Is there an open carry effort currently in Iowa?

[SFC Stu]

imported post

Some on here think that Vermonttype carry Law would be great. It would in Iowa Vermont and Alaska.

Missouri recognizes all others states permits. Iowans with a permit are allowed to carry in Missouri.

Without a permit you would not be allowed to carry concealedin Missouri. Someone said Missouri is an open carry state. Partially true. Cities can still regulate open carry! That is the only part of the Missouri firearms law we have not gotten pre-empted.

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

Topgear wrote:

Dear Straight_Shooter,

That's an awful lot for a hunt and peck guy like me to type every time I want to address you so If you don't mind, I'm going to give you a nickname. I could use "SS" I suppose but then someone would get up in arms about me calling you a Nazi and I'm sure your not that. So I will just pick a name that's easy for me to type to address you. How does Aaron sound? Good, that's what I'll call you. After all, you haven't told us your real name. Mine is Tom but you can continue to call me TG if you wish.

Aaron, you objected to me calling you a liar so I will soften the wording. How does deceitful strike you? Why do I say that? Several reasons. First you have continuously referred to the legislation you don't like as the "NRA/IC" bill. The president of Iowa Carry has told you numerous times in THIS thread that it is the NRA's bill, not Iowa Carry's.

Second, you have stated that you are in possession of "The NRA bill" yet you refuse to post it so everyone can read it and be as aghast about how anti-gun the NRA really is as you are. You know you don't have it. Even your new best friend IA_farmboy realizes that until the bill is introduced by a member of the Iowa legislature and it can be found on their web site, there is NO Iowa legislation so you can't possibly have a copy of it. At best you have a draft copy but that remains to be seen because again you remain secretive about it - just like you accuse Iowa Carry of being. (More on this later…)

Finally, you promote yourself as a champion of the rights of Iowans and their right to carry firearms for self defense or any other reason yet your stance is totally opposite of that. Your position is that "It's my way or the highway! No compromise" (I'd quote you directly but I'm not as good with the forum tools as you professionals are.) You have stated publicly here on this forum that you will work to prevent passage of the "so called" NRA bill even though it is a step FORWARD from what we have now. In essence you are telling the citizens of Dubuque, Emmet, Buena Vista, Jasper, Winneshiek and other counties, "Sorry we couldn't get our open carry bill passed this year. I know the Shall Issue bill had at least some chance of passing but I'd rather hold out for the whole ball of wax. You guys don't mind being discriminated against a while longer do you? It's all for a good cause."

As for the NRA bill and Iowa Carry, do they endorse it? Yes they do because it meets the five main criteria they advocate: shall issue, appeals process if denied, uniform training, reciprocity with other states and privacy of records. Is it perfect? Definitely not but it IS a vast improvement over what is out there today. They have publicly stated that they wish IGO no ill will and HOPE that you can win. Yet you and your group decide the only way for you to "win" is by attacking them and working against the bill they endorse. How insane is that?

You accuse Iowa Carry of being some kind of secret society by not opening up their web site. Just do what I did, pay the man the $25.00 and you to will have full access. As a supporting member with such access, I can tell you there's nothing too "secret" going on over their. Why do they charge to have access? I'm not on the board but I would imagine it has something to do with having to pay for the website and the lobbyist they work with to help improve the Iowa Code. Why doesn't Iowa Carry post the NRA's bill? Probably because it's not finished yet. Read three paragraphs up.

Aaron, you and IA_farmboy have publicly stated that if Iowa Carry accepts your "all or nothing" stance with the Iowa Legislature you will join and put down 3x the normal membership fee. At $75.00 that's a good investment to be sure but I will bet that the leadership at Iowa Carry will tell you the price is too high. I think it is too. After watching Iowa politics for over 50 years, I don't believe you can get the Iowa Legislature the eat the whole enchilada in one sitting. After all, it is controlled by anti-gun Democrats and you are facing one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the state, The ISSDA who will oppose you with all of their might.

