Tweet
"It goes far beyond the U.S. Constitution and what other states have done."
What freakin planet she on??
-
"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:
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.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.
Source of the above text, with discussion, can be read here.
I think they are right to be concerned.
-
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.Comment
-
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...
-GeneGene Hoffman
Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation
DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!
"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Comment
-
Words fail me"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
Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.
^Originally posted by cudakidd
Comment
-
Something along the lines of:
The right of an individual to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer and use armsto 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 rightis prohibited, and any other restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.Comment
-
-
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."Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook PeglerComment
-
I think it would be good for Iowa to adopt this. As written. In its entirety.
California too.
Without modification.People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.
--River TamComment
-
IOWA RKBA.
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.
NickiComment
There are currently 2938 users online. 169 members and 2769 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 7:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment