PDA

View Full Version : Iowa passes, "shall issue"! NRA at work.


iRIGHTi
05-01-2010, 9:25 AM
Iowa’s Governor Signs Shall-Issue Bill Into Law

Friday, April 30, 2010

This week, Iowa Governor Chet Culver (D) signed Senate File 2379 into law, signifying the first time in nearly a century that a major step has been taken to enhance the Right-to-Carry freedoms of Iowans. This NRA-backed legislation will allow law-abiding Iowans the right to carry without being subject to the subjective discretion of individual sheriffs, changing Iowa from a “may-issue” state to a “shall-issue” state.

The House of Representatives passed SF 2379 by a vote of 81 to 15. Senate File 2379 previously passed in the Senate by a vote of 44 to 4. Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal (D) sponsored SF 2379, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (D) sponsored the House version, HF 2528.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox said, “This is a major victory for law-abiding gun owners in Iowa. Concealed carry permits should not be granted on a subjective basis using an indiscernible set of criteria.” This measure will require sheriffs to issue a permit to carry firearms to all applicants unless they are subject to certain specific disqualifiers.

In addition, this legislation will increase the term of a permit from one year to five years; narrow the disqualifying circumstances for a permit to the federal minimum in most cases, while at the same time further narrowing state-specific disqualifiers; prevent the issuing officer from placing limits on or restricting the scope of a carry permit; ensure that denials, suspensions and revocations of permits would be subject to both administrative and judicial review; grant recognition to all valid out-of-state permits; broaden the types of training that would fulfill the state-mandated training requirement for permit applicants; and remove other over-reaching restrictions on gun owners in the Hawkeye State.

“This bill reinforces the legislature’s intent to respect the God-given right of self-defense for law-abiding Iowans,” Cox concluded. “We are pleased that Governor Culver signed this important legislation into law, ensuring folks a fair and clearly-defined permitting process.”

The NRA would like to thank Iowa Carry for their support, as well as Rep. Clel Baudler (R) for championing this legislation. In addition to the provisions previously listed, SF 2379 will also limit the information that can be required of a permit applicant and prevent the application process from being used as a de-facto firearm registration scheme. Until the new system goes into effect, gun owners will still be able to obtain a one-year permit under the old system. This measure will take effect January 1, 2011.

loather
05-01-2010, 9:31 AM
Hopefully we can add California to this list soon ...

iRIGHTi
05-01-2010, 9:40 AM
no doubt! :cool:

Window_Seat
05-01-2010, 10:29 AM
Notice the (D)s next to the names of the sponsors, which proves that just because you are a (D) doesn't make you anti-Constitution.:cool:

Erik; another (D).

pullnshoot25
05-01-2010, 11:00 AM
HOLY ****! This is FAN-FREAKING-TASTIC!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

CalNRA
05-01-2010, 11:04 AM
Notice the (D)s next to the names of the sponsors, which proves that just because you are a (D) doesn't make you anti-Constitution.:cool:

Erik; another (D).

great. Show me how that's working out in CA.

gobler
05-01-2010, 11:16 AM
You have to remember it's not the R or the D but the P (progressive) :mad:

FirstFlight
05-01-2010, 11:18 AM
Good show Iowa. Congratulations! The way the country is going California will be the only May Issue state left.

nk-1911
05-01-2010, 11:55 AM
We'll keep on fighting.

Paladin
05-01-2010, 12:06 PM
The folks at Iowa Carry have been fighting for this for years and over the past year or so, when the NRA saw that the fight was now winnable, the NRA stepped up to help them. (The NRA doesn't back losers so that it does not diminish its clout.) That lead one senior Iowa Carry member to say, "Thank you NRA. It was like putting Apollo Creed in our corner and giving us the 'Eye of the Tiger'" (http://www.iowacarry.org/forums1/index.php?showtopic=19146&st=40).

I am so glad the NRA is working w/Calguns Foundation, SAF, CRPA, and others (both overtly and covertly) to take CA back.

The best way help the NRA help us is by giving NRA memberships as gifts (https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/gift.asp?CampaignID=nranews), getting on the NRA-ILA's email list (https://secure.nraila.org/EmailSignup.aspx) (and getting your friends to get on the list), and ck the NRA-PVF's website (http://www.nrapvf.org/) before voting!

