imported post
IA_farmboy wrote:
Gray Peterson wrote:
What's the point of you being able to carry under state law if you're federally prohibited from possessing a firearm, and any ATFE, FBI, or US Marshall can arrest you for possession?
I could think of several reasons why that would be done.
- Laziness/conciseness, no need to do a verbatim copy of federal prohibitions in state law if federal law would still prohibit ownership.
- Defiance of federal law/asserting state sovereignty, a state could assert their rights on the control of arms within their borders. The US Constitution prohibits the fedgov from regulating arms, the state has no such limitation.
I can come up with more but most of them would be variations on the themes above.
There is absolutely NOTHING which will stop federal law enforcement officers from going into Iowa and arresting an Iowans for firearms possession, either before or after this bill is passed. You can argue the US constitution all you want in terms of "they can't regulate arms solely inside of a state", may I refer you to
Wickard v. Filburn, which was partly overturned by US v. Lopez.
The first revision and the second revisions of the bill included "dangerous persons" in them (I've never liked those clauses), but it was stripped out. It is truly a shall-issue bill in every way shape or form.
It seems like IGO and other allied organizations trying to defeat the shall-issue bill do not understand anything about political process or the legal framework that 2A issues are currently. They want a "Vermont Carry" bill, which isn't going to pass through the Governor or the Legislature. No state has EVER passed a Vermont carry bill first crack. Vermont Carry also wasn't passed by the Legislature of Vermont, it was done by State Supreme Court decision under their state RKBA provision. Iowa has NO RKBA provision. The only state to go "Vermont" actually was shall-issue for 8 years before they eliminated the need for a permit to carry.
IGO, Firearms Coalition, and the rest of similar organizations, which expects "perfect" at the first pass, are locked into a pre-2000 era where "gun laws are never improved". That restrictions are never removed.
Have they taken a look at the multitude of states eliminating places where carry is banned, passing "stand your ground", lowering fees and lowering training requirements? Have they seen the fact that there is currently a massive sea change in legal environment for 2A issues? When our movement is so powerful that we were able to force Congress and force the President to sign a bill legalizing national park carry entirely (the previous DOI reg only allowed concealed carry with permit only), that should show you what kind of political powerhouse we have become. However, this must be matched by an understanding of the legal environment and an understanding of the "ground level".
Also, the flat prohibition on domestic violence misdemeanors are starting to be
struck down by the federal courts too.
Simply put, we do not have the legal backing at this present time to go after even needing a license or fees to carry. At the moment, getting may-issue/no-issue struck down as a general principle hasn't been done yet, lawsuits have been filed in
California and
the District of Columbia to at least get the legal process started to even get it to where self defense is considered an acceptable reason to get a license without requiring more.
Going after fees and the requirements of licensing at all is legally premature, and likely to trigger a loss if it's pushed now, since there wouldn't be as much legal case law on 2A and 14A as there is on 1st and 5th amendment issues. Much as the civil rights movement of the 1950's, which before going into
Brown v. Board of Education, legal victories were scored in the college level before going into K-12 with
Brown, we need to fight the legal battles carefully, and try to get shall-issue passed legislatively whenever possible. The civil rights movement didn't go for a
Loving case at the beginning (for those who don't know the history, the Loving case overturned laws against interracial marriage), they went for
Brown second.
Besides Iowa and Wisconsin, there are no other states that will politically pass shall-issue, and they must be dragged into being modern by the federal court system. Anti-gunners are citing Iowa and Wisconsin in their legal briefs to try to defeat the
Sykes and
Palmer cases, and are to trying bolster their argument that it's OK to ban gun carry. Passing this bill will yank Iowa out of that argument and make them look stupid.
I also point out that denying people the right to self defense in the meantime while we fight over the fees and the training and the other ancillary issues is wrong. The court process for getting the sheriffs to issue licenses for personal protection could take 18-36 months (district, court of appeals, and then SCOTUS possibly). Passing this bill would fix the problem TODAY, and save all of us having to foot the bill for a lawsuit against the county sheriffs and the DPS.
The reasons the General Assembly is even considering this is A) The NRA is basically rolling in there elections wise and could target them for defeat, and make them feel the heat, as they are getting heavily criticized for other issues not related to guns and B) The General Assembly knows that if they don't pass this bill, the sheriffs and the DPS will get hit with a lawsuit to do this anyway, forcing the sheriffs and the state to foot the legal bill not just for defending the suit, but also to pay the plaintiff's attorneys fees under 42USC1983. Alan Gura, the lawyer for the
Heller case and now the
McDonald case, is expected to get 3.5 million dollars from DC over
Heller for his donated time to the cause, as there's triple damages for egregious violations of someone's civil liberties. The state and the counties don't want to foot that bill.
rgand more who are true to the cause and uncompromising!
