Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: HF2255, and HF596/SF473

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

    Post imported post

    Now that the NRA Permit to Carry reform proposal is now a bill, and has been given a bill number, I thought I'd cast off some of the dead wood from other threads by starting a new one. I would also like to compare and contrast the NRA bill, HF2255, with the one from Iowa Gun Owners, HF596/SF473.

    I had a chat with a representative from IowaCarry at the gun show this weekend in Cedar Rapids. I again voiced my concerns over the effective tax on a right by requiring formal training. (There is also the actual tax on a right by requiring a permit at all but the $10 fee is minimal compared to a $85 NRA course.) The IowaCarry rep (I didn't ask for his name) claimed that the bill as written would mean that a hunter safety course, offered for free by IHEA, would qualify as an acceptable training under the bill Section 724.9:

    b. Completion of any firearms safety or firearms training
    course available to the general public offered by a law
    enforcement agency, community college, college, private or
    public institution or organization, or firearms training
    school utilizing instructors certified by the national rifle
    association or the department of public safety or another
    state's department of public safety, state police department,
    or similar certifying body.
    The claim was that the Department of Natural Resources is a "state police department" and has "certified" the IHEA to offer firearms training to the public. I'm not sure if the powers that be will agree with that and that remains to be seen. I would have felt better if that was more explicit in the bill.

    (Side note: Why isn't "national rifle association" given capitals in the bill? Isn't "National Rifle Association" a proper name fitting of being capitalized? It's not A national rifle association, it's THE National Rifle Association. Probably a minor thing, but this could become law and words mean stuff.)

    There are other issues, such as raising the age of carry from 18 to 21, doing nothing about the Permit to Acquire (there were some minor edits but the requirement for the permit still exists), and needlessly repeating federal prohibitions on firearm possession.

    I haven't gone over the bill with a fine toothed comb just yet so I do not know if there is some as yet unseen provision that could turn this "shall issue" bill into "may issue".

    I also had a chat with the people at the Iowa Gun Owners booth at the gun show and they are not happy with the bill. After pointing out something with their own bill it seems they are not happy with the bill they proposed either, that is HF596/SF473 has this section:

    724.4 CARRYING WEAPONS.
    1. A person who goes armed with a
    dangerous weapon with the intent to commit a crime of violence
    commits a class "D" felony. This subsection applies
    regardless of whether the dangerous weapon is concealed or not
    concealed on or about the person and regardless of whether the
    dangerous weapon is transported in a vehicle. For purposes of
    this subsection, "crime of violence" means a felony which has,
    as an element of the offense, the use of physical force by one
    person against another person.
    How does one prove "intent" unless the crime is actually committed? If a crime of violence is actually committed, as shown in a court of law, then and only then would it seem that intent is proven. If the crime of violence is proven then what matter is it if a "dangerous weapon" is involved?

    As it is right now I'm inclined to give reluctant support to HF2255. Despite it's flaws it seems to be one step forward, I just have to wonder if it is two steps back. I like HF596/SF473 despite it's flaws since I feel that it's flawed portions are either unenforceable or will be effectively removed due to vagueness by a future court case.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ottumwa, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    I agree with you that a tax on a right is undesireable. But as long as a permit system exists there will be a cost or tax associated with its issuance. I hope in a few years we're as close to passing an Alaska carry bill as we currently are to passing this shall issue bill.

    HF2255 doesn't remove the permit to aquire, but that doesn't mean we can't get that changed later. Sometimes we criticize legislation for what it doesn't do, or sometimes for what could be done to it without remembering that we could change it to make it better in the future.

    I agree the 21 age limit is undesireable and is the one real sticking point for me. The upside is that it will enhance our reciprocity with other states. Also, you can't get a permit to aquire in this state till you're 21 anyway, so I'm not sure we're actually making the situation worse we're just not making it better.

    As for intent, I would encourage you to look throughout Iowa (and other state's law). Wediscern intent all the time. Assault is a crime of intent. This is from Iowa Code Ch. 708.



    An assault as defined in this section is a general intent crime. A person commits an assault when, without justification, the person does any of the following:


    1. Any act which is intended to cause pain or injury to, or which is intended to result in physical contact which will be insulting or offensive to another, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act.


    2. Any act which is intended to place another in fear of immediate physical contact which will be painful, injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act.


    3. Intentionally points any firearm toward another, or displays in a threatening manner any dangerous weapon toward another.



    Things as simple as the destruction of evidence are 'intent' crimes. Juries decide whether you should have reasonably known that was evidence, or if you were just being dense.