I too wish you well. I also fully realize that you are facing an uphill battle all they way. Even climbers at Mount Everest don't do the climb in one great effort. Multiple steps with rests in between are the only way they can attempt such a massive undertaking. Getting unlicensed open carry in Iowa is a similar challenge. I'll do your $75.00 challenge even better, and I won't require you to abandon your principals as you want Iowa Carry to do. Aaron, if Iowa Gun Owners changes it's stance from that of publicly opposing the bill the NRA and Iowa Carry are backing and threatening to fight against it, stops bashing Iowa Carry at every opportunity, puts a statement on it's web site similar to this, "We wish The NRA and Iowa Carry well in their efforts to pass a 'Shall Issue' law in Iowa but will continue to work toward our goal of 'Open Carry'." and doesn't change any of this policy prior to December 31, 2010, I will donate $1000.00 to Iowa Gun Owners.

Tom

P.S. I think your stance on training is ludicrous. We teach people how to read and write before they go out in public as journalists. At the very least a person who is going to carry a gun should have to prove they know which end the bullets come out of and that they can hit something smaller than the side of a barn at 15 yards.

Dear Tom -

As I stated above when you didn't read it, I AM NOT A SPOKESPERSON OR OFFICER FOR/OF IGO . . . so please, don't call me Aaron . . . that is not who I am, much as you would like that to be the case. "SS" is just fine. I am not posting further about the NRA/IC bill . . . and YES it is an IC bill because McClanahan said that he will support it and do everything he can to see that it passes. It is too easy for IC to simply claim "it is not our bill," and then say they will fully support it. They may not have written it, but that is no excuse to be able to take cover for the bad that is in it. If they support it, then they need to take responsibility for what is in it. And all claims to the contrary won't change that.

As I said above, Iam posting no further about the NRA bill; it is a waste of my time to try and educate those whodo not want to learn. . . you are free to wallow in your ignorance. It is solely YOUR opinion that the NRA bill is a "step forward." With the expansions of police power in it, like the ability to confiscate the firearms of Iraq veterans because they suffer from PTSD, or the fact that one gets an aggrevated misdeamenor, accompanied with a lifetime loss of gun rights,for simply having a drink while carrying, far, far overshadows your paltry gains.

Your assertion that "I am telling the citizens of Dubuque, Emmet, Buena Vista, Jasper, Winneshiek and other counties, "Sorry we couldn't get our open carry bill passed this year" is ludicrous and baseless. . . if these people want to carry arms, then they can elect asheriff that will issue permits . . . lots of other counties do the same, and if there are too many liberals to allow that, then they should show some gumption and vote with their feet. I have done that very thing.

As far as me not posting the bill,you can "eat cake." You least of all are in any way interested in a meaningfuldiscussions of the issues involved with this bill; you've as much as said that above. As long as you get"shall issue, appeals process if denied, uniform training, reciprocity with other states and privacy of records," then anything else in the bill is just "ok" with you. Like Esau, you are ready to trade your heritage for a bowl of pottage. I really don't care if you don't like the idea that I will fight against your police state bill . . . my rights and freedomsare not yours to bargain with, and I will not ceed them to you or your organization without a political battle.

"After watching Iowa politics for over 50 years, I don't believe you can get the Iowa Legislature the eat the whole enchilada in one sitting." I prefer to listen to the council of people who have been WORKING in Iowa politics over those who only watch. Perhaps that's why you are such a compromiser with my freedoms . . . because you don't have the belly for a fight for freedom . . . too busy sitting by and "watching."

"After all, it is controlled by anti-gun Democrats and you are facing one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the state, The ISSDA who will oppose you with all of their might." I would think someone as "wise in politics" as you portend to be would know and understand that a very large percentage of those Democrats come from rural, pro-gun districts . . . but maybe I give you too much credit. All your compromise bill is going to do is give the anti-gun Democrats something they can vote for in good conscience, because they are getting the police state expansions that they want; you are GIVING those to them. . . and they ONLY HAVE TO GIVE UP A FEW CCW PERMITS IN Dubuque, Emmet, Buena Vista, Jasper, Winneshiek counties. . . . pretty good bargain. AND they get to go to the polls in 2010 and say "see, I voted for a "pro-gun" bill." And so we are stuck with them for another term of tearing down the state, and Draconian laws to go along with it. Good approach . . . the ISSDA isled by sheriff's . . . sorry, but they are elected too.But why not run campaigns against the anti-gun sheriff's? . . . I guess that would take DOING instead of WATCHING.

I think you can rest assured that Iowa Carry is not going to "give up their principles" of bargaining for what they want with myrights and freedoms . . . sorry that I asked for such an outrageous thing though.

And for the record, I never said adamn thing about training . . . but that just reinforces what Inoted above . . . you post without reading what others have posted first, because you already know it all.

Have a good day,

SS

 

[IA_farmboy]

imported post

Aaron, you objected to me calling you a liar so I will soften the wording. How does deceitful strike you? Why do I say that? Several reasons. First you have continuously referred to the legislation you don't like as the "NRA/IC" bill. The president of Iowa Carry has told you numerous times in THIS thread that it is the NRA's bill, not Iowa Carry's.

The president of Iowa Carry has also said that the bill has the endorsement of Iowa Carry. I don't find calling the bill in question the "NRA/IC bill" since it has the endorsement of both parties.

You have stated publicly here on this forum that you will work to prevent passage of the "so called" NRA bill even though it is a step FORWARD from what we have now.

The bill is not a step forward if all it takes is the "allegation" of wrongdoing to deny a permit. All a sheriff would have to do is claim an allegation by a third party to deny the permit. The party could remain nameless under the guise of "an ongoing investigation" or "fears of retaliation". There is an appeals process in the bill but that is of little comfort if it goes before a judge where the sheriff and the applicant play a game of "he said/she said".

Aaron, you and IA_farmboy have publicly stated that if Iowa Carry accepts your "all or nothing" stance with the Iowa Legislature you will join and put down 3x the normal membership fee. At $75.00 that's a good investment to be sure but I will bet that the leadership at Iowa Carry will tell you the price is too high. I think it is too. After watching Iowa politics for over 50 years, I don't believe you can get the Iowa Legislature the eat the whole enchilada in one sitting. After all, it is controlled by anti-gun Democrats and you are facing one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the state, The ISSDA who will oppose you with all of their might.

I'm not asking for an all or nothing bill. I just want to see unlicensed open carry in any bill that Iowa Carry endorses. You may not believe that is possible but I just saw quite the showdown for Linn County Sheriff in the last election. Both conceded to a "shall issue" policy on permits to carry because they both knew that it would be fatal to their run to say anything different.

There were already close votes on a number of bills that addressed the issues with the current permit to carry system. We've seen a number of sheriffs shift their policies on the issuance of permits to carry. Democrats are not getting all that great of approval any more. Next November all members of the Iowa House and the US House come up for election. If there is not any movement for the protections of our right to self defense this summer then I would expect a lot of Democrats to be replaced.

P.S. I think your stance on training is ludicrous. We teach people how to read and write before they go out in public as journalists. At the very least a person who is going to carry a gun should have to prove they know which end the bullets come out of and that they can hit something smaller than the side of a barn at 15 yards.

Is there a right to be a journalist? People have the right to speak but not to be heard. You can try to get a job as a journalist but no one is obligated to hire you. A person that is employed as "hired gun" would likely to have to pass some competency test but people that only wish to defend themselves must only prove to themselves they are proficient enough for that task. Of course it is a good idea that someone get training in the proper use of a firearm before carrying one but I don't like laws enforcing "good ideas".

