Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 326

Thread: Iowa Gun Owners - Take Action! Disturbing Anti-Gun Rights Legislation Being Pushed by NRA in Iowa

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post


    NRA Pushing Bad Bill in Iowa

    Jeff Knox

    http://www.firearmscoalition.org/ind...amp;Itemid=144

    It's been a long time since we have had serious issues with NRA actions, but their proposed concealed carry legislation for Iowa is simply bad and we're taking exception.

    Last year two state organizations, Iowa Carry and Iowa Gun Owners, banged heads with competing legislation and competing strategies. Iowa Carry was backing a “shall issue” bill which included mandatory training requirements and several other concessions. Iowa Gun Owners was pushing an Alaska-style bill which removed restrictions on concealed carry and offered an optional permit system for the sake of reciprocity.

    The Alaska bill had 25 cosponsors among the 100 members of the Iowa House and failed to pass by just one vote ending in a 49 – 49 tie in the final minutes of the legislative session.

    After such an impressive showing, one would expect advocates to unite around the Alaska-style bill for this legislative session with an eye towards either passing a very good bill, or forcing a clear record vote on such a bill and using that vote against opponents in the next General Election. Instead, after ignoring the state for decades, NRA has decided to ride their white horse into Iowa to save the day by amending the already weak Iowa Carry bill to make it not only weaker, but to actually include some provisions which are worse than existing law – snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Under the NRA proposal, not only would anyone ever convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor be barred from concealed carry, anyone ever arrested on such a charge would be barred. The proposal also bars anyone with “a written finding by any agency of a state or the United States sustaining an allegation of abuse against another person,” leaving the door open for a ban on concealed carry for a parent who spanks their child or a person victimized by false accusations from a former spouse or intimate. The NRA says that a “paper trail” demonstrating a history of violence or abuse is enough. A judge and jury – due process – are just superfluous. This portion is supposed to improve on the current laws provision that bars a permit from anyone with a “history of violence.” The language about violent misdemeanors addresses this, but even that raises questions. Many people have been cited at some point for involvement in a fist-fight or some such petty up-scuttle. Is it reasonable to bar anyone so cited from the ability to defend themselves?

    NRA's bill also makes going “armed with a firearm while under the influence of alcohol” an aggravated misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in prison. If legislators subsequently added just one day to the punishment guidelines for an aggravated misdemeanor, anyone convicted under this law would not only lose their right to carry, they would lose all of their gun rights for the rest of their lives. NRA claims that this provision fixes a problem with the existing law which bars “alcoholics” from receiving a permit to carry. Since the clinical definition of an alcoholic can include “recovering alcoholics” who haven't had a drink in decades, simply barring alcoholics is a problem, but NRA's solution creates a much worse problem. Anyone who enjoys an occasional beer and who regularly carries understands the catch-22 such a law can create – especially when “under the influence is left undefined. The NRA “fix” also recreates the exact same problem it's fixing by creating a blanket prohibition for anyone addicted to a controlled substance. Just as with alcohol, there are many people who no longer use drugs, but who stand up every week and say “Hi, I'm Dave and I'm an addict.” Some of these folks are police officers who would lose their jobs if such language was enforced.

    Rather than creating new regulations which could be used to harass and persecute gun owners, NRA should be looking for ways to make it easier and safer for responsible citizens to exercise their right to arms. The fact is that criminals and the dangerously irresponsible will carry and misuse guns regardless of what the law says so the first priority must always be protecting the rights of the responsible and law-abiding.

    In what they claim is an effort to bring the Iowa Code into alignment with federal law and definitions, the NRA includes a long list of disqualifiers which echoes the federal “prohibited persons” language. If NRA wants harmony with federal law, why not simply state that no one prohibited from firearms possession under federal law may be issued a concealed weapons permit? That way, if federal law improves, Iowa law would be similarly improved. Restating federal law – and expanding upon its restrictions – is not in the best interest of Iowans.