    The codification of the Lautenberg Amendment about domestic violence specifically refers to definitions from US Code (something I think we talked about on this forum). Meaning that if the US Code improves, Iowa's goes with it. I don't really like this, but the downside seems pretty minimal, and if it means some more democrats vote for it so be it.

    Recently an argument was made to me that HF2255 must be a bad bill because there are democrats are supporting it. By that standard, every bill passed must be bad as we have a legislature dominated by democrats. Nothing passes Iowa's legislature without the support of at least some democrats.

    Just my $.02.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    ethies, you have a point that intent is part of assault. For the enhanced penalty of assault with a firearm one must first be found guilty of assault. I was curious what the penalties for assault were, this is what I found:

    708.2 Penalties for assault.

    1. A person who commits an assault, as defined in section 708.1, with the intent to inflict a serious injury upon another, is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor.

    2. A person who commits an assault, as defined in section 708.1, and who causes bodily injury or mental illness, is guilty of a serious misdemeanor.

    3. A person who commits an assault, as defined in section 708.1, and uses or displays a dangerous weapon in connection with the assault, is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor. This subsection does not apply if section 708.6 or 708.8 applies.

    4. A person who commits an assault, as defined in section 708.1, and who causes serious injury, is guilty of a class "D" felony.

    5. A person who commits an assault, as defined in section 708.1, and who uses any object to penetrate the genitalia or anus of another person, is guilty of a class "C" felony.

    6. Any other assault, except as otherwise provided, is a simple misdemeanor.
    So suppose a person commits a felonious assault while armed. That means that the charge goes from a class "C" or class "D" felony to a... class "C" felony. Wow, that'll show 'em! :quirky It's a do nothing, feel good, law. Sure, a person so charged could do ten years instead of five but I find it difficult to believe the law will actually be applied, and if applied I doubt it will be applied fairly.

    So I will retract my statement that it is unenforceable but I still feel it could be ruled inapplicable, not due to vagueness but instead on constitutional grounds.

    HF2255 doesn't remove the permit to aquire, but that doesn't mean we can't get that changed later. Sometimes we criticize legislation for what it doesn't do, or sometimes for what could be done to it without remembering that we could change it to make it better in the future.
    I realize that the law can be changed later. It would be preferable to remove the Permit to Acquire sooner rather than later. At least it seems that one can get the privileges (I hate using that word when it comes to our rights) of the PTA by getting a PTC. The PTC would be valid for five years rather than one so I suspect anyone intending to purchase more than one firearm in the span of five years would just get the PTC even though they have no intention of carrying a weapon.

    I agree the 21 age limit is undesireable and is the one real sticking point for me. The upside is that it will enhance our reciprocity with other states. Also, you can't get a permit to aquire in this state till you're 21 anyway, so I'm not sure we're actually making the situation worse we're just not making it better.
    We can have reciprocity even if the permit is issued at the age of 18, the other state would only recognize the permit if the holder is over 21. Also, I do not care if an Iowa permit is recognized anywhere other than Iowa since if I intend to be armed while traveling in another state then I should just get a permit from that state.

    Florida and Utah practically made an industry out of issuing concealed carry permits. If I want to carry in another state then those two widely recognized permits are certainly an option. Raising the bar on the Iowa permit to get reciprocity is a compromise I despise. There are so many missed chances in this bill to make a good bill better I feel rather cheated by the compromises they made to appease too many and ended up making everyone upset.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    We can have reciprocity even if the permit is issued at the age of 18, the other state would only recognize the permit if the holder is over 21.
    Or...there could still be unrestricted recip. ND issues is 18 but PA...where you must be 21...has full recip with them with out any age restrictions
    States donít have rights. People do.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    mrjam2jab wrote:
    IA_farmboy wrote:
    We can have reciprocity even if the permit is issued at the age of 18, the other state would only recognize the permit if the holder is over 21.
    Or...there could still be unrestricted recip. ND issues is 18 but PA...where you must be 21...has full recip with them with out any age restrictions
    Well there you go . . . there are at least two other "pro-second amendment rights" people in the world world who can think. . . (but I am concerned for the rest of our movement):

    It isn't necessary to take away the carry licensesof 18 year olds like the NRA and Iowa Carry want to do to achieve the best conditions for reciprocity. In fact, thisage period, from 18-21, is a perfect opportunityto train youth in the proper handling of concealed weapons, as it REQUIRES that the 18 year old carry in the pressence of a properly licensed adult.

    18 year olds, by the way, are subject to the draft and can be called to carry a weapon and defend this country, and the NRA and Iowa Carry doesn't think they should have any right to defend themselvesin this country . . . sorry, but that is the height of hipocracy.

    "When you sit down to negotiate on what you already have, you lose." Mass. State House Rep. Marie Parente

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ottumwa, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    mrjam2jab wrote:
    IA_farmboy wrote:
    We can have reciprocity even if the permit is issued at the age of 18, the other state would only recognize the permit if the holder is over 21.
    Or...there could still be unrestricted recip. ND issues is 18 but PA...where you must be 21...has full recip with them with out any age restrictions
    Its true, there are states who have their permit honored other places that still issue at 18. We could be one of those states. Those who wrote the bill thought it would stand a better chance of passing, and that reciprocity agreements would be easier to obtain with the age set at 21. While it isn't everything I'd like it to be, I'm not sure its really a step back on this issue. Again, your permit to aquire requires you to be 21 anyway.

    Farmboy, I'm suprised you aren't interested in reciprocity at all. Why pay another tax to get a permit from another state? More states seem to be passing the "does not honor non-resident permits." Meaning that because you don't live in Florida, your Florida permit is getting less valuable.

    SS, why in your mind is it OK to issue an 18 year old a permit to carry, but require them to carry in the presence of a 21 year old who also has a permit? If they are subject to the draft, shouldn't they be able to carry at 18? and drink for that matter?

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

    Post imported post

    ethies wrote:
    "While it isn't everything I'd like it to be, I'm not sure its really a step back on this issue."

    SS, why in your mind is it OK to issue an 18 year old a permit to carry, but require them to carry in the presence of a 21 year old who also has a permit? If they are subject to the draft, shouldn't they be able to carry at 18? and drink for that matter?

    "While it isn't everything I'd like it to be, I'm not sure its really a step back on this issue."

    Let me guess . . . you're not 18-21 and haven't spent a year in Iraq being shot at only to come home and find out that the "gun groups" are negotiating away your freedoms? Am I pretty close?

    "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are." ~ Benjamin Franklin

    "SS, why in your mind is it OK to issue an 18 year old a permit to carry, but require them to carry in the presence of a 21 year old who also has a permit? If they are subject to the draft, shouldn't they be able to carry at 18? and drink for that matter?"

    Clearly, I would MUCH rather that anyone who can be made to go and risk their lives to defend my freedom and yours should have all the same rights that you and I do. That, of course, is the content of Sorensen's bill,and not the NRA bill. The reasonable alternative is to raise the draft age to 21 . . . anything else is absolute hipocracy.

    Would you dissagree with this position?

    SS


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ottumwa, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    True, I'm older than 21 and not fresh back from Iraq. But someone who is 20 years old, comes back from Iraq right now can't get a permit to aquire anyway. Its not nice, I don't like it, and I wish it would change. I wouldn't have written the NRA bill the way that it is, but currently 18-21 year olds are left out in the cold and under the NRA they're still out in the cold. There are hundreds or thousands of people in this state in counties where the sheriff just won't issue. We need to arm them. The NRA bill has legs, and will arm them. Once there are more people armed, and more people used to arms being around them, we can work on: lowering ages, open carry, permitless carry, no more permit to aquire, NFA class 3 items, etc.

    I like the Sorenson bill, and I hope it passes. I'm just pretty confidant that it won't. Sorenson's 2241doesn't remove the PTA, but the 2267(which he has also sponsored) does. So, even if we pass 2241, the 21 age limit on the permit to aquire still stands (unfortunately).

    Rep. Sorenson seems like a pretty good guy, and I think we need to elect a lot more like him. That way we can get some more sponsors on a bill like his so that it can be passed.

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

    Post imported post

    ethies wrote:
    I wouldn't have written the NRA bill the way that it is, but currently 18-21 year olds are left out in the cold and under the NRA they're still out in the cold.
    Ethies - You seem to be pretty rational and sincere (unlike a lot of the other "wingnuts" coming from the IC/NRA bunch), and I appreciate that . . . perhaps your moniker is intentional . . .I hopeso . . . if you really are an ethical guy, then you will have to respond within yourself (not to me,)to the following:

    Itis NOT your liberty you are willingly selling out . . . the freedom of 18-21 year olds is NOT yours to barter with, anymore than YOUR freedom is not mine to barter with. I don't care WHAT you might be failing to gain in the deal, if you are selling someone else out, it is not only a Faustian deal . . . it isunethical, and it is immoral . . it makes our society, and our cause . . . "every man for himself." I don't sense that you are only out for yourself.

    I can also tell you that I am WAY beyond this 18-21 age group, and have nothing personal to gain, save fighting for the freedom of my children and yours. Regardless of what some on these posts may think, I have been fighting longerfor, and want second amendment rights in Iowamore, than anyone else you know . . . believe me . . .but I will NEVER sell out your freedoms, NO MATTER HOW SMALL THEY MAY SEEM, so that I may have more. If I did that . . . I could never look you in the face in public.

