• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NRA BILL

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
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.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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.
 

amaixner

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
308
Location
Linn County, Iowa
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.
 

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
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.
 

SigSauer232

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
16
Location
, ,
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....
 

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
imported post

The bill went through many permutations and Aaron Dorr analyzed the various permutations to find the problems. It was his identification of the problems that allowed citizens to contact their legislators and point out the problems.

The bill that was passed was far better than many of the previous versions that were really a piles of crap. So, I consider the current bill to be far better, due in part to his work.
 

amaixner

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
308
Location
Linn County, Iowa
imported post

SigSauer232 wrot
Respectfully, what "work" has IGO done? What have they accomplished? Their lobbyist, Aaron Dorr, declared "Against" the bill that was just passed....
Whether intentional or not, they did make the IowaCarry/NRA bill look like a middle ground instead of an extreme. I have no idea if that made a difference in the outcome, but it's possible. They also did lobby for fixing the Iowa laws and raise general awareness.
 

Max G

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
63
Location
, ,
imported post

Gray Petersonhas nailed this issue on the head. Thanks for your excellent analysis here.

IGO now has sour grapes and will have many months now to offer up further rants and threats about what they will do in the next year.

In the meantime, thanks to Iowa Carry and the NRA, pending the Gov's signature, we will have Shall Issue in Iowa, and anyone from any State with a permit to carry, will now be able to carry in Iowa.


Gray Peterson wrote:
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
 

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
imported post

Max G wrote:
Now wait, is Dorr now taking CREDIT for the Shall Issue Bill?

Earlier today he was complaining about it!

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/03/31/iowa-gun-rights-the-end-of-2010-legislative-session/comment-page-1/

Your statement about Aaron Dorr taking credit for the bill that passed is absolutely wrong. I'll post the text of the article here, and there is nothing whatsoever in his statement in which he takes credit for the bill.
Iowa – -(AmmoLand.com)- Hours ago the 2010 legislative session came to an end. There is much to report in the 2nd Amendment fight. That report will be coming out in a matter of days.

For now, know that ’shall issue’ did pass – with a lot of problems. The anti-gunners surely bought themselves some political cover with this vote. We have a lot to do.

Our bill did not make it this session but the good news is that in the Iowa Senate our bill is only 6 votes short of passage! In the House, we are only 5 votes short! (It was short by 6 yesterday but one pro-gun Representative was not there and she would have voted yes.)

Folks – in 15 months we’ve taken Iowa to the brink of some of the best laws anywhere in the country.

You deserve a huge thank you for all your support this session. Your emails, phone calls, and trips to the Capitol have been extremely successful.

Now the fun part begins! November is not that far away and between now and then Iowa Gun Owners will be educating thousands of grassroots gun owners across the state about the gun views of the members of the House and Senate.

For today know that you have been very successful this session and clearly deserve a lot of thanks for what did pass – as faulty as it is.

Please look for Iowa Gun Owners’ 2010 Legislative Analysis that will be coming out later this week.

Yours for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms,

Aaron Dorr
Executive Director
Iowa Gun Owners

 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
imported post

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.

Show me where it is currently illegal for a person over 18 years to possess a handgun? I took people's word for it for so long but I took a closer look at Iowa Code Chapter 724 for something else and realized that there is no penalty for a person between the ages of 18 and 21 to possess a handgun. I may be mistaken but please point out where in Iowa or federal law that a young adult in possession of a handgun has committed a crime.

Federal law does prohibit a person under the age of 21 years from purchasing a handgun from a FFL. Iowa law does prohibit a person from making a handgun "available" (I believe that is the technical term) to a person under 21 years. Just who, exactly, is supposed to be held responsible for an adult legally possessing a handgun? I'm sure there are many rolling their eyes right now thinking, "so, genius, how is an adult under 21 years supposed to obtain a handgun legally in Iowa?" There are a number of ways, some legal, some merely difficult to enforce.

