Is there an open carry effort currently in Iowa?

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

Topgear wrote:

I hope the organization known as Iowa Gun Owners and their legislative supporters are able to pull of the home run of the century and get their bill passed in 2010 in the state of Iowa. So help me God.

TG -

This is appreciated . . .

Perhaps I am not as big a person as you, but I will go so far as to say that I DO wish, and support,Iowa Carry passing "shall issue" legislation. I support this very much, and, short of getting the Alaska/Vermont stlyle legislation passed, thisISa greatobjective.

Theonly caveat that I place on that is that they write, support and work to pass "clean" bills that do not include further growth in the police state attack on other portions of the BOR's, such as violations of due process, or gross and unreasonable expansions of penalties for "not having a permit," or something like that. Let's assume for the moment that they have never done such, and aren't planning to. . . is that reallyunreasonable for me to ask in your eyes?

[font="Verdana, sans-serif"]"When you sit down to negotiate on what you already have, you lose."[/font][font="Verdana, sans-serif"]~Mass. State House Rep. Marie Parente [/font]

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

SFC Stu wrote:

"Without a permit you would not be allowed to carry concealedin Missouri."

Stu -

FYI - HF 596 introduced by Iowa Gun Owners specifically keeps the permit as an option for this very thing . . . so this issue is "covered."

 

[IA_farmboy]

imported post

SFC Stu wrote:

Some on here think that Vermont type carry Law would be great. It would in Iowa Vermont and Alaska.

Missouri recognizes all others states permits. Iowans with a permit are allowed to carry in Missouri.

Without a permit you would not be allowed to carry concealed in Missouri. Someone said Missouri is an open carry state. Partially true. Cities can still regulate open carry! That is the only part of the Missouri firearms law we have not gotten pre-empted.

Would not a permit from another state, other than Iowa or Missouri, allow an Iowan to carry a firearm legally in Missouri? Not an ideal solution but a solution none the less. I believe all parties involved in proposing bills to the Iowa legislature is interested in keeping the permit to carry system if only for the purpose of recognition in other states. I'm also quite sure that all parties involved are interested in making the process to obtain a permit to carry more standardized and rigorous to make the recognition by other states more widely accepted.


BTW, does this "SFC" in your username indicate your rank? Are you a Sergeant First Class in the Army?

I was a Specialist in the Army. I never saw combat, only the woods of Missouri while enlisted.

 

[Topgear]

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Would not a permit from another state, other than Iowa or Missouri, allow an Iowan to carry a firearm legally in Missouri? Not an ideal solution but a solution none the less. I believe all parties involved in proposing bills to the Iowa legislature is interested in keeping the permit to carry system if only for the purpose of recognition in other states. I'm also quite sure that all parties involved are interested in making the process to obtain a permit to carry more standardized and rigorous to make the recognition by other states more widely accepted.


BTW, does this "SFC" in your username indicate your rank? Are you a Sergeant First Class in the Army?

I was a Specialist in the Army. I never saw combat, only the woods of Missouri while enlisted.

According to information from http://www.handgunlaw.us/, Missouri recognizes all states permits so if you acquire a permit from any state, you should be good in Missouri. But isn't the whole point behind the Open Carry movement that you don't need a permit? If your going to go through the trouble to get one to go to Missouri... Oh, never mind. I don't have the time to get into another of those discussions.

Many states are pretty open about reciprocity, but put restrictions on accepting some state permits because they don't meet their own requirements on issues like age and, yes, training.

That some states allow permits to be issued to 16 year olds, some require no training, and some require no permit at all, were all given as reasons the Thune-Vitter amendment failed by just 2 votes in the US Senate this summer. Bloomberg, Schumer and all the other rabid antis were able to convince enough senators, including Iowa's own beloved Tom Harkin, to vote against the amendment and kill it even though it was widely considered to be a sure thing.

TG

 

[IA_farmboy]

imported post

Topgear wrote:

According to information from http://www.handgunlaw.us/, Missouri recognizes all states permits so if you acquire a permit from any state, you should be good in Missouri. But isn't the whole point behind the Open Carry movement that you don't need a permit? If your going to go through the trouble to get one to go to Missouri... Oh, never mind. I don't have the time to get into another of those discussions.

Don't stop there, please continue your thought. Even if you don't wish to take the time to discuss this at length I'd like to hear what you think.

Many states are pretty open about reciprocity, but put restrictions on accepting some state permits because they don't meet their own requirements on issues like age and, yes, training.

That some states allow permits to be issued to 16 year olds, some require no training, and some require no permit at all, were all given as reasons the Thune-Vitter amendment failed by just 2 votes in the US Senate this summer. Bloomberg, Schumer and all the other rabid antis were able to convince enough senators, including Iowa's own beloved Tom Harkin, to vote against the amendment and kill it even though it was widely considered to be a sure thing.

TG

Yes, it is true that websites like this one advocate the ability to exercise our right to self defense without first getting permission from the government. Yes, there will be some issues over time as different states have different ideas on how to interpret "shall not be infringed". And yes, it is unfortunate that the Second Amendment was not seen by Congress, including our own Senator Harkin, as applying to the states. However I still advocate getting rid of the permit to carry even if it makes for a few inconveniences along the way.

