Here is what the three noteworthy political parties say about Second Amendment issues in their platforms.
Libertarian Party
1.9 Self-Defense
"The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights—life, liberty, and justly acquired property—against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition."
Republican Party of Iowa
"4. We strongly believe in the constitutionally protected natural right of individuals to keep and bear arms, as recognized and protected by the Second Amendment, and we support the repeal of existing laws that infringe upon those rights. We support the addition of “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” provisions to Iowa law."
Democratic Party of Iowa
Gun Safety
We support:
248. President Obama's executive orders on gun control
249. universal background checks
250. requiring registration, licensing, education/testing & liability insurance
251. banning assault weapons
252. gun-free zones
253. closing "gun show loopholes"
254. right to prohibit firearms on one's property
255. temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals under DANCOs
256. guardians' accountability for minors' inappropriate gun access
257. nationwide database of gun ownership
258. hand gun regulation
We oppose:
259. "Stand your ground"
260. open carry
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Friday, November 18, 2016
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Pro-Freedom Bills In Des Moines- Feb. 2015
There are some good bills floating around in the Iowa legislature this year that could use our support.
Gun Rights Bills
First up are four pro-gun owner bills and the synopsis for each one provided by the Iowa Firearms Coalition (IFC).
House File 45 - Emergency Powers This bill guarantees that Iowan's Second Amendment rights remain intact during times of public emergencies, when the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones is needed most. In short it would keep Hurricane Katrina style confiscations from happening here in Iowa.
House File 59 - Preemption Clarification
HF59 amends IA Code 724.28 which says local municipalities and governing bodies shall not preempt or supersede state firearms law. Iowa has had a preemption law for almost 25 years, but every year many local municipalities continue to try to work around this law and illegally in fringe on Iowan's rights. This bill would strengthen the current code and provide citizen's rights greater protections from over zealous governing bodies.
House File 92 - Stand Your Ground
This legislation would remove a person's "duty to retreat" from an attacker in any location. This would allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves or their family anywhere they are lawfully present. This legislation would also expressly enhance the protections against criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits when justifiable force is used.
House File 99 - Repeal the Youth Shooting Ban
Currently anyone under the age of 14 is strictly prohibited from holding or shooting a handgun in Iowa - regardless of whether or not that minor is under parental supervision. HF99 would amend the state code to allow a person under 14 to lawfully shoot a handgun, with proper supervision, as long as their parent, guardian, or spouse who is 21 years of age or older has provided consent.
House File 59 - Preemption Clarification
HF59 amends IA Code 724.28 which says local municipalities and governing bodies shall not preempt or supersede state firearms law. Iowa has had a preemption law for almost 25 years, but every year many local municipalities continue to try to work around this law and illegally in fringe on Iowan's rights. This bill would strengthen the current code and provide citizen's rights greater protections from over zealous governing bodies.
House File 92 - Stand Your Ground
This legislation would remove a person's "duty to retreat" from an attacker in any location. This would allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves or their family anywhere they are lawfully present. This legislation would also expressly enhance the protections against criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits when justifiable force is used.
House File 99 - Repeal the Youth Shooting Ban
Currently anyone under the age of 14 is strictly prohibited from holding or shooting a handgun in Iowa - regardless of whether or not that minor is under parental supervision. HF99 would amend the state code to allow a person under 14 to lawfully shoot a handgun, with proper supervision, as long as their parent, guardian, or spouse who is 21 years of age or older has provided consent.
IFC maintains an Legislative Action Center site where you can send a pre-written message to your Iowa representatives urging them to support these bills.
Contraband Bills
If polls are right, about 38% of you reading these words have tried marijuana. Most of you did NOT end up living in a van down by the river or murdering your parents with a pitchfork as pot alarmists would have everyone believe. And although fireworks have been illegal in Iowa since the 1930's, many Iowans bootleg them in and light them off.
There are three bills that seek to lessen the nanny state's grasp on these relatively harmless, yet illegal activities. Reducing penalties for pot would free up jail space for violent bad guys, saving the state money. Legalizing fireworks would supply the state with an additional source of tax revenue.
Reduces marijuana possession penalties involving up to 28.5 grams of marijuana from a criminal misdemeanor (punishable by up to six-months in jail and a $1,000 fine) to a simple misdemeanor punishable by a $300 fine.
Reduces marijuana possession penalties involving up to 5 grams of cannabis. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 1 in favor of this legislation, which now moves on to the full Senate for debate.
You can go to the NORML website to send a pre-written message of support for these bills to your Iowa legislators here.
This would legalize certain retail fireworks for purchase by Iowa consumers.
Freedom of Movement
This bill would raise the speed limit to 75 on some of Iowa's rural interstate highways.
This bill would prevent Iowa counties and cities from adopting ordinances barring 19- and 20-year-old adults from bars. This would most notably shoot down Iowa City's 21-ordinance. I wrote about why denying these legal adults their rights to liberty, peaceable assembly and pursuit of happiness was fundamentally wrong here.
Be sure to let your Iowa State Representative or Senator know how you feel about any of these potential laws above.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
"Cold Hard Cashner on Gun Rights"
Please check out and buy my new book: "Cold Hard Cashner on Gun Rights: Second Amendment Writings From 2008-2013."
"Cold Hard Cashner" has been called "the premiere small-town Iowa blog about Liberty." This book collects the blog's best posts dealing with Second Amendment issues since its inception in 2008 through 2013. In these pages you will read about the history and philosophy behind the Second Amendment, Iowa's struggle to become a "shall-issue" state, gun training and selection, and the gun politics in the state.
About the author: Benjamin R. Cashner is a lifelong resident of Iowa where he lives with his wife and two children. He served as an infantryman in the Iowa Army National Guard from 1992 to 1998. Cashner is a member of the Iowa Libertarian Party and his columns have appeared in the "Cedar Rapids Gazette" and "Iowa City Press-Citizen."
Buy the book HERE.
About the author: Benjamin R. Cashner is a lifelong resident of Iowa where he lives with his wife and two children. He served as an infantryman in the Iowa Army National Guard from 1992 to 1998. Cashner is a member of the Iowa Libertarian Party and his columns have appeared in the "Cedar Rapids Gazette" and "Iowa City Press-Citizen."
Buy the book HERE.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Resistance Is NOT Futile!
"Resistance is futile," the evil Borg would warn enemies that they intended to assimilate into their collective on Star Trek: The Next Generation. It seems like we hear that exhortation from all types of progressive "experts" these days when it comes defending ourselves from those who would prey upon us.
While Colorado was passing its recent gun bans (including banning licensed concealed carry on college campuses), for instance, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs advised its students to vomit or urinate on themselves to repel a rapist. Active resistance could get the girl harmed, don't you know? This despite the fact that research going all the way back to the Jimmy Carter administration shows that of attempted rapes 32% were actually committed, but when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.
Rape isn't the only crime that armed defense has proven effective in resisting. After the Newton shootings President Obama called for a review of existing research on gun violence. The results he got probably weren't what he was looking for. The assessment from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council concludes that crime victims who use guns in self-defense have lower injury rates than other victims.
One 2006 Florida State University study cited in the assessment found that "self-protection in general, both forceful and nonforceful, reduced the likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance." It found that using a gun in self-defense reduced the risk of property loss as well minor or serious injury to the victim. In clinical language, it concludes: "Combined with the fact that injuries following resistance are almost always relatively minor, victim resistance appears to be generally a wise course of action." In other words, "Resist, damn it!"
You can see the macro-effects of individual armed resistance on our crime rates as well. Since violent crime peaked in 1991, twenty-four more states have enacted "shall issue" laws giving citizens a lawