if they have a say) decide to TAKE OUT the onerous provisions and introduce a "clean" shall issue bill. If they do so, then you can call me any name you want to . . . It won't matter because I will have accomplished my goal. Once again, I state for the record . . . I fully support IC in efforts to introduce and pass clean "Shall issue" legislation, void of un-Constitutional provisions. It is YOUR Constitutional rights I am trying to protect . . . whether you appreciate that or not. And for that, I will take any amount of heat from any number of people. It is worth it.
 

Straight_Shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
266
Location
, Iowa, USA
imported post

[align=left]While all of you are anxiously waiting my post of the onerous provisions inthe NRA bill . . . here is something to "chew on" . .

http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2009/07/15/Reid_-_NRA_Letter.pdf

If this doesn't make you sick, as Harry Reid is working his little fanny off to help create a federal database of gun owners . . . then you ain't a second amendment supporter . . . by the way . . . if you want a preview of what is in the NRA Iowa bill, see the section below from GOA titled "Veterans have already been disarmed without due process" . . . this provision is IN the NRA IOWA bill!



As White House talks turkey on health care, GOA responds to administration attacks

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
703-321-8585
http://www.gunowners.org



Wednesday, December 2, 2009

ACTION: As the Senate begins debate on socialized health care this week, the White House is pulling out all the stops to get it passed, including an attack on Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment.

Please contact your Senators and warn them that a vote in favor of socialized health care will be considered a vote against the Second Amendment.[/align]


[align=left]
Why don't they read the bills?

Last week, as Americans were getting ready to celebrate Thanksgiving, Obama's spin doctors were still in full combat mode, taking shots at Gun Owners of America.

On the official White House blog, deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer denied that the health care bill would affect gun owners. After all, he writes, "there is no mention [of] 'gun-related health data' or anything like it anywhere in either the Senate or the House bills."

Well, unlike so many in Congress, GOA attorneys have actually read the bills, something they have been doing since before Mr. Pfeiffer was born.

So, how would ObamaCare attack gun rights?

First of all, the fact that the bills do not mention the words "gun related health data" is meaningless. Those who know even a little bit about gun law understand the increasing use of statutes which do not mention guns -- in order to regulate them nonetheless.

Gun banners love to interpret laws in the most expansive ways

Within the past year, the federal district court for the District of Columbia used the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to overturn Bush regulations involving guns in parks. NEPA did not purport to apply to guns.

Increasingly, zoning ordinances are being used to put gun ranges and gun dealers out of business. These ordinances do not mention guns.

Thirty-five jurisdictions have brought lawsuits to try to put gun manufacturers out of business, arguing negligence, product defect, and nuisance law which were not previously thought to apply to guns.

And, over the last decade, veterans suffering from PTSD have been denied the right to purchase a gun. This was not supposed to happen when the Brady Law was enacted in 1994, but that did not keep Clinton's Department of Veterans Affairs from using the law to disarm thousands upon thousands of veterans, without any due process.

ObamaCare gives tremendous authority to anti-gun bureaucrats

Turning to what is written in the health care bill, section 1104 would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services (currently anti-gunner Kathleen Sebelius) broad authority to promulgate rules once ObamaCare becomes law.

For example, the bill requires health plans to certify, in writing, "that the data and information systems [demonstrate] to the Secretary that the plan conducts the electronic transactions ... in a manner that fully complies with the regulations of the Secretary." [Section 1104(b)(2).]

What health-related "gun" data do we fear would be required to be submitted under these rules? Increasingly, protocols are requiring that kids (and adults) be asked by physicians about loaded firearms in the household. A keyword search by BATFE of a federal database created by section 13001 of the stimulus bill -- but enforced by the Senate version of ObamaCare -- could produce something pretty close to a national gun registry.

Veterans have already been disarmed without due process

In addition, between 115,000 and 150,000 veterans have had their gun rights permanently taken away from them because the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has appointed a financial guardian for them when they received counseling for common illnesses such as post-traumatic stress disorder -- and all of this with no due process nor trial in a court of law. Under BATFE regulations issued during the Clinton administration, a diagnosis by a psychiatrist in connection with a government program (such as the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, Medicare, etc.) is sufficient to declare the person a "prohibited person" under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).