Our time is coming soon!

Ck out what America will be like come 1 Jan 2011!

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/maps/2011.gif

Wisconsin will likely go Shall Issue in 2011, after Governor Doyle leaves office.

After McDonald and Sykes (California and Hawai'i are both in the 9th Fed Circuit), the only holdouts will be IL and a half-dozen northeast states.

Foriegn power
05-01-2010, 12:39 PM
I am happy for the people of Iowa!

SickofSoCal
05-01-2010, 12:53 PM
Notice the (D)s next to the names of the sponsors, which proves that just because you are a (D) doesn't make you anti-Constitution.:cool:

Erik; another (D).

A "D" in Iowa is probably more conservative than an "R" in California.

Joe
05-01-2010, 1:02 PM
Congrats to Iowa! Awesome news

dixieD
05-01-2010, 1:05 PM
Notice the (D)s next to the names of the sponsors, which proves that just because you are a (D) doesn't make you anti-Constitution.:cool:

Erik; another (D).

True but unfortunately generally Iowa D != CA D

Cokebottle
05-01-2010, 1:13 PM
Don't give the NRA too much credit for this.
Yes, it was their proposal... but it was not the only proposal.

A bill that would have given Iowa Alaska/Arizona/Vermont style carry was narrowly defeated before this version was introduced. The margin was so narrow that it would not have been hard for the NRA and other organizations to lobby some of the more pliable people who voted "no" and get it pushed through.

Instead, the NRA came in on their white horse and proposed this version.
Yes, it is shall-issue... but it's not totally unrestricted "free" CCW like Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont.
This version probably would have passed with or without the NRA.

CitaDeL
05-01-2010, 1:14 PM
Ck out what America will be like come 1 Jan 2011!

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/maps/2011.gif


Hmm,... I think it needs more green.

bucket49
05-01-2010, 1:17 PM
Lets hope the Iowans recognize Non-Resident permits from Utah and Nevada.
This will be helpful while we wait to fall into the Pacific here!!!!!!

hollabillz
05-01-2010, 1:29 PM
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/3218/2011fixed.gif

Fixed it. ;)

Big Jake
05-01-2010, 1:30 PM
Notice the (D)s next to the names of the sponsors, which proves that just because you are a (D) doesn't make you anti-Constitution.:cool:

Erik; another (D).

I was thinking the same thing! :)

Big Jake
05-01-2010, 1:30 PM
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/3218/2011fixed.gif

Fixed it. ;)

We can only hope!

orangeusa
05-01-2010, 1:32 PM
I wish you had fixed it!!! CA gun laws that is!! :)

I grew up in Iowa and am not surprised by this. Large rural population - almost all have guns and guns are just part of everyday life on a farm - a tool for varmints, hunting, protection of farm and family. This spreads into the cities, and very few folks are anti-gun. You hear the "I don't own a gun", but not the whining anti-gun rhetoric you hear in our CA Statehouse..... IMO... :)

Big Jake
05-01-2010, 1:35 PM
Lets hope the Iowans recognize Non-Resident permits from Utah and Nevada.
This will be helpful while we wait to fall into the Pacific here!!!!!!

The legislation states that Iowa will recognize all valid ccw from other states so long as the holder is not an Iowa resident! :cool:

DarthSean
05-01-2010, 1:37 PM
Is there any way we can call for out of state help (besides the NRA) to put pressure on California to become shall issue?

hollabillz
05-01-2010, 1:59 PM
I wish you had fixed it!!! CA gun laws that is!! :)


Me too.. If only Arnold would return my calls. :o


I grew up in Iowa and am not surprised by this. Large rural population - almost all have guns and guns are just part of everyday life on a farm - a tool for varmints, hunting, protection of farm and family. This spreads into the cities, and very few folks are anti-gun. You hear the "I don't own a gun", but not the whining anti-gun rhetoric you hear in our CA Statehouse..... IMO... :)

Very true.. I think the whining anti-gun rhetoric, even in CA, is significantly more rare than gun rights advocates, gun ownership, and certainly the gun-indifferent. The problem is a big chunk of the whining rhetoric is concentrated on 10th Street & L in Sacramento. :mad:

Paladin
05-01-2010, 2:02 PM
Don't give the NRA too much credit for this.
Yes, it was their proposal... but it was not the only proposal.