One way is to obtain residency in a state where such a transfer is legal and then move back to Iowa. With residency requirements taking effect in as little as thirty days in many states this could be done over the summer by taking a job digging ditches or something.

Another way, that while technically illegal is difficult to enforce, is for Junior to buy the handgun from Senior (or Senior just gifting it to Junior) and then both of them agreeing to STFU if asked about it.

Officer: Junior, is this your handgun?
Junior: Yes.
Officer: How did you get it?
Junior: I invoke my right to silence.
Officer: Senior, we traced the serial number and found that you bought it. Did you give the gun to Junior? Did he steal it from you?
Senior: It's not my gun.
Officer: It's your name on the 4473, did you own it at any time?
Senior: I invoke my right to silence.

I find it difficult to see how any court could convict either of them with a crime. Worst thing I could see happen is that Senior could be charged with a misdemeanor and has to transfer $1000 from his wallet into the state treasury. I could imagine that a large number of parents might consider that slim chance of getting caught worth the potential cost if it meant that their adult child has an effective weapon of self defense.

If my reading of the law is accurate then that would certainly take a lot of wind out of the sails of those denigrating IGO on this oversight and those claiming that a permit to carry is useless to young adults since they cannot own a handgun anyway. Last time I talked to representatives from IGO at a gun show it seemed that they were aware of the issue and intended to fix it once their proposal was introduced as a bill.

Another thing I feel I have to point out, AGAIN, is that it is a permit to carry WEAPONS, not a permit to carry HANDGUNS. Even if it is difficult for a young adult to obtain a handgun legally in Iowa there are plenty of other effective weapons available for personal protection that can only be carried legally if one has a permit to carry them.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:
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.

Show me where it is currently illegal for a person over 18 years to possess a handgun? I took people's word for it for so long but I took a closer look at Iowa Code Chapter 724 for something else and realized that there is no penalty for a person between the ages of 18 and 21 to possess a handgun. I may be mistaken but please point out where in Iowa or federal law that a young adult in possession of a handgun has committed a crime.


724.22 PERSONS UNDER TWENTY-ONE -- SALE, LOAN, GIFT,
MAKING AVAILABLE -- POSSESSION.

1. Except as provided in subsection 3, a person who sells, loans,
gives, or makes available a rifle or shotgun or ammunition for a
rifle or shotgun to a minor commits a serious misdemeanor for a first
offense and a class "D" felony for second and subsequent offenses.
2. Except as provided in subsections 4 and 5, a person who sells,
loans, gives, or makes available a pistol or revolver or ammunition
for a pistol or revolver to a person below the age of twenty-one
commits a serious misdemeanor for a first offense and a class "D"
felony for second and subsequent offenses.
3. A parent, guardian, spouse who is eighteen years of age or
older, or another with the express consent of the minor's parent or
guardian or spouse who is eighteen years of age or older may allow a
minor to possess a rifle or shotgun or the ammunition therefor which
may be lawfully used.
4. A person eighteen, nineteen, or twenty years of age may
possess a firearm and the ammunition therefor while on military duty
or while a peace officer, security guard or correctional officer,
when such duty requires the possession of such a weapon or while the
person receives instruction in the proper use thereof from an
instructor who is twenty-one years of age or older.
5. A parent or guardian or spouse who is twenty-one years of age
or older, of a person fourteen years of age but less than twenty-one
may allow the person to possess a pistol or revolver or the
ammunition therefor for any lawful purpose while under the direct
supervision of the parent or guardian or spouse who is twenty-one
years of age or older, or while the person receives instruction in
the proper use thereof from an instructor twenty-one years of age or
older, with the consent of such parent, guardian or spouse.
6. For the purposes of this section, caliber .22 rimfire
ammunition shall be deemed to be rifle ammunition.
7. Access to loaded firearms by children restricted --
penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person to store or leave a
loaded firearm which is not secured by a trigger lock mechanism,
placed in a securely locked box or container, or placed in some other
location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a
minor under the age of fourteen years, if such person knows or has
reason to believe that a minor under the age of fourteen years is
likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of
the minor's parent, guardian, or person having charge of the minor,
the minor lawfully gains access to the firearm without the consent of
the minor's parent, guardian, or person having charge of the minor,
and the minor exhibits the firearm in a public place in an unlawful
manner, or uses the firearm unlawfully to cause injury or death to a
person. This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the
firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person. A violation
of this subsection is punishable as a serious misdemeanor.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
imported post

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?

