PDA

View Full Version : Iowa sheriffs oppose state 2nd amendment


vantec08
03-03-2012, 9:01 AM
http://www.timesrepublican.com/page/content.detail/id/547384/County-sheriffs-oppose-adding-Second-Amendment-to-Iowa-Constitution.html?nav=5005


"It goes far beyond the U.S. Constitution and what other states have done."

What freakin planet she on??

Left Coast Conservative
03-03-2012, 9:19 AM
"It goes far beyond the U.S. Constitution and what other states have done."

What freakin planet she on??

First, understand that Iowa is one of the states that has never had protections of firearms rights in their state constitution. The bill cited in the article proposes such an amendment. The statement you quote is not an exaggeration. Here is the text of the proposed firearms amendment:


The right of an individual to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be infringed upon or denied. Mandatory licensing, registration, or special taxation as a condition of the exercise of this right is prohibited, and any other restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.


This amendment was written by pro-gun rights groups in order to limit court interpretation of the right as much as possible. The anti-gun rights opponents of this bill are very much worried that this amendment will lead to local firearms ordinances, which Iowa has, being challenged in court and struck down.

Source of the above text, with discussion, can be read here (http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/03/01/a-victory-in-iowa-has-national-implications/).

I think they are right to be concerned. :43:

vantec08
03-03-2012, 9:41 AM
The right of an individual to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be infringed upon or denied. Mandatory licensing, registration, or special taxation as a condition of the exercise of this right is prohibited, and any other restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.


. ..which is the entire point of the 2nd in the BOR.

hoffmang
03-03-2012, 10:20 AM
California's Constitution was modeled after Iowa's IIRC.

A slight modification of this would probably be necessary to get it passed in CA but wow would that be fun afterwards...

-Gene

speedrrracer
03-03-2012, 10:30 AM
"We're not sure why it's necessary to move this next step so soon because we're not sure that's where Iowans want to be," said Susan Cameron, a lobbyist

Words fail me :facepalm:

Big Ben
03-03-2012, 11:16 AM
Reading the text of the proposed amendment, it seems like someone took the Founders' original intent and purpose (and dare I say meaning) when writing the 2nd Amendment and converted it into today's legalese.

And, yes, it sure would be fun if we had this in the CA constitution.

Ubermcoupe
03-03-2012, 11:25 AM
but wow would that be fun afterwards...

-Gene

Don’t tease me... :shifty:

safewaysecurity
03-03-2012, 11:32 AM
I bet the sheriff's are not too fond of the 4th and 5th amendment either but that doesn't mean we should repeal them. Don't know why people seem to care what the police think. They almost always want more laws and less freedom ( I'm speaking in a very general sense here and it's not cop bashing it's just the nature of the beast ). Police unions like more laws because it means more arrests and a higher demand for officers which means more union dues. You think police organizations are against drug legalization because legalization would lead to more crime? No they oppose it because it leads to less crime which means less police work. You will have the occasional grass roots elected local smalltown sheriff that supports more freedom ( like Sheriff Mack and a few Nor Cal Sheriff's ) but that's about it.

Gray Peterson
03-03-2012, 12:53 PM
California's Constitution was modeled after Iowa's IIRC.

A slight modification of this would probably be necessary to get it passed in CA but wow would that be fun afterwards...

-Gene

Curious, what would be the modification?

Big Ben
03-03-2012, 1:59 PM
Curious, what would be the modification?

Something along the lines of:

The right of an individual to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be infringed upon or denied. Mandatory licensing, registration, or special taxation as a condition of the exercise of this right is prohibited, and any other restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Mesa Tactical
03-03-2012, 3:06 PM
The right of an individual to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be infringed upon or denied. Mandatory licensing, registration, or special taxation as a condition of the exercise of this right is prohibited, and any other restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.


. ..which is the entire point of the 2nd in the BOR.

Not according to Justice Scalia, among others.

dustoff31
03-03-2012, 3:19 PM
Let me get this straight. A lobbyist for the Sheriff's Association isn't sure that Iowans want this. So she wants to deprive them of the opportunity to say whether they want it or not. Have I got that right?



