Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: NRA BILL

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure I'm in agreement with this, but IGO has sent out a message telling folks to contact their NRA reps with their needs. Cellular phone numbers to use are:

    540 622 7676

    and

    712 461 1401

    You're running out of time to speak your mind. The Iowa General Session is over today or possibly tomorrow.



    Good luck to Iowans.





  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    This bill is huge.

    Shall issue, and full recognition of out of state permits (Missouri style).

    It would be a huge step forward for Iowa.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    This bill is huge.

    Shall issue, and full recognition of out of state permits (Missouri style).

    It would be a huge step forward for Iowa.
    Yup, it looks awesome. Every law abiding citizen will be able to obtain a 5-year permit ( open and concealed) carry permit for $50, and if a sheriff tries to yank your permit for open carrying, he can get told where to go by judge.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ottumwa, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    !!!PASSED TODAY!!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    ethies wrote:
    !!!PASSED TODAY!!!


    this is good for Iowa .

    it looks like it will be passed .

    the margin of votes in both the house and the senate were so large it looks like any veto can be overridden .







  6. #6
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    AWESOME NEWS!!!! I drive through IA every year on my way to Colorado, and if I understand it correctly, this bill has a reciprocity provision? Any links where I can read the bill for myself? What are the odds of the governor signing it, or will it have to go to an over-ride? Also, when will it go into effect?
    Rand Paul 2016

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    The bill is SF 2379. It had one minor amendment that is not shown in the current printed version of the bill.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Iowa, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Yooper wrote:
    AWESOME NEWS!!!! I drive through IA every year on my way to Colorado, and if I understand it correctly, this bill has a reciprocity provision? Any links where I can read the bill for myself? What are the odds of the governor signing it, or will it have to go to an over-ride? Also, when will it go into effect?
    The bill is almost certain to be signed by the Governor. The law will go into effect on January 1, 2011.

    Technically, there is no "reciprocity" provision, but that will not matter to you, because the law states that Iowa will recognize weapons permits from ALL states. If you have a permit you can drive through or visit Iowa without any concern at all. (We won't seek "reciprocity", so we will have to rely on the good will of other states to honor the Iowa permit.)

    Another thing to note is that Iowa does not specify any "weapons free" zones, other than schools and those created in Federal law. There ARE enhanced penalties for the illegal USE of guns near schools or in parks. Churches, hospitals, bars and restaurants are all legal. Iowa law also does not provide for establishments to post "No Guns" signs, though they would be free to do so, and thus there is no penalty for violating such a sign. Trespassing law would presumably apply if there was a confrontation.

    It will now be a statutory provision that you may not carry a weapon "while under the influence", which basically means .08 blood alcohol level.

    Open carry has always been legal in Iowa OUTSIDE municipal limits. The law does NOT mention concealed, so presumably a open carry is legal WITH a permit to carry weapons. That is true now, but nobody tries it, because the sheriffs have total discretion (until Jan. 1, 2011) on permits and would presumably revoke your permit if you were stopped while carrying openly in town. We will have to see how this develops next year, but I expect acceptance of open carry in Iowa to come slowly at best.

    Remember, you MUST have a permit to carry in any fashion in town OR in your vehicle. Don't try to drive through Iowa with a loaded gun in your car (with no permit) unless you want to risk real trouble. We are not cool with it like you are in Colorado or next door in Missouri.

    S.F.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    SB2379

    Btw, the "IGO" bill amendment was defeated 45-52. The folks at IGO never had the votes for "Alaska/Vermont carry", and this proves beyond a doubt that they never had the votes in the House, period.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Even those who complained about the "Shall Issue" Bill passed yesterday will still benefit from it.

    This is a good Bill that moves Iowa a huge step forward.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    RECIPROCITY

    15 A valid permit or license issued by another state to any

    16 nonresident of this state shall be considered to be a valid

    17 permit or license to carry weapons issued pursuant to this

    18 chapter, except that such permit or license shall not be

    19 considered to be a substitute for an annual permit to acquire

    20 pistols or revolvers issued pursuant to section 724.15.

    This is a huge improvement over an earlier version of the bill that would have only recognized a handful of states.

    I would characterize this bill as three steps forward, and one step backward.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    This is a huge improvement over an earlier version of the bill that would have only recognized a handful of states.