A bill that would have given Iowa Alaska/Arizona/Vermont style carry was narrowly defeated before this version was introduced. The margin was so narrow that it would not have been hard for the NRA and other organizations to lobby some of the more pliable people who voted "no" and get it pushed through.

Instead, the NRA came in on their white horse and proposed this version.
Yes, it is shall-issue... but it's not totally unrestricted "free" CCW like Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont.Yeah, there was Constitutional Carry bill. But the NRA did not feel confident enough that it would win to support it. Remember, the MSM is more than happy (as they have a number of times in the recent past), to declare the NRA has lost its clout.

This version probably would have passed with or without the NRA.The last time Shall Issue came up (2 yrs ago?), w/o NRA support, it died when the sheriffs association fought it. Enough said.

Sure, we'd all like everything NOW! But that is not the way politics works.

Paladin
05-01-2010, 2:04 PM
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/3218/2011fixed.gif

Fixed it. ;)

Actually, I think you got it wrong. Hawai'i and Wisconsin should be blue too and the date changed to 2013 just to be safe. Not sure what will happen in other hold-out states in the next two years though.

CCWFacts
05-01-2010, 2:57 PM
Actually, I think you got it wrong. Hawai'i and Wisconsin should be blue too and the date changed to 2013. Not sure what will happen in other hold-out states in the next two year though.

I agree. Wisconsin came within a whisker of passing their Personal Protection Act (PPA). They had enough votes to overturn Gov. Doyle's veto, but then a couple of their reps. changed their minds and voted not to overturn the veto.

So they only need a couple more Republicans to win, or Doyle to be gone. Doyle is not running again. The Dem. front-runner in WI is strongly anti-gun, just as bad as Doyle, but the Republican candidate would eagerly sign the PPA. I'm sure gun owners and the NRA are going to be heavily involved. And even if they don't get a Republican governor, they will likely get a couple more Republican senators, and that will be it.

Hawaii is with us in the 9th Circuit, so I expect CCW reform in HI will happen at the same time as it happens in California.

Meanwhile, I fully expect Congress to pass national reciprocity within the next 12 months. It came within a couple of votes last time. Next time, there will be a lot more Republicans in the Senate, more than enough to pass the bill. They will do it as an amendment to some other must-pass legislation.

D-Man
05-01-2010, 3:06 PM
Lets hope the Iowans recognize Non-Resident permits from Utah and Nevada.
This will be helpful while we wait to fall into the Pacific here!!!!!!

With this bill they will recognize all other states CCW permits!

bulgron
05-01-2010, 3:17 PM
The only states west of the Mississippi that are not shall-issue (or better) for CCWs are California and Hawaii. And still there are no rivers of blood in the street, other than what was already there thanks to our failed war on drugs.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Brady bunch.

Gray Peterson
05-01-2010, 4:31 PM
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/3218/2011fixed.gif

Fixed it. ;)

Hey Hollabillz,

Change Hawaii to blue. Sykes will likely up up in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (I predict a win). I also point out that there is going to be a BUNCH of post-McDonald litigation attacking Illinois and the rest of those holdout yellow states. I know everyone's expectation is that things will be SLOW going because of what happened with Sykes being delayed, but once the McDonald train has left the station, things are going to happen QUICK.

There will be a legal attack on anti-carry laws nationwide the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetime. SHOCK AND AWE! I'm so excited.

Paladin
05-01-2010, 4:32 PM
I agree. Wisconsin came within a whisker of passing their Personal Protection Act (PPA). . . .

So they only need a couple more Republicans to win, or Doyle to be gone. Doyle is not running again. The Dem. front-runner in WI is strongly anti-gun, just as bad as Doyle, but the Republican candidate would eagerly sign the PPA. I'm sure gun owners and the NRA are going to be heavily involved. And even if they don't get a Republican governor, they will likely get a couple more Republican senators, and that will be it.

. . .

