Foreword: As a follow-up to my recent column on competing concealed carry bills in Iowa, I have invited representatives from state gun rights groups Iowa Gun Owners and Iowa Carry to educate us on their positions. The following response is from Aaron Dorr, Executive Director of Iowa Gun Owners:
In his recent article, Jeff Knox of the Firearms Coalition has brought to light some very disturbing components of the NRA’s proposed concealed carry bill in Iowa. He mentioned our organization, Iowa Gun Owners, as the state based group that is opposed to this bill. He is correct. The 5,000 members and supporters of Iowa Gun Owners are concerned with the direction this new bill is heading.
As the Executive Director of Iowa Gun Owners, I have been asked by David Codrea to address the concerns that we have with this bill and explain why we are pushing so aggressively to pass the REAL Right-to-Carry bill. I will address our bill first. First let me give you some context on the current Iowa law.
Currently in Iowa, you have to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. We suffer under a ‘may issue’ system that allows the sheriff complete discretion to deny permits for whatever reason he wants. Sometimes the sheriffs simply invent reasons or are bold enough to deny permits just because they don’t like guns. Likewise we have to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun in all but a few cases. Law abiding Iowans are not allowed to ‘open carry’ in any incorporated area, and most sheriffs will revoke permits and otherwise harass someone who open carries in a non-incorporated area. Iowa has no ‘stand your ground’ or ‘castle doctrine’ provision, and we can’t have class 3 weapons.
In this context Iowa Gun Owners produced and is fighting for the REAL Right-to-Carry bill. This bill would allow anyone, who is not a felon or barred by federal law, the right to carry a weapon for self-defense WITHOUT having to first beg government permission. This is currently the law in Vermont. Additionally, under this bill Iowans would be able to open carry if they so choose as well. Lastly, similar to the laws in Alaska, the bill would allow Iowans to apply for a ‘shall issue’ permit if they want one for reciprocity.
This is the best gun bill ever introduced in Iowa. We don’t believe that the 2nd Amendment talks about taking tests, begging permission, and paying fees before one should be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights. We do not believe that the best way to pass a gun bill is to make multiple concessions up front, trying to appease the anti-gunners at the capitol.
We want anti-gun politicians to vote on our gun bills in their pure form – declare their hostility to the 2nd Amendment in ways that we can use to show our members the true colors of their elected officials. If the anti-gun crowd wants to water down our bills on the floor, or outright ‘kill’ them, that’s on them. They may pay a price for that vote this November.
Our bill was introduced last session by Rep. Kent Sorenson. Despite pleas from both political parties to drop the bill, Sorenson held fast and forced a procedural vote on this bill in the final moments of the 2009 session. The result was an amazing 49-49 tie vote. Obtaining a vote, even a procedural vote, is vital because unless a politician is forced to vote on a gun bill they will continue to claim to be pro-gun without ever having to do anything to back that up.
For those who insist that this was an arranged vote or that it didn’t matter, they should have been there watching the Majority Leader (the Democrats currently have control of both chambers in Iowa) run from his desk to the ‘well’ and turn around and begin pointing to various Democratic Representatives making them change their votes to give them political cover in their districts. This only happened because even the anti-gunners realize that there is growing anger in Iowa over our bad gun laws. These Representatives don’t want to be on the wrong side of this anger. For that matter, why would any Democrat break away from their caucus and vote pro-gun on this bill if they weren’t concerned about possible backlash?
In this light, coming so close to passing the best gun bill in Iowa’s history through the House, we are disappointed that the NRA, with the support of IowaCarry.org, is supporting a much lesser bill.
What makes it a lesser bill? Mr. Knox has already done a fine job of detailing this, but I’ll summarize for those who have not seen his article.
- This proposal would allow the government the right to deny you a permit to carry if you’ve ever been arrested for any crime of abuse. Not indicted, not convicted, just arrested. You can, in theory, be cleared of a crime and still lose the right to carry.
- This proposal would allow the government the right to deny you a permit should any government agency issue a ‘written finding’ that sustains an allegation of abuse. Think about your nosey neighbor and what damage she can do should she see you spank your child and then call social services.