Careful. If IGO gets their bill passed early next year then you can tell us how crow tastes. You'd look just as silly as a certain "straight shooter" after he called out the demise of the IowaCarry/NRA bill.

Respectfully, what "work" has IGO done? What have they accomplished? Their lobbyist, Aaron Dorr, declared "Against" the bill that was just passed....

IGO may have just handed us "shall issue" on a silver platter. After seeing "constitutional carry" get so much support it was easy for the gun grabbers and fence sitters to compromise on "shall issue" that it passed both houses with a veto proof vote. If Governor Culver is stupid he will veto the shall issue bill and really get the IGO some new members.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
imported post

Gray Peterson,
The section of Iowa Code you quote only penalizes the person that provides a handgun to a young adult, it does not punish the young adult for legally obtaining a handgun.
 

SigSauer232

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
16
Location
, ,
imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:
IGO may have just handed us "shall issue" on a silver platter. After seeing "constitutional carry" get so much support it was easy for the gun grabbers and fence sitters to compromise on "shall issue" that it passed both houses with a veto proof vote. If Governor Culver is stupid he will veto the shall issue bill and really get the IGO some new members.
The legislators voting for the "constitutional carry" amendment knew what the vote resultwas going to be before they voted. Some voted for it because it was the right thing to do, others voted for itto cover their ass. It was not going to pass and everyone knew it. IGO's "close" votes are smoke and mirrors.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
imported post

SigSauer232 wrote:
IA_farmboy wrote:
IGO may have just handed us "shall issue" on a silver platter. After seeing "constitutional carry" get so much support it was easy for the gun grabbers and fence sitters to compromise on "shall issue" that it passed both houses with a veto proof vote. If Governor Culver is stupid he will veto the shall issue bill and really get the IGO some new members.
The legislators voting for the "constitutional carry" amendment knew what the vote result was going to be before they voted.  Some voted for it because it was the right thing to do, others voted for it to cover their ass.   It was not going to pass and everyone knew it.  IGO's "close" votes are smoke and mirrors.

And you're going to blame Iowa Gun Owners for that? Iowa Gun Owners brought constitutional carry to the Iowa legislature. They forced the issue in front of the politicians and the voters. It seems odd, doesn't it, that the NRA was absent from Iowa until Iowa Gun Owners showed up?

Those that voted for constitutional carry will be expected to do so in the future. Those that did not vote for it will have to answer to the voters. Primaries will come up before we know it and people will still have this on their minds. We can only thank Iowa Gun Owners for that.

Any one that did not vote wholeheartedly for constitutional carry just might find themselves looking for another job since they may just find themselves in a spot where smoke and mirrors just won't cut it any more.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:
Gray Peterson,
The section of Iowa Code you quote only penalizes the person that provides a handgun to a young adult, it does not punish the young adult for legally obtaining a handgun.
And the two methods you suggested are completely outrageous and completely miss the point.

The first one requires a lot of financial resources (believe you me, moving interstate is NOT easy and NOT cheap). Better also hope that your gun doesn't break either or you need a replacement handgun, because you'd have to move out of state again. Absolutely ludicrous suggestion.

The second one requires that someone be the same name (Junior/Sunior) and then use the 4th amendment to defend against it. What about those are of different name? What about a female 18-21 year olds, as daughters are not typically named after their mothers like sons with their fathers? Most importantly, it requires a CRIMINAL ACT to be done. Another ludicrous suggestion.