    Even though decades of data prove that mandatory training does nothing to reduce accidents, mistakes, or criminal activity among permit holders, the NRA bill retains the current Iowa training requirements with only minor modifications expanding the options for individuals and agencies offering the training. While professional training is absolutely a good idea, government mandated training is an unwarranted attempt to legislate personal responsibility and should always be opposed.

    On another point NRA doesn't just support the status quo, their bill takes three steps backward. Current Iowa law states that any otherwise qualified person who has attained the age of 18 years is eligible for a concealed weapons permit, but NRA wants to exclude 18, 19, and 20-year olds and move the minimum age up to 21. No reason is given for this change, but it is likely to be a matter of reciprocity. Since many other states have a 21-year minimum standard, raising Iowa's requirement to 21 increases the likelihood of other states recognizing Iowa permits. If the additional reciprocity is really that important, 18 to 21-year olds could be offered a “restricted permit” which was only valid in Iowa or other states which choose to recognize it. Simply cutting this group out of the process for no other demonstrable reason is just wrong.

    On the subject of reciprocity, the NRA bill sums it up in a single paragraph which limits the possibility of reciprocity to only those states whose restrictions “meet or exceed” the Iowa regulations. It goes on to give the Secretary of State full discretion on whether to then grant reciprocity to these states. While the NRA bill shifts Iowa's permitting process from “may issue” to “shall issue,” when it comes to reciprocity, NRA says the Secretary of State “may” enter into such agreements.

    Along with the “may issue” problem that this bill is supposed to fix, Iowa has a much larger problem which this bill completely ignores. Iowa law currently requires anyone wishing to acquire a handgun to first get an annual permit. The “Permit to Acquire a Revolver or Pistol” requires that applicants meet basically the same standards as those for a permit to carry a weapon and NRA makes most of the same tweaks to those definitions without making any effort to mitigate or repeal the permit to purchase provision.

    On top of everything else, the NRA bill adds a bunch of new language to bring Iowa into compliance with last years controversial “NICS Improvement Act.”

    All in all, what the NRA is doing with this bill is taking Iowa's complicated, convoluted, and misguided laws regarding the acquisition and carry of weapons, changing the word “may” to the word “shall” and making other tweaks and modifications which, in the big picture, make the laws more restrictive, intrusive, and unconstitutional than they already were – and they're doing so in total disregard for the desires of Iowa gun owners, the principles of the Second Amendment, and the proven safety records of many other states. They are also bringing this seriously flawed bill forward at a time when the Iowa legislature is primed to pass good, responsible, rights protecting legislation. By offering this bill, NRA is setting the bar so low that even most of their most ardent opponents can support it while their most ardent supporters are left wondering just what the Hell is going on.

    It is incomprehensible that Iowa's atrocious laws were completely ignored by NRA while a prominent Iowa political figure, Kayne Robinson, served for years on the NRA Board of Directors including an unprecedented five years as First Vice-President and then two years as President of the NRA. That Iowa's laws continued to be ignored even when a member of the legislature, Clel Baudler, was serving multiple terms as a member of the NRA board of Directors and Robinson moved into the position of Executive Director of General Operations at NRA. Only now, after the grass roots of Iowa have finally awakened and started making effective strides toward reform of their laws, does NRA decide to put their formidable clout into the fight – not in support of the local grass roots, but in place of them. While NRA is working with Iowa Carry in this effort, they are doing so as the lead dog, dictating terms and telling the locals what to do. The arrogance of this belated rescue effort might be excused if NRA were jumping in with a solid, principled bill, but there is simply no excuse for them swooping in with such a load of horse manure.

    If this is the best NRA and their Legislative Liaison for Iowa, Chris Rager, can come up with, the GunVoters of Iowa would do well to bluntly tell them to go rescue someone else


    Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at http://www.FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108.