- This proposal raises the age on those who can apply for permits.
- This proposal incorporates dangerous federal language – language that is currently up for repeal at even the federal level- into Iowa code.
- This proposal calls for government mandated training – when many states don’t, including our neighbors in South Dakota.
- Finally, this proposal still requires that law abiding Iowans beg permission to carry concealed.
There are other problems in this proposal, but this should give you a good idea of our main concerns.
The members of Iowa Gun Owners want to know why shouldn’t we press ahead and focus our energies on the best gun bill available. Why concede so much ground up front when the anti-gunners in Iowa are afraid of a backlash in November of 2010?
We have a real chance here in Iowa to capitalize on the anger across the state; to propel Iowa from being one of the worst states in the country regarding concealed carry to one of the best. The REAL Right-to-Carry is our best shot. Please come and join us.
For more information about Iowa Gun Owners visit our website located at www.IowaGunOwners.org. You can also email us at info@iowagunowners.org or call us at 515/309-7858.
Aaron Dorr is the Executive Director of Iowa Gun Owners, a non-profit organization in Iowa dedicated to overturning Iowa’s abusive laws when it comes to the purchasing, carrying, and using firearms for self-defense. He can be contacted at
UPDATE (12/18): See Iowa Carry response here.
Comments
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.
Sorry, I meant "religion". Spelling checker not working today.
Seems like Iowan's are going to have to choose between supporting an all or nothing shot at Alaska style concealed carry or a more gradual approach that may have a better shot at passage. It may boil down to which is more important to 2A supporters in the state: 1 -- flush out and expose supposed pro-gun legislators who can't be counted on or 2 -- get a concealed carry law that isn't all you want but better that what you have. From a Florida perspective, our system isn't perfect but it does exist. I have a CCW permit that I couldn't have acquired prior to 1987. In the 22 years since Florida started the parade, 33 other states have folowed suit with their own "shall issue" laws. Some are better than ours, some are worse. But none have succeeded in replacing a restrictive "no concealed carry whatsoever" or "may issue" system with an Alaska style "no permit required" system. But hey, that doesn't mean Iowa can't be the first! Take your best shot! We'll all be rooting for you!
How many of those willing to compromise for a terrible "law" would meekly submit to being required to get government permission to go to church, or a "license" to write email?
No difference.
If the folks in Florida, for example, had truly fought for their rights in the first place, they might have them by now. They settled for a compromise, and now they're stuck with it.
We're juggling with the same hot potatoes here in Wyoming, even though we have a much better situation to start with. Most of us are not going to settle for any wishy-washy compromise.
Go Iowa Gun Owners!
David –
Thanks for posting this. We are at crossroads for the RKBA in Iowa. We have lived for far too many years under the yoke of virtual tyranny in this state; after years of “mamby pamby” games with so-called “pro-gun” representatives, Iowa Gun Owners and Kent Sorensen have finally put the anti-gunners in the legislature “on the ropes.” I have been to many gun shows in this state recently and talked about this issue with gun owning Iowans, and they are HOT!
What this amounts to is a choice to keep essentially the status quo, with draconian restrictions and technical prosecutions under the weak NRA bill (which I have read in detail), or to FINALLY pursue having second amendment rights in Iowa. Many keep parroting that “this is the best we can get right now” on the NRA bill. That is simply not true. The anti’s from both parties, particularly from rural districts, are going to be desperate to find pro-gun cover next November. If we hand them this worse than weak NRA bill, they wi
If we hand the anti’s this worse than weak NRA bill, they will openly endorse it, get election cover and re-election in 2010 . . . . and we’ll be stuck living under this trash for the foreseeable future.
It is way past time for the second amendment to see the light of day in Iowa . . I urge all Iowa gun owners to get behind the courageous leadership and members of Iowa Gun Owners and State Representative Kent Sorensen.
SS
Keep in mind the environment when Florida passed "shall issue" was quite different. Fourty-eight of the fifty states had either "may issue" or no CCW whatsoever. USF (the Florida state NRA affiliate) was seen as a bunch of radical loonies for even suggesting "shall issue". The "compromise" was seen as having no chance of passing at all, and through several years of trying it went no place. Then it got passed, the predictions of "blood in the streets" were proved to be hysterical ranting, and 33 other states followed our lead. Not bad for a "compromise". Maybe the country is now ready for a wave of Alaska style CCW. Maybe not. Maybe Iowa will show the rest of us how its done. Maybe you will get nothing this round when you could have had something. Life is like that. You pays your money and you takes your choice. Like I said earler, take your best shot. The rest of us are rooting for you.
The NRA to the rescue, "or so they think" - come into the picture with a compromise bill. This will negate all the good work Iowa Gun Owners has done. NRA, either get on board or get out!
DDS -
"Maybe you will get nothing this round when you could have had something."
This is a common misconception about the NRA bill: that it is "an improvement." That is simply not true. The only gain is that it will force a few sheriffs to issue permits where they won't today. Those counties could fix that themselves; they have political recourse. In those counties where there are too many anti's present, then the best choice is to "vote with your feet." I did and it worked well. The problem with the NRA bill, at least in its current "as initially proposed form" is that it takes us BACKWARDS in terms of firearms rights. It attacks the very core of the notion of "due process" and makes a "nanny state" mockery of the second amendment. It is a "Faustian bargain," and I think the NRA should be ashamed to author such a disaster. Unless the NRA makes substantial changes in their bill, I will oppose it. I much more trust what I have seen from IGO at this point.
If this law passes I will donate $10,000 to your organization. Of course, it ain't going to pass as currently written.
The NRA bill is the right course. If I were you I would support it, get it in, and then push your bill.
Every, and I mean EVERY successful civil rights movement has focused on an incremental approach to achieve their goals.
You approach may give you a sense of moral satisfaction, but it is not going to help Iowa gun owners.
my 2 cents.
Moot,
SCOTUS has done no such things. Courts have ruled that permitting for demonstrations, for example, are acceptable.
Beatbox, without knowing who you are and having a way to confirm it, what good is a $10,000 pledge?
I don't mean to disparage this Iowa Gun Owners effort, but new "laws" are not what is needed. Instead, get rid of (or ignore) any "laws" that established the "need" for concealed carry permits in the first place. Everyone already has the right to carry just because you were born human. So do it.
Good point. I find it easy to make large pledges that are contingent on legislation that does not have a snowballs chance in hell of passing.
Beatbox -
"Every, and I mean EVERY successful civil rights movement has focused on an incremental approach to achieve their goals."
Possibly true . . . but I doubt any of them advanced their agenda by giving up what they already had . . . that's what the NRA bill does. Give us a good, clean "shall issue" bill, without all the attacks on due process like pulling permits of people only "suspected," and then we'll talk. Until then, this is a horrible bill.
Kent McManigal-
"I don't mean to disparage this Iowa Gun Owners effort, but new "laws" are not what is needed. Instead, get rid of (or ignore) any "laws" that established the "need" for concealed carry permits in the first place."
Kent - I don't men to disparage you . . . but that is exactly what the IGO "Real Right to Carry" bill does.
SS
Straight Shooter: Fair enough. But how much is actually a step backward and how much is status quo? Is there not training already required under the current shall issue process?
I thought the current process was "may issue"...?
Thank you, David. I'm glad Aaron responded quickly to your request. I'd be interested in IowaCarry's response.
Those of us who advocate the incremental approach - would we say the same if this was the Voting Rights Act in the '60s? Would we be satisfied that one could vote in state and local elections but not national? "Just wait a few years, you good little citizen."
An all-or-nothing bill puts everyone on the spot, not just legislators. The citizens of Iowa will have to take a stand, too. And that will make for an interesting day.
The IGO's bill is the one to push. Will it succeed this time around? Most probably not! However, in 2011 with a whole new cadre of state legislators who defeated incumbents will come the message that if they want to stay in the capital, they had better stay off that third rail that exposed the phony 2A supporters who lost the seats in which they are now sitting.
That sounds like incrmentalism to me. Incrementally ridding the legislature of rights deniers and replacing them with better people. Of course, the NRA's plan is also incrementalism, it is icnremental surrender of what is already ours and complete surrender of what should be. I think I prefer the former to the latter. NRA, get on board or be known, as you are now, as the largest gun control advocacy organization in the country.
