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

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

I post as I choose.

My suggestion is clear. If you desire reasonable dialog, show yourself to be reasonable.

Click to expand...

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 . . .

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

wrightme wrote:

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

Click to expand...

And the reason you cannot do this (or is it “will not?”)is?

Until and unless you and those like you whoimpose on me to post the entirebill without applying the SAME standard to the NRA and IC . . . I will ignore your requests. All of this would end if they would simply post the bill themselves . . . and they can change the wording to make me out to be a liar . . . as I have said, I don't care if they do that . . . because then the bad language in the bill would be gone. The NRA and IC, who both portend to stand for "shall issue" CCW, should simply submit a bill that changes ICA 724 from "may issue" to "shall issue" . . . without all this other rights infringing garbage. I cannot be any clearer with you . . . I don't care if you think what I have posted is NOT genuine . . . I understand that you and othersdon't, and that is entirely your prerogative . .

Click to expand...

As long as you bleat about the bill without posting what you have, you are not going to be taken seriously.



If you desire to effect change, you should care what others think about what you say.

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

wrightme wrote:

As long as you bleat about the bill without posting what you have, you are not going to be taken seriously.

If you desire to effect change, you should care what others think about what you say.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion . . . obviously not shared by all . . .

I do care what others think . . . just not you. Regardless of what I may do to try and effect change, the change is coming anyway . . . I am only one small voice of many who are fed up with this kind of nonsense . . . .

Click to expand...

As am I, whether you believe it or not. But, present reality, as opposed to cherry-picking the parts you want to present out of context.

imported post

Let me see if I have this straight. IowaCarry is letting turmoil build among gun owners of Iowa by holding on to a bill which, at minimum, should be receiving the input from their own members...well before the professional politicians work their craft over it (which usually means little good will come from this `back room' process) and yet, when an individual blogger somehow gets hold of a copy of it (or says he has) and will only release portions of it for comment and analysis purposes - he's the one who gets the heat from many on this blog?

Wouldn't it be simple to interact with what straight_shooter has already posted by starting with a disclaimer, "If straight_shooter has provided all of the relevant context and additional draft language, this portion of the bill...[then continue your commentary]...?" If it turns out when the NRA and Iowa Carry finally decide to `grace us unwashed masses' with their proposed bill and it turns out straight_shooter left out relevant context, etc. then they can come back to this blogs or any other place straight_shooter posts and discredit him.

If, on the other hand, straight_shooter has provided all the relevant material wouldn't it be much better to begin discussing the dangerous language he is revealing to us - right now? If IowaCarry waits until the last minute and releases the language straight_shooter is posting, how much time will we have to mobilize gun voters to oppose it?

I can understand some of the frustration in not seeing the entire bill, but methinks a much greater danger lurks here than just the possibility of straight_shooter cherry picking. There could be some real rotten apples in the NRA and IowaCarry's basket of otherwise good apples. Why aren't we starting to take a serious look at this language?

IowaCarry, if you serving us gun owners of Iowa....pony up!

imported post

Straight_Shooter ....I can understand what your trying to do. But, the fact remains...

(quoted from the forum rules)...

"7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc."

This would include proposed bills as well. Until you can post the bill you're referring to, we have no to go on but your words. You have NOTHING to back you up. That is the point that some here are REPEATEDLY trying to make to you.

I could post here that the US Government is going to start seizing guns tomorrow, and probably stir up some stuff. But its pointless to do so without the evidence.

imported post

Still new to this so correct me if I am wrong. After having read this forum topic and the forum topic entitled "Is there an open carry effort currently in Iowa?" I have gathered certain "facts" as to what is happening.

1. The NRA has a bill which they have decided to push this session.
2. Iowa Carry has stated that they will support the NRA bill.
3. Iowa Carry has a copy of the current NRA bill.
4. Straight_Shooter also has obtained a copy of the NRA bill.

There seems to be a lot of tension in the posts on this forum. Personally, if what straight_shooter is quoting about the NRA bill is correct, then this bill and anyone who supports it is not a friend of mine or gun owners. I am not a lawyer, but if certain provisions which have been posted on this forum are in the bill, for what purpose would those provisions be there if other provisions in the same bill nullify them? It does not make sense logically.

It would also seem to me that since Iowa Carry is in receipt of the supposed NRA bill and have publicly acknowledged their commitment to NRA efforts in Iowa, it is their responsibility to publish the bill for us to see.

If what straight_shooter is saying is fallacious or a gross misrepresentation then it is the responsibility of Iowa Carry to re-affirm their commitment to this bill and then prove that the provisions posted on this forum are outright lies or demonstrate how these anti-gun provisions are not actually anti-gun.
I have also read that for political reasons, releasing the bill at this time would be unwise. I will admit that I do not have much experience in politics. However, in all the other areas of my life, whenever people are not open and forthright with me I tend to get screwed. I believe that what our founding fathers accomplished in the founding of this country prove that politics and principles are not irreconcilable. If the NRA and Iowa Carry feel that releasing the bill for us to see would be a strategic mistake who are they to make such a statement? If I am not worthy enough to read the bill and provide whatever meager input I could, then my money and my support are also not worthy of such a bill.
Lastly, it seems to me that the 2nd Amendment is quite clear about the issue of firearms. If this bill is even remotely close in aspiring toward that standard, what need is there for all the secrecy? I am confident the "secret" about the 2nd Amendment and those who are pro-gun is out.

imported post

Tom Lamont wrote:

Still new to this so correct me if I am wrong. After having read this forum topic and the forum topic entitled "Is there an open carry effort currently in Iowa?" I have gathered certain "facts" as to what is happening.