Hence, BATFE could similarly take the position that a finding of Alzheimer's, PTSD, or ADHD should result in the loss of gun rights. And, under the Senate ObamaCare bill, this information could be obtained by BATFE with nothing more than a keyword search of the newly created database.

Incidentally, federal privacy protections do not apply to law enforcement agencies like BATFE.

Higher insurance premiums for gun owners

White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer also writes: "Nothing in the Senate health reform bill would lead to higher premiums for gun owners .... Section 2717 [specifically] lists what types of programs would be involved -- such as smoking cessation, physical fitness, nutrition, heart disease prevention ...."

Well, as any lawyer would know, that list in section 2717 is "inclusive," but is not "exclusive."

Section 1201 of the bill creates "wellness" programs which allow consideration of behavioral issues in setting premiums and, presumably, determining activities which are so dangerous that coverage might be suspended. The definition of "wellness" includes some very broad issues, including obesity and "lifestyle." But even these broad categories are not exclusive and do not prevent, for example, the consideration of firearms ownership -- as State Farm and Prudential have already done on some occasions.


You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

[/align]
 

Topgear

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
22
Location
, ,
imported post

ethies wrote:
Topgear wrote:
Sorry folks.  I smell a rotten fish in IGO and their stance. 

Topgear, I've met quite a few members of IGO, and they are genuine.  I agree there are some concerns about their methods, but I don't doubt their motivation.

SS, I'd love to see the bill and have been waiting for IC to release it.  If you're going to post it, post it.  You ARE grandstanding.  You want to comment on it?  Please do.  If it contains all the stuff you're saying, then show it.  Also, I'd like to know how you obtained it as that goes to the reliability of your claims.

Ethies,

I'll take you at your word that they aren't overt gun grabbers. I stand by what I said about divide an concur however. I make a prediction that there will be no action taken on either bill this year and that IGO can take most of the blame. Straight_shooter has said he intends to work to forestal passage of the NRA bill.

" 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."

That is his right but he is terribly misguided if he thinks that will HELP the effort to get any reform in Iowa. I bet Josh Sugarman sends him a Christmas card this year...

Topgear
 

Miller14STL

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike wrote:
Miller14STL wrote:
Under thecurrent laws in Iowa, the price to paid could possibly be forfeiture of your permit to carry. To me that is too high of a price for a politcal statement that I feel won't be accepted very well at this time.
There is no permit loss risk for people without permits who opn carry on foot in unincorporated areas - this is where to have events - where you have the freedom that most states have even in cities.

Mike, I agree with you completely on this point. But as a permit holder, I cannot take part in such an event as it could jeopardize the Sheriff's "opinion" as to why he "allowed" me to have a permit in the first place. It's not right, but its the system we have right now.

The fact that many people can get permits is what makes Iowa a truly messed up place. We likely have a lot of ignorance and apathy because a certain percentage of the populace may think that the system that is in place in their particular county applies to all Iowans. But we have 99 counties and 99 different processes and opinions on who is allowed to get a permit.

Since this thread was originally about Open Carry in Iowa, I contest whether or not these sorts of demonstrations are the most practical approach in this state.

Mike, have you ever been to Iowa?

I'm a St. Louisan who moved up here 5 years ago, right before Missouri passed their shall issue bill. It wasn't on my radar very much when I lived in Missouri. I was for it, but I wasn't considering getting a permit. But at that time in Missouri, hardly any citizen had a permit, so I didn't have the positive influences that I did up here when I joined the local USPSA and IDPA clubs.

Back to my original point. Iowa is a whole lot of nothing with some small towns sprinkled here and there and just a couple of big ones, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Dubuque, 1/2 of the Quad Cities, Council Bluffs (suburb of Omaha NE).

I don't think there are any large unincorporated suburbs like where I grew up in St. Louis. I don't know if a demonstration/picnic could/would draw much attention to the issue. What's stirred up the pot last year was a sheriff's election in Linn County (Cedar Rapids) where both candidates pledged to get rid of the previous Sheriff's elitist restrictions: must carry at least $500 cash and bullseye style shooting test at 25 yards. Since taking office, I've heard that particular sherrif is turning out permit holders by the dozens every month which along with the record gun sales this has garnered some media attention.