Unfortunately Iowa GUn Owners is not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They have chosen conflict over cooperation as the only way they can get their bill passed. They are also misrepresenting the PROPOSED NRA bill as the final version as if it were being voted on today. It is not. The bill is still being reviewed and modified before being submitted to the legislature.
The statements about what the bill will do are entirely fabricated - There is NO denial based on a simple arrest, There is NO denial based on a simple written letter from some government official, there is NO mandated training - much like Florida the bill requires the state to accept a wide range of documents as proof of competence. Finally, there is no requirement for anyone to "beg" for anything. What part of "SHALL ISSUE" does IGO find so hard to understand.
It is unfortunate that IGO has chosen the path of conflict. Better to work both bills as they both are a step forward.
Bill704 says:
"Unfortunately Iowa GUn Owners is not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth . . . The bill is still being reviewed and modified before being submitted to the legislature . . . The statements about what the bill will do are entirely fabricated"
Bill, methinks ye are the dishonest one, or just plain ignorant. Here is the "current" modification of the bill POSTED AT THE IOWA CARRY WEBSITE: www.iowacarry.org/images/pages/2009-12-14_IA_RTC_NIAA_12-10-09.pdf
Directly from that bill, on Iowa Carry's website, I point out the following:
"There is NO denial based on a simple arrest:"
"There is NO denial based on a simple written letter from some government official"
To Wit:
"724.8 Persons eligible for permit to carry weapons. No person shall be issued a professional or nonprofessional permit to carry weapons unless the person: 4.2: has Has no history of repeated acts of violence resulting in: a. an arrest, b. a prosecution, or C.(cont)
or C. a written finding by any agency of a state or the United States issued after an investigation and sustaining an allegation of abuse or violence against another person."
"There is NO mandated training:"
To Wit:
"An applicant shall demonstrate competence with a handgun by any one of the
following . ..
1. Completing any National Rifle Association firearms safety or firearms training course;
2. Completing any firearms safety or firearms training course or class offered to the general public by a law-enforcement agency, junior college, college, or private or public institution . . .
3. Completing any law-enforcement firearms safety or firearms training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;
4. Presenting evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in an organized shooting competition;
(cont)
5. Completion of small arms training while serving with the armed forces of the United States
6. Obtaining or previously having held a license to carry a firearm in Iowa or a locality thereof, unless such license has been revoked for cause;
7. Completing any federal, state, or local governmental law enforcement agency firearms training course and qualifying to carry a firearm in the course of official governmental duties.
Finally, there is no requirement for anyone to "beg" for anything.
You can call it whatever you want . . . in this country, we are supposed to have a RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms . . . but in this state, I have to go to the government and (ask, beg, cajole, demonstrate) ______ fill in the blank. That, to me . . . is BEGGING.
What part of "SHALL ISSUE" does IGO find so hard to understand.
The part that says "we shall issue until we decide to take it away"
What part of "shall not be infringed" do YOU not understand?
beat box says:
"Straight Shooter: Fair enough. But how much is actually a step backward and how much is status quo?"
Well . . . let's see . . I've posted the link to the current bill at Iowa Carry, so you can see what is in it without me writing it out verse and chapter. So:
Today, there is no 30-day waiting period to get the permit (isn't the NRA the great champion of the National "Instant" Criminal Background Check?). Why the he _ _ does the NRA and Iowa Carry want, for example, a woman in Iowa being stalked by a deranged former ex to have to wait 30 days for a CCW before she can protect herself? I thought waiting periods were the devices of the anti-gun Brady bunch?
Today, there is no law that says the sheriff can take away your permit just because someone writes a letter saying your an evil dude . . yes, I don't doubt that a sheriff would try to pull your permit for this today, BUT WHY DO WE WANT TO CODIFY IT? This takes bad law and writes it in stone! (cont)
Today, there is no such thing as a permanent "conditional" permit - the NRA-IC bill creates this bizarre "conditional permit" if the sheriff doesn't decide in 30 days whether you qualify or not, and there is no mention of how you end such "conditional" status . . this is totally strange!