Meanwhile, I fully expect Congress to pass national reciprocity within the next 12 months. It came within a couple of votes last time. Next time, there will be a lot more Republicans in the Senate, more than enough to pass the bill. They will do it as an amendment to some other must-pass legislation.And how do we get more conservative Repubs into office at the state and national levels (vs more RINOs) . . . . See the link in my sig line re joining the Tea Party Patriots! :chris:

gn3hz3ku1*
05-01-2010, 4:54 PM
NRA needs to support us CA guys a bit more

Paladin
05-01-2010, 4:57 PM
I know everyone's expectation is that things will be SLOW going because of what happened with Sykes being delayed, but once the McDonald train has left the station, things are going to happen QUICK.

There will be a legal attack on anti-carry laws nationwide the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetime. SHOCK AND AWE! I'm so excited.I sure hope you're right. I can't wait to walk into my "anti" sheriff's office (SF Bay Area) and say, "I told you I'd be back. Now issue me a CCW permit!"

Well, actually, I'd be more polite and, being the politician he is, I'm sure he'd say, "Gosh, I really wanted to give you one years ago, but I didn't want to break the law by not abiding by the AG's GC opinion and I was afraid if you ever shot someone that we'd be sued, yada, yada, yada . . ." :rolleyes:

Lulfas
05-01-2010, 5:13 PM
Maybe I'm weird, but I actually prefer "shall-issue" to "unrestricted". It gives the cops an easy thing to tag a gangbanger with, since they won't have the ability to pass through the shall-issue barrier. Provided the barrier is "Ok, can he shoot? K, does he own the gun? K, any felonies or bad misdemeanors (aka DV)? All good? Enjoy carrying"

N6ATF
05-01-2010, 5:36 PM
Why would a "gangbanger" apply to lawfully be able to defend himself? If he is suspected of committing a crime, then the serial can be run, and his eligibility to possess verified.

CCW licensing is 100% nonsensical, as it only infringes upon law-abiding citizens, NOT criminals, who by definition, do not obey the law.

orangeusa
05-01-2010, 5:36 PM
Unrestricted does not mean we're back to Dodge City.

Just means no state restrictions. There are plenty of federal restrictions.
And you have to pass the background check IIRC, which weeds out the insane, felons, known gangbangers...

.

winnre
05-01-2010, 7:05 PM
NRA needs to support us CA guys a bit more

I hope they stop sending out junk mail and get with the program.

Paladin
05-01-2010, 7:22 PM
I hope they stop sending out junk mail and get with the program.
You can easily call their 800 number and ask them to stop the mailings and, yes, they are and have been for years, VERY active in CA. Until recently, they've been mostly on the defensive in CA. But w/the ascent of the internet and Calguns, they've started going more on the offensive too.

CA is the only place where the NRA has offices outside of their headquarters back in VA.

IIRC, CA has the NRA's only full-time lobbyist in a state capital. But due to our political landscape, the NRA does most of its work in CA behind the scenes and w/o taking credit. A couple of years ago they (i.e., we who are NRA members because "I'm the NRA!"), pushed through a law banning state and local LE from confiscating law-abiding citizens' guns w/o cause (post-Katrina gun protection).

Only CA has county level NRA Members Councils (ck out www.calnra.com). H. Paul Payne, who heads the Members Councils and reports directly to Wayne LP, is a long-time CGN member and regularly posts here.

IIRC, the NRA part of a coalition working w/CGF and SAF on litigation. The NRA shot down Prop. H, the SF handgun ban, a few years back. The NRA shot down the ban on firearms in public housing in SF a year or so ago.

If interested, ask Bill W. or Gene for more details or examples.

ETA: The problem isn't the NRA. The problem is that the vast majority of CA gun owners (and American gun owners) are NOT members of the NRA and that -- I'm guessing here -- a majority of those who are current members aren't politically active. Remember, there are an estimated 90,000,000 gun owners in America, but only about 4,000,000 are NRA members. Just as generals can't accomplish anything w/o soldiers, Wayne and the rest of the NRA can't accomplish anything w/o us.