There is also the fact that a person does not have to carry a firearm if they do not wish to. I don't know where you get this idea that people need to have training before carrying a firearm since there are a number of states that allow people to carry a firearm (some openly, some concealed) without prior training and without issues of people not knowing which end the bullet comes from.

Requiring a permit to carry tools of self defense is a tax on a right. Requiring training is only taxing that right further. This concept of denying government power to tax a right has gone to court a number of times. The government cannot require anyone to pay a fee or pass a test to vote. Taxes on paper, ink, and the like were ruled unconstitutional as well. (I know, we pay sales tax on paper and pencils all the time. The courts ruled that the tax could not be specific to the tools of printing and speaking, or levied against a specific group or individual.)

 

[Topgear]

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:



"After watching Iowa politics for over 50 years, I don't believe you can get the Iowa Legislature the eat the whole enchilada in one sitting." I prefer to listen to the council of people who have been WORKING in Iowa politics over those who only watch. Perhaps that's why you are such a compromiser with my freedoms . . .  because you don't have the belly for a fight for freedom . . . too busy sitting by and "watching."


Have a good day,

SS 
[/quote]

Yeah, that was my MOS in the Marine Corps, 03SW, Sitting by and Watching.

 

[Topgear]

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Requiring a permit to carry tools of self defense is a tax on a right. Requiring training is only taxing that right further. This concept of denying government power to tax a right has gone to court a number of times. The government cannot require anyone to pay a fee or pass a test to vote. Taxes on paper, ink, and the like were ruled unconstitutional as well. (I know, we pay sales tax on paper and pencils all the time. The courts ruled that the tax could not be specific to the tools of printing and speaking, or levied against a specific group or individual.)

Rights are not absolute. The old standard, "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater." applies to the right to free speech. Society has the right to expect that your free speech is exercised with enough care so as not to harm anyone else. We also have the right to ensure that deadly force is employed in a manner consistent with societies laws and expectations and so it is not harmful to any "non-combatant".

Please explain to me how someone who has never fired a gun before can go to the dealer, buy one and somehow suddenly be endowed with the skills needed to use it and the knowledge of the rules and regulations surrounding it's lawful use. Do that and I'll be satisfied that no one needs training.

 

[Mike]

imported post

Topgear wrote:

Rights are not absolute. The old standard, "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater." applies to the right to free speech. Society has the right to expect that your free speech is exercised with enough care so as not to harm anyone else. We also have the right to ensure that deadly force is employed in a manner consistent with societies laws and expectations and so it is not harmful to any "non-combatant".

Please explain to me how someone who has never fired a gun before can go to the dealer, buy one and somehow suddenly be endowed with the skills needed to use it and the knowledge of the rules and regulations surrounding it's lawful use.

Well, that's the law now. Welcome to America.

 

[Topgear]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Topgear wrote:

Rights are not absolute. The old standard, "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater." applies to the right to free speech. Society has the right to expect that your free speech is exercised with enough care so as not to harm anyone else. We also have the right to ensure that deadly force is employed in a manner consistent with societies laws and expectations and so it is not harmful to any "non-combatant".

Please explain to me how someone who has never fired a gun before can go to the dealer, buy one and somehow suddenly be endowed with the skills needed to use it and the knowledge of the rules and regulations surrounding it's lawful use.

Well, that's the law now.  Welcome to America.

Actually it's always been the rule. Your rights end at the tip of my nose. You right to speak ends when your speech causes me to get trampled in the aisle of the theater. Your right to use deadly force to protect yourself ends when I as an innocent bystander am injured or killed.

The reason firearms are a special case is their ability to be a remote control off switch. I was a training NCO in the Marine Corps and saw many supposedly smart individuals act strangely stupid when they got a handgun handed to them for the first time.