Today, there is no law that makes it a simple (now in the revised copy - was aggravated - maybe we're getting to them) misdemeanor to carry a gun after drinking ANY amount of alcohol . . . even OUTSIDE of incorporated towns and cities where technically it is legal to drink a beer and shoot some clays. I am not advocating drinking and shooting . . . In fact, I don't drink. BUT this is simply a draconian penalty for a really harmless act.
"The secretary of state may enter into reciprocity agreements with other states . . " 'bout the same as today . . . and equally worthless . . . I find it unbelievable that the NRA and IC refuse to take a stand on this very BASIC issue.
There's more, but what is the point? THIS BILL SUCKS! In fact, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding all of you NRA / IC people who keep saying that "it ain't no worse than today" . . Iowa's gun laws suck TODAY . . . so now you want to make sure we codify the laws that suck?!? Please explain that one to me, will ya?
Straight_Shooter,
The Dorr letter says, "This proposal would allow the government the right to deny you a permit to carry if you’ve ever been arrested for any crime of abuse." The proposed bill says REPEATED ACTS OF VIOLENCE resulting in arrest.
The Dorr letter says, "This proposal would allow the government the right to deny you a permit should any government agency issue a ‘written finding’ that sustains an allegation of abuse."
The proposed bill says this, but he left out the part that says "after an investigation" that finds the allegation has merit.
Continued:
The Dorr letter says, "This proposal calls for government mandated training – when many states don’t, including our neighbors in South Dakota." The bill allows a very wide variety of methods of proving ones competence, the same ones as Florida. If the applicant has ever had hunter safety classes, a license from Iowa or another state, prior military service, and many others, there is no requirement that they would have to take an additional training course as they now do.
No need to get upset. I'm just pointing out where the Dorr letter is factually inaccurate.
Straight_Shooter,
There is not 30 day waiting period. The issuing authority is given 30 days to check your background after which they give you a conditional permit that allows the applicant to carry until the process if finished. If the background check comes back ok, you get a new regular permit. If it finds you are a prohibited person, you have to give up what shouldn't have been your in the first place.
The bill does not say, "the sheriff can take away your permit just because someone writes a letter saying your an evil dude". The bill does say that written allegations of repeated violent acts that are investigated and found to have merit can result in you loosing your permit.
The bill does not create a new "simple misdemeanor to carry a gun after drinking ANY amount of alcohol". It states clearly "under the influence" which is defined by the Code of Iowa as .08% or above, the same as drunk driving.
IGO uses good writing coupled with bad information to push their own agenda.
Bill704
Nobody is upset; IMO this is BAD legislation; I am speaking out against it because I believe it is wrong; Ok?
"There is not 30 day waiting period. The issuing authority is given 30 days to check your background after which they give you a conditional permit that allows the applicant to carry until the process if finished."
Sorry, but if the sheriff can make you wait 30 days, that is a 30 day waiting period. I don't care how you slice it.
Do you want to tell some woman that is being stalked by a deranged ex that she "just has to be patient while we collect all this information on you before you can have our permission to defend yourself?" As I said, this is what Sarah Brady pushes; now it is the NRA and you think it is fine? The NRA always talks about the fabulous "NICS" system; why aren't they willing to use it in Iowa now, with our permit system? Do they or don't they believe that the NICS system works?(cont)
Also, the bill says absolutely NOTHING about "finishing the process." It says the sheriff can give you a "conditional" permit . . . (what exactly is the difference between a "conditional" permit and an "unconditional" permit??) There is NO mention as to how you get RID of the "conditional" permit and get an "unconditional" permit. Even if one accepts the construct of creating a "conditional" permit (which I don't), the way this bill is written is vague and ambiguous. I'll address your other points tomorrow; but I would ask you to please stop saying that IGO is "factually inaccurate" . . . I believe that there are some elements that you do not fully understand as well.
Thanks
SS
"Straight Shooter says:
IGO uses good writing coupled with bad information to push their own agenda."
That's Ok . . . NRA/IC folks use other peoples posting names to hide behind while they push their agenda.
