Jeff Knox of the Firearms Coalition says the NRA is derailing a good concealed carry bill and pushing a bad one in Iowa:
[O]ne would expect advocates to unite around the Alaska-style bill for this legislative session with an eye towards either passing a very good bill, or forcing a clear record vote on such a bill and using that vote against opponents in the next General Election. Instead, after ignoring the state for decades, NRA has decided to ride their white horse into Iowa to save the day by amending the already weak Iowa Carry bill to make it not only weaker, but to actually include some provisions which are worse than existing law – snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Click here to read Knox's analysis of what the NRA-backed bill will do.
The state grassroots organizations behind competing bills are Iowa Carry and Iowa Gun Owners. Here is some further information you can check out for yourself:
Iowa Carry and NRA support House File 746. Click here to read the bill and view its legislative history and related declarations, click here for the related Senate File 258 version, and click here for the corresponding House File 193.
Iowa Gun Owners supports House File 596. Click here to read the bill and view its legislative history and related declarations and click here for the corresponding Senate File 473 version.
I understand this is confusing--first to grasp the workings of the legislature and then to wade through and make sense of the legalese. To the end of helping explain things to us, I'll extend an invitation to both Iowa Carry and Iowa Gun Owners and ask them to share their advocacy rationale with us in a later Gun Rights Examiner column. Naturally, I'll let you know if and when either group responds with a statement for publication.
[Thanks to Mama Liberty for the tip.]
------------
How Obamacare will destroy 2A
From Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:
Please stop what you are doing and read this analysis detailing the stealth "gun control" scheme of Obamacare. It is crucial that you do this today and take immediate and appropriate action!
If you like what we do for you, then please support us. It is less than 7c a day, only $25 a year.
Put that way, if you support the right to keep and bear arms, why wouldn't you support JPFO?
Comments
I saw this 15 page abortion NRA bill. Once again evidence that the NRA isn't about correcting the problem but just "smokescreening" it just like the political machine does.
Keep in mind that the NRA is an organization that for 100+ years was an organization focused on marksmanship training, firearms safety, and hunting. Defense of the Second Amendment wasn't even close to being on their plate because it wasn't necessary. That changed forever in 1968. The NRA's actions and the resulting membership backlash resulted in the "Cincinatti Reforms". You can look it up if you wish. But the result was that all of the benchrest guys, the handloaders, the target shooters and the hunters got dragged into the defense of the Second, very much against their will, kicking and screaming the whole way. The organization now has their feet very solidly in both camps, making nobody happy. It keeps to what some people see as an overly pragmatic, too cautious approach. A firebreathing no quarter Pro-2A candidtate will not get endorsed in favor of a more moderate one who has a chance of being elected. (cont. above)
(cont. from below)
NRA was criticised, perhaps correctly, for coming late to the party on DC v Heller. But their concern was the impact on our rights if Heller had lost. Imagine where we would be if Obama and Holder could move against us with the assurance that SCOTUS said the Second only applied to states operation of their National Guard units? On the other hand, NRA was behind Florida's landmark "shall issue" CCW legislation which now has spread to 34 states. The "Castle Doctrine" laws are also an NRA pushed innitiative that is spreading across the country. Ditto for "emergency powers" legislation to prohibit gun confiscation like we saw in post Katrina New Oleans. The NRA is far from perfect, but they have taught politicians to pay attention to America's gun owning voters. NRA gives us far more clout than all the other pro 2A groups combined. We would be in far worse shape without the NRA. Lets keep in mind all the good stuff they do, not just their mistakes.
OK - so why is it that "compromise" legislation seems to take us one step forward and two steps back?
And why is it that NRA "A" rating legislators are the ones who so often stab Bill of Rights supporters in the back?
My memory of Heller is - in thumbnail form - NRA first tried to get the case killed, then raised the flag of victory after the decision.
Add to the mix project Exile, etc, and it's harder and harder to trust NRA as a "friend."
I can tell you for a fact that NRA wanted the Heller case to go away because they believed Heller was going to lose. Imagine the world of hurt we would now be in if they had been correct.