From the linked article:

"We're not sure why it's necessary to move this next step so soon because we're not sure that's where Iowans want to be," said Susan Cameron, a lobbyist for the Iowa State Sheriffs' and Deputies' Association, which represents law enforcement in Iowa's 99 counties. "It goes far beyond the U.S. Constitution and what other states have done."


Like other proposed constitutional amendments, House Joint Resolution 2009 would need to clear two consecutive General Assemblies before going before a vote of the people. That means the soonest it would be on the ballot is November 2013.

VegasND
03-03-2012, 3:34 PM
I think it would be good for Iowa to adopt this. As written. In its entirety.


California too.


Without modification.

nicki
03-03-2012, 3:44 PM
The objections I read so far to the proposed IOWA RKBA are smoke arguments.

I probably would modify the bill myself to eliminate those objections.

If a school can restrict who enters the school grounds, then anyone entering the school grounds illegally with a gun on them is committing armed trepass. Certainly stiff penalties for being armed while illegally on school property would pass constitional scrutiny.

As far as the state capitol and other public chambers such as city/county councils, those rooms could be treated similar to courts.


For us, would have to write a rkba cryptically, perhaps throw in some fluff so to speak.

One of the top gun rights attorney wrote a good one a few years back, but it failed to get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot a few years back pre-Heller.

I do see value in having a state RKBA as Backdoor insurance to protect what rights we hope to win from the federal courts.

Running a well crafted California RKBA after there are victories in the federal courts will be an easier task since by that time the opposition should be seriously weakened.

Chess, not checkers. At this point we are knocking out the pawns, going for a few bishops and knights, the rooks and the queen are still hard targets.

Checkmate in my view is when we repeal the NFA, GCA1968 and restore commerce clause to original intent. That is at least a decade away.

Nicki

Kid Stanislaus
03-03-2012, 5:38 PM
A slight modification of this would probably be necessary to get it passed in CA but wow would that be fun afterwards...-Gene

Gene, I think that "slight modification" might require a backhoe!:D

CCWFacts
03-03-2012, 10:11 PM
This is a fantastic amendment. It would be wonderful if other states start updating their RKBAs to copy this text.

The anti-gun rights opponents of this bill are very much worried that this amendment will lead to local firearms ordinances, which Iowa has, being challenged in court and struck down.

From my naive (non-lawyer) reading it seems like it would make Iowa the second true Vermont-carry state: no permit needed to carry, specified not by statute but in the constitution. Yeehaw!

What the anti-gun people would be really scared of is that this could spread to other states. Let's hope so! All the states that have recently gone to no-permit CCW should take the next step, and put that into their state constitutions.

I think they are right to be concerned. :43:

Let's hope so!

safewaysecurity
03-03-2012, 10:20 PM
California's Constitution was modeled after Iowa's IIRC.

A slight modification of this would probably be necessary to get it passed in CA but wow would that be fun afterwards...

-Gene

I don't think ANY kind of amendment to the California constitution could be made that would guarantee any form of a right to keep and bear arms for individuals. It just won't happen.

press1280
03-04-2012, 1:48 AM
I see 2 potential issues why they oppose it. 1 is they somehow think this will allow any non-incarcerated individual, felon or not, to carry any kinds of weapons into any places they want.
Another is that the amendment would seem to strike down any fees and registrations, so it could lead to Constitutional Carry. That could dry up revenue streams for the sheriffs as well as them losing what control they had over the process.
A few(probably not the majority) see it as the people looking less and less to the PDs to solve crime issues, and thus a potential threat to their careers/unions.

SilverTauron
03-04-2012, 5:57 AM
This is hardly a surprise. To police management the entire Constitution is bad news. Without that annoying document such extravagances as needing warrants and asking permission to search would be unnecessary. Imagine the paperwork the sherrifs would save if they didn't have to present cause for a search warrant.

Think of all the drugs ,guns and money the cops would seize if they didn't need to ask permission of a vehicle's owner. Imagine the number of murder cases that would be solved if the detectives could use psychological torture to extract confessions! As far as the police chief is concerned any expansion of a constitution which grants more rights to citizens makes his job of impressing the mayor harder, because it means they have to actually get up and work. Senior police officials are government employees, after all.

hoffmang
03-04-2012, 10:08 AM
Curious, what would be the modification?