    You have a chance today to do something right . . . don't let it slip by . . . stand up for the freedom of others as well as your own. I know you want "shall issue" freedoms for all Iowans - I do too . . I HUNGER for it. . . and yes, more if we can get it. But selling the freedoms of others is no way to get what we want. That is the whole reason that I started postingon Open Carry about this issue - Lord knows I don't enjoy the constant friction - there are more comfortable things I could do with my life right now (Ok, yes . . . I admit that I do get a certain twisted pleasure when I joust with the half wits; it is cheap entertainment. . . there . . . I said it). But this is important -whether you believe it or not, there ARE enough second amendment advocates in Iowa to push hard enough for what we all want to get . . . I know: I have seen the results - if you pay close attention, you will realize it too. Together, we may not getwhat we wantthis year, but if we truly do stick together, IT WILL HAPPENwithout this "selling out of others freedom" to get what we want . . .

    Please . . . think about it.

    SS


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ottumwa, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    SS my monkier is decidedly intentional, it is my real name. Eric Thies. I agree that we shouldn't be giving up other people's rights. I'd agree with that. The challenge is, many of our rights (especially firearms rights) are no longer acknowleged by our government. I think its our God given right to self defense that allows us to carry a weapon. Our government was set up to recognize that right. Unfortunately, along the way our rights have been legally compromised. Now its up to us to get them back. What are we going to do? We are going to get them back, and its not the destination that we disagree on, its the path.

    You believe that we can pass the Sorenson bill, and I don't. Thats pretty much what it boils down to. I'd rather see a bill that improves the situation in the state (meaning more people can get permits and exercise their right to carry). I think more carrying Iowans are safer Iowans, and more likely to be gun voters in the future. The legislators I've spoken with think the idea of a no permit system is laughable. They're probably right, we'll likely have to replace them before we can get a no permit system. That's why I want to pass a bill that arms as many Iowans as possible, bring gun politics front and center in public debate, and start sending representatives to Des Moines that give a crap about our rights.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Its true, there are states who have their permit honored other places that still issue at 18. We could be one of those states. Those who wrote the bill thought it would stand a better chance of passing, and that reciprocity agreements would be easier to obtain with the age set at 21. While it isn't everything I'd like it to be, I'm not sure its really a step back on this issue. Again, your permit to aquire requires you to be 21 anyway.
    If NRA/IowaCarry think that by raising the age requirement for carrying weapons will make the bill easier to pass then they are welcome to their opinion. I would just like to see justification for this stance. Has there been issues with people between the ages of 18 and 21 carrying weapons? Also, this is not about a concealed handgun permit but it is a permit to carry weapons. Those weapons include knives, long arms, perhaps even pepper spray and tasers. A person over the age of 18 may own a handgun, but must be over 21 to purchase one from a FFL. There is no law preventing a person of 18 years acquiring a handgun as a gift or through a private transfer.

    This is an obvious (to me at least) step back. Someone that has a permit now may not be able to renew it next year. If that person is employed in a job that requires being armed (armored truck driver for example) that person may just lose their job over this.

    Farmboy, I'm suprised you aren't interested in reciprocity at all. Why pay another tax to get a permit from another state? More states seem to be passing the "does not honor non-resident permits." Meaning that because you don't live in Florida, your Florida permit is getting less valuable.
    I'm not concerned over reciprocity for exactly the reasons you state. The conditions of a permit issued by one state and recognized in another is fickle. There is no guarantee that Iowa will gain wider recognition in other states by raising the age limit. While some states are reducing the number of permits they recognize other states are allowing non-residents to apply for permits, proposing "constitutional carry" laws, and allowing unlicensed open carry. It's all a compromise and I'm not willing to raise the permit to carry requirements on the gamble that the Iowa permit is going to be recognized in another state that I may never visit.

    There are now three states with "constitutional carry" bills in their respective legislatures, Arizona, West Virginia, and Iowa. I suspect this trend will continue. So many states already recognize out of state permits, allow issuance of permits to non-residents, and/or allow unlicensed open carry that carrying while traveling out of state does not seem to be much of an issue. There are some states (mostly on one coast or the other) that either de facto or de jure do not allow non-residents to travel armed that no change in Iowa law is going to convince them to do otherwise.

