Iowa Gun Owners - Take Action! Disturbing Anti-Gun Rights Legislation Being Pushed by NRA in Iowa

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Straight_Shooter wrote:

TG

Iowa Carry is now deeply entrenched in a blog battle with the anti's and some more pro-freedom leaningfolksat the Des Moines register . . . good luck!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20091220/NEWS10/912200341/New-push-by-NRA-in-Iowa-creates-firefight

So . . . as I thought this would lead, the NRA/IC is embattled from both the right and the left . . . with all due respect to Tom, who I have growing respect for, because he seems to be willing to reason this bill out, I would suspect that the chances of passing any improvement in the CCW situation in Iowa this yearare growing dimmer.

David - you might want to check out that blog and expend some energy defending your bill against the anti's in Iowa . . . just a suggestion . . .

SS

Just a suggestion, if you are speaking to me, the bill in question is not "my bill." You can do with it what you desire; I suggest you contact those who are presenting it to ensure that your desires and concerns are known to them.

Once again, I point out that I have not been defending this bill.

Ok . . . sorry for misrepresenting your interests in this . . . just for the record, what is your interest/position on this issue?

Thanks,

SS

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Straight_Shooter wrote:

TG

Iowa Carry is now deeply entrenched in a blog battle with the anti's and some more pro-freedom leaningfolksat the Des Moines register . . . good luck!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20091220/NEWS10/912200341/New-push-by-NRA-in-Iowa-creates-firefight

So . . . as I thought this would lead, the NRA/IC is embattled from both the right and the left . . . with all due respect to Tom, who I have growing respect for, because he seems to be willing to reason this bill out, I would suspect that the chances of passing any improvement in the CCW situation in Iowa this yearare growing dimmer.

David - you might want to check out that blog and expend some energy defending your bill against the anti's in Iowa . . . just a suggestion . . .

SS

Just a suggestion, if you are speaking to me, the bill in question is not "my bill." You can do with it what you desire; I suggest you contact those who are presenting it to ensure that your desires and concerns are known to them.

Once again, I point out that I have not been defending this bill.

Ok . . . sorry for misrepresenting your interests in this . . . just for the record, what is your interest/position on this issue?

Thanks,

SS

I have made my 'position' well-known. I have no need to repeat it 'for the record.' :quirky

Enjoy.

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Nope. There are other methods of communication. Also, you could try some of my earlier suggestions such as registering as a lobbyist, sit in during committee hearings, visit them in person......

As for discussion, over and over you show that if others do not agree with you, you are not interested in discussion.

While not registered as a lobbyist, I do lobby with several private citizens groups . . so I am already doing that.

I have attened many hearings and special event days at the capital, and I constantly communicate with my representatives and several others.

"As for discussion, over and over you show that if others do not agree with you, you are not interested in discussion."

Well David - to be truthful, I am not sure whether you agree with me or not . . . 'cause you won't tell us what your thoughts on the bill are. Please . . . tell me . . . What exactly would you like to discuss?

Thanks,

SS

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Straight_Shooter wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Straight_Shooter wrote:

TG

Iowa Carry is now deeply entrenched in a blog battle with the anti's and some more pro-freedom leaningfolksat the Des Moines register . . . good luck!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20091220/NEWS10/912200341/New-push-by-NRA-in-Iowa-creates-firefight

So . . . as I thought this would lead, the NRA/IC is embattled from both the right and the left . . . with all due respect to Tom, who I have growing respect for, because he seems to be willing to reason this bill out, I would suspect that the chances of passing any improvement in the CCW situation in Iowa this yearare growing dimmer.

David - you might want to check out that blog and expend some energy defending your bill against the anti's in Iowa . . . just a suggestion . . .

SS

Just a suggestion, if you are speaking to me, the bill in question is not "my bill." You can do with it what you desire; I suggest you contact those who are presenting it to ensure that your desires and concerns are known to them.

Once again, I point out that I have not been defending this bill.

Ok . . . sorry for misrepresenting your interests in this . . . just for the record, what is your interest/position on this issue?

Thanks,

SS

I have made my 'position' well-known. I have no need to repeat it 'for the record.' :quirky

Enjoy.

David - Please . . . tell me . . . what exactly is it you want me to say to you, tell you, do for you right now? You say you want to have discussion . . . what do you want to discuss?

Thanks,

SS

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

As for discussion, over and over you show that if others do not agree with you, you are not interested in discussion.

David -

I think it is pretty clear that Tom and I don't agree 100% . . . or probably even 50% . . with each other . . . yet we are having some excellent discussion . . . can you please justify your statement above, when this appears to not be the case? I have asked you repeatedly what you want to discuss; I am asking it again . . . what would you like to discuss?

Thanks,

SS

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

wrightme wrote: David - Please . . . tell me . . . what exactly is it you want me to say to you, tell you, do for you right now?
I have no desires of action or speech from you, other than to respond to the simple question I posed a few posts ago.

You say you want to have discussion . . . what do you want to discuss?
Once again, you misrepresent my position. Did I say I wanted to have a discussion?

Thanks,

SS

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Did I say I wanted to have a discussion?

David -

In fact, no . . . you didn't. So I will honoryour wishes . .

Thanks,

SS

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Did I say I wanted to have a discussion?

David -

In fact, no . . . you didn't. So I will honoryour wishes . .

Thanks,

SS

How about...

wrightme wrote:

Straight_Shooter wrote:

wrightme wrote: David - Please . . . tell me . . . what exactly is it you want me to say to you, tell you, do for you right now?
I have no desires of action or speech from you, other than to respond to the simple question I posed a few posts ago.

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Straight_Shooter wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Did I say I wanted to have a discussion?

David -

In fact, no . . . you didn't. So I will honoryour wishes . .

Thanks,

SS

How about...

wrightme wrote:

Straight_Shooter wrote:

wrightme wrote: David - Please . . . tell me . . . what exactly is it you want me to say to you, tell you, do for you right now?
I have no desires of action or speech from you, other than to respond to the simple question I posed a few posts ago.

Is this the one?

"Out of curiosity, do either of you doubt that you can also contact that person? It would seem if you desire that change, you could also contact them."

If so, I believe that I have already answered that question . . . I told you that I attempted to contact Chris Rager, the NRA-ILA liason; he is the NRA contact for this bill . . several other people also have done the same, including the Des Moines Register reporter that wrote the article. It appears that he isn't answering these attempts to contact him.

Hopefully, that is the question you are referring to, and I have answered your question to your satisfaction.

Thanks,

SS

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

Is this the one?

"Out of curiosity, do either of you doubt that you can also contact that person? It would seem if you desire that change, you could also contact them."

If so, I believe that I have already answered that question . . . I told you that I attempted to contact Chris Rager, the NRA-ILA liason; he is the NRA contact for this bill . . several other people also have done the same, including the Des Moines Register reporter that wrote the article. It appears that he isn't answering these attempts to contact him.

Hopefully, that is the question you are referring to, and I have answered your question to your satisfaction.

Thanks,

SS

Hmmm.....
Straight_Shooter wrote:

Farmgirl wrote:

GearTop wrote:

Straight_Shooter,

I'm pretty sure that the leadership is following these discussions at least some of the time. I believe there is another update of the bill coming out soon so if the language is not in that version, I will send an email to Chris Rager or contact him by phone.

TG

Thank you . . . appreciate that!
FG

Me too! . . . Thanks!
SS

Then GT/TG may have similar trouble. Have you tried the email method to similar result?

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Straight_Shooter wrote:

Is this the one?

"Out of curiosity, do either of you doubt that you can also contact that person? It would seem if you desire that change, you could also contact them."

If so, I believe that I have already answered that question . . . I told you that I attempted to contact Chris Rager, the NRA-ILA liason; he is the NRA contact for this bill . . several other people also have done the same, including the Des Moines Register reporter that wrote the article. It appears that he isn't answering these attempts to contact him.

Hopefully, that is the question you are referring to, and I have answered your question to your satisfaction.

Thanks,

SS

Hmmm.....
Straight_Shooter wrote:

Farmgirl wrote:

GearTop wrote:

Straight_Shooter,

I'm pretty sure that the leadership is following these discussions at least some of the time. I believe there is another update of the bill coming out soon so if the language is not in that version, I will send an email to Chris Rager or contact him by phone.

TG

Thank you . . . appreciate that!
FG

Me too! . . . Thanks!
SS

Then GT/TG may have similar trouble. Have you tried the email method to similar result?

I don't know Rager's email address, but I do know that the IC "leadership," i.e. Sean McClanahan and Steve Hensyel have at least seen what is posted here. They arewell aware of the concerns that I, and others, have with this bill. Tom is a member of IC, and probably has better access to the leadership than do I.

As I indicated above, this is now going to get so muchvisibilitybythe "anti's" that I think there will be a major push against it from the left, the various police (state) associations in Iowa, etc, to the point that nothing is likely to pass this year now.

Thanks,

SS

 

[Tgclark]

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

I don't know Rager's email address, but I do know that the IC "leadership," i.e. Sean McClanahan and Steve Hensyel have at least seen what is posted here. They are well aware of the concerns that I, and others, have with this bill. Tom is a member of IC, and probably has better access to the leadership than do I.

As I indicated above, this is now going to get so much visibility by the "anti's" that I think there will be a major push against it from the left, the various police (state) associations in Iowa, etc, to the point that nothing is likely to pass this year now.

Thanks,

SS 

I know that the Iowa Carry board has seen this specific request as well as many others. I am just a "supporting member" and in no way associated with the board so I don't have any more influence I than anyone else. Sorry, wish I did. There will be a new draft copy of the legislation soon and hopefully it will get posted to the Iowa Carry web site.

I DO have a bit of an unusual connection with the state house though. A friend of mine is the head of the legislative committee for a trade group and has dealt with the political process in Iowa for the last 15 years. I showed him both bills and the article in the DSMR. His analysis: It will be extremely difficult to get anything heard this year due to the budget crisis. That will consume the vast majority of the legislative calendar this year before they adjourn to start campaigning.

Should we all give up? HELL NO! Again let me recommend that every Iowan who reads this contact their representative and senator and let them know how important this is to you.

TG

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

GearTop wrote:

. . . It will be extremely difficult to get anything heard this year due to the budget crisis. That will consume the vast majority of the legislative calendar this year before they adjourn to start campaigning.

I think this is probably the most accurate thing said on this post so far . . . They are unlikely to do ANYTHNG of a major nature in an election year . . . they tend not to want to "rock the boat" too much.

All that said, I would love to get them on recordwith a vote on a truly pro-gun bill this session . . . no matter who it comes from. This is why I favor the Vermont style bill . . it is pushing them as far as possible.

SS

 

[Tgclark]

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

GearTop wrote:

 . . . It will be extremely difficult to get anything heard this year due to the budget crisis. That will consume the vast majority of the legislative calendar this year before they adjourn to start campaigning.

I think this is probably the most accurate thing said on this post so far . . . They are unlikely to do ANYTHNG of  a major nature in an election year . . . they tend not to want to "rock the boat" too much.

All that said, I would love to get them on record with a vote on a truly pro-gun bill this session . . . no matter who it comes from. This is why I favor the Vermont style bill . .  it is pushing them as far as possible.

SS

Correct. Getting them to vote on either bill will be holding their feet to the fire. Which bill is really just a matter of how big that fire is.

TG

 

[AB]

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

...I would love to get them on recordwith a vote on a truly pro-gun bill this session . . . no matter who it comes from. This is why I favor the Vermont style bill . . it is pushing them as far as possible.

SS

Agree!!!


The NRA supports legislation and candidates based on winning even if the outcome is a big step backwards. By contrast it will take ahardcore strategy andpatience to really prevail.

The NRA continually hob-nobs with the enemy trying to craft a "win" instead of doing the right thing, which is get a "clean bill" to the floor, get the vote, identify the enemy and kick them the hell out of office.

This is the only way! Just look around - legislators doing what ever they want because they know better. It's time to take this serious.

 

[ethies]

imported post

If anyone is interested, the bill is actually posted now. It is not the bill that SS was having fun toying with everyone over. If anyone cares to read it it is posted at www.iowacarry.orgin the legislative update section.

 

[AB]

imported post

ethies wrote:

...having fun toying with everyone over...

Only toying done here is by Iowa Carry and the NRA!


Doesn't look likeiowacarry.org believes in Alaska or Vermont Carry, as a matter of fact they put "training" in front of the Second Amendment.

http://www.iowacarry.org/pages.php?pageid=21

This modifies theSecond Amendment to read like this:

"Without training the right to keep and bear arms can and willbe infringed, the government has the right to control your firearms"

It is just this kind of thinking that has ruined freedom in this country!

