.jpg)
NRA is proposing changes to the Iowa concealed carry bill it's backing. From Jennifer Jacobs at The DesMoines Register:
The National Rifle Association has updated its proposal for changing Iowa’s law on how sheriffs must issue permits to carry a concealed weapon.
Hard-core gun advocates in Iowa complained publicly about the last version, saying it was far too weak in some areas and was unfair to gun owners in other areas.
We've discussed this in previous columns. See:
Competing concealed carry bills in Iowa divide gun owners
Iowa Gun Owners promote 'real right-to-carry'
Iowa Carry says NRA bill 'best chance at getting (concealed carry) into law'
Click here to read Jacobs' report. And then click here to read NRA-ILA's Dec. 24 memorandum with "a section-by-section explanation."
I invite supporters of Iowa Carry and Iowa Gun Owners to weigh in on this.
And I particularly invite the leadership of the "six major law enforcement groups [that] passed a resolution opposing any change to Iowa’s current law on permits to carry a concealed weapon" to remember the oath they took as a condition of their employment. Again from Jacobs:
The Iowa State Sheriff's and Deputies Association, Iowa Police Chiefs Association, Iowa State Patrol Supervisors Association, Iowa State Troopers Association, Iowa State Police Association, and Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers passed a joint resolution in opposition on Dec. 5.
Yeah, only when Bizarro government is involved do the hirelings presume to tell their employers what to do. I am reminded of "One of the People," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, July 2, 1789:
What should we think of a gentleman, who, upon hiring a waiting-man, should say to him—'my friend, please to take notice, before we come together, that I shall always claim the liberty of eating when and what I please, of fishing and hunting upon my own ground, of keeping as many horses and hounds as I can maintain, and of speaking and writing my sentiments upon all subjects.' A servant must be a fool, who would not suppose such a master to be a madman... Let these truths sink deep into our hearts: that the people are the masters of their rulers and that rulers are the servants of the people...
These authoritarian "Only Ones" only forget their place because they're allowed to.
------------
Disclosure: I'm aware of the contradiction in complaining that servants don't want to give permission. I do not believe carry permits are consistent with "shall not be infringed," and hope to convince more gun owners to believe as I do. That said, I also believe gun owners will be best served by hearing both sides of the debate, unfiltered by my biases, which is why I made a special point of inviting Iowa Carry and Iowa Gun Owners to present their arguments in previous columns.
Comments
As a former police officer, ask those police entities and groups to give up their ability to carry concealed when off-duty if regular citizens can't carry concealed and see what the results are then!
Dann, ASK? They work for us. Tell these citizens that they are the same as us and disarm them when off-duty.
In Idaho, if a person can legally buy a firearm and wants to get a CWP. They need to produce a DD-214, paperwork showing they have been to a firearms course, hunting or CCW. That the extent of the demands but for finger printing and a photo, money of course and within 90 days they if qualified. Its very simple, yet there are a few things like if a CWP holder is drunk driving with a firearm, good bye permit for 3 years and the same with misdemeanor assault. Idaho has about 1.3 million citizens and we have well over 100,000 CWP's issued. There's not been any kind of problem with over 10 percent of the citizens carrying guns.
Bottom line: This seems to be yet more proof that cops see the world as, Us vs Them. If citizens are such a bunch of dirtbags, why on earth do these cops want to dirty their hands on the tax money these people earned to pay into government. Looks like the citizens are the hard working honest lot of the two.
Have ANY of these people, NRA included, ever bothered to look up the word "Infringed" in ANY dictionary. Just what authority has a sheriff, chief of police, or any other elected or appointed official, under the Constitution of the United States, to determine that a citizen must ask permission to keep and bear arms.
Some Federalists who opposed the Bill of Rights back in the 1780's questioned the need to enumerate certain rights because; their feeling was that the Constitution limited government interference with the private citizen enough without listing certain rights that were to be left strictly alone.
Thank God for the Anti-Federalists. If they and some of the states hadn't insisted on a BoR, we wouldn't be having this discussion, or our arms, today.
[W-III]
David,
Your columns describing the upcoming legislation brought out passionate responses on both sides. This fight to improve Iowans' gun rights isn't going to be easy and when the dust settles, there will be many wounds to heal. It's as if a small civil war is brewing.
One interpretation of the "shall-issue" (IowaCarry/NRA) bill is that a sheriff's discretion still remains, therefore it's not much of an improvement.
An argument against the "Vermont-style" (Iowa gun Owners) bill is that it will scare people and it's too much for now.
Already, Iowa newspapers are lining up against the "shall-issue" bill, but ignoring the "Vermont-carry" bill.
The legislature convenes Jan. 11th and it's going to be an interesting first couple of months in 2010. As a member of Iowa Gun Owners, I'm already in the middle of this one.
SIW said, "This fight to improve Iowans' gun rights isn't going to be easy and when the dust settles, there will be many wounds to heal."
My question, why would you want to heal any enemy who would still work against you? When anyone works against my legitimate interests on a personal level, I cannot envision any circumstance where I would want to lessen any harm or inconvenience he might suffer in the attempt. I see no reason that would not be a suitable philosophy for groups either.
Wounds will be inflicted but I'm going to work to heal my own side first.
Already, there is a divide between the two sides and it's starting to widen. I doubt if there can be a reconciliation even if anyone wanted to. Healing wounds and reconciling divisions are two different things in my book, SA. We have legislators that are the true enemies of freedom, not pragmatic (IowaCarry's own word) gun owners.
We are going to work towards abolishing the carry laws - I personally will not support anything less. There is a short and long term strategy in this round that few are willing to look at here. Even if we fail, legislators will then have a vote they will have to explain. We haven't had a gun vote in a long time to pin them on.
Besides, with our supreme court, they would overturn whatever law gets passed anyway.
To pay a fee in exchange for "permission" to carry a weapon is a tax on a fundamental right - the right to keep and bear arms.
How many other rights do you pay a tax to exercise those rights?
Do not worry. If someone misuses a weapon, then it will be handled.
We have shall-issue in Ohio. The sheriffs didn't get on board with it until they got a piece of the action, i.e., they keep a chunk of the fees for their own budgets. You can apply in either your county of residence or an adjacent county. This way the sheriffs have a financial incentive to process paperwork efficiently and there is competition between sheriff departments. So far it's working fine. Yes you have an RKBA but like all rights it is subject to time place and manner restrictions. Some of the more extreme RKBA advocates complained they wanted a VT style system, which went no where. Real progress in OH CCW laws did not occur until we ignored the extremists and came up with something else. If I recall correctly the NRA wasn't helping matters any in OH, state and local groups had to take up the cause. State legislators want to be responsive to state and local people not outsiders which the NRA comes off like most of the time. Don't look to NRA to do your heavy lifting.
I really don't know which I find more disturbing, the folks who rant that the NRA comes in and takes over the local process or the folks who rant that the NRA doesn't come in and take over the local process.
State issues should be handled by the NRA affilliate in each particular state. If yours messes things up, blame them, not the national organization. In mine its The Unifed Sportsmen of Florida. Find out what yours is and join up. At least then you'll have a say in what they do and how they do it.
The NRA does not elect the members of your state legislature, you do. If you need to remind your local candidates of that then do so. If you don't want NRA help then don't take it. Do all the heavy duty work and fund raising yourself in the way you see fit.
Just be advised that blaming all your troubles on the NRA makes about as much sense as Obama blaming everything on Bush. Makes it kind of hard for folks to take you seriously.
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!