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

Topgear wrote:

Rights are not absolute. The old standard, "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater." applies to the right to free speech. Society has the right to expect that your free speech is exercised with enough care so as not to harm anyone else. We also have the right to ensure that deadly force is employed in a manner consistent with societies laws and expectations and so it is not harmful to any "non-combatant".

Please explain to me how someone who has never fired a gun before can go to the dealer, buy one and somehow suddenly be endowed with the skills needed to use it and the knowledge of the rules and regulations surrounding it's lawful use. Do that and I'll be satisfied that no one needs training.

You're abosolutely right TG . . . extensive state mandated training is the only way to go . . .

Here is the proof . . . this guy had the best training in weapons that the state can require . . . worked well for him. His training "didn't risk any non-combatants all right:"

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0411061foot1.html

Face it folks, TG is an elitist, statist who wants everyone "controlled;" thiskind of thinking is exactly why weCAN'T getdecentcarry laws in Iowa.

SS

 

[Topgear]

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

Topgear wrote:

Rights are not absolute. The old standard, "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater." applies to the right to free speech. Society has the right to expect that your free speech is exercised with enough care so as not to harm anyone else. We also have the right to ensure that deadly force is employed in a manner consistent with societies laws and expectations and so it is not harmful to any "non-combatant".

Please explain to me how someone who has never fired a gun before can go to the dealer, buy one and somehow suddenly be endowed with the skills needed to use it and the knowledge of the rules and regulations surrounding it's lawful use. Do that and I'll be satisfied that no one needs training.

You're abosolutely right TG . . . extensive state mandated training is the only way to go . . .

Here is the proof . . . this guy had the best training in weapons that the state can require . . . worked well for him. His training "didn't risk any non-combatants all right:"

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0411061foot1.html

Face it folks, TG is an elitist, statist who wants everyone "controlled;" this kind of thinking is exactly why we CAN'T get decent carry laws in Iowa.

SS

Elitist? Where do you come up with this stuff? People that know me probably peed their pants laughing at that statement.

The example you posted is a good one. It shows that even those with training can make mistakes. It happens every day. At least his training made him aware enough not to point the muzzle at the kids in the room.

I didn't state that I wanted anyone controlled either so don't try to put those words in my mouth. Do you oppose hunter safety education too? Should we let police departments put recruits out on the street without firearm training? After all, they have their rights too.

SS, this is just another example of your all or nothing, my way or no way type of thinking. I have made no claims on training other than people carrying a weapon in public should show that they know how to safely use the tool they choose to carry and know when they can or cannot use deadly force. Is that too much for you.

Maybe you think we should "evolve" to a Thunderdome society where everything goes and might makes right?

TG

 

[IA_farmboy]

imported post

Please explain to me how someone who has never fired a gun before can go to the dealer, buy one and somehow suddenly be endowed with the skills needed to use it and the knowledge of the rules and regulations surrounding it's lawful use. Do that and I'll be satisfied that no one needs training.

I don't believe I said no one should have training. I said that the training should not be enforced by law. I suggest that people read the manual and get proper instruction before turning on the stove to cook an egg. Improper handling of food is very dangerous and yet there is no government requirement to get training before people can cook for themselves.

Yes, people need training in the proper handling of a firearm before they even touch one. No, we don't need that training enforced by the government.

 

[Topgear]

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Please explain to me how someone who has never fired a gun before can go to the dealer, buy one and somehow suddenly be endowed with the skills needed to use it and the knowledge of the rules and regulations surrounding it's lawful use. Do that and I'll be satisfied that no one needs training.

I don't believe I said no one should have training. I said that the training should not be enforced by law. I suggest that people read the manual and get proper instruction before turning on the stove to cook an egg. Improper handling of food is very dangerous and yet there is no government requirement to get training before people can cook for themselves.

Yes, people need training in the proper handling of a firearm before they even touch one. No, we don't need that training enforced by the government.