    ©Copyright 2009 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    The original NRA bill with the disturbing provisions mentioned by Mr. Knoxis attached below:

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    It would be nice to see the entire section of the bill that deals with the Permit to Acquire.
    For comparison, here is the current code section, which indeed does not appear to have that provision in it. 724.15.d looks to be somewhat similar, though I'm not sure what burden of proof is required for a "history of repeated acts of violence".

    724.15Annual permit to acquire pistols or revolvers. 1.Any person who acquires ownership of any pistol or revolver shall first obtain an annual permit. An annual permit shall not be issued to any person unless:
    a.The person is twenty-one years of age or older.
    b.The person has never been convicted of a felony.
    c.The person is not addicted to the use of alcohol or a controlled substance.
    d.The person has no history of repeated acts of violence.
    e.The person has never been convicted of a crime defined in chapter 708, except "assault" as defined in section 708.1 and "harassment" as defined in section 708.7.
    f.The person has never been adjudged mentally incompetent.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post



    Gun Owners of America Director Larry Pratt appeared on WHO Radio's Steve Deace program yesterday, December 14th, to discuss thevery disturbingprovisions of this bill. Any Iowan interested in protecting his/her gun rights should listen to this program.

    A link to the podcast of that program is found here:

    http://www.whoradio.com/cc-common/po...cast=deace.xml

    (see podcast "NRA Restricting Gun Rights??)

    Also appearing were Mike Hammond of GOA and Aaron Dorr of Iowa Gun Owners, who explain the bad political consequences of pursuing this ostensibly "pro-gun" legislation (which is nothing of the sort) that will give the "anti's" something to vote for that will only hurt Iowa gun owners, and yet will provide the anti's "pro-gun cover" come next election cycle.These gentlemen gave the phone number of the NRA-ILA Liason for Iowa, Chris Rager, 703-282-5296.

    Iowa gun owners who want to help stop this very bad legislation should contact Rager and also contact their state representatives (contact info at the link below) and tell them that thisbill iscompletely unacceptable. Tell them instead to supportIowa Gun Owner's "Real Right to Carry" Bill that willfully recognize the second amendment in Iowa, and do away with the legal requirement to have to beg for permission from the government before you can carry the means to defend yourself against violent attack.

    http://www3.legis.state.ia.us/ga/leg...ch=h&ga=83


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    To everyone reading this list Striaght _shooter is lying to you. His only intent is, in his own words, 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." Unfortunately I feel he is resorting to half truths and out right lies to support his position.

    He was asked to post the legislation he is so critical of but he refuses to do so. That means you can only take his word for it. He doesn't trust you to make up your own mind so he can feed you his version.

    DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN!!!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    Mr. "TopGear" above is an admitted member of Iowa Carry and doesn't believe that I have presented the truth about the NRA bill . . . I rest my argument on "higher authorities" than myself: Larry Pratt from Gun Owners of America, Jeff Knox from the Firearms Coalition, whose late father, Neal Knox, was a longtime NRA Director and one of the foremost recognized experts on gun rights legislation. Also, the Bill I have presented above indicates that the NRA is the author.

    I urge allIowanswho are serious about protecting their freedoms to take this threat very seriously.

    Thanks,

    SS

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post






    Iowa flirting with No Permit Needed Concealed Carry

    In the middle of America, you wouldn't expect it to be so difficult to get a concealed carry permit. But in Iowa, it is -- especially if the local sheriff doesn't like you.

    That's why I'm glad to introduce you to a great new organization fighting on this issue. Iowa Gun Owners has been pushing for a major reform of Iowa's "Might Issue" concealed carry laws.

    Not since Alaska (in 2003) has a state passed a no-permit-needed concealed carry law, enacting real carry freedom for law-abiding gun owners.

    Iowa Gun Owners burst on to the scene in their rural state because for too long nothing had been done about their atrocious gun laws.

    Compared to most of the smaller states, Iowa has some of the worst firearms laws in America, and no one in power seemed to care (though local gun owners have wanted change for years).