First step to help the NRA help us is to have a current membership. Second step is to sign up for their email alerts at: https://secure.nraila.org/EmailSignup.aspx

HondaMasterTech
05-01-2010, 8:09 PM
Given the fact that a requirement to purchase a firearm legally is a background check I do not see the point of CCW issuance. Passing a background check to purchase the firearm in the first place should be the only authorization needed to carry.

Cokebottle
05-01-2010, 8:15 PM
NRA needs to support us CA guys a bit more
NRA is offering only token support here for the same reason they push "compromise" measures such as Iowa CCW.

They don't want to lose.
They are carefully choosing only winning battles to boost their credibility.

The fact that they wedged in on Gura's time on McDonald bodes very well for us.... not that the NRA helped the case, but that they felt that it was a winner and wanted their fingerprints on it.

Honestly, I have no clue why they were allowed to present. Gura and not the NRA was involved with the case and elevating it to the SCOTUS.


BTW: I am a current NRA member, and gave my wife a membership for Christmas.

Cokebottle
05-01-2010, 8:16 PM
Given the fact that a requirement to purchase a firearm legally is a background check I do not see the point of CCW issuance. Passing a background check to purchase the firearm in the first place should be the only authorization needed to carry.
Agreed, however, this is not the case in every state.
Hell... it's not the case in MOST states!

Window_Seat
05-01-2010, 8:21 PM
...and, yes, they are and have been for years, VERY active in CA. Until recently, they've been mostly on the defensive in CA. But w/the ascent of the internet and Calguns, they've started going more on the offensive too. ...

I am aware that the NRA is very active here, and I have already attended an NRA Member's Council meeting here in Alameda County, and those meetings are very productive (IMO).

What I would like to see is the NRA running ads on TV. I have been told in the past that the TV networks won't give them space. Have they even tried?

Erik.

HondaMasterTech
05-01-2010, 8:23 PM
The Shall Issue forms in other states that I've seen are more like, "Sorta-kinda prove you live here" forms. They don't seem to serve any other purpose. Even still, it's pointless.

I suppose it could be used as a quick identifier to LEO that you are legally posessing the weapon, meaning you might not be a prohibited person, if the issue were to arise.

Does that make sense?

Paladin
05-01-2010, 8:31 PM
NRA is offering only token support here "token support"? Did you even read my post above? As I wrote, did you even contact Gene or Bill for more examples of their significant and active fighting for RKBA in CA for years?

But perhaps the best defense of the NRA comes from people who know best what they're talking about -- the NRA's opponents in D.C. Here's an article by a man who for years actively fought the NRA in the nation's capital. From: http://gay.americablog.com/2010/04/on-lobbying-like-nra.html (emphasis added below)

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Our 'leaders' need to think more like the NRA

Posted by Joe Sudbay (DC) at 4/13/2010

In Karen Ocamb's interview with Barney Frank, to which John already linked, the Congressman said:

"Lobbying legislators is hard work and people want to do everything else but. They want to have marches. They want to think of strategies. And all what we need to know is to do that. They ought to think more like the NRA.”

For many years back in the 90s, I worked against the NRA. I watched them in action every day for years. I learned a lot about how the group works -- and how it wields power.

I can tell you one thing: If Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's Chief Executive Officer, ever went to a White House meeting where he was admonished by the Deputy Chief of Staff, Wayne wouldn't cower. He'd fight back. If Wayne was told by that Deputy Chief of Staff that the President wasn't going to follow through on an oft-repeated promise, because he had other more important things to worry about, I'm pretty sure Wayne LaPierre wouldn't just accept it. Every single NRA member would know about it within hours. It would be all over the media. Then, those NRA members would start calling Congress and the White House -- and they wouldn't stop until they won.

Actually, Wayne LaPierre wouldn't meet with the White House Deputy Chief of Staff. That would be beneath the leader of a powerful special interest. He'd have met with the Chief of Staff or the President. It also helps that LaPierre and the NRA's leaders don't care if they're loved at the White House, or invited to cocktail parties in the East Room. They'd rather be feared than loved, if it means politicians will keep their promises.

After Prop. 8, I actually had a better understanding of how the NRA members felt. They fight for their rights. We just had rights taken away. Now, we have to fight for them too. So do our leaders. Too many of our leaders are still playing by the old rules. We've all been way too nice.

So, yes, everyone needs to act more like the NRA members do when they feel like their rights are at risk. And, our leaders need to take a page from the NRA, too. The next time White House Deputy Chief of Staff sits our gay leaders down and breaks the bad news that the President is reneging on yet another promise, they should ask: What would Wayne do?

We're not equal. We have to get equal. And, we can't be nice about it.

*****

In closing, here's a quote directly from the interview mentioned in the above quote about Barney Frank's opinion of the NRA's methods (http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/04/rep-barney-frank-on-enda-dadt-and-how-lgbts-should-lobby-like-the-nra/):

. . . by marching on Washington. They tell me they were going to put pressure on Congress. All they put pressure on was the grass. Members of Congress didn’t know it [the National Equality March] happened because they didn’t call anybody. And I don’t understand why they think that works. By the way – you know who understands that? The National Rifle Association. They don’t have shoot-ins and rifle marches – they write and call. The NRA – person for person – they are extremely influential because they lobby that way.

Paladin
05-01-2010, 8:38 PM
What I would like to see is the NRA running ads on TV. I have been told in the past that the TV networks won't give them space. Have they even tried?

Erik.Send a PM to H. Paul Payne asking him that Q. My guess is that given the cost vs the demographics of CA, a massive ad campaign would not only be cost prohibitive but about as constructive in CA as having UOC group meetups at Starbucks in major urban areas. :rolleyes:

I read Bill W. post recently that the NRA in the past has purposely rated pro-RKBA CA politicians lower than they deserve to protect them from negative MSM publicity. The NRA does much of its work in CA behind the scenes because that is what works best here and now. The current UOC fiasco just shows the wisdom behind the NRA's CA tactics.

Post McDonald, tactics may change. I don't know.

Got to get going. Outta here!

winnre
05-01-2010, 9:43 PM
Given the fact that a requirement to purchase a firearm legally is a background check I do not see the point of CCW issuance. Passing a background check to purchase the firearm in the first place should be the only authorization needed to carry.

In Oregon having a misdemeanor will stop you from getting a CCW but it won't stop you from buying a handgun.

HondaMasterTech
05-01-2010, 11:25 PM
In Oregon having a misdemeanor will stop you from getting a CCW but it won't stop you from buying a handgun.

Thanks :) That's a ridiculous law. However, according to some, there would be blood in the streets if it weren't for such reasonable restrictions.

N6ATF
05-02-2010, 8:52 AM
Thanks :) That's a ridiculous law. However, according to some, there would be blood in the streets if it weren't for such reasonable restrictions.

What they say: there will be blood in the streets if it weren't for such reasonable restrictions
What they mean: there will be significantly less blood in the streets if it weren't for such unreasonable restrictions

FreedomIsNotFree
05-02-2010, 9:23 AM
Maybe I'm weird, but I actually prefer "shall-issue" to "unrestricted". It gives the cops an easy thing to tag a gangbanger with, since they won't have the ability to pass through the shall-issue barrier. Provided the barrier is "Ok, can he shoot? K, does he own the gun? K, any felonies or bad misdemeanors (aka DV)? All good? Enjoy carrying"

What makes you think being a "gang banger" will prevent someone from obtaining a CCW? If the "gang banger" can legally purchase a handgun, chances are he will be issued a CCW.

hoffmang
05-02-2010, 11:28 AM
The NRA may actually put more than our fair share of time and dollars back into California. The lack of our ability to move back the laws legislatively has more to do with the voters in California and very little to do with the amount of dollars and effort NRA puts into California.

-Gene

pullnshoot25
05-02-2010, 12:03 PM
Why would a "gangbanger" apply to lawfully be able to defend himself? If he is suspected of committing a crime, then the serial can be run, and his eligibility to possess verified.

CCW licensing is 100% nonsensical, as it only infringes upon law-abiding citizens, NOT criminals, who by definition, do not obey the law.

How does I have Jim Crow laws?

markw
05-02-2010, 12:37 PM
Yup, I grew up in Des Moines, never heard anyone that was Anti gun. Lots of people didn't own them, but they didn't try to preach to others that they shouldn't own them. If we wanted to shoot, we went out to my cousin's farm. Once I left, parents became rich and bought land outside of Des Moines, it has a nice gully that they use as a range.

Heck, a few weeks ago, some senior citizen on the east side shot at a burglar breaking in, missed the guy, cops took a report and reloaded her gun for her. That's service. :)

Mark




I wish you had fixed it!!! CA gun laws that is!! :)

I grew up in Iowa and am not surprised by this. Large rural population - almost all have guns and guns are just part of everyday life on a farm - a tool for varmints, hunting, protection of farm and family. This spreads into the cities, and very few folks are anti-gun. You hear the "I don't own a gun", but not the whining anti-gun rhetoric you hear in our CA Statehouse..... IMO... :)

hollabillz
05-02-2010, 1:11 PM
Given the fact that a requirement to purchase a firearm legally is a background check I do not see the point of CCW issuance. Passing a background check to purchase the firearm in the first place should be the only authorization needed to carry.

Too much logic... Not enough emotion... :43:

bsg
05-02-2010, 1:15 PM
we need major overhaul in California....

-Brady

hollabillz
05-02-2010, 1:19 PM
Actually, I think you got it wrong. Hawai'i and Wisconsin should be blue too and the date changed to 2013 just to be safe. Not sure what will happen in other hold-out states in the next two years though.

I agree. Wisconsin came within a whisker of passing their Personal Protection Act (PPA). They had enough votes to overturn Gov. Doyle's veto, but then a couple of their reps. changed their minds and voted not to overturn the veto.

So they only need a couple more Republicans to win, or Doyle to be gone. Doyle is not running again. The Dem. front-runner in WI is strongly anti-gun, just as bad as Doyle, but the Republican candidate would eagerly sign the PPA. I'm sure gun owners and the NRA are going to be heavily involved. And even if they don't get a Republican governor, they will likely get a couple more Republican senators, and that will be it.

Hawaii is with us in the 9th Circuit, so I expect CCW reform in HI will happen at the same time as it happens in California.

Meanwhile, I fully expect Congress to pass national reciprocity within the next 12 months. It came within a couple of votes last time. Next time, there will be a lot more Republicans in the Senate, more than enough to pass the bill. They will do it as an amendment to some other must-pass legislation.

Hey Hollabillz,

Change Hawaii to blue. Sykes will likely up up in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (I predict a win). I also point out that there is going to be a BUNCH of post-McDonald litigation attacking Illinois and the rest of those holdout yellow states. I know everyone's expectation is that things will be SLOW going because of what happened with Sykes being delayed, but once the McDonald train has left the station, things are going to happen QUICK.

There will be a legal attack on anti-carry laws nationwide the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetime. SHOCK AND AWE! I'm so excited.

Alright, alright... that map was the absolute worst case scenario ;) I was predicting the Sykes win in 9th Circuit, yet Hawaii rectifying their arbitrary issuance by going No Issue, due to lack of political cost. Hopefully, Nationwide reciprocity will force the entire map into being blue.. though as already pointed out, the more green states the better.. there's no logical reason to make lawful citizens jump through the extra hoops and fees. :cool:

hollabillz
05-02-2010, 1:28 PM
Agreed, however, this is not the case in every state.
Hell... it's not the case in MOST states!

That being so, if a background check is unarguably necessary, shouldn't it be required at the point where one legally purchases and acquires a gun?... not down the road when they feel the need to be "allowed" to carry it? ;)

Barkoff
05-02-2010, 2:34 PM
If you had to lay money down, who will be the last if nothing Federal is passed, CA, IL, NY, NJ?

Gray Peterson
05-02-2010, 2:35 PM
Alright, alright... that map was the absolute worst case scenario ;) I was predicting the Sykes win in 9th Circuit, yet Hawaii rectifying their arbitrary issuance by going No Issue, due to lack of political cost. Hopefully, Nationwide reciprocity will force the entire map into being blue.. though as already pointed out, the more green states the better.. there's no logical reason to make lawful citizens jump through the extra hoops and fees. :cool:

No-issue? Not constitutional. If we win in Sykes, they can't ban all carry period.