I'm hoping that along with NRA support this year, a shall issue bill we be passed.

Sean might be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression of Iowa Carry is that the majority of its members have permits. I don't know if a formal poll has been taken to put any real numbers to my impressions. If my assumption is correct that would correlate into very little enthusiasm to push for an Open Carry demonstration.

We did have some Iowa State and Iowa students organizing some empty holster demonstrations on campus a while back.

We also have the problem that the general public generally feels safe and secure in Iowa.

Although interestingly enough, then candidate Obama's wife Michelle said when touring rural Iowa: "I can see why you would need a gun here" or something to that effect since homes and police are so far away.

Which is exactly the same thought Iowans have when going to Chicago.

I've only been in this fight for two years, so I'm not too jaded by the prospects of positive reform coming soon which will give us better laws for all Iowans to enjoy.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
imported post

I found it odd that so many people came here in such a short amount of time to sign up to comment on this tiny little thread out of the whole world wide web. So I ran an experiment and, sure enough, a Google search on "Iowa carry" will result in a link to this thread out of the first page of results. In my experiment I came across an interesting article by none other than Sean McClanahan. The link is .http://www.ammoland.com/2009/09/13/iowa-firearms-carry-bills/

This is, IMHO, the best part.

“Not Valid When Violating Iowa Law”
This is a much stickier restriction. This is being proposed by Rep. Baudler to counter the arguments given by the Sheriffs that sometimes, there are people that they just know shouldn’t have a permit because they are under investigation for some reason. If they approve a permit application, then the Sheriffs feel that they are issuing a permit to people who just shouldn’t have one due to the activities for which they are being investigated. If they deny the permit (and have to list the reason for denial), then the people being investigated would find out about the Sheriff’s activities, and potentially ruin the investigation.

The intention here is good, but here’s the problem. How many of you have been caught for speeding? If you were carrying a weapon with this restriction on your permit, and you were pulled over for speeding, would you then be carrying illegally? The answer is yes. You would potentially be looking at a jail term for simple speeding. The argument that has been given is that no LEO would ever take it to that extreme, and that scenario is not in the true spirit of what this part of the bill is trying to address.

But it can happen. ANY time you do something that is in violation of Iowa law, and you happen to be carrying, you now add the potential of having an illegal weapons charge tacked on. That is not the way to fix this problem.

The way to fix this problem is to do – nothing. In the Sheriff’s rare scenario (and they do admit that it very rarely happens), the right thing to do (and really, the Constitutional thing to do) is issue the permit. Again, innocent until proven guilty is a phrase that is stuck in my head for some reason. A Sheriff MIGHT have an investigation going on someone, and that person MIGHT be involved in some sort of illegal activity. But until such time that charges can be formally filed and the person arrested, that person still has all of his or her rights. The argument that “the person is a criminal, and by golly, we don’t want criminals walking around with guns” doesn’t hold water either. If the person being investigated is creating such a hazard to the community that the Sheriff doesn’t feel that issuing a permit would be in the interest of public safety, then the person shouldn’t be in the community in the first place.

Even Iowa Carry thought the last attempt to reform the permit to carry system was a bad bill. I don't know what their (and the NRA's) current bill looks like but so far I very cautious and skeptical. I saw what Iowa Gun Owners proposed and was very pleased. One thing I did not like in the IGO endorsed bill was that there was a portion that included enhanced penalties for crimes committed with a firearm. The reasons against that are similar to what Mr. McClanahan stated in the above quoted section. I felt that was a relatively minor compromise/concession to the gun grabbers to get the bill passed.

I'll add to Straight_Shooter's challenge by offering triple the annual dues to Iowa Carry until shall issue is passed if Iowa Carry does two things, promote unlicensed open carry (as in endorse only those bills that include that provision), and open up all areas of the Iowa Carry forum (read-only if you must) to every visitor whether they be registered or not. My request is a bit more objective than Straight_shooter's and so there should be no question about whether there is compliance or not.

