imported post
How does raising the age requirement improve the recognition of the Iowa PTC in other states? I just showed that South Dakota, with an age requirement at 18 years, is recognized in just as many (give or take) as a state with an age requirement at 21 years.
Yes, you did. And that's research that perhaps should have been done sooner, on our part. Nothing more than an excuse, but we only have so many people with so many ideas - and time to carry them out. You did some legwork that we haven't done, and it will be so noted for future reference on our part.
How many states does the Iowa PTC have to be recognized in to make Iowa Carry happy?
None. Back to my point a few posts ago, it's really not Iowa's problem what other states think about our permit. That's their problem. But if we can do something that will help with that and not muck around with our own process, so be it. We're also beating a dead horse here, though:
- You've proven that the 18/21 thing didn't make a difference in SD
- I've admitted that your research was an interesting find, and one that we'd look at for future reference
- Because of the inroads that have already been made with the 2255 process, and the fact that this is a point that we will have to agree to disagree on, we (IC) will not be pulling our support for this legislation based on this point. We still feel that overall, this bill represents a move forward for the majority of Iowans.
You have an odd way of showing your concern over arming the Iowa militia. I agree that getting recognition is not a bad thing, I just think that arming the Iowa militia should take priority.
Not at all. You and I just look at it from different perspectives. Re-read what you wrote above. You believe that making sure that 18-21 year olds are taken care of should be a priority. We do not. We believe that making an attempt to take care of the majority of the population first should take priority. And based on what you've been able to dig up, we now have some other ammo (no pun intended) to use for future plans.
Iowa Carry is more than me as President. It is a group that decides what is important them, as a group, representing our membership. Our BoD and members have not placed that 18-21 problem as high on the list as the other issues, and the actions of the group reflect that.
As the President, though, you (and everyone else) get to take your shots at me.
I do appreciate the other members of the group that have jumped in here from time to time to voice their opinions as well, though!
I can also guarantee that I do listen to what is said, not only from our members, but from other folks like you who have other ideas. (I'm only assuming here that you're not currently a member.)
I certainly hope that you do explore this further. Again I feel I must point out how odd the path Iowa Carry has chosen appears to me. You support a bill that contains provisions that you claim you will fight against in the future. Would it not be simpler to not put those provisions in the bill in the first place?
No. Again, the 18-21 issue was not something that we believed needed to be addressed right now. The NRA brought in language that they believed would actually have a chance of passage, helping the vast majority of those who want to obtain an Iowa PCW. Before we even saw the language, it was already being discussed behind the scenes with key lawmakers. The groundwork was already laid down. There's nothing odd about me telling you that I agree, 18-21 year olds should be taken care of, but that you and I disagree on the priority for that issue.
If it was only the 18 to 21 change that was at issue here I might just have kept quiet about all of this. The training requirement issue makes me wonder if this is truly a "shall issue" bill. The conditional permit provision only complicates an already complicated permit system. I guess it all boils down to that here you had the opportunity to simplify the law but instead Iowa Carry and the NRA seemed to go out of its way to make it more complicated.
I still fail to see what is incorrect with the training requirement. Right now, we have Sheriffs who use the training requirement (as written) to keep from issuing a permit. How? By specifying that only
their training is acceptable, but golly, they only have one (or a few) classes each year, and there's only a few seats available, so it's tough to get in. Now, there will be many other forms of training that are acceptable, so a permit applicant can bypass the Sheriff's "mandated" training and find it elsewhere - even using training previously obtained outside of Iowa. This works well in other states. I'm not sure what will not work with this here.
You go explore those concepts and hopefully, regardless of the outcome of HF2255, next year Iowa Carry will take an eraser to the law instead of authoring another epic.
Keep in mind, we didn't author this one.
We just chose to support it. We did author our own last year, when political shenanigans took 724 and made it even worse than it already is. We pulled our support for Clel's bill and wrote our own. And, we got a few things wrong, as it turns out. But it was our first attempt at writing our own. We were fully prepared to do the same thing this year, and fix our mistakes, when we were presented with the NRA's legislation. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we decided to support it.
For the vast majority of Iowans who choose to apply for a permit, this will bring immediate relief. The population that is 21+ far exceeds the population that is 18-21. As a nod to the whole reason this website exists, there will be open carry allowed. Not unpermitted, as in Virginia and other states, but still, it will be allowed if someone has a PCW. The whole unpermitted part is something that again can be addressed in the future. There is no language in the bill that stipulate where firearms cannot be carried, nor are there regulations that spell out how "No Firearms Allowed" signs will carry the force of law, as is done in Texas with 30.06. Training requirements are easily met. The media can no longer post the names of permit holders willy-nilly, as some do. A means for an applicant to appeal a denial is provided, which currently does not exist. Most importantly, it is shall issue with no restrictions. The residents of Emmet, Dubuque, Jasper, Buena Vista, Harrison, etc... can finally apply for
and receive an Iowa PCW. The residents of counties where a Sheriff issues permits for "Hunting, trapping, and fishing" (useless permits) will get relief, because that will no longer be allowed.
Are there things we might have changed? Sure.
"Iowa recognizes all valid permits from all other states." That might be a good start. But it wasn't enough to overlook the fact that with the real possibility of getting relief right now, that could be tabled for the time being. Then there's your sticking point, the 18-21 issue. We agree that it's an issue, but we disagree on where it sits in priority.
I have pledged to you (and everyone else reading, for that matter) that what you have said is good information, and will not be forgotten. I've also said that Iowa Carry, as a group, will not pull support for the NRA's legislation unless it emerges from this shell as some abomination that looks nothing like 2255.
Here is my challenge to you. You evidently have good ideas, and a working grasp of what's going on. You've done some research that nobody else has done. Use that to the advantage of
everyone in Iowa. Support whichever group you feel gives you the best "warm and fuzzy" feeling, be that IGO or IC. But don't just support them with your dollars, step up to the plate and take a leadership position to be a part of the process that helps formulate legislation and strategy. There are plenty of people who sit in these forums and take potshots at either side, behind the anonymity of their screen name and keyboard. If you were a member of IC, I'd be reaching out to you to be more involved with our legislative group. I'd want you to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
To you (and to all others who are reading) the 18-21 issue is a moot point this year, at least with the NRA bill. It's not going to be changed in the NRA legislation, and Iowa Carry's not going to pull support for the bill simply based on that one point. You can label us "anti-freedom" or "anti-rights" or whatever else suits your needs. In reality, that's simply not true, but thanks to something called the First Amendment, everyone is free to do so anyway. We simply believe that the best path to getting to our goal is to make smaller, measured steps that some may see as "compromise." Others prefer an all or nothing approach. Our goals are the same - the paths are different. A difference in strategy, and there is really no point in turning that difference into the kind of vitriol that has been evident in this forum (and others).
If you want to help Iowa Carry or want to discuss things offline, you can always find me through our website. I do not hide who I am, and I welcome thoughtful communications from anyone who chooses to write. I don't believe I have much else to say on this 18-21 thing though, because in my opinion, that horse expired a long time ago.
Sean
