NRA Director/"Pro-gun Republican" Clel Baudler Votes AGAINST NRA Backed Alaska Carry Amend

imported post



In a surprising turn of events in the Public Safety Committee of theIowa House today, avirtually empty concealed carry "shell bill" wasvoted out of theHouse Public Safety Committee, leaving both the Sorenson "Vermont/Alaska no-permit required bill:

]http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&ga=83&hbill=HF2241]

and the NRAproposed "shall issue"bill,

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&ga=83&hbill=HF2255],

behind.Currently known as House Study Bill 721, the bill will be headed for the floor of the house to receive a bill number andto allow the bill to be "crafted" with amendments. Here is a link to the blank bill:

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&ga=83&hbill=HSB721]

Leading up tothemost shockingturn of eventsduring the committee meeting was the movement by House District 4 Representative Dwayne Alons (R)to propose the Sorenson bill, HF2241, as the content for HSB 721. Alons presentedSorenson's bill as an NRA approved bill.On a vote of 14 to 7, this action was defeated. Whatshould come as the biggest surprise to gun owners and second amendment activists in Iowa was a sellout"No" vote by District 58 "Republican" Representative Clel Baudler. Baudler, who is actually on the cosponsor list for Sorenson's bill (!?!), was joinedin his sellout of gun owners by "Republican" House District 50 Representative David Tjepkes. The remainder of the votes against the bill came from the anti-gunDemocrats on thecommittee.Although Baudler is the sponsor of the NRA bill, to find that someone who has for years been "annointed" by pro-concealed carry groups as a "pro-gun legislator," most notably byIowa Carry, Inc., for Baudler to actually vote with the anti-gun Democratsagainst the Sorenson NRA Backed bill is a sellout ofunconsionable proportions.

What this means for the future of concealed carry reformin Iowa at this point is anyone's guess . . all that can be drawn from this at this point is that there is a bill to create"An Act relating to issuance of permits to carry weapons and related matters." on the floor of the Iowa House.

imported post

Just because someone votes against something and for something else does not make them anti gun or a sellout. Would I love to see Iowa attain an Alaska or Vermont type carry law? Of course, but I don't think it is in the cards right now and the legislators know this and are going with what they think they get passed. If you knew that you could pass a bill to help improve the life of Iowans that may not be the most perfect or exactly what you want but still helps Iowans would you do it? Or would you hold to something that does not have the support it needs to pass and do nothing to improve Iowa's carry laws and keep those that can't get a permit defenseless?

imported post

bforn wrote:

Just because someone votes against something and for something else does not make them anti gun or a sellout. Would I love to see Iowa attain an Alaska or Vermont type carry law? Of course, but I don't think it is in the cards right now and the legislators know this and are going with what they think they get passed. If you knew that you could pass a bill to help improve the life of Iowans that may not be the most perfect or exactly what you want but still helps Iowans would you do it? Or would you hold to something that does not have the support it needs to pass and do nothing to improve Iowa's carry laws and keep those that can't get a permit defenseless?

Click to expand...

Avote against a bill that recognizes the second amendment is a vote against the second amendment, no matter how you slice it.I am sure that Baudler would repeat your words, that he doesn't believe that Alaska carry can pass . . . but that can never be used as logic to vote against it.

Did you know that the 10 year period between the adoption of Alaska carry and "shall issue"in Alaska that the NRA constantly drones on with here was dramatically lengthened by the interferring actions of the NRA? I had a conversation last week with the folks up there that pushed it for years, and got the same thing there that you folks parrot here: "It will never pass" from the NRA.The NRAhas quite a history of doing in other statessimilar things towhat they are doing right now in Iowa:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2001/Jun-03-Sun-2001/opinion/16231491.html

How are those in the legislature who ostensibly support the second amendment going to "improve the conditions in the future" for passing it by voting against adopting it now? This makes absolutely no sense whatever.

Also, I would point out that Baudler has made comments to more than one person, including myself, that he doesn't believe everyone should be able to carry a gun that wants to. He goes into his well worn diatribe about how he had some guy thatused to stalk him threaten his life, etc., but they didn't have enough on the guy to put him away. When questioned,Baudler indicated that HE was carrying a gun throughout all of this, which is at should be, and IS the correct solution for this situation for everyone, not denying people permits.

This is all why Baudler supports the NRA bill . . . he believes that the restrictions imposed by Lautenberg, etc, will be enough to keep the "bad guys" from having guns. What is continuously lost on Baudler and some from Iowa Carry and the NRA is that THE BAD GUYS DON'T APPLY FOR PERMITS . . . they just do their heinous acts without the government's leave.That is exactly why the whole notion of a permit system is a fallacy at it's roots . . . it may make you guys feel good about "controlling miscreants" . . . in reality, it does nothing of the sort.