So have you ever under cooked your egg and had someone across the street drop dead because of that? Turning the conversation to firearms, what do you think the percentage of people who buy a gun and read the manual actually is? I don't know but if it's like most consumer products, it's very low.

Giving someone who's never used one before a handgun, holster and box of cartridges and telling them, "Now you make sure you read the manual and get someone to show you how to use this before you put it on, alright?", is quite likely to reach similarly low levels.

We have for generations required hunter safety education for anyone wanting to get a hunting license and go out in the woods. The last I heard that single policy has reduced the number of accidental deaths each year by more than 50%. I'm sorry if I'm trampling on the rights of some hypothetical person, who fails or refuses to get training, to defend them self without regard for the safety of the rest of society but that's a price they should have to pay to be able to legally wield the power of life or death over another human being.

If the IGO unlicensed open carry bill passes with no training required, how many "accidentally killed in the crossfire" accidents do you think it would take before open carry was repealed?

TG

 

[Mike]

imported post

Topgear wrote:

If the IGO unlicensed open carry bill passes with no training required, how many "accidentally killed in the crossfire" accidents do you think it would take before open carry was repealed?

Well its long been lawful for anyone over 18, without any license, to open carry loaded handguns in the unincorporated areas of iowa - has this led to cross fires from unlicensed open cariers and demand for repeal of gun rights?

It's alread legal in most statesfor anyone over 18, without any license, to open carry loaded handguns throughout the state, including cities, e.g., Pittsburgh, Richmond, etc? has this led to cross fires from unlicensed open cariers and demand for repeal of gun rights?

Can you name one enumerated constitutional right which requires a license to enjoy??

 

[IA_farmboy]

imported post

If the IGO unlicensed open carry bill passes with no training required, how many "accidentally killed in the crossfire" accidents do you think it would take before open carry was repealed?

Not any more than states that already have unlicensed open (and concealed) carry of firearms. None of the states that have enacted unlicensed open carry have repealed it.

Giving someone who's never used one before a handgun, holster and box of cartridges and telling them, "Now you make sure you read the manual and get someone to show you how to use this before you put it on, alright?", is quite likely to reach similarly low levels.

Nobody is going to hand out pistols and cartridges. People that have taken the steps to acquire a firearm tend to also be people that seek training in their proper handling. Do you suggest we should have licenses for chainsaws and plumber's torches? Those are very dangerous items that can result in the death of others by falling trees and house fires.

So have you ever under cooked your egg and had someone across the street drop dead because of that? Turning the conversation to firearms, what do you think the percentage of people who buy a gun and read the manual actually is? I don't know but if it's like most consumer products, it's very low.

I don't like where that logic is going. You are suggesting that people need to be properly vetted by the government to even touch a firearm. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

 

[Topgear]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Topgear wrote:

If the IGO unlicensed open carry bill passes with no training required, how many "accidentally killed in the crossfire" accidents do you think it would take before open carry was repealed?

Well its long been lawful for anyone over 18, without any license, to open carry loaded handguns in the unincorporated areas of iowa - has this led to cross fires from unlicensed open cariers and demand for repeal of gun rights?

It's alread legal in most states for anyone over 18, without any license, to open carry loaded handguns throughout the state, including cities, e.g., Pittsburgh, Richmond, etc?  has this led to cross fires from unlicensed open cariers and demand for repeal of gun rights?

Can you name one enumerated constitutional right which requires a license to enjoy??

Mike,

First I didn't say it was inevitable that every untrained person would end up shooting someone accidentally, just that it increased the odds. Most people in rural Iowa also do get trained by responsible parents or siblings so that kind of eliminates that threat.

Well, I have a friend who is a police officer in Chesterfield county. Two months ago she woke up an found bullet holes in her sons bedroom wall from the outside in. She has moved out of the house because they don't know if it was an accident or someone targeting her. She has become quite vocal about banning guns so yes, it has lead to demands to eliminate gun rights, and in your state none the less.