    I would characterize this bill as three steps forward, and one step backward.

    What part of it is a step backwards? A couple people I know don't like the requalifying part every 5 years, but some counties had annual requal now.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    SigSauer232 wrote:
    44Brent wrote:
    This is a huge improvement over an earlier version of the bill that would have only recognized a handful of states.

    I would characterize this bill as three steps forward, and one step backward.

    What part of it is a step backwards? A couple people I know don't like the requalifying part every 5 years, but some counties had annual requal now.
    You have 4 years to undo that part before it will have any real impact. Treat this bill as a beginning--not an end--and keep working on whatever problems you think it has now or which you identify in the future.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    What part of it is a step backwards? A couple people I know don't like the requalifying part every 5 years, but some counties had annual requal now.
    Among other things, the bill raised the qualifying age from 18 to 21.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    There are virtually no 18 - 20 year olds in Iowa now with non pro permits afaik. They would have to be in the company of an over 21 adult to possess/carry anyway. They can still get a pro permit. I see that as more of a step sideways

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    I would characterize this bill as three steps forward, and one step backward.
    That seems to be a fair assessment.

    What part of it is a step backwards? A couple people I know don't like the requalifying part every 5 years, but some counties had annual requal now.
    I did a read through the bill and came up with a few issues I have with the bill, besides the requalification provision you mention.

    - No permit for those addicted to alcohol. While I'm not advocating the permission of people being armed and drunk but there seems to be little guidance of what constitutes "addiction". How does one disprove addiction to alcohol? Can a sheriff deny, and force appeal, based on having no evidence that a person is NOT addicted to alcohol?
    - The age of issuance for non-professional permits was increased to 21. May issue for professional permits remains at 18 years.
    - The provision on probable cause of future actions of violence is vague. What constitutes probable cause of future actions of violence? Again, can a sheriff deny, and force a person to appeal, based on NOT being able to show that they are not violent?
    - I may be mistaken but it seems the non-professional non-resident permit has disappeared, and the professional non-resident permit remains as may issue.
    - The granting of authority to suspend a permit to carry or permit to acquire based on an arrest seems to be in violation of due process and presumption of innocence.

    There are virtually no 18 - 20 year olds in Iowa now with non pro permits afaik. They would have to be in the company of an over 21 adult to possess/carry anyway. They can still get a pro permit. I see that as more of a step sideways
    It is a permit to carry WEAPONS, not handguns. A person between 18 and 21 years would need a permit to carry a knife, stun-gun/taser, pepper spray, shotgun, among other weapons that would be suitable for personal protection.

    Also, a professional permit is only valid while on the job. Criminals don't clock out at 5:00PM. I see this as a definite step backward. While it may affect few people that does not make it any less of an infraction on the rights it does affect.

    We shall see if the governor signs the bill. If he does not then there seems to be enough votes in both houses to override a veto. That pleases me.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    SB2379

    Btw, the "IGO" bill amendment was defeated 45-52.* The folks at IGO never had the votes for "Alaska/Vermont carry", and this proves beyond a doubt that they never had the votes in the House, period.
    Does it prove the IGO amendment/bill didn't have the votes? That is real close and, depending on how the absent votes would have fallen, they were within three to six votes to make it happen. It is quite possible that those votes could have come to be if this compromise bill failed for some reason.

    Yes, I realize that a fail of "shall issue" and a passage of "constitutional carry" would require a change of heart for members of the House. Such things are not unheard of. Also, the failure of the amendment may have been planned to avoid killing the bill. Adding any amendments would have required continued debate, and another vote, in the Senate. Senators may have just killed it so they could go home if it came to that, the session had already ran beyond their self imposed deadline and I'm sure a number of senators wanted to be home for Easter.

    The thin margin of failure for a constitutional carry law means that there is certainly a possibility for it to pass in the near future. Make this an issue you bring up to candidates when given the opportunity. Since all members of the Iowa House come up for election this year, and there were a number of narrow votes in recent memory, this issue could be of high priority.

    Rather than giving IGO a poke in the ribs over this perhaps your energies could be better spent on advocating for its passage in the future.

    Oh, since such a narrow vote would not have the support to override a governor veto the issue of constitutional carry should be brought up to gubernatorial candidates as well.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    IA_farmboy wrote:
    Does it prove the IGO amendment/bill didn't have the votes? That is real close and, depending on how the absent votes would have fallen, they were within three to six votes to make it happen. It is quite possible that those votes could have come to be if this compromise bill failed for some reason.