This would be what I think would be neccessarily politically.


The right of an individual to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be infringed upon or denied. Mandatory licensing, registration, or sSpecial taxation as a condition of the exercise of this right is prohibited, and any other restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

DROS is so enculturated here that I'm not sure that's a battle we should fight in state court but should instead look to the Federal 2A. However, the strict scrutiny section would still give us a bite at it.

Not that I too would prefer the full Iowa text but wouldn't want to sacrifice the good for the perfect.

-Gene

ja308
03-04-2012, 10:26 AM
Iowa gun owners ^5 !

Librarian
03-04-2012, 10:32 AM
This would be what I think would be neccessarily politically.



DROS is so enculturated here that I'm not sure that's a battle we should fight in state court but should instead look to the Federal 2A. However, the strict scrutiny section would still give us a bite at it.

Not that I too would prefer the full Iowa text but wouldn't want to sacrifice the good for the perfect.

-Gene

Given the propensities of our legislators, there needs to be a supplementary statement that 'arms' includes ammunition and the components - cases, bullets, primers, powder/propellant - and a clear definition of 'strict scrutiny', which then requires the definition of 'compelling' for state interests ...

hoffmang
03-04-2012, 11:13 AM
Given the propensities of our legislators, there needs to be a supplementary statement that 'arms' includes ammunition and the components - cases, bullets, primers, powder/propellant - and a clear definition of 'strict scrutiny', which then requires the definition of 'compelling' for state interests ...

Good point.


The right of an individual to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use arms, ammunition, and their components to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be infringed upon or denied. Mandatory licensing, registration, or sSpecial taxation as a condition of the exercise of this right is prohibited, and any other restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

-Gene

CCWFacts
03-04-2012, 11:25 AM
This would be what I think would be neccessarily politically.

I think this whole thing would be wonderful, but... are you serious? That any type of RKBA amendment could pass in California? There's no way. Unless it's something like, "A well-funded SEIU pension plan, being necessary to the luxury of our public servants, the right of our public servants to keep and bear arms to facilitate collection of taxes, fees, fines, seizures, and any other imposition necessary, shall not be infringed."

hoffmang
03-04-2012, 11:45 AM
I think this whole thing would be wonderful, but... are you serious? That any type of RKBA amendment could pass in California? There's no way.

The polling is changing but I agree with you that we're not there yet. What I can assure you of is that I would never be a proponent of trying this if it was a lost cause.

-Gene

J.S.Riesch
03-04-2012, 12:02 PM
The people of Iowa should care less for the County sheriffs concerns. If you as a LEO, who by the way sworn to uphold/defend and protect, overly preoccupied with people exersizing their constitutional rights, you should do something else for living. (pizza delivery anyone?).

This should be ingraved in their brains by the time of graduation from the academy and repeatedly reinforced during their careers.

Those opposing sheriffs should be impeached and removed from the offices they hold. These kind of “concerns” has been a part of the political football some choose to play with constitutional rights for the longest time. It goes hand in hand with usurpation of political powers and judicial abuses we had seen in our state for decades. my .02¢.

CCWFacts
03-04-2012, 12:07 PM
The polling is changing

I'll be shocked if there's any fundamental trend in our direction.

The only thing that might change it is if liberals here start to understand that some of the "peace on the streets" grand bargains (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-03/news/chi-nancy-pelosi-jesse-jackson-jr.-endorsement_1_nancy-pelosi-jesse-jackson-debbie-halvorson) they thought they made, turn out to be hollow one-sided deals. That would be ugly but could happen in the near future as some of our state's services start to unravel. I know I have some liberal friends here in LA who will suddenly desire to keep and bear arms under some situations which may be fast-approaching. You can kinda see this in the Oakland Hills and Berkeley already, as some people are figuring out that their police services are not adequate. Imagine how non-adequate they would be if we had a "hot summer" this summer. If you read the comments section on sfgate, you'll see a lot of "get a gun" advice in crime stories.

What I can assure you of is that I would never be a proponent of trying this if it was a lost cause.

That's what matters to me.