There have also been numerous shootings in Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, and Iowa City this summer. Everyone of them has increased both the number of people seeking carry licenses and those demanding stricter gun controls.

And again, please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about a license being required? I am advocating training and that if you want to carry in public, you should be able to prove that you are capable of doing so.

Thanks for your comments,

TG

 

[Topgear]

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

If the IGO unlicensed open carry bill passes with no training required, how many "accidentally killed in the crossfire" accidents do you think it would take before open carry was repealed?

Not any more than states that already have unlicensed open (and concealed) carry of firearms. None of the states that have enacted unlicensed open carry have repealed it.

Giving someone who's never used one before a handgun, holster and box of cartridges and telling them, "Now you make sure you read the manual and get someone to show you how to use this before you put it on, alright?", is quite likely to reach similarly low levels.

Nobody is going to hand out pistols and cartridges. People that have taken the steps to acquire a firearm tend to also be people that seek training in their proper handling. Do you suggest we should have licenses for chainsaws and plumber's torches? Those are very dangerous items that can result in the death of others by falling trees and house fires.

So have you ever under cooked your egg and had someone across the street drop dead because of that? Turning the conversation to firearms, what do you think the percentage of people who buy a gun and read the manual actually is? I don't know but if it's like most consumer products, it's very low.

I don't like where that logic is going. You are suggesting that people need to be properly vetted by the government to even touch a firearm. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

Again, you and your "brother in arms" Straight_Shooter like to put words in my mouth to advance your "all or nothing" view of the world. I did not say that I believe a license is needed to touch a firearm, only proper training. How that happens is, at this moment, undefined. Advocating training does NOT imply government involvement.

Never mind me, train, don't train because it's your right to do so. I guarantee those you will face with a weapon in a self defense situation are training right now. They are training to a level far beyond anything most people would ever consider.

For me, I will continue to train as often as I can afford to in both dollars and time invested.

TG

 

[IA_farmboy]

imported post

Again, you and your "brother in arms" Straight_Shooter like to put words in my mouth to advance your "all or nothing" view of the world. I did not say that I believe a license is needed to touch a firearm, only proper training. How that happens is, at this moment, undefined. Advocating training does NOT imply government involvement.

I'm confused, first you talk about how people are going to get shot if Iowa enacts unlicensed open carry and now you talk about how advocating training doe not imply government involvement. I was taking the obvious track in your logic that you were advocating government enforcement of training and that the only feasible way to enforce that training is through licensing. So, I thought you wanted licensing to remain.

If you do not want government involvement in the enforcement of training then it would seem that you would not discount the possibility of unlicensed open carry in Iowa.

I agree that people should get training before owning a firearm. I just think that enforcement of that training by the government is a dangerous path to take. I also feel that licensing the right to self defense is a dangerous path to take.

 

[Mike]

imported post

Topgear wrote:

please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about a license being required?

You wrote: "If the IGO unlicensed open carry bill passes with no training required, how many "accidentally killed in the crossfire" accidents do you think it would take before open carry was repealed?"

The fair implication of your words is that you oppose to repeal of the license requirement to conceal carry in Iowa generally, and to open carry in vehicles and incorporated areas. How could any training requirement be enforced absent a license scheme?

I happen to think that a fair comromise public policy rule would be for iowa to just become like most states - open carry allowed without license, concealed carry allowed with shall issue license that requires some minimal showing of proficiency and/or gun handing. look at the Virginia statute at 18.2-308 which grafathers prevuious permit holders, and accepts pretty much any gun or unter safety class as proof of training.

 

[Topgear]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Topgear wrote:

please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about a license being required?

You wrote:  "If the IGO unlicensed open carry bill passes with no training required, how many "accidentally killed in the crossfire" accidents do you think it would take before open carry was repealed?"

The fair implication of your words is that you oppose to repeal of the license requirement to conceal carry in Iowa generally, and to open carry in vehicles and incorporated areas.  How could any training requirement be enforced absent a license scheme?