As I said, completely misses the point of my question. It may be a little imprecise, so let me rephrase with the better understanding of the Iowa Code that I now know:

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 transferring a handgun to someone 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.

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 transfer ban which requires a criminal act to be done? 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.

The core of my problem with IGO's tactics is that they fail to address the issue that they attack the other side for. That, my friends, is the very definition of hyprocisy.

You then dream up this little conspiracy theory:

It seems odd, doesn't it, that the NRA was absent from Iowa until Iowa Gun Owners showed up?

The NRA was not absent from Iowa for the entirety of the state's history. The state's firearms preemption law which was passed in 1990 when the NRA's and other allied organization's handiwork. Perhaps you should ask the NRA lobbyist who was in Des Moines who actually asked them to come in? It certainly wasn't for the purpose of "squashing IGO's efforts like a bug".

When Tom Vilsack became governor, he threatened to veto any carry reform legislation. Before then with Terry Brandstad as Governor, the General Assembly wasn't biting on the issue. Chet Culver, unlike Tom Vilsack who absolutely loved gun control, didn't really care about the issue when he was elected, and the current leadership in the general assembly realized that there was nothing to be gained politically and a lot to be lost (including re-election campaigns) by obstructing with the looming threat of a truly effective lawsuit against the sheriffs and the DPS that was going to come if they didn't change the law.

One way or another, Iowa would have been shall-issue in the next few years. The question became whether or not the Legislature would have done so, or a federal judge would do so after a suit filed by a legal team who mention of their names scare the bejesus out of anti-gunners to the point where they run away screaming every time they hear it. It just so happens that the latter doesn't help members of the General Assembly politically. It is a bad time to appear like an anti-gun incumbent especially in this election season in Iowa. Let me also point out that the nature of politics generally suck.

Going the Legislative route saves lives starting in very early 2011 versus waiting for the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on a appeal sometime around 2012. My friends in Iowa can live with that ability (they are waiting with baited breath for January 2nd), and now I can carry to their wedding they have planned next year.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
imported post

And the two methods you suggested are completely outrageous and completely miss the point.

Huh? What was the point then? I was just pointing out that there is no penalty in Iowa or federal law for a young adult to lawfully obtain a handgun.

The first one requires a lot of financial resources (believe you me, moving interstate is NOT easy and NOT cheap).

In my younger days I did move out of state and the only expense that I could see that would be greater than moving within the state was the cost of gas. For someone that does not own a house and has few possessions, such as your typical college student, there is little expense in moving anywhere in this country.

Better also hope that your gun doesn't break either or you need a replacement handgun, because you'd have to move out of state again. Absolutely ludicrous suggestion.

Then buy two. One does not actually have to move, just establish residence. If Junior is living out of his parent's basement and finds a job in another state he can then rent an apartment for the summer, stay there long enough to be considered a resident, buy a handgun through a private transfer from a willing person, then "move" back home.

You might call that ludicrous but I would call that a summer job. My brother did something similar, that is moving to another state for the summer for a job not buy a handgun while out of state. He did have a bit of a hassle when it came to tax time since he had to file income for two states but other than that it was relatively painless and also quite lucrative. My experience was similar except less lucrative.

The second one requires that someone be the same name (Junior/Sunior) and then use the 4th amendment to defend against it. What about those are of different name? What about a female 18-21 year olds, as daughters are not typically named after their mothers like sons with their fathers? Most importantly, it requires a CRIMINAL ACT to be done. Another ludicrous suggestion.

The use of Senior and Junior was only used as example names to easily show the relationship between the two people, not to imply their names are similar. I could have easily used Sam instead of Senior and Jon instead of Junior. I could have also used Elder/Younger, Samantha/Jenny, etc.

I know it would have constituted a criminal act, I admitted as such. The example was used to show that even though there was a law against it there is little that law enforcement could do to actually enforce that law. Enforcement of that law would, essentially, require an admission of guilt from one of the parties. Without an admission of guilt there is always doubt on who transferred the handgun to the young adult since there is no requirement for a record of transfer for a handgun to change hands in Iowa. If Junior/Jon/Younger/Jenny claimed ownership of the handgun and no one else did then what is a law enforcement officer to do?