    But in early 2009, State Rep. Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola) sponsored a bill to end the demand that Iowans beg permission to carry concealed.

    And Iowa Gun Owners took action.

    Surprising pundits throughout the state, Iowa Gun Owners brought Sorensen's bill within 1 vote of passing their State House.

    Now, in an effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the institutional gun lobby has offered a "compromise." To many, that comes as no surprise, but it will spell defeat for any real concealed carry reform in Iowa.

    Why would I write every gun owner in America for help on this issue?

    First, Iowa is truly a pivotal state. Its early Straw Poll and Caucuses make it our nation's most watched political barometer.

    Second, rarely does the chance come to pass historic legislation like this.

    Every freedom lover in America should be excited about the possibility.

    It's not just about one more "Shall Issue" state, but rather it's about Iowa becoming a bellwether for liberty in the very heart of our nation.

    I often hear "the Second Amendment is my permit to carry", and I couldn't agree more. What, after all, is the right to "bear arms", in a modern context, if it is not to carry concealed?

    But those are just empty words if the law makes a mockery of the Constitution.

    With that in mind, I encourage everyone who truly embraces the Second Amendment's right to "bear arms" without infringement to jump on board and help out Iowa Gun Owners.

    Seriously, it's that important.

    To carry the tools of self-defense in Vermont and Alaska, you don't have to undergo a background enema, be fingerprinted like a common criminal, pay for state-mandated firearms training or have your name and address end up on some list.

    You don't have to beg for your God-given rights. That's what the Second Amendment REALLY means!

    Unfortunately, some of the elitist gun owners in America -- the head-honchos of the institutional gun lobby -- have trouble understanding that. In many states, they even directly oppose Vermont-Alaska real concealed carry.

    Their opposition to freedom is nothing but a self-serving "I've got mine" attitude, seasoned with a dash of "not EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun."

    But let's examine that attitude: it means they don't really oppose gun control.

    They just oppose gun control when it's imposed on them. Give them their own little tin-pot dictatorship, and they're happy to limit your freedom.

    Understand that real concealed carry doesn't allow a criminal to carry concealed legally, since that criminal is already ineligible to possess a firearm in the first place. Enacting a Vermont-Alaska law simply affirms a God-given right, which is secured by the U.S. Constitution and all but 6 state constitutions.

    While it's true that permitless carry does not provide a mechanism to carry across friendly state lines, it does remove the hoops-and-hurdles in the home state. If one is worried about reciprocity acquiring a permit will still be an option.

    So what can you do to help?

    Donate to Iowa Gun Owners with a one-time gift through NAGR's special
    Iowa Freedom! Donation Page. Or, if you prefer, donate directly to Iowa Gun Owners.

    As a fledgling group run by a young man of the highest integrity, Iowa Gun Owners is an organization I fully endorse -- in fact, I believe it's so important to help Iowa Gun Owners that I've donated directly to them myself.

    So join me in making a generous contribution today!

    In Liberty,


    Dudley Brown
    Executive Director
    National Association for Gun Rights


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post




  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post




  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post



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

    Post imported post


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    I see that I have 122 views at this point . . . good . . . at least people are reading thisstuff . . . there is more that is bad about this bill, but I am tired for now. . . I will post it tomorrow as time allows. Since all the "dipwads" aren't just trying to inject idiotic distractions now, maybe this thread canget serious about protectingour rights . . .

    For those who think differently, I am not doing this for "fun" or because I "enjoy it". . . this isn't any fun at all; I'd much rather spend time with my family and not have to deal with the dipwads. . . but the truth needs to be told.


    BTW . . . I did bother to send a couple of full sections of the bill to a couple of folks who showed sincere interest and weren't calling me out as a "liar." . . . for those folks, I hope you find those sections "edifying." I did. So, for the record, I am sending full sections of the bill for reviewto people who take it seriously.