But thanks for an honest comment for a change . . . I really do like this better than dealing with your "little lost children."

SS

imported post

How are those in the legislature who ostensibly support the second amendment going to "improve the conditions in the future" for passing it by voting against adopting it now? This makes absolutely no sense whatever.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does. It comes back the the fundamental disagreement we have. I don't think we can pass AK carry now, and you do. The shell bill was created to get the NRA bill out of subcommittee. Then the amendment was put forth to make the AK carry bill the text of the shell bill. That would defeat the point of creating the shell for the NRA bill. If someone comes to the conclusion that AK carry won't pass but the NRA bill will, and creates a shell for the NRA bill, why would they then vote to make the AK carry bill the text of the shell? That would make absolutely no sense!

I get the IGO mailings, and I get the IGO emails. I see them at gun shows and talk to them. I run into them on forums like this. The drumbeat I get from them is: "Our bill is the REAL bill. IC and NRA are gun grabbers,give us moneyto oppose their bill and call/write your rep and tell them to vote against the NRA bill."

If IGO changed their tactics to be more positive about their bill, and less negative about other organizations I'd be more inclined to help them. Where is the evidence that the legislature (or even the Iowan populace) wants AK carry? Don't give me bull about the procedural vote, don't give me bull about the NRA bill "providing cover."Why is Sorensonthe only rep to put his name on the AK carry bill?

imported post

ethies wrote:

If IGO changed their tactics to be more positive about their bill, and less negative about other organizations I'd be more inclined to help them.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY CORRECT!

imported post

bforn wrote:

Just because someone votes against something and for something else does not make them anti gun or a sellout. Would I love to see Iowa attain an Alaska or Vermont type carry law? Of course, but I don't think it is in the cards right now and the legislators know this and are going with what they think they get passed. If you knew that you could pass a bill to help improve the life of Iowans that may not be the most perfect or exactly what you want but still helps Iowans would you do it? Or would you hold to something that does not have the support it needs to pass and do nothing to improve Iowa's carry laws and keep those that can't get a permit defenseless?

Click to expand...

Welcome to OCDO bforn

Good to see someone not hesitant to jump right in and make a statement - a thoughtful one at that.

Yata Hey

imported post

ethies wrote:

How are those in the legislature who ostensibly support the second amendment going to "improve the conditions in the future" for passing it by voting against adopting it now? This makes absolutely no sense whatever.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does. It comes back the the fundamental disagreement we have. I don't think we can pass AK carry now, and you do. The shell bill was created to get the NRA bill out of subcommittee. Then the amendment was put forth to make the AK carry bill the text of the shell bill. That would defeat the point of creating the shell for the NRA bill. If someone comes to the conclusion that AK carry won't pass but the NRA bill will, and creates a shell for the NRA bill, why would they then vote to make the AK carry bill the text of the shell? That would make absolutely no sense!

I get the IGO mailings, and I get the IGO emails. I see them at gun shows and talk to them. I run into them on forums like this. The drumbeat I get from them is: "Our bill is the REAL bill. IC and NRA are gun grabbers,give us moneyto oppose their bill and call/write your rep and tell them to vote against the NRA bill."

If IGO changed their tactics to be more positive about their bill, and less negative about other organizations I'd be more inclined to help them. Where is the evidence that the legislature (or even the Iowan populace) wants AK carry? Don't give me bull about the procedural vote, don't give me bull about the NRA bill "providing cover."Why is Sorensonthe only rep to put his name on the AK carry bill?

Click to expand...

It comes down to this, according to the US Constitution, AK carry should be the norm, not the exception. That is what the NRA should push for everywhere. Why they don't is open to conjecture, but they wouldn't be the first organization extending an issue for the sake of having an issue to maintain vs solving the problem.

Also, why aresome of usso hung up on what we can and can't get? If more people start asking for AK style carry, eventually we'll get it. If we settle for the crumbs on the table, that's all we'll get. Crumbs.

imported post

aim_to_please wrote:

It comes down to this, according to the US Constitution, AK carry should be the norm, not the exception. That is what the NRA should push for everywhere. Why they don't is open to conjecture, but they wouldn't be the first organization extending an issue for the sake of having an issue to maintain vs solving the problem.

Also, why aresome of usso hung up on what we can and can't get? If more people start asking for AK style carry, eventually we'll get it. If we settle for the crumbs on the table, that's all we'll get. Crumbs.