    (Side note: If the people in Wisconsin aren't fighting for constitutional carry right now then someone is asleep at the switch. Open carry has just been recognized as protected under the state constitution, incorporation of federal protections to the right to arms is practically inevitable, leaving the gun grabbers tripping over themselves to enact a concealed carry law before someone gets the "wrong" idea. So many people are exercising their right to carry a firearm openly that the sheep are getting scared. They will do ANYTHING to keep people from going about their day while visibly armed. They should accept nothing less than unlicensed carry of weapons, open or concealed.)

    I will accept a tax on my right to self defense as I travel outside the state because all this jumping through hoops to satisfy the whims of other states has meant that we have to reach some most common denominator on the requirement to carry within the state. We already have a carry age at 18 years and no training requirements in many counties but we give that up for the possibility to add two or three more states that recognize the Iowa permit. That does not sound like two steps forward with one step back. I just think that too much is given up for so little in return.

    SS, why in your mind is it OK to issue an 18 year old a permit to carry, but require them to carry in the presence of a 21 year old who also has a permit? If they are subject to the draft, shouldn't they be able to carry at 18? and drink for that matter?
    I know this is not directed at me but I will add that I believe that anyone old enough to buy a house, own a business, get married, vote, and fight for our freedoms should be able to buy a beer and carry a firearm. A collection of law that allows a person to have a family, business, and home but does not allow the possession and carry of the tools to defend them only shows such people contempt and therefore makes that law only worthy of contempt.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    Since some here take a strict and absolute view of Constitutional Rights, then why restrict gun ownership to those 18 and over?

    I mean, if it's not in the Constitution, then by God, how can you put ANY limits on our Constitutional Rights?





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

    Post imported post

    Max G wrote:
    Since some here take a strict and absolute view of Constitutional Rights, then why restrict gun ownership to those 18 and over?

    I mean, if it's not in the Constitution, then by God, how can you put ANY limits on our Constitutional Rights?



    Good point . . . the problem is, we have a society full of lousy parents. In the past, when this nation was a much more moral society, it wasn't necessary to make such laws . . . parents took care of their children, and taught them how to handle and use firearms. It wasn't always perfect, of course, because accidents can happen, etc.

    Most won't see this as workable today because many parents simply don't care for their children and their proper, loving and responsible upbringing (and, we have such things as single parent families where there is no man in the household to teach firearms to their sons and daughters - no slam meant to any gun capable ladies out there - my wife is quite capable with a gun and could train children in their proper use and handling)

    I am not at all certain that it wouldn't work to drop restrictions on firearm possession and ownership in this country altogether . . . I know it will work in my family's case.

    SS

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    I was just over at IowaCarry's forum and saw a link to a tally of House members and their pledged vote on HF2255. They show a clear majority of support for the bill. I am a bit concerned right now since the bill did not appear out of committee but instead had a "placeholder" or "shell" bill come out in it's place to allow more time for debate and amendment.

    I have to wonder about what is being debated. It appears all members of the committee is in support of the bill and so any changes should be in our favor, such as keeping the age to carry at 18 years.

    The spreadsheet they link to has a tally of supporters for the constitutional carry bill, HF596. I only see four supporters of the bill. I have to wonder if it is because the bill truly has such little support or because they do not go into great effort in tracking the support of what is essentially a competing bill.

    Things look well for HF2255 in the House, I'm curious how the Senate feels about the bill right now.

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

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    I was just over at IowaCarry's forum and saw a link to a tally of House members and their pledged vote on HF2255. They show a clear majority of support for the bill. I am a bit concerned right now since the bill did not appear out of committee but instead had a "placeholder" or "shell" bill come out in it's place to allow more time for debate and amendment.

    I have to wonder about what is being debated. It appears all members of the committee is in support of the bill and so any changes should be in our favor, such as keeping the age to carry at 18 years.

    The spreadsheet they link to has a tally of supporters for the constitutional carry bill, HF596. I only see four supporters of the bill. I have to wonder if it is because the bill truly has such little support or because they do not go into great effort in tracking the support of what is essentially a competing bill.

    Things look well for HF2255 in the House, I'm curious how the Senate feels about the bill right now.

    IFB -

    No doubt about it . . . Iowa Carry is pretty cocky about their bill being the "anointed one." Some of what they are saying just HAS to be captured for posterity:

    "The 'shell' bill that was passed out of Public Safety yesterday is a placeholder for 2255 which will now be worked on in committee. This action makes it possible to get past the funnel this week. I guess you could say that 721 will morph into 2255.
    It gives the parties involved more time to get it just right and possibly increase the number of yes votes on the floor.


    I was sitting there and watched the whole thing. Rep. Olson is OK and is not going to ruin the bill. Clel, and the NRA lobbyist Chris and the Iowa NRA lobbyist Scott, are all OK with this and it seems that the legislators really want to have a good bill and pass it out of the House. I am not worried about the future of the bill.