    Doubt it if you want . . . this is the real NRA bill . . . in all it's "glory."

    Good evening to all . . .

    SS


    If you are serious about attempting to work towards reasonable discussion towards a reasonable solution, you can further your cause GREATLY by working to be more reasonable. Calling names is counterproductive, as is ranting. Good luck, with your demeanor, you will likely need it.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    If you are serious about attempting to work towards reasonable discussion towards a reasonable solution, you can further your cause GREATLY by working to be more reasonable. Calling names is counterproductive, as is ranting. Good luck, with your demeanor, you will likely need it.
    There . . . I took out the "dipwads" . . . if that isn't enough to make me "reasonable". . . then so be it. Ignore what I have written above at your own peril . . . it is your freedom that stands to be lost, whether you like me or the way I communicate it or not.

    BTW - was "TopGear being "resonable" up above when he called me a liar? I didn't see you post on him to suggest that he be "more reasonable" . . . you might want to consider that . . .

    Have a nice evening . . .

    SS


    I post as I choose.

    My suggestion is clear. If you desire reasonable dialog, show yourself to be reasonable.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    A person who goes armed with a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or an illegally used or possessed controlled substance commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
    It's stuff like this that really bothers me. It is already a felony to be in possession of a controlled substance. This law does nothing but complicate the law and stigmatize firearm ownership. Why is this even in the bill?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    A person who goes armed with a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or an illegally used or possessed controlled substance commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
    It's stuff like this that really bothers me. It is already a felony to be in possession of a controlled substance. This law does nothing but complicate the law and stigmatize firearm ownership. Why is this even in the bill?
    Did you receive one of the copies he supposedly sent out to see if it is actually IN the bill?

    If he actually desires dialog, as opposed to simply opposing another group which he does not seem to like, he should simply post the darn think in its entirety to remove all doubt. THEN maybe just maybe he will see others take him seriously.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    allegation of abuse against another person
    Pursuant to section 17A.18A, an issuing officer who finds that a person who has been issued a permit to carry weapons under this chapter has been arrested for a disqualifying offense or is the subject of proceedings that could lead to the person’s ineligibility for such permit may immediately suspend such permit.
    So merely an allegation or arrest will invalidate a permit? Where is the judicial process in that?

    I'm not sure what to think of all of this since there is no mention of this on the Iowa Carry or NRA websites on this. If this is the best that the NRA can offer then we've got a long way to go. I should just keep quiet from now on until I see some confirmation about what is going to be presented to the Iowa Congress.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    IA_farmboy wrote:
    A person who goes armed with a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or an illegally used or possessed controlled substance commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
    It's stuff like this that really bothers me. It is already a felony to be in possession of a controlled substance. This law does nothing but complicate the law and stigmatize firearm ownership. Why is this even in the bill?
    Did you receive one of the copies he supposedly sent out to see if it is actually IN the bill?

    If he actually desires dialog, as opposed to simply opposing another group which he does not seem to like, he should simply post the darn think in its entirety to remove all doubt.* THEN maybe just maybe he will see others take him seriously.
    Agreed. I'll even take it one step further and say that I want to see this confirmed as the actual text of the bill by Iowa Carry, the NRA, an Iowa legislator, or some other authority on this bill. Another thing, the NRA can write all the bills it wants but until an elected legislator brings it to congress it is quite meaningless.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post


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

    Post imported post


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    If you are serious about attempting to work towards reasonable discussion towards a reasonable solution, you can further your cause GREATLY by working to be more reasonable. Calling names is counterproductive, as is ranting. Good luck, with your demeanor, you will likely need it.
    There . . . I took out the "dipwads" . . . if that isn't enough to make me "reasonable". . . then so be it. Ignore what I have written above at your own peril . . . it is your freedom that stands to be lost, whether you like me or the way I communicate it or not.