Click to expand...

Well if AK carry was the norm everywhere, what would the purpose for the NRA be?

I'll grant you it sure would cut into their find raising efforts though.

I've said before, demand the unobtainable and what you receive will not be what you wanted, but it will be said that you were true to your convictions. Empty handed is empty handed.

Yata hey

imported post

aim_to_please wrote:

It comes down to this, according to the US Constitution, AK carry should be the norm, not the exception. That is what the NRA should push for everywhere. Why they don't is open to conjecture, but they wouldn't be the first organization extending an issue for the sake of having an issue to maintain vs solving the problem.

Click to expand...

No, in Reality, it comes down to this:

Like it or not, there are No Absolute Rights in the US Constitution. Even in the Heller case, it spells out that "reasonable regulation" would be allowed to limit the 2nd Amendment. An example - do some say convicted felons should have 2nd Amendment rights?

The 1st Amendment is also a regulated right. While it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….", certainly there are regulations which have been made. Examples - you cannot legally yell "Fire" in a movie theater, and Libel and Slander laws limit what you can say or write.

So what 'should be' certainly needs to be weighed against what 'could be' when considering any new legislation.

Ideally, we wipe out much of the SCOTUS decisions and Congressional legislation over the last 230+ years and live with the one document - The US Constitution. In Reality, we are governed by several layers of Constitutional law, SCOTUS decisions and other case law,Federal and State Legislation, and County and City laws, regulations, and ordinances.

Alaska-type gun-carry law should exist in every State and is the Ideal. In Reality, around 38 States have Shall Issue rights to carry firearms. Only two States, with very small populations, have been able to achieve an Alaska style law. (AK and VT account for a whopping 0.3% of the total US Population)

To say that Alaska-type gun-carry law in Iowa is achievable today, or that it is the only law that 2nd Amendment supporters should support, is to say that you do not live in the Realm of Reality.

imported post

aim_to_please wrote:

Also, why aresome of usso hung up on what we can and can't get? If more people start asking for AK style carry, eventually we'll get it. If we settle for the crumbs on the table, that's all we'll get. Crumbs.

Click to expand...

I think that virtually every piece of gun control legislation is unconstitutional and should be repealed. Those that passed those restrictions did so incrementally by targeting a specific weapon, or a specific problem and adding one more restriction at a time.

I think that is likely the way we'll get them back. An AK carry bill doesn't completely align our firearms rights with the constitution either. There is more to be done. So even an AK carry bill doesn't get the whole enchilada done in one bite. Activists such as us have to decide what size bite to take with each increment.

Here is my opinion: people in this state have NO IDEA what the carry laws are. Even many gun enthusiasts have no idea. The 99 laws situation creates a ton of confusion which leads to people not even bothering to apply. They've heard its too hard! I've talked to so many people from Polk county that assume the county is too liberal, and won't even apply despite the fact its one of the easiest counties in the statein which to get a permit! A shall issue bill will get more people armed. If people learn that all they have to do is pass a basic background check and take a little class, more people will seek permits. No confusion about this county or that, just one rule for the state. More armed Iowans means more safe Iowans. More armed Iowans means more gun voters. When someone carrying becomes commonplace, then the ground is fertile for planting the AK carry seed.

I don't want to fail to get AK carry. I want it so bad I can taste it. Because we pass a shall-issue bill this year means NOTHING about what we pass next year. AK carry, stand your ground, castle doctrine, class 3 weapons, I want the whole thing. If shall issue passes this year, I'll be here next year beating on something else till we've got it all.

Right now we pass the best bill that this congress will allow. We do that every year, without fail. We must not fight only at the statehouse for the best bill that THIS congress willpass, but at the ballot box for the best bill that the NEXT congress will pass.

imported post

ethies wrote:

aim_to_please wrote:

Also, why aresome of usso hung up on what we can and can't get? If more people start asking for AK style carry, eventually we'll get it. If we settle for the crumbs on the table, that's all we'll get. Crumbs.

Click to expand...

I think that virtually every piece of gun control legislation is unconstitutional and should be repealed. Those that passed those restrictions did so incrementally by targeting a specific weapon, or a specific problem and adding one more restriction at a time.

I think that is likely the way we'll get them back. An AK carry bill doesn't completely align our firearms rights with the constitution either. There is more to be done. So even an AK carry bill doesn't get the whole enchilada done in one bite. Activists such as us have to decide what size bite to take with each increment.