    Good find on that explanation of shell bill in the post above. It is a mechanism to get past a funnel when a bill may be modified, or in other words, may not be in final form."

    Roger B.
    Burddog


    All I have to say is "let me know how that works out for you with the Demonrats running the bill Roger baby!" . . .If thisdoesn't work out quite like Mr. "Burddog"has it allfigured . . . the ICpeople are going to look pretty darn stupid . . . I think this is going to get alot more interesting before it is over.

    What is STILL amazing to me is that the Iowa Carry boys care nothing about the second amendment in Iowa . . . only that their bill is "the one" . . . they proved that when Baudler (their boy in the house) voted against amending the shell bill with Sorensen's bill . . . imagine: pure second amendment . . . he even cosponsored it . . . and then turns around and votes against it. Pure, unadulterated HS.

    SS

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I'm looking into this and I don't understand what all the fuss is about. If one looks into the history of Alaska and what it took over nearly a decade, why is gaining "shall issue" in the first step and then AK or VT style law in step two such a bad thing?

    The claims and the inferences I see some making here are quite a stretch. Does any reasonable person reading this actually believe the NRA is pushing a bill that removes people's rights? Go read the current code in Iowa. Then read the legislation. The transformation from what that portion of Iowa code, 724, is remarkable. It essentially transforms a poorly handled state into one of the best in 'shall issue' states inthe nation.

    All I can really see here is the insertion of Federal Law into the Iowa code. Those laws will apply to ANYBODY's legistion in Iowa. So spelling them out in Iowa code makes a bill bad? All these restrictions, all of which I don't care for, are the law of the land today. Should they be repealed, sunset, or whatever, they cease to apply to any state's law or code.

    I'm looking forward to seeing Iowans get a fair shake. Splitting the gun folks with rhetoric isn't the way to win. Supposing some of the guys from IGO (I can never tell which one of them is portraying themselves as another) are spot on, is having 'shall issue' on the books such a bad position to work towards AK/VT style law? Heck no.

    I'd ask theIGO gang to either be honest and realistic about where Iowa is going or find a different ambulance to chase. The NRA is pushing a huge transformation in Iowa and I'm tickled they are doing it.

    Good deal.



    Respectfully,



    the REAL straight shooter



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    the REAL straight shooter wrote:
    "I'm looking into this and I don't understand what all the fuss is about. If one looks into the history of Alaska and what it took over nearly a decade, why is gaining "shall issue" in the first step and then AK or VT style law in step two such a bad thing?"
    Easy. Who's to say there'll ever be a second step?




    "Respectfully,



    the REAL straight shooter"
    Just out of curiousity, is your choice of name a slam at Straight_Shooter?


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

    Post imported post

    ... why is gaining "shall issue" in the first step and then AK or VT style law in step two such a bad thing?
    It wouldn't be a bad thing if that is in fact what you were doing. You are taking one step forward with shall issue but, taking two steps back with the training requirement and raising the age for permits.

    I've seen people in Iowa Carry get confused on why many of us in support of constitutional carry would object to the raising of the permitting age to 21. For one it is ground we already have, we have it already and, like General Patton, I don't like paying for my land twice.

    Also, the permit is not a "concealed handgun permit" as many in Iowa Carry portray it. The permit is for the carry of weapons. Iowa Code has definitions for offensive weapons and dangerous weapons. Offensive weapons are essentially NFA34 items. Dangerous weapons include any firearm, many knives, and is vague enough to cover even automobiles. (A man was charged with "assault with a dangerous weapon" by pushing a police officer with his truck.)

    Without the ability for adults at the age of 18 years to get a Permit to Carry Weapons these adults cannot even arm themselves with shotguns, knives, batons, pepper spray, black powder arms, tasers, or any of a number of effective weapons for self defense. Instead of raising the age of the permit perhaps we should lower the age to purchase a handgun and ammunition. The least we could do is not give up what we already have.

    Then there is the issue of training. We already have the ability, under Iowa Code, to carry openly without training in rural areas. We already have the ability to carry openly or concealed on our own property without government mandated training. There are many sheriffs that issue permits to carry without training. Why do we need training? Especially if the goal is to reach constitutional carry why mandate training if the goal is to only remove it later? You will end up sounding schizophrenic and hypocritical by arguing for training now only to argue against it later.

    Also, on the training, I had a conversation with someone from Iowa Carry at a local gun show that told me that the hunter safety course would satisfy the training requirement in the NRA shall issue bill. Do you agree with that claim?