1. The NRA has a bill which they have decided to push this session.
2. Iowa Carry has stated that they will support the NRA bill.
3. Iowa Carry has a copy of the current NRA bill.
4. Straight_Shooter also has obtained a copy of the NRA bill.

Click to expand...

To be exact, the Iowa Carry you speak of is its leadership. Individual members such as myself have yet to see this bill, so I cannot say I will support it. There may be provisions which I will not stand for.

Those at Iowa Carry who have been allowed to see the bill says it meets Iowa Carry's standards for a law:

Shall Issue, Appeals Process, Reciprocity, Standardized Training, and Privacy of Records.

Straight_Shooter claims a lot of other undesirable things will be in the bill. I will wait and see until the bill is publicly released by the NRA before making a decision to side with him in defeating itor the Iowa Carry Leadership in passing it.

IC has given its reason for not producing the actual contents of the bill. They have been asked by the NRA to wait. My guess is that the NRA wanted to check with IC Leadership to determine if the bill they crafted will be acceptable to its membership.

But to say whatever Bill will be introduced with the backing of the NRA and Iowa Carry is going to be worse for Iowa Gun Owners than the current laws sounds a bit outlandish. Does any sane person believe Iowa Carry and the NRA have combined forces in order to take away gun rights from Iowans?

In the anti-gun world in which we live, it's obvious that some practical concessions may need to be made to get shall issue reform passed, but it is doubtful that they'll be willing to give away the store to make Iowa a shall issue state.

Until the bill is made public by those that are supporting it, nothing you hear about the billcounts as anything more than hearsay.

imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

Straight_Shooter ....I can understand what your trying to do. But, the fact remains...

(quoted from the forum rules)...

"7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc."

This would include proposed bills as well. Until you can post the bill you're referring to, we have no to go on but your words. You have NOTHING to back you up. That is the point that some here are REPEATEDLY trying to make to you.

I could post here that the US Government is going to start seizing guns tomorrow, and probably stir up some stuff. But its pointless to do so without the evidence.

Click to expand...

So what would you have straight_shooter do? Join IowaCarry and fall silent until the bill is publicly released, maybe at the last hour? How do the citation standards on this forum apply a rule of law equally - to proposed legislation? By its very nature such legislation is a proposal and is not yet, nor may never, be fixed in law.

I would rather get these qualified heads-up and start discussion on the merits of such proposed legislation.

Again I challenge IowaCarry...pony up! While straight_shooter's limited release is bothersome, your silence is more troubling.

imported post

All -

You win . . . this just isn't worth it . . . please reassure each other that the language that I have posted is phoney and that I concocted the whole thing for some kind of morbid fun . . . as one person put it, this has all been just an anti-gun "divide and conquer" conspiracy.

While I had intended to post more from the bill, it appears to serve no useful purpose because no one wants to read it anyway . . . I can't help but wonder if the fear that I might be right is what makes people act this way. I guess I can accept a lot of human failings when I realize that people are afraid.

Have a good evening,

SS

imported post

Look folks,

The NRA-ILA proposed bill is out there. It is no longer the sole possession of IC or NRA-ILA anymore. It has been emailed around the internet for days, maybe weeks.

NRA-ILA works on the consensus theory of passing legislation. Once the "others" get what the NRA-ILA legal beagles drafted and proposed, it will face further proposed changes. NRA-ILA in an effort to get "them" to support it will agree to further changes, some of which will clearly be anti-gun restrictions.

So right now other players in the Iowa legislative drama are weighing in and gearing up. The ISSDA, I am certain,has the bill and will be looking over it with an eye toward additional changes, or maybe they've already got everything they want in it, which can't be good for the individual right to keep and bear arms in Iowa. I am sure other lobbying interests have it and are circulating it to their constituent members for comments, objections, amendments, etc.

Only the grassroots gun owners, with some exceptions in leadership positions,are being denied an up front opportunity to comment and respond, but why bother? This isn't the only bill out there. If the NRA-ILA proposed bill remains a bad bill, just support HF 596.

If enough Iowa gun owners do that, it will drive the agenda toward a better outcome no mattter what passes -and could keep other proposed bills from getting worse. This is one of the ways to overcome the normal "bills get worse" paradigm in th legislature.Competition is good.

Pro-Gun legislation with the rarest of exceptions only gets worse once it is introduced. The key is how to minimize the damage once all 150 potential cooks and chief chef Chet Culver get their hands on it. If it gets too bad, and every individual and each group will have to decide what that means for themselves, it might be better to kill it and try again after an educational election, educational in the sense that the politicians learn not to mess with the Iowa gun lobby. That has been a neglected subject for years in Iowa, which doesn't even have an explicitstate-level RKBA recognition in its constitution.

IowaGunNut

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

All -

You win . . . this just isn't worth it . . . please reassure each other that the language that I have posted is phoney and that I concocted the whole thing for some kind of morbid fun . . . as one person put it, this has all been just an anti-gun "divide and conquer" conspiracy.

While I had intended to post more from the bill, it appears to serve no useful purpose because no one wants to read it anyway . . . I can't help but wonder if the fear that I might be right is what makes people act this way. I guess I can accept a lot of human failings when I realize that people are afraid.

Have a good evening,

SS

Click to expand...

Alternatively, you could have been open and presented the full text of the proposed bill, so that all could see it in context.

imported post

iowagunnut wrote:

If the NRA-ILA proposed bill remains a bad bill, just support HF 596.

Click to expand...

Assuming that is this year's Sorenson Bill, I'd say to support it regardless of what the NRA bill looks like.