As for your other questions, they are often "head scratchers" for me too. Are you ready to hold Mr Lapierre's feet to the fire for some answers? You want to really rip some of your remaining hair out? Read Jeff Knox's book "The Gun Rights War", a collection of his fathers' (Neal Knox) columns from Shotgun News and other sources that details (from Neal's perspective) some of his rough handling by the NRA's leadership. Then you will be in a better position to ask Mr. Lapierre some more pointed questions. Who knows, you might do some good!
Some very good info on NRA's involvement, and the reasons they messed it up, in the wikipedia page on DC vs Heller. There is also some reference to the Gura/Levy team's being guided by Thurgood Marshall's approach to ending school segregation. Clayton Cramer, who assisted with the amicus curae briefs in Heller has also referred to Marshall's strategy. Esentially, SCOTUS would never have outlawed "separate but equal" schooling in one shot. So Marshall took it apart, one little chunk at a time. The Neal Knox, Allen Gottlieb, Larry Pratt "take no prisoners" approach would be to repeal all 20,000 Second Amendment infringements at one shot. But we didn't lose this much of our rights in one chunk. The chances of us getting them back in one chunk is slim to none. No court or legislature is going to go for that. The Gura, Levy, (and NRA) approach seems to be to nibble them back the same way they were nibbled away. Kind of like putting a frog in cold water over a low heat.
"Compromise" means we give up something, and so does the other guy. It doesn't mean we only give up half of what the other side demands. Until next time, when we are told to give up another half, continuing the steady march toward total prohibition and confiscation (and "civil" war). Unfortunately this has been the reality of NRA "compromise" on "gun laws". I have long advocated REAL compromise on "gun control". I'll even let the disarmament advocates decide which 50% of the current anti-freedom "gun control laws" get immediately repealed. Then next year, I'll let them choose the next 50% of remaining "gun control" laws to repeal again. As a first step back to sanity.
If the Supreme Courtjesters had ruled against an individual right in Heller (I mean, by their words, not by the reality of the ruling as they did), then maybe gun owners would have been awakened to the reality that we don't get our right to own and to carry any weapon we want, everywhere we go, in any way we see fit, without asking permission of anyone, ever, from government OR from its documents. And if gun owners ever really understand this fact on a gut level, maybe they will start ignoring any "laws" to the contrary in numbers sufficient to make the "law" irrelevant.
DDS, simply put the NRA is in the betrayal business. All those perplexities we talk about are not at all perplexing once we look at their actions through that lens. Failure to look through that lens connotes a fear of the truth or agreement with it.
Straightarrow:
I would like to be a "take no prisoners" guy, but I have seen too often that it just doesn't work. You are not going to get them to let go of the whole enchilada in one shot. However, part of your point is well taken. Why is "compromise" always interpreted by the other side to mean that we need to give up half of what they left us in the last round? The next time someone tells you we need "reasonable and effective" gun control laws, ask them which of the 20,000 laws already on the books are unreasonable and which ones they would be willing to give up as ineffective. Don't be surprised if you get either a blank stare or decent into psychobabble.
Take a look at NRA/ILA's website about an AP story listing 47 laws recently passed loosening our opponednts grip on our RKBA, all as a result of NRA's efforts.
I live in Iowa. They have the most screwed up sytem in the country. Your right to carry is determined by 1 person. The country sheriff. Some counties in Iowa do not issue permits for any reason. I'm fortunate enough that I live in a shall isssue county. That could change with the next election. I would love to see Vermont/Alaska style carry here. But I'm a realist. We would be very happy with shall issue right now. Later on we can work on getting more. And the 49/49 tie is not exactly true. The tie vote was a procedural vote. It wasn't a vote on the bill itself.
@DDS: "There is also some reference to the Gura/Levy team's being guided by Thurgood Marshall's approach to ending school segregation... Marshall took it apart, one little chunk at a time. The Neal Knox, Allen Gottlieb, Larry Pratt "take no prisoners" approach would be to repeal all 20,000 Second Amendment infringements at one shot... [NRA's] concern was the impact on our rights if Heller had lost."