Getting back to my original point I still find it odd that so many people found this thread and felt compelled to register to comment. How many people on any given weekend do a Google search for "Iowa carry" and end up here. I must have really pushed some buttons with my original question and my later comments. I like it. It's about time that we see some movement on this in Iowa. So many other states are moving to shall issue permits to carry and unlicensed open carry that it is passed due that it come up here.

With all the competition between Iowa Gun Owners and Iowa Carry (most of it friendly, some of it not) I would love to see the two groups agree on a few things. The first to come to mind is "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground". Another issue is "parking lot carry" protections so that people that lawfully store their firearm in a locked vehicle on a public or private parking lot can not be charged with a crime or be punished by an employer. As both Iowa Carry and Iowa Gun Owners both agree on shall issue permits then it would be great to hear them agree on what the standards are for obtaining that permit. Things like what is sufficient training, will fingerprints and/or photos be required, length of time the permit is valid, the cost of the permit, and the "must issue/deny" time.

I've talked with representatives from both Iowa Gun Owners and Iowa Carry on some of these issues. The response from Iowa Carry has been something like "we'll get shall issue first then move on to other issues". Iowa Gun Owners response was something like "oh, we're just getting started, we'll have something on castle doctrine and parking lot carry real soon now".

This very metered approach by Iowa Carry is frustrating. While I understand their approach, I don't like it. With the pace they are going Illinois will have unlicensed open carry before Iowa. Iowa Gun Owners more direct approach seems to be working well for them, and Iowa. I wish them both well just don't expect to see this farm boy put anything in the Iowa Carry donation jar at the next gun show, I'll be at the Iowa Gun Owners booth with my wallet open.
 

Straight_Shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
266
Location
, Iowa, USA
imported post

IA_Farmboy:

"I like it."

Me too . . . for the record, I have nothing at all personal against anyone at IC . . . I just want them to wake up and push CLEAN legislation that doesn't expand the police state. If they would do that . . . I would shout their praises from the rooftops. I find it so disturbing that so many here are trying to thwart me from posting the bad portions of the NRA bill (yes, itIS "Shall Issue"), by simply saying that I am lying, etc. . . . what have I to gain from "outing" this bad bill? Noteriety? (pulleese!) . . . money? I'm not on the "recieving" end of any money from any gun groups . . . and if anyone thinks that I like being called a liar, friends of the anti's,etc . . . well . . . your mad.


My goal is simply this: to stop very poor compromises that will cost us dearly in the future long after the "sweetness" of "shall issue" are realized. The posters on BOTH sides of the issue are right about one thing: we really would be stronger if we joined forces. But until IC is willing to stop promoting legislation with unnecessary growth in police state tactics . . . I cannot turn my back on both the Iowa and federal Constitution. My conscience will not allow it. Perhaps there are some that will actually read and contemplate how bad the NRA provisions are (I amposting them on a seperate thread)and take appropriate action to stop this madness . . . I am praying for that very thing. Who knows . . . maybe IC will emerge as a more powerful force for gun rights in Iowa.

 

Tom Lamont

New member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

I am rather new to the political scene and was told by a friend that provisions of the new NRA bill was on this site. When I heard the NRA was getting involved I had mixed thoughts. I have seen over the last 30 years how my ability to own and carry firearms has progressively become more and more restricted. For 30 years I've been told that politics and principles are not realistic and that we should accept compromises now so that way we can compromise our way back to a more literal reading of the Second Amendment.
After having read the purported provisions in the NRA bill, I have simply two questions: "Is this the actual bill?" and "What gun rights advocate in his right mind would support this?". Perhaps I am jaded about politics, but I feel as if I cannot trust anyone anymore. If this is the NRA bill, it is atrocious. How am I suppose to believe someone when they tell me that they support gun rights when they are supporting this?
I have been lied to by so many politicians that unless a politician tells me that he is uncompromising on a given issue, I have no confidence whatsoever that he will vote to protect my rights on that issue or any other issue.
What has the gun rights crowd come to when standing against the NRA protects the precious few rights I have left? And who am I to stand alone against the NRA? This truly depresses me and makes me want to give up on the issue entirely. I have been attacked by my enemies and betrayed by my friends. When the founding fathers declared their independence they did so in absolute terms. They did not compromise on their rights.
I will no longer support organizations which compromise. If my rights are taken away, at least I can say that I did not compromise my way to that end. I have seen what supporting half-measures and "realistic" legislation has brought us. Perhaps if more people withdraw their support from organizations which compromise, they will begin to hear the message that we are not sheep willing to be fleeced every year in dues and donations in exchange for the slow decay of our rights. Enough!
 

Straight_Shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
266
Location
, Iowa, USA
imported post

Tom Lamont wrote:
I am rather new to the political scene and was told by a friend that provisions of the new NRA bill was on this site. When I heard the NRA was getting involved I had mixed thoughts. I have seen over the last 30 years how my ability to own and carry firearms has progressively become more and more restricted. For 30 years I've been told that politics and principles are not realistic and that we should accept compromises now so that way we can compromise our way back to a more literal reading of the Second Amendment.
After having read the purported provisions in the NRA bill, I have simply two questions: "Is this the actual bill?" and "What gun rights advocate in his right mind would support this?". Perhaps I am jaded about politics, but I feel as if I cannot trust anyone anymore. If this is the NRA bill, it is atrocious. How am I suppose to believe someone when they tell me that they support gun rights when they are supporting this?
I have been lied to by so many politicians that unless a politician tells me that he is uncompromising on a given issue, I have no confidence whatsoever that he will vote to protect my rights on that issue or any other issue.
What has the gun rights crowd come to when standing against the NRA protects the precious few rights I have left? And who am I to stand alone against the NRA? This truly depresses me and makes me want to give up on the issue entirely. I have been attacked by my enemies and betrayed by my friends. When the founding fathers declared their independence they did so in absolute terms. They did not compromise on their rights.
I will no longer support organizations which compromise. If my rights are taken away, at least I can say that I did not compromise my way to that end. I have seen what supporting half-measures and "realistic" legislation has brought us. Perhaps if more people withdraw their support from organizations which compromise, they will begin to hear the message that we are not sheep willing to be fleeced every year in dues and donations in exchange for the slow decay of our rights. Enough!

Hi Tom -

Welcome . . . and thanks for your comments . . . I appreciate them more than you could possibly know;you are single handedly responsible for "making my day."

. . I am the evil "rager," "liar,"and "friend of the anti's" that has posted PORTIONSONLY of what is apparently the draft version of the NRA bill. Some are of the belief that, "even if this language is really from the bill, there may be other portions that somehow mitigate these provisions." The release of the bill by either the NRA or IC will verify if that is true . . . indeed, it will verify if I am lying or deceptiveor not.

I have posted here that I do not care if the NRA changes the bill to make me out to be a liar. That would be fine with me, because I have the original on NRA-ILA letterhead, with the exact language I have posted,should the need arise, and the bad language would be gone. Two people within the Iowa Carry leadership were posting previously about this issue: Sean McClanahan and Steve Hensyl . . . both have stopped posting since I started releasing portions of the bill. I wonder why? Perhaps they are very busy.

There are some things happening that will very likely soon make public, from others much more recognizable than me, that what I have posted here is genuine. Assuming this happens, I plan on advising this thread when that is going to take place in advance so that folks who are interested in it can be ready. It would have likely happened today, but the inclement weather has delayed this.

I will be glad when this happens, because for me, the "heat" will be over. For now, later today, I plan on adding some of the other bad provisions from the bill. For the record, everything in the bill isn't bad . . . no one would believe that to be true, and I am not contending so. It is a "shall issue" bill. If we can get the NRA and IC to elimiate the troubling language from the bill, I will openly support it.

Thanks for your very "pro-rights" comments, and welcome to the thread . . . please stay tuned.

SS
 

Topgear

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
22
Location
, ,
imported post

Dear Straight_Shooter,

That's an awful lot for a hunt and peck guy like me to type every time I want to address you so If you don't mind, I'm going to give you a nickname. I could use "SS" I suppose but then someone would get up in arms about me calling you a Nazi and I'm sure your not that. So I will just pick a name that's easy for me to type to address you. How does Aaron sound? Good, that's what I'll call you. After all, you haven't told us your real name. Mine is Tom but you can continue to call me TG if you wish.