    Yes, I realize that a fail of "shall issue" and a passage of "constitutional carry" would require a change of heart for members of the House. Such things are not unheard of. Also, the failure of the amendment may have been planned to avoid killing the bill. Adding any amendments would have required continued debate, and another vote, in the Senate. Senators may have just killed it so they could go home if it came to that, the session had already ran beyond their self imposed deadline and I'm sure a number of senators wanted to be home for Easter.

    The thin margin of failure for a constitutional carry law means that there is certainly a possibility for it to pass in the near future. Make this an issue you bring up to candidates when given the opportunity. Since all members of the Iowa House come up for election this year, and there were a number of narrow votes in recent memory, this issue could be of high priority.

    Rather than giving IGO a poke in the ribs over this perhaps your energies could be better spent on advocating for its passage in the future.

    Oh, since such a narrow vote would not have the support to override a governor veto the issue of constitutional carry should be brought up to gubernatorial candidates as well.
    So IGO was perfectly willing to leave people of Iowa that happened to reside in the red and yellow issuance counties in the darkness for years so that their "pure" bill (which is not so pure) would pass in..say..2015? They kept saying "Kill the NRA/IowaCarry.org bill", over and over again. Not "Let's get shall-issue passed and then for constitutional carry later", which is how it worked in Alaska and Arizona, but they flat out said "Vermont carry or bust" and anyone who opposed the bill is "anti-gun" and "sellouts". They could have stayed neutral and went after "Alaska/Arizona" style carry after some fixes to the law.

    IGO's siege mentality is stuck in the 1990's, where passing a shall-issue bill loaded up with restrictions (which Iowa's new law doesn't have, btw) meant that NOTHING was going to be fixed for a minimum of a decade or more. This was true up until the last three or four years. Now, the anti-gun forces in most of the states are in full retreat. You have southern states who had numerous restrictions against where guns could be carried starting to repeal them. Rather than follow this recent understanding and observance of the momentum of the gun rights movement, they are stuck in the mid-1990's. They ignore recent history. Will they attack ICO in the future when they work with the legislature to perhaps repeal or change the law for the better, because it won't go directly to "Vermont carry" fast enough? I'm willing to bet yes given their previous actions.

    IGO was willing to scuttle any forward progress for reasons currently unknown. Their amendment (and their bill), despite the criticism of ICO's bill for "banning anyone under 21 from getting a permit", would not have fixed with IGO's bill because the Iowa laws against possession of a handgun by those under 21 unless under the direction of their parents in sight was not changed by the IGO bill. What if the kid's an orphan? or kicked out of their home at 18 for whatever reason? The IGO bill would not have fixed that situation.

    Alexander Dorr (one of the plaintiff litigants in the Dorr v. Weber litigation, and who happens to be the younger brother of IGO's Executive Director) would not have been able to possess a firearm unless under the supervision of his parents, even if he had a non-pro PTCW.

    Why this wasn't brought up and challenged in the Dorr litigation is beyond me, because if Alexander had a falling out with his parents in any form, poof, his right to carry goes away even with that vaunted NP PTCW, and even if he and his father Paul won the lawsuit, he still wouldn't be able to carry effectively as an adult, as under 21 possession law was not challenged.

    Someone explain this situation to me. Someone explain to me why IGO attacked ICO repeatedly over their failure to keep the NP PTCW to 18, when their bill did NOTHING to address the possession ban? Someone explain to me why both the IGO bill and the litigation filing by Mohrman/Kaardal law group in the Dorr case continually keep missing this critical law which still denies Alexander and other 18-21 year olds their right to possess and carry handguns for their personal protection even if they have that vaunted permit? I am not particularly impressed with half-assed bills and litigation which don't address the problem that you attack the other side for.

    -Gray

    Also:

    Dorr v. Weber for anyone who wants to read at least part of what I'm talking about.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    From John Reedie at IowaCarry.org:

    The above statement comes from the latest IGO email sheet of lies! I would be the 'subordinate' mentioned in this statement. I know this because I was the only one talking to Kent yesterday! In FACT, I had promised Sorenson to keep him informed what the language in the bill was doing - helping him track the changes - so he could make good decisions about what he was voting on. At NO TIME did I ever threaten Sorenson in any manner whatsoever! We simply went through the bill language, line by line.