Here is my opinion: people in this state have NO IDEA what the carry laws are. Even many gun enthusiasts have no idea. The 99 laws situation creates a ton of confusion which leads to people not even bothering to apply. They've heard its too hard! I've talked to so many people from Polk county that assume the county is too liberal, and won't even apply despite the fact its one of the easiest counties in the statein which to get a permit! A shall issue bill will get more people armed. If people learn that all they have to do is pass a basic background check and take a little class, more people will seek permits. No confusion about this county or that, just one rule for the state. More armed Iowans means more safe Iowans. More armed Iowans means more gun voters. When someone carrying becomes commonplace, then the ground is fertile for planting the AK carry seed.

I don't want to fail to get AK carry. I want it so bad I can taste it. Because we pass a shall-issue bill this year means NOTHING about what we pass next year. AK carry, stand your ground, castle doctrine, class 3 weapons, I want the whole thing. If shall issue passes this year, I'll be here next year beating on something else till we've got it all.

Right now we pass the best bill that this congress will allow. We do that every year, without fail. We must not fight only at the statehouse for the best bill that THIS congress willpass, but at the ballot box for the best bill that the NEXT congress will pass.

Click to expand...

At this point, I only have one question to pose to Maxie, Grape and Ethies, and Iowa Carry in general:

What will you do IF RickOlsen, who is actively discussing the contents of the STILL EMPTY HF2439 with the ISSDA (one would think thatif "the whole purpose of the empty bill was to simply put the NRA/Iowa Carry bill into it," as Ethies has "corrected me," it would happen as fast as the click ofa mouse!), who have come out fully in favor of Tom Miller's "all someone has to do is go to court and get a restraining order on you and your guns are gone (note to Maxie: this is of coursesimply a "reasonable restriction of the right under Heller"), comes back with a bill that does notinclude "shall issue?" Except in Rick Olsen's bill, he decides to KEEP all the Lautenberg language that you guys have in there . . . or worse; inserts Miller's Language. . . What then?

Again, in Maxie's world, which is beautifully scripted right out of the anti's arguments. . . these are all "reasonable restrictions that are recognized by Heller" (and by the way Maxie, though it is no surprise, you don't know jack about legal theory: that language in Heller is obiter dicta, and has nobinding legal application; the Heller court even said this themselves if you actually READ the decision).

But for those who haven't been drinking the statist koolaid lately, don't answer all at once . . . ponder on it a bit . . . soak it in . . . what if? . . . and what then?. . .

Mind you now . . . I am not asking what you think the chances of this happening are, so don't go there . . . I am asking what will you will do IF IT HAPPENS?


By the way . . . as you ponder this question, please keep in mind that the title of the bill is now "An Act relating to issuance of permits to carry weapons and related matters."

Sleep well tonight gents . . .


SS

imported post

If IGO changed their tactics to be more positive about their bill, and less negative about other organizations I'd be more inclined to help them.

Click to expand...

Images of pots and kettles came to mind on reading that sentence.

It comes down to this, according to the US Constitution, AK carry should be the norm, not the exception. That is what the NRA should push for everywhere. Why they don't is open to conjecture, but they wouldn't be the first organization extending an issue for the sake of having an issue to maintain vs solving the problem.

Also, why are some of us so hung up on what we can and can't get? If more people start asking for AK style carry, eventually we'll get it. If we settle for the crumbs on the table, that's all we'll get. Crumbs.

Click to expand...

I have to agree. If Iowa Carry's goal is to reach constitutional carry eventually then they have an odd way of showing it. They are giving up what we already have in the hope to get more in return. The momentum in on our side, we don't have to give an inch to take a mile.

Also, the NRA looks out for the NRA. I noticed that the NRA is granted administrative authority in HF2255 to decide the proper training for permits to carry. This effectively makes the NRA a government entity able to impose a fee in order to access a right we already have.

The NRA was originally an organization to encourage people to become marksman. That mandate can continue even if we get constitutional carry nationwide. Unfortunately the NRA feels it needs to place itself in a position that their training becomes mandated to exercise our rights.

I voice my concerns about the NRA's tactics as a life member of the NRA.

imported post

To say that Alaska-type gun-carry law in Iowa is achievable today, or that it is the only law that 2nd Amendment supporters should support, is to say that you do not live in the Realm of Reality.

Click to expand...

I live in the realm of reality and I realize that constitutional carry is unlikely to pass this year. What I do not like is the compromises made in HF2255 only puts up roadblocks to constitutional carry in the future. I fear that HF2255, if it becomes law, will set us back a decade since it could kill any momentum that we have gained with constitutional carry bills in the past.

imported post

If language is posted in 2439 that is bad then we will rise up and let the legislators know what we think of what they did to the bill and try to stop the progress. From what I have been told there was a legal problem with the bill and that it was a small issue that was being reworded to fit Iowa Law. I do not know what the change was/is for sure.