In Portuguese, this argument would be termed "oatmeal mouth." No putative "all or nothing" approach by Knox, GOA, or anybody else was even on the table. Gura's approach was the safest possible, and *it* was what NRA tried to scuttle. The NRA takes only safe bets, to avoid the PR embarrassment of losing any fight whatsoever. Sorry, but I want to be represented by an organization that's willing to "man up" for my rights better than that. NRA has breezed into my state as well, to make weak bills out of strong ones for no reason anyone can fathom, and we're sick of it. NRA, stay out!
Iowa Gun Owners has an analysis of the competing bills at www.iowagunowners.org/analysis-of-bills-for-2009
I've met with both groups and talked with Aaron Dorr, Executive Director of IGO. For an organization that didn't exist a year ago, getting a bill introduced and through committee to a tie vote, and in a house filled with liberals is a pretty good accomplishment. I think it woke up Iowa Carry and the NRA
This state needs some shaking up.
DDS, you said, "The next time someone tells you we need "reasonable and effective" gun control laws, ask them which of the 20,000 laws already on the books are unreasonable and which ones they would be willing to give up as ineffective."
To answer you, I do. Always have done. My question to you which you dare not answer is why the NRA never asks that question? They have had ample opportunity, but all they ever ask is, "How much must we give up this time in order to call our surrender compromise, so we can send some more "send more money letters"?"
I have no problem with what Gura et al did. The difference between them and the NRA is they got something because they tried. If you remember the NRA didn't want that attempt to even survive cert. And they did everything they could to see that it didn't, but they ran in to take credit when the case was won over their objections and obstructionism. Do not tell me they are on my side. Even a dog knows that someone who kicks him at every opportunity isn't his friend. I'm at least as smart as that dog, though there seems to be a plethora of people who are not.
If you guys would go back and read my posts again, you will find no place where I claim NRA to be infallable. They have and will continue to make mistakes. They are people, fallable people like you and me. But they are not the enemy. We have a lot of work to do to restore our 2A rights to where the founders wanted them to be. Currently, NRA is the best tool we have. I don't like hearing people saying they can't drive any nails because their hammer is not perfect. Many of you have raised some good points on this and other Examiner threads. But if you feel you have a beef with NRA, this is not the best place to vent them. What you should do is "man up", to borrow Henry Bowman's phrase, call up Wayne Lapierre, and tell him off about all of the mistakes you see him making.
DDS: There are two sides to trust. One, you have to trust in someone's GOOD INTENTIONS. Two, you have to trust in someone's COMPETENCE TO DELIVER, because good intentions don't always cut it (would you "trust" Stephen Hawking to rescue your kids from a burning building?) The NRA (and its executives) does best financially when the gun situation is worst, so we can't even trust NRA completely on the first count. But on the second... come on. Wimping out on Heller wasn't just any "mistake" -- it was a crucial turning point in the fight for gun rights. It would have been like MLK calling of the Selma march for fear of violence, or Eisenhower deciding the odds were too questionable against us at Normandy. You can't win a war -- including a war on gun rights -- by playing only defense. Add this to the NRA's penchant on the state level for substituting WORSE bills for good bills that were going to pass, and I can say yes -- I no longer trust the NRA to do what is best for me.
Guys,
Whatever. I can't fix your issues with NRA. The guy who can has an office in Fairfax, VA. His name is Wayne Lapierre. The number is on the website. If you want to get them fixed, as upposed to just venting about them on the web, "man up" and give him a call. Lord knows how we're gonna win if you can't bring yourself to complain to "the man". Have a nice day!
You make a pretty big assumption that we haven't already done exactly this. In fact, some of us have. Seen any change?
David, Did you know that the courts up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court have held specifically that government required permits to "allow" people to excercise First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of religeon are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! Therefor, it seems to me all this is moot. Concealed carry "permits" are, likewise, unconstitutional. I wonder why Americans have so readily accepted that the government has the "right" to issue these "permits" so that they can "allow" those they deem fit to have their constitutional rights. Please fill me in if I'm missing something here.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!