Why bother to obtain a permit to carry from some other state so that one may legally be armed in Missouri? Because the alternatives are less desirable. It's either go armed illegally, or go unarmed. Until the term "Vermont Carry" loses all meaning we'll have to deal with the laws of the different states as we travel.

Take your map from handgunlaw and compare that to the map on usacarry and you will see that of the six states that require an out of state permit be from the state of residence there are three that are shall issue to non-residents. (South Carolina will issue to non-residents only if they own real property in the state, take that as you will.) So, taking that into account there are only two (or three, depending on how you count SC) states that make concealed carry problematic. Take the map from opencarry into consideration and one is left with no (or one, South Carolina again) state that will leave you unarmed.

I'll be quite happy with getting rid of the permit to carry, as long as that means going more towards Vermont than Illinois, even if that means being inconvenienced with getting an out of state permit when I cross the Iowa border. Thankfully there is Utah and Florida that allow applications to be filed by mail and numerous companies that offer training and other services to make that process relatively painless.

Now, Topgear, I have to wonder why you are harping on this topic of training. I understand that people need training before handling a firearm. I have said that several times now in this thread. You keep pointing out how dangerous firearm are and how a negligent discharge or poor marksmanship can be for the cause of defending our right to self defense. I'm just confused as to what you think we need to do about it. I see that you do not advocate the government enforce the training so how do you suggest it be enforced?

 

[Tgclark]

imported post

I tried replying to you farmboy but apparently I'm being blocked.

Topgear

 

[IA_farmboy]

imported post

GearTop wrote:

I tried replying to you farmboy but apparently I'm being blocked.

Topgear

You're coming in five by five. Go ahead, Over.

 

[Tgclark]

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

GearTop wrote:

I tried replying to you farmboy but apparently I'm being blocked.

Topgear

You're coming in five by five. Go ahead, Over.

It's kind of funny that "Topgear" authored two excellent, if I must say so myself, responses to you question above but nether of them came through.

The minute "GearTop" posted, BANG it was there for all to see.

Apparently I pissed somebody off...

Topgear

 

[Tgclark]

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Now, Topgear, I have to wonder why you are harping on this topic of training. I understand that people need training before handling a firearm. I have said that several times now in this thread. You keep pointing out how dangerous firearm are and how a negligent discharge or poor marksmanship can be for the cause of defending our right to self defense. I'm just confused as to what you think we need to do about it. I see that you do not advocate the government enforce the training so how do you suggest it be enforced?

Farmboy,

You ask why I "harp" on training. One issue is safety and I think I've made myself ABUNDANTLY clear on that.

Another training issue I have yet to touch on is this. Having a gun and good marksmanship is a necessary, but not sufficient, part of being able to defend oneself with a firearm. Everybody thinks that crooks are dumb and a great many of them are. Iowa is currently experiencing an influx of gang activity from major cities surrounding us.

The true gang members that are now becoming residents of our state train extensively and violently so they will prevail in the gang on gang violence world they live in. It also means they know how to defeat "amateur" gun fighters like most of us are. Right now the problem is small unless you live in Dubuque, Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, Davenport or Des Moines and a few other population centers. It will spread because gangs are like a cancer.

How do your tactics stack up?

Of course, asking that granny be trained as a Ninja is not realistic. For most of the people who keep guns for self defense, making sure they know how to use them will be the most training they ever get. Hopefully they'll never be in a situation where they need to defend themselves.

My goal for standardized training is simple. Make sure that the individual has a knowledge of the legal aspects of using deadly force. That's to help them stay out of trouble. Make sure they can operate their firearm and know how to safely handle it. Finally, make sure they can shoot it with reasonable accuracy.

I would administer this by creating a defined standard of training in the law; minimums that anyone doing the training would have to meet. Open the training up so that anyone could provide it. The sheriff's office could be required to provide it to those that can't afford it on their own within a reasonable time, say 30 days. A reasonable live-fire test. Ten rounds into an FBI "Q" target at each of three distances, 10 yards, 7 yards, and 5 yards with say 90% needed to pass. (This IS VERY easy.) People with disabilities that would prevent them from performing the live-fire test can be excused with a notice from their doctor.

Give each person that completes these requirements a certificate of completion - strictly a pass/fail document. The individual can then take this certificate to the DMV and have it noted on their drivers license or state ID card.

Sounds simple to me but I'm sure this will be too much of an intrusion for some.

TG

 

[IA_farmboy]

imported post

GearTop/TopGear,
Now you are advocating government enforced training when on December 9 you said:

Advocating training does NOT imply government involvement.

And:

And again, please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about a license being required? I am advocating training and that if you want to carry in public, you should be able to prove that you are capable of doing so.

And now today you say:

Give each person that completes these requirements a certificate of completion - strictly a pass/fail document. The individual can then take this certificate to the DMV and have it noted on their drivers license or state ID card.

That last statement does sound to me like government involvement. Are you suggesting the notation of marksmanship on a state issued ident card be voluntary? If so, what legal implications would/should that have?

If you are claiming that the training be mandatory before going armed how is that any different than a permit to carry?

I know you said before that you did not wish to discuss this at length, and that is fine. You may consider my questions as rhetorical if you wish.