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

ethies wrote:

If anyone is interested, the bill is actually posted now. It is not the bill that SS was having fun toying with everyone over. If anyone cares to read it it is posted at http://www.iowacarry.orgin the legislative update section.

Slight correction to ethies here:

The bill posted by Iowa Carry at this juncture is the THIRD revision . . . I posted the first draftand provided a link to the secondto "toy with everyone over" (I am curious to understand why quoting sections of the actualbill, as written, which would ultimately translate into very anti-gun provisions of Iowa law, constitutes "toying with people.")

I am currently working through this third version and will post comments, but at this moment, it appears that rather than come right out and re-state the anti-gunprovisions of federal law to be recapitualted in Iowa law, they simply state that the federal law will be adopted in Iowa . . . so this isnothingmore thanrearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This is STILL a horrible bill . . . and one that Iowa Carry and the NRA should both be ashamed of (but Sarah Brady would be proud of!)

SS

 

[NewZealandAmerican]

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

NRA Pushing Bad Bill in Iowa

Jeff Knox

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=491:nra-bad-for-iowa&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144

It's been a long time since we have had serious issues with NRA actions, but their proposed concealed carry legislation for Iowa is simply bad and we're taking exception.

Last year two state organizations, Iowa Carry and Iowa Gun Owners, banged heads with competing legislation and competing strategies. Iowa Carry was backing a “shall issue” bill which included mandatory training requirements and several other concessions. Iowa Gun Owners was pushing an Alaska-style bill which removed restrictions on concealed carry and offered an optional permit system for the sake of reciprocity.

The Alaska bill had 25 cosponsors among the 100 members of the Iowa House and failed to pass by just one vote ending in a 49 – 49 tie in the final minutes of the legislative session.

After such an impressive showing, one 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.

Under the NRA proposal, not only would anyone ever convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor be barred from concealed carry, anyone ever arrested on such a charge would be barred. The proposal also bars anyone with “a written finding by any agency of a state or the United States sustaining an allegation of abuse against another person,” leaving the door open for a ban on concealed carry for a parent who spanks their child or a person victimized by false accusations from a former spouse or intimate. The NRA says that a “paper trail” demonstrating a history of violence or abuse is enough. A judge and jury – due process – are just superfluous. This portion is supposed to improve on the current laws provision that bars a permit from anyone with a “history of violence.” The language about violent misdemeanors addresses this, but even that raises questions. Many people have been cited at some point for involvement in a fist-fight or some such petty up-scuttle. Is it reasonable to bar anyone so cited from the ability to defend themselves?

NRA's bill also makes going “armed with a firearm while under the influence of alcohol” an aggravated misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in prison. If legislators subsequently added just one day to the punishment guidelines for an aggravated misdemeanor, anyone convicted under this law would not only lose their right to carry, they would lose all of their gun rights for the rest of their lives. NRA claims that this provision fixes a problem with the existing law which bars “alcoholics” from receiving a permit to carry. Since the clinical definition of an alcoholic can include “recovering alcoholics” who haven't had a drink in decades, simply barring alcoholics is a problem, but NRA's solution creates a much worse problem. Anyone who enjoys an occasional beer and who regularly carries understands the catch-22 such a law can create – especially when “under the influence is left undefined. The NRA “fix” also recreates the exact same problem it's fixing by creating a blanket prohibition for anyone addicted to a controlled substance. Just as with alcohol, there are many people who no longer use drugs, but who stand up every week and say “Hi, I'm Dave and I'm an addict.” Some of these folks are police officers who would lose their jobs if such language was enforced.

Rather than creating new regulations which could be used to harass and persecute gun owners, NRA should be looking for ways to make it easier and safer for responsible citizens to exercise their right to arms. The fact is that criminals and the dangerously irresponsible will carry and misuse guns regardless of what the law says so the first priority must always be protecting the rights of the responsible and law-abiding.

In what they claim is an effort to bring the Iowa Code into alignment with federal law and definitions, the NRA includes a long list of disqualifiers which echoes the federal “prohibited persons” language. If NRA wants harmony with federal law, why not simply state that no one prohibited from firearms possession under federal law may be issued a concealed weapons permit? That way, if federal law improves, Iowa law would be similarly improved. Restating federal law – and expanding upon its restrictions – is not in the best interest of Iowans.