    I can support getting constitutional carry step by step. The problem is that the NRA and Iowa Carry seems to be taking the scenic route to that goal by giving up ground we've already won in the hope we can get it back again later. I prefer a ratcheting path, always forward. Whatever we give up we might not get back.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    aim_to_please wrote:
    the REAL straight shooter wrote:
    Just out of curiousity, is your choice of name a slam at Straight_Shooter?
    Dear Aim -

    No! . . . "Real pea shooter" is honoring me . . . don't you know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

    Now on to the serious stuff. This last week,I had a good phone conversation with the people who led the charge in Alaskafor the no permit system.I have the name of theState Senator up there who fought for all those ten years, and I hope to be talking to her soon as well.

    The ten year periodthat people like "pea shooter" and his buddy "McClownahan" keep talking about between "shall issue" and "no permit required" in Alaska, as it turns out, was actually BECAUSE THE NRA FOUGHT THE LEGISLATION ALL THE WAY! . . . get that? It was the NRA's "help" that kept Alaska from passing the final ground breaking recognition of the second amendment. The NRA fought it . . . just like they are here in Iowa, by watering down the effortsso that the anti-gunners had something lesser to sign onto . . . in fact, they wanted to amend the "second amendment" of the Alaska Constitution tohave a clause that said that the legislature could "regulate the right" in any way they wanted to. WOW! . . . I hope to have much more on this at a later date.

    So you are very right . . . . getting a "second chance" isn't likely to happen very soon . . . especially withthe IowaCarry myrmidons "helping the cause." . . . more like "rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory" . . .

    SS

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    ... why is gaining "shall issue" in the first step and then AK or VT style law in step two such a bad thing?
    It wouldn't be a bad thing if that is in fact what you were doing. You are taking one step forward with shall issue but, taking two steps back with the training requirement and raising the age for permits.


    1. You can't buy a handgun if you are under age 21 now per Federal Law. So how is it a step backward to not provide for a carry permit if you are under age 21? Furthermore, the IGO Bill also did not provide for the right to carry if under age 21.

    2. A minimal training requirement is in the NRA Bill. So you object to training? The problem with today's law is that training requirements vary across all 99 counties. The NRA Bill standardizes the training requirement, and in some areas, like Polk County, makes the training easier than what the Sheriff requires today.

    3. The approx 28,000 permit holders today would have no training requirement for a Shall Issue permit.

    4. I'm not aware of any of the 38 States with a Shall Issue law which do not have some training requirement. So to expect this Bill to pass in the Iowa legislature without the minimal training requirement that is in the Bill, is not realistic.

    5. For those concerned about reciprocity, and increasing the number ofStates whichhonor the Iowa permit, there must be some training required.










  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Max G wrote:
    IA_farmboy wrote:
    ... why is gaining "shall issue" in the first step and then AK or VT style law in step two such a bad thing?
    It wouldn't be a bad thing if that is in fact what you were doing. You are taking one step forward with shall issue but, taking two steps back with the training requirement and raising the age for permits.
    ¬*

    1.¬* You can't buy a handgun if you are under age 21 now per Federal Law.¬* So how is it a step backward to not provide for a carry permit if you are under age 21?¬* Furthermore, the IGO Bill also did not provide for the right to carry if under age 21.
    I addressed this in my post above. We are discussing the permit to carry weapons and not a concealed handgun permit. The IGO bill addresses this by removing the penalties for a person carrying a dangerous weapon when not in the commission of a crime.

    2.¬* A minimal training requirement is in the NRA Bill.¬* So you object to training?
    No, I object to government mandated training. I encourage everyone to get training in self defense. What I do not like is some government agent telling an adult how and what kind of training they need to be safe.

    ¬* The problem with today's law is that training requirements vary across all 99 counties.¬* The NRA Bill standardizes the training requirement, and in some areas, like Polk County, makes the training easier than what the Sheriff requires today.
    Standardizing the training state wide just means that all Iowans will have their rights violated equally.

    3.¬* The approx 28,000 permit holders today would have no training requirement for a Shall Issue permit.
    So, no training is fine if you can get your permit before this bill becomes law?

    4.¬*¬* I'm not aware of any of the 38 States with a Shall Issue law which do not have some training requirement.¬* So to expect this Bill to pass in the Iowa legislature without the minimal training requirement that is in the Bill, is not realistic.
    Not realistic? Says who?

    I know of at least two states that do not have a training requirement, Indiana and Pennsylvania. I know this because I have run across people online that have told me so, and that can be verified by going to usacarry.com or the respective state license authority. When I have the time I might just tally up which states do not have a training requirement. You just might be surprised.