Gray Peterson
05-02-2010, 2:37 PM
If you had to lay money down, who will be the last if nothing Federal is passed, CA, IL, NY, NJ?

All of these laws are likely going to get attacked in federal court at the same time (except CA, which has a *slight* head start). So taking a bet is a crap shoot because it all depends on the local rules and processes of the federal courts there. Most of it is defined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, but there are also some local rules which may quicken things. 4th Circuit, for example, is considered a "rocket docket", whereas the 1st circuit not so much.

bulgron
05-02-2010, 4:38 PM
If you had to lay money down, who will be the last if nothing Federal is passed, CA, IL, NY, NJ?

Crap shoot between NY and NJ. My money is on NY, though.

HondaMasterTech
05-02-2010, 5:16 PM
If you had to lay money down, who will be the last if nothing Federal is passed, CA, IL, NY, NJ?

New York. But, as earlier stated, it won't matter some time after June.

winnre
05-02-2010, 5:57 PM
I am surprised IL and NJ are still holding out.

pullnshoot25
05-02-2010, 6:00 PM
I am surprised IL and NJ are still holding out.

Should have heard the cops I talked to in NJ about their laws. Biggest bunch of anal retentive asshats this side hell.

yellowfin
05-02-2010, 8:04 PM
MD is looking like a very attractive point of attack for forcing Shall Issue by court, and a good strategic point by being between PA and VA. Lots of population shared and plenty of gun friendly influence to highlight the norm they're clearly outside of. Plenty of plaintiff base to work with, too, particularly on an interstate commerce basis. The logic of not being able to be armed in a place you can be armed on both sides of within an hour or less just because of a couple of road signs is going to be impossible to defend.

thebronze
05-02-2010, 9:12 PM
Maybe I'm weird, but I actually prefer "shall-issue" to "unrestricted". It gives the cops an easy thing to tag a gangbanger with, since they won't have the ability to pass through the shall-issue barrier. Provided the barrier is "Ok, can he shoot? K, does he own the gun? K, any felonies or bad misdemeanors (aka DV)? All good? Enjoy carrying"


I agree 100%.

I'm not opposed one bit to the state imposing a minimum/reasonable training requirement in order to obtain a CCW.

thebronze
05-02-2010, 9:14 PM
I got this from John Lott's blog:

Iowa's new rules involve a significant increase in fees and training requirements.

REASONS FOR DENIAL: A sheriff can no longer deny a gun permit for any reason, or for no reason at all. The law says a permit can be denied only for specific reasons. They include: alcohol or drug addiction; felony conviction; any serious or aggravated misdemeanor conviction within the prior three years; any domestic violence conviction; documentation within the last two years of actions that leads the sheriff to believe a person is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently; past commitment to a mental institution; unlawful immigration status; dishonorable discharge for the military; being subject to a restraining order against harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.

APPEALS: Currently, Iowans have to fight a sheriff's permit denial, suspension or revocation in district court. Under the new law, they can also appeal to an administrative law judge.

EXPIRATION: Permits, good for one year before this law, will be valid for five years.

FEES: The $10 fee for a permit will go up to $50, and the $5 renewal fee will be $25.

HANDGUNS: Sheriffs can no longer restrict a permit for a concealed weapon to a handgun only, or impose any other limits.

MAKE AND MODEL: Sheriffs can't require an applicant to identify the make, model and serial number of his or her gun on the permit. This issue is not addressed in current law.

PUBLIC RECORDS: Gun permit records are public now and will remain that way.

RECOGNITION: Out-of-state residents with valid permits in their home state can carry weapons in Iowa.

TRAINING: Required every five years.

I don't really see any of that as unreasonable (except for CCW holders being public record). If we only had that in Kali...

Gray Peterson
05-02-2010, 9:41 PM
MD is looking like a very attractive point of attack for forcing Shall Issue by court, and a good strategic point by being between PA and VA. Lots of population shared and plenty of gun friendly influence to highlight the norm they're clearly outside of. Plenty of plaintiff base to work with, too, particularly on an interstate commerce basis. The logic of not being able to be armed in a place you can be armed on both sides of within an hour or less just because of a couple of road signs is going to be impossible to defend.

MD will be attacked. Count on it.