    IGO has done some very despicable things in trying to spread their agenda at the expense of the truth but this lie is the most despicable to me personal to date. As members of Iowa Carry you can be assured that I did NOT threaten Sorenson! Further, I was present anytime that Chris Rager talked to Sorenson, so I can swear that Chris made no threats either!


    Second Post:

    I just wanted to come back here and say that Kent Sorenson and I have talked. It was made clear to me that he did NOT feel threatened by me nor did he claim to have been threatened by me. This is just more IGO tactics and lies.

    Kent and I are good. I wanted that to be known.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    In contrast to other opinions, I like the work that Iowa Gun Owners has done. I also sent them an e-mail last night requesting that they focus their next efforts on removing the geographic bans (parks and schools).

    The bill that was passed seems to put Iowa pretty closely on par with the stage at which Tennessee was at until last year.

    * Shall issue OC/CC.
    * Full recognition of all states.
    * Bans on parks carry.

    Hopefully Iowa won't have its version of Leonard Embody showing up to screw everything up.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    In contrast to other opinions, I like the work that Iowa Gun Owners has done. I also sent them an e-mail last night requesting that they focus their next efforts on removing the geographic bans (parks and schools).

    The bill that was passed seems to put Iowa pretty closely on par with the stage at which Tennessee was at until last year.

    * Shall issue OC/CC.
    * Full recognition of all states.
    * Bans on parks carry.

    Hopefully Iowa won't have its version of Leonard Embody showing up to screw everything up.
    I read the Iowa Statute contained in 724. There doesn't appear to be a parks gun ban in Iowa Code. There is a "enhanced penalty" for committing a "weapon crime in a park", but a PTCW exempts you from that weapon crime. If I'm wrong, please point this out to me.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    No, you are correct. There is no ban on carrying in parks or 'school zones,' merely a penalty enhancement for crimes committed there.

    Carry on the actual property of a school is banned. Can't have anyone protecting themselves there, after all.

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    44Brent wrote:
    In contrast to other opinions, I like the work that Iowa Gun Owners has done. I also sent them an e-mail last night requesting that they focus their next efforts on removing the geographic bans (parks and schools).

    The bill that was passed seems to put Iowa pretty closely on par with the stage at which Tennessee was at until last year.

    * Shall issue OC/CC.
    * Full recognition of all states.
    * Bans on parks carry.

    Hopefully Iowa won't have its version of Leonard Embody showing up to screw everything up.
    I read the Iowa Statute contained in 724. There doesn't appear to be a parks gun ban in Iowa Code. There is a "enhanced penalty" for committing a "weapon crime in a park", but a PTCW exempts you from that weapon crime. If I'm wrong, please point this out to me.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    I have found the prohibitions on carry in parks to be confusing, and think other people have had the same problems figuring this out. Here's some resources.

    Generally, once you have a PCW, you can carry a weapon anywhere except those places prohibited by any restrictions on your permit and these locations prohibited by law:

    School zones and parks - Illegal to possess a firearm if you commit a public offense (724.4A))
    School grounds - Illegal to carry (724.4A(1) and 724.4B)
    School bus (Administrative rule 281-43.38(2))
    Casinos (Administrative rule 491-5.4(6))
    Capitol Complex (Administrative rule 11-100.2(8A))
    State parks and preserves - Prohibits use, not carry (461A.42)
    State Fair (Administrative rule 371-2.5(173))
    Federal facilities, grounds, and courts
    http://www.iowacarry.org/pages.php?pageid=13

    The following documents USED to state it is illegal to carry in parks: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/iowa.pdf However, that language is gone and the document was updated yesterday.

    The following documents indicates it is legal to carry in parks, but illegal to defend yourself: http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IACODE/1999/461A/42.html

    The following document indicates it is illegal to carry in or around schools: http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IACODE/2003/724/4A.html

    I now conclude that it is not illegal to carry in parks, but only on school grounds.



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    In contrast to other opinions, I like the work that Iowa Gun Owners has done.
    Respectfully, what "work" has IGO done? What have they accomplished? Their lobbyist, Aaron Dorr, declared "Against" the bill that was just passed....

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
  •