Also, it would not require a Fourth Amendment defense but a Fifth Amendment defense against compelling one to be a witness against himself but that is a minor point.

The core of my problem with IGO's tactics is that they fail to address the issue that they attack the other side for. That, my friends, is the very definition of hyprocisy.

What was that issue again? Iowa Gun Owners knew that the penalties for transferring a handgun to a young adult was an issue and, I was told at least, they would work on that. They needed a legislator to take up the bill first, then they could work out the "kinks" through the floor debate and amendment process.

Iowa Gun Owners was attacking the very flawed proposal created by the NRA. The bill that passed both houses lacks many of those problems since it has changed significantly from the original NRA proposal. I don't know if Iowa Gun Owners has any specific claims against the bill, I only know they call the bill "imperfect" (my word, not theirs) and that it does not go far enough in protecting our rights. The official statement has been quoted above by 44Brent.

You then dream up this little conspiracy theory:

No conspiracy required. I have heard of the lack of NRA participation in Iowa for years and now they suddenly show up this year. Something changed to drive them to return to Iowa with such vigor in the last year. I am merely pointing out that Iowa Gun Owners was likely a significant driver in their renewed activity.

Getting back to the handgun ownership by a young adult I have to ask what is the penalty for an adult under the age of 21 being found in possession of a handgun? Certainly someone can point to chapter and verse of the law that spells out the penalty?
 

Straight_Shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
266
Location
, Iowa, USA
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.


Ahhh . . . quite the contrary. . . it proves that the NRA and Iowa Carry did not support the second amendment in Iowa . . . plain and simple. It was only 6 votes short in the Senate and 5 votes short in the house. If the "mighty" NRA and Iowa Carryhad puttheir efforts and resources behind this bill they way it did with the watered down sellout bill, sending outorange vote cards toevery Iowa member,these few votes would have been quite easy to get.

But because they gave the anti-gunners an "out" with this restrictive bill that still leaves us begging the state to exercise our second amendment"right" to carry, they naturally took the more anti-gun path. It is their nature.

I would add that in the house, it was, of course, NRA Director Clel Baudler that voted solidly against the second amendment vote, one of two, the other being Tjepkes. Being an NRA Director and voting for training rights for the NRA . . .he put the NRA and his position above the rights of Iowans.

The NRA nor Iowa Carry simply do not support the second amendment, otherwise, they would have pushed as hard for this bill as their own rights restricting bill.
 

Straight_Shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
266
Location
, Iowa, USA
imported post

SigSauer232 wrote:
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....

I am sorry, but you are such an idiot, I just have to say so . . . so turn me in. Freakin Iowa Carry spent the last fivelousy years trying to get a watered down POC bill pushed through by sucking up to their worthless NRA director Clel Baudler,the same NRA Director Clel Baudler who voted AGAINSTVERMONT STYLE CARRY,who would NEVER support shall issue in all those years. He just kept coming up with crap like "you can get a letter that tells you why you were turned down" and that mindless crap.

The NRA hasn't even had a presence in this state for over twenty years . . . the ONLY reason the NRA even paid any notice in this state this year was because the members of IGO had finally had enough of the sell out crowd and decided to DO SOMETHING and ran the Vermont style bill (notice I didn't say a watered down compromise from the start bill like Iowa Carry is so fond of) to a PROCEDURAL (there . . . that make you happy?)tie vote of 49 to 49 last session in the house.

If it weren't for the ground breaking work of IGO last year, you idiots would be no closer this year to passing thismessed upbill of yours than you were in all the years past. Even the legislatorsat theCapital have admitted this . . . . You owe a huge debt to the Iowa Gun Owners leadership . . . but you are too thick in the head to begin to know it.
 
Top