Aaron, you objected to me calling you a liar so I will soften the wording. How does deceitful strike you? Why do I say that? Several reasons. First you have continuously referred to the legislation you don't like as the "NRA/IC" bill. The president of Iowa Carry has told you numerous times in THIS thread that it is the NRA's bill, not Iowa Carry's.

Second, you have stated that you are in possession of "The NRA bill" yet you refuse to post it so everyone can read it and be as aghast about how anti-gun the NRA really is as you are. You know you don't have it. Even your new best friend IA_farmboy realizes that until the bill is introduced by a member of the Iowa legislature and it can be found on their web site, there is NO Iowa legislation so you can't possibly have a copy of it. At best you have a draft copy but that remains to be seen because again you remain secretive about it - just like you accuse Iowa Carry of being. (More on this later…)

Finally, you promote yourself as a champion of the rights of Iowans and their right to carry firearms for self defense or any other reason yet your stance is totally opposite of that. Your position is that "It's my way or the highway! No compromise" (I'd quote you directly but I'm not as good with the forum tools as you professionals are.) You have stated publicly here on this forum that you will work to prevent passage of the "so called" NRA bill even though it is a step FORWARD from what we have now. In essence you are telling the citizens of Dubuque, Emmet, Buena Vista, Jasper, Winneshiek and other counties, "Sorry we couldn't get our open carry bill passed this year. I know the Shall Issue bill had at least some chance of passing but I'd rather hold out for the whole ball of wax. You guys don't mind being discriminated against a while longer do you? It's all for a good cause."

As for the NRA bill and Iowa Carry, do they endorse it? Yes they do because it meets the five main criteria they advocate: shall issue, appeals process if denied, uniform training, reciprocity with other states and privacy of records. Is it perfect? Definitely not but it IS a vast improvement over what is out there today. They have publicly stated that they wish IGO no ill will and HOPE that you can win. Yet you and your group decide the only way for you to "win" is by attacking them and working against the bill they endorse. How insane is that?

You accuse Iowa Carry of being some kind of secret society by not opening up their web site. Just do what I did, pay the man the $25.00 and you to will have full access. As a supporting member with such access, I can tell you there's nothing too "secret" going on over their. Why do they charge to have access? I'm not on the board but I would imagine it has something to do with having to pay for the website and the lobbyist they work with to help improve the Iowa Code. Why doesn't Iowa Carry post the NRA's bill? Probably because it's not finished yet. Read three paragraphs up.

Aaron, you and IA_farmboy have publicly stated that if Iowa Carry accepts your "all or nothing" stance with the Iowa Legislature you will join and put down 3x the normal membership fee. At $75.00 that's a good investment to be sure but I will bet that the leadership at Iowa Carry will tell you the price is too high. I think it is too. After watching Iowa politics for over 50 years, I don't believe you can get the Iowa Legislature the eat the whole enchilada in one sitting. After all, it is controlled by anti-gun Democrats and you are facing one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the state, The ISSDA who will oppose you with all of their might.

I too wish you well. I also fully realize that you are facing an uphill battle all they way. Even climbers at Mount Everest don't do the climb in one great effort. Multiple steps with rests in between are the only way they can attempt such a massive undertaking. Getting unlicensed open carry in Iowa is a similar challenge. I'll do your $75.00 challenge even better, and I won't require you to abandon your principals as you want Iowa Carry to do. Aaron, if Iowa Gun Owners changes it's stance from that of publicly opposing the bill the NRA and Iowa Carry are backing and threatening to fight against it, stops bashing Iowa Carry at every opportunity, puts a statement on it's web site similar to this, "We wish The NRA and Iowa Carry well in their efforts to pass a 'Shall Issue' law in Iowa but will continue to work toward our goal of 'Open Carry'." and doesn't change any of this policy prior to December 31, 2010, I will donate $1000.00 to Iowa Gun Owners.

Tom

P.S. I think your stance on training is ludicrous. We teach people how to read and write before they go out in public as journalists. At the very least a person who is going to carry a gun should have to prove they know which end the bullets come out of and that they can hit something smaller than the side of a barn at 15 yards.
 
Top