I happen to think that a fair comromise public policy rule would be for iowa to just become like most states - open carry allowed without license, concealed carry allowed with shall issue license that requires some minimal showing of proficiency and/or gun handing.  look at the Virginia statute at 18.2-308 which grafathers prevuious permit holders, and accepts pretty much any gun or unter safety class as proof of training.

I'm sorry! I thought Iowa Gun Owners was advocating unlicensed carry. How do yo interpret me talking about needing training as saying I oppose the whole bill? You may think it's a fair implication but in doing so you have misunderstood what I said and put words in my mouth.

For the record, as I have stated at least three times in this thread, I hope Iowa Gun Owners is successful in their quest. Apparently you and the "brothers in arms" Straight_Shooter and IA_farmboy have missed that point. Just so we are all clear and all of the conspiracy theorists don't miss it again:

I hope the organization known as Iowa Gun Owners and their legislative supporters are able to pull of the home run of the century and get their bill passed in 2010 in the state of Iowa. So help me God.

How could any training requirement be enforced absent a license scheme? I don't know, you mentioned how it's done in Virginia. Is that an unwarranted intrusion on your rights? For God's sake if you guys can figure it out to your satisfaction Iowa ought to be able to. We are NORTH of the Mason-Dixon line after all!
:lol:

 

[Fran Marion]

imported post

Topgear,

I'm not a member of either IC or IGO, but I would like to comment on how reductio ad ridiculum you've become in your postings. If you're a member of Iowa Carry or Iowa Gun Owners, you're certainly tainting the waters against your organization.

Any one of your examples, and even your replies to the examples of others, are easily turned on their backsides using the slightest common sense. Should I decide to carry a hammer, must I be required to get a license? If I were to throw it across the street...your refutations of the eggery were not valid.

It would seem to me that you, like many others I've run across in these types of discussions, draw heavily on the training that you've received in your past and believe that some degree of that training should be shared by all who wish to accomplish self-defense.

But this type of an argument leads to a tit-for-tat discussion, because my own or anyone else's experience may counteract what you may have experienced. Since you mentioned LEO training, I myself have known several LEOs, gone shooting with them, and found that it wasn't difficult to shoot better and more competently (which would include safety) than a good many of them. My daddy never had a handgun, my hunters safety class never taught me how to shoot them, and I've been self-taught when it comes to pistols since I got my own (dad's permission) when I was 13. You see, my experience tells me that your experience doesn't take into account the experiences of others.

So you make the leap to mandatory government licensure? That opens the door of legitimization of their authority to infringe upon those rights in the future, which they always do. Its not really the politicians that we'll have to blame for infringing our rights down the road, but rather, we'd have only ourselves to blame for the big government sitting in the living room when we're the one who opened the damn door in the first place.

 

[BobbieStetson]

imported post

Is the rate of accidental shootings by unlicensed and non government-mandated trained concealed carry holders in Vermont and Alaska higher than in other states? Hard evidence should make the case in those states either way, right?

Who would receive a new gun, a box of ammo and decide to just start shooting and not want to seek training? A low-life, a gang member....these types? Aren't they the same type who wouldn't get a permit anyway? Like most, my Dad taught me how to shoot.

This argument of regulating Constitutional liberties by use of the analogy of not being able to exercise one's First amendment free speech right by shouting fire in a dark theater - is rather silly. Our fore-fathers knew morally that our liberties, if mis-used, were subject to civil or criminal sanctions. If we buy into this analogy, then is the proponent stating that the government should now issue licenses to those allowed to exercise acceptable speech? Will we not be allowed to speak out on any topic without the government-approved license? If that's the case then we'll need to hire trainers who will teach and test us on "acceptable free speech" so as to qualify us to get a free speech license, right?

I am starting to wonder how many NRA certified firearms instructors stand to profit with state-mandated training, and thus support such legislation.