IA_farmboy
Regular Member
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:
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:
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.
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.