Even though decades of data prove that mandatory training does nothing to reduce accidents, mistakes, or criminal activity among permit holders, the NRA bill retains the current Iowa training requirements with only minor modifications expanding the options for individuals and agencies offering the training. While professional training is absolutely a good idea, government mandated training is an unwarranted attempt to legislate personal responsibility and should always be opposed.

On another point NRA doesn't just support the status quo, their bill takes three steps backward. Current Iowa law states that any otherwise qualified person who has attained the age of 18 years is eligible for a concealed weapons permit, but NRA wants to exclude 18, 19, and 20-year olds and move the minimum age up to 21. No reason is given for this change, but it is likely to be a matter of reciprocity. Since many other states have a 21-year minimum standard, raising Iowa's requirement to 21 increases the likelihood of other states recognizing Iowa permits. If the additional reciprocity is really that important, 18 to 21-year olds could be offered a “restricted permit” which was only valid in Iowa or other states which choose to recognize it. Simply cutting this group out of the process for no other demonstrable reason is just wrong.

On the subject of reciprocity, the NRA bill sums it up in a single paragraph which limits the possibility of reciprocity to only those states whose restrictions “meet or exceed” the Iowa regulations. It goes on to give the Secretary of State full discretion on whether to then grant reciprocity to these states. While the NRA bill shifts Iowa's permitting process from “may issue” to “shall issue,” when it comes to reciprocity, NRA says the Secretary of State “may” enter into such agreements.

Along with the “may issue” problem that this bill is supposed to fix, Iowa has a much larger problem which this bill completely ignores. Iowa law currently requires anyone wishing to acquire a handgun to first get an annual permit. The “Permit to Acquire a Revolver or Pistol” requires that applicants meet basically the same standards as those for a permit to carry a weapon and NRA makes most of the same tweaks to those definitions without making any effort to mitigate or repeal the permit to purchase provision.

On top of everything else, the NRA bill adds a bunch of new language to bring Iowa into compliance with last years controversial “NICS Improvement Act.”

All in all, what the NRA is doing with this bill is taking Iowa's complicated, convoluted, and misguided laws regarding the acquisition and carry of weapons, changing the word “may” to the word “shall” and making other tweaks and modifications which, in the big picture, make the laws more restrictive, intrusive, and unconstitutional than they already were – and they're doing so in total disregard for the desires of Iowa gun owners, the principles of the Second Amendment, and the proven safety records of many other states. They are also bringing this seriously flawed bill forward at a time when the Iowa legislature is primed to pass good, responsible, rights protecting legislation. By offering this bill, NRA is setting the bar so low that even most of their most ardent opponents can support it while their most ardent supporters are left wondering just what the Hell is going on.

It is incomprehensible that Iowa's atrocious laws were completely ignored by NRA while a prominent Iowa political figure, Kayne Robinson, served for years on the NRA Board of Directors including an unprecedented five years as First Vice-President and then two years as President of the NRA. That Iowa's laws continued to be ignored even when a member of the legislature, Clel Baudler, was serving multiple terms as a member of the NRA board of Directors and Robinson moved into the position of Executive Director of General Operations at NRA. Only now, after the grass roots of Iowa have finally awakened and started making effective strides toward reform of their laws, does NRA decide to put their formidable clout into the fight – not in support of the local grass roots, but in place of them. While NRA is working with Iowa Carry in this effort, they are doing so as the lead dog, dictating terms and telling the locals what to do. The arrogance of this belated rescue effort might be excused if NRA were jumping in with a solid, principled bill, but there is simply no excuse for them swooping in with such a load of horse manure.

If this is the best NRA and their Legislative Liaison for Iowa, Chris Rager, can come up with, the GunVoters of Iowa would do well to bluntly tell them to go rescue someone else


Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at http://www.FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108.

©Copyright 2009 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

Bloody hell, gee I hate the NRA, their leadership for the most part are enemies to FREEDOM who take unfair advantage of their rank and file members economically. They compromise on what is right, they bargain with the enemy! They are friends of the Federal Govt and supporters of the BATFE JBT's. Any organisation who even in the slightest is in support of any Govt agency like the BATFE, whose mere existence is UNConstitutional,that has a long history of violating the un-alienable Rights of Americans, destroying the lives of many good people truly is an enemy to LIBERTY and FREEDOM! There are many other gun rights organisations like OCDO, and http://www.JPFrgand more who are true to the cause and uncompromising!