I would also like to know what momentum you speak of in the fight to get our rights back? What are you really losing by pushing to help Iowans? Alaska/Vermont bill is dead and isn't going anywhere this year, why not push for something that is going to help as many Iowans as possible NOW? WE are ready for constitutional carry but unfortunately most of the people in Des Moines are not and they are the people that vote and pass it into law. If we wait for a constitutional bill to pass, which I believe won't happen without a shall issue first and won't happen for several years, we are leaving Iowans out in the cold NOW.

I have to laugh a little bit at the NRA looking out for the NRA bit farmboy. The NRA training was just one option and it makes sense. NRA courses are pretty standard, they have standards and methods that instructors are supposed to use and it is NATIONAL so you can get it anywhere and you are going to get basically the same course! Training is part of Iowa Code right now and the bill now just aims to standardize it making it equal for everyone across the state. In Dickinson County, my home county, there is only a couple of classes a year because there are not always enough people interested at a time to pull officers to teach it. Now imagine that any training that is standard will do. More people can get permits. I have had friends that were not able to make it to the carry course and have to wait. Allowing them to take an NRA course or any other course on the list allows them more flexibility and allows them to get their permit when they are able to do so. It is improving current law. Hopefully we can keep improving law year by year. We didn't lose our rights all at once we lost them piece by piece and I honestly believe that that is how we are going to get them back.

imported post

Alaska/Vermont bill is dead and isn't going anywhere this year, why not push for something that is going to help as many Iowans as possible NOW?

Click to expand...

First, is constitutional carry dead? It's not dead this year until the session is over. Perhaps that is just wishful thinking but all we know right now is that there is a permit to carry reform shell bill in the House. Shall issue could be just as dead for all we know. HF2255 and HF596 are both dead for not having met the cut off date. What comes out of committee is anyone's guess.

Second, I'm not willing to give up so much for so little. I have the big picture in mind. I think, and you have every right to disagree, that such a flawed bill will do greater harm to our rights than it will gain. It's best to let it die and try again next year.

Third, if everyone wants to do something NOW for helping people defend the right to defend themselves then take the problem one bite at a time. HF2255 is HUGE by touching on so many portions of the law. I support taking a number of bills with each addressing one paragraph, or even so much as a sentence or word, at a time in the law. There is enough laws we just need to remove them or tweak them a bit. Take one issue, such as removing the need to have a Permit to Acquire before buying a handgun, and put that in a bill. Take another issue, like changing "may" into "shall", and put that in a bill. Let the Representatives and Senators talk amongst themselves to figure out which have the possibility of passing and they can present them for debate separately or as a whole.

I can handle doing this one step at a time. My concern is that HF2255 gives up ground we already have. Take out the compromises in the bill and I can support it. I just fail to see how giving up ground, any ground no matter how seemingly insignificant, helps our cause.

imported post

SS, hell if that happens I'll be in DSM visiting offices! Maybe I'll bump into you? I'll buy you lunch!

Farmboy, if you were going to start listing a variety of firearms training courses that people go through I doubt you'd get very far before you mentioned an NRA course. I've never taken an NRA course, but I shoot competitively (well at a competition anyway) regularly and that meets the training standard. There are so many ways to meet that training requirement its almost silly.

I do know we need to keep an eye on the NRA. They've done some shifty things in the past, but just because they included their own training program in the bill as an option doesn't mean I'm ready to call BS on them. Nationally, its the training program that teaches the most people!

imported post




Yeah, SS is a legal expert. Tell us all about the absolute rights we have in the US Constitution.

Oh, and tell us how the Alaska Bill is the only Bill that supports the US Constitution's absolute rights.

Then tell us how successful you have been in pushing the "Alaska" Bill.

imported post

Max G wrote:

Yeah, SS is a legal expert. Tell us all about the absolute rights we have in the US Constitution.

Oh, and tell us how the Alaska Bill is the only Bill that supports the US Constitution's absolute rights.

Then tell us how successful you have been in pushing the "Alaska" Bill.

Click to expand...

Maxie -

About as successful as you and Iowa Carry have been in pushing your compromise sellout bill! . . .

Why aren't you simply gushing with pride over the bill that Olsen produced?

LOL,

SS

imported post

ethies wrote:

If IGO changed their tactics to be more positive about their bill, and less negative about other organizations I'd be more inclined to help them.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If Iowa Carry would show respect for both the Iowa and U.S. Constitutions, I'd be more inclined to help them . . .

SS