The REAL "Straight Shooter"
What part of "take away on suspicion" is so hard to understand. I can write anything I wish. Doesn't make it true. What makes it true is truth. I can write that Bill704 is a child molester and I have reason to believe it. The sheriff under the NRA plan can then send an officer to interview me, call it an investigation and deny Bill his permit. No court, no conviction, just ""724.8 Persons eligible for permit to carry weapons. No person shall be issued a professional or nonprofessional permit to carry weapons unless the person: 4.2: has Has no history of repeated acts of violence resulting in: a. an arrest, b. a prosecution, or C. written finding by any agency of a state or the United States issued after an investigation and sustaining an allegation of abuse or violence against another person."
You will notice there is no mention of conviction for any of this, the closest this montrosity comes to conviction of a crime is "prosecution". Don't need to prove guilt, just [cont]
[cont] You will notice there is no mention of conviction for any of this, the closest this montrosity comes to conviction of a crime is "prosecution". Don't need to prove guilt, just prosecute.
What??? You also didn't notice that each disqualifier comes after the word "or". Hence my accusations against Bill 704 are enough to deny him his rights. Now how do you like it?
Do not try to tell me the NRA is on my side or the side of any other 2A advocate.
As a Life IowaCarry member, I will tell you that Iowa will mot pass a Vermont style carry bill this year or in the near future. Those chattering about the NRA bill, *think* they know what it says. The NRA bill is not perfected yet and has not been introduced.
Personal attack by an anonymous poster deleted. I don't allow that here.
Stu Strickler says:
"As a Life IowaCarry member, I will tell you that Iowa will mot pass a Vermont style carry bill this year or in the near future."
So what? Does that mean we should just lie down and accept this piece of rights restricting junk from the NRA? Frankly, the IGO bill aside, I would much rather see the "status quo" than this monstrosity. All you IC guys who refuse to listen to the complaints about this bill are doing is reinforcing the probability that the NRA won't change it.
"Those chattering about the NRA bill, *think* they know what it says."
No, we have read it, and we KNOW what it says, because we are quoting it "verse, line, and chapter." NONE of the IC people here are posting the actual language from the bill with their comments. They only say things like "it doesn't say that." Until there is debate on the true content of this bill, defenses of it are disengenuous at best.
SS
straightarrow says:
"What part of "take away on suspicion" is so hard to understand. I can write anything I wish. Doesn't make it true. What makes it true is truth. I can write that Bill704 is a child molester and I have reason to believe it. The sheriff under the NRA plan can then send an officer to interview me, call it an investigation and deny Bill his permit. No court, no conviction . . "
You are EXACTLY right! A friend of mind recently came under a DHS "investigation" because his 5-year old daughter had a minor accident, to which there were witnesses, and bruised her forehead. A teacher turned in my friend to DHS because of this injury. They were subject to a 6-month investigation for what federal law calls "domestic violence." My friend would have been denied a permit under the NRA bill, and he did absolutely NOTHING wrong. For the record, the DOJ now defines "name calling" in your family as "domestic violence:"
www.ovw.usdoj.gov/domviolence.htm
SS
David it looks like the issue of the NRA backstabbing gun owners once again is a hot topic.
Personally I don’t why the NRA does it and this isn’t the first time the NRA has grabbed defeat form the jaws of victory.
They did something very similar in Illinois this year. As many of you know Illinois is a cesspool of gun control.
We had a downstate democrat introduce a CC bill that would allow each county to pass its own CC law. Certainly not the best law but in Illinois it would be a great start.
This strategy was tried and worked in other states and the opinion was why not Illinois.
Well the NRA stepped in and stopped the bill.
Continued…
Just like in Iowa democrats supported the bill they see the writing on the wall and are looking for common ground.
I have also noticed in Illinois the NRA like what is occurring in Iowa will not allow a hard core vote on certain gun control issues to expose weak pro-gun or anti-gun politicians.
This I don’t understand.
David maybe you can tell me what’s going on why does the NRA give cover to anti-gunners.
It’s like they don’t want to throw them out of office but keep them around so we have some gun control?
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!