    BTW - was "TopGear being "resonable" up above when he called me a liar? I didn't see you post on him to suggest that he be "more reasonable" . . . you might want to consider that . . .

    Have a nice evening . . .

    SS


    I post as I choose.

    My suggestion is clear. If you desire reasonable dialog, show yourself to be reasonable.
    That pretty much makes it clear . . you have a double set of standards for "reasonableness" . . . it all depends what "side" one is on . . and your "side" is clear.For you, "reasonable" only means totake your "side."You aren't interested in any "reasonable" discussion . . . only defending what you blindly cling to and won't even look at. Anyone who has a differing opinion is . . . "unreasonable." Those who share your opinion, no matter what they say, are . . "resonable."

    Good evening again . . .
    My "side" is on open discussion. You are not providing it. You are also stated to be opposed to the other group while being in one group. You are far from partial.

    Post the document. Remove the doubt, otherwise it will remain there. It isn't about a differing opinion, it is about hiding information.

    Since there is so much work to get it out, simply get the document posted.

    The only "opinion" I share with others in this discussion is that you are not showing an honest face here.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

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

    Post imported post


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ottumwa, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    SS, you should understand that legislation is slow to craft. The leadership of the Iowa legislature knows if a bill is going to pass or not before they bring it to the floor. The people who craft the bill usually know too. The last I'd heard the bill was being negotiated and worked on to make sure that it can be passed. That is why it is not up on IC or NRA sites yet. It will be before it is put on the floor, just like every bill, every year. Its not an ideal process, but it is the way IC thinks is best to advance. I agree with some of your concerns about what you've posted, but I really have no way to verify anything you've said about the bill. I think the time to support or rip the bill is after it is finalized and made public.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Straight_Shooter wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    My "side" is on open discussion. You are not providing it. You are also stated to be opposed to the other group while being in one group. You are far from partial.

    Post the document. Remove the doubt, otherwise it will remain there. It isn't about a differing opinion, it is about hiding information.

    Since there is so much work to get it out, simply get the document posted.

    The only "opinion" I share with others in this discussion is that you are not showing an honest face here.
    Your side is simply "I don't believe that the information you are providing is genuine, because you won't post it in its entirety." But you don't challenge IC or the NRA to do the same thing . . . yes, I am "partial" . . I am clearly against this bill. That is not in dispute.

    If I "am not showing an honest face," IC and the NRA are at the least showing a deceptive, stealth "face," because they don't want Iowa residents who are the ones impacted by this bill to even see what laws they are proposing. Who is worse: me, who is showing what I see as very bad portions of the bill, of they, who won't show anything that is being done to the residents of Iowa?

    I am discussing the merits of the portion of thebill I have posted, and you are challenging the validity of the information provided, not discussing the bill . . Once again, please apply the same standard to ICand the NRA that you apply to me . . Ask THEM why they are not posting the bill as well . . . If the portions of thebill I have postedis a "lie," it is a simple matter for them to post the "real" bill and "put me to shame." As I have said elsewhere, if they change the bill and then post it to make me out to be a liar, that is fine with me . . . I will have succeeded in getting the bill "corrected." This isn't about me . . . it is about protecting the rights of honest people in Iowa.

    No, not at all. Post the bill. Then everyone can discuss it on an even footing. Whether you believe it or not, that is what I would appreciate doing. And, it really isn't about me anyway. If you want assistance or honest discussion, post the entire bill honestly. You will find that others are more receptive to such honesty, as opposed to your current confrontational and deceptive attitude and actions.

    As for what the NRA or IC have presented, I cannot call them to question for what they have not presented.




    In legislation that I have been directly active in, you MUST read the entire bill to gain an accurate "read" of the statute. Piecemealing it as you are doing will not show what effect thebits will have. Many sectionscan easily be negated unless certain conditions in other portions are met. When you only post chosen sections, you are presenting it dishonestly. Post the darn thing, allow discussion, then work towards change if necessary.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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