    5.¬* For those concerned about reciprocity, and increasing the number of¬*States which¬*honor the Iowa permit, there must be some training required.
    What if I am not concerned about reciprocity? The IGO bill covers this by allowing people in Iowa to arm themselves without the need for a permit while making a permit available solely for the purpose of reciprocity.

    Why does Iowa have to provide a permit for reciprocity? Should not Iowa be concerned about what happens in Iowa? If people want to carry in another state then perhaps those people should get a permit from another state.

    I think it was in South Dakota that they proposed two different permits, a Class A and a Class B permit to carry. The Class A requires training while the Class B does not. Either are valid in the state but only some states would recognize the Class B.

    Oh, there is a third state that does not require training for a permit to carry, South Dakota. Their proposed solution to the poor state of reciprocity is not raising the barrier to entry for all but only for those that wish to jump through that hoop. I propose we can, if reciprocity is such a concern, do the same.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771

    Post imported post

    Max G wrote:
    4. I'm not aware of any of the 38 States with a Shall Issue law which do not have some training requirement. So to expect this Bill to pass in the Iowa legislature without the minimal training requirement that is in the Bill, is not realistic.

    5. For those concerned about reciprocity, and increasing the number ofStates whichhonor the Iowa permit, there must be some training required.
    As already mentioned PA does not have any training requirement and we have reciprocity with 23 other states. IA could increase the number of states that honor the IA permit by simply honoring permits from other states.
    States donít have rights. People do.

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

    Post imported post

    mrjam2jab wrote:
    Max G wrote:
    4. I'm not aware of any of the 38 States with a Shall Issue law which do not have some training requirement. So to expect this Bill to pass in the Iowa legislature without the minimal training requirement that is in the Bill, is not realistic.

    5. For those concerned about reciprocity, and increasing the number ofStates whichhonor the Iowa permit, there must be some training required.
    As already mentioned PA does not have any training requirement and we have reciprocity with 23 other states. IA could increase the number of states that honor the IA permit by simply honoring permits from other states.

    Amen . .

    SS


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

    Post imported post

    Its true there are several states without a training requirement (I think there's more than PA and IN). This hitch is this bill must pass the Iowa legislature not the Indiana or Pennsylvania legislature. Do I think it is possible to pass it without the training requirement? Maybe, I don't really know! What I do know is that the bill was written by people (legislators, lobbyists, and activists) that have an much better knowledge of what the legislature will pass.I don't want to sound schizo by arguing for training now, but no training later. I want to get a bill passed that will get citizens armed in this state. That means appeasing some liberals right now with a minimal training requirement. The fact is most counties have a training requirement right now. Your argument that some counties don't have one doesn't mean their rights aren't violated. The sheriff is free to set his own requirements, and if he sets the training bar at none it is still HIM that is setting the requirement. I don't know if Hunter Safety would qualify you. If you read the text of HF2255 it would be somewhat up to interpretation. One could argue that firearm safety is a very large portion of the class, but one could also say the purpose of the class in hunting not firearms. It would be nice if it was more specific.

    In a perfect world, I'd say that we should have AK carry plus a shall issue permit with astrict training requirement to maximize the reciprocity!

    I agree the 21->18 change is very undesirable on the grounds you mention Farm Boy. One thing I wanted to mention that you were concerned about : the 18 year old armored truck employee. 18 year olds would still be eligible for a professional permit to carry. I agree that at the very least it would be desirable to split out firearms from the rest of weapons in raising the PTC age.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    The sheriff is free to set his own requirements, and if he sets the training bar at none it is still HIM that is setting the requirement.
    If this is true then the permit system becomes "may issue" since it is up to the discretion of the sheriff on determining if the applicant has proper training.

    I don't know if Hunter Safety would qualify you. If you read the text of HF2255 it would be somewhat up to interpretation. One could argue that firearm safety is a very large portion of the class, but one could also say the purpose of the class in hunting not firearms. It would be nice if it was more specific.
    That's an understatement. It's not "shall issue" if the training is up to interpretation.

    One of my major complaints against this bill is that there is a potential cost to the training. It's only if no cost training is available that I can offer reluctant support to this bill. The only firearm training I can think of that is widely available at no cost that is even close to falling under the terms of this bill is the hunter education course. If there is no option to meet the training requirement at no cost then the price of the permit is not accurately reflected in the law.

    One thing I wanted to mention that you were concerned about : the 18 year old armored truck employee. 18 year olds would still be eligible for a professional permit to carry.
    The "may issue" status of the professional permit remains unchanged with HF2255.

    I realize that your interpretation is only your interpretation and not necessarily how it will be implemented but your explanation did not increase my confidence in the equal application of this bill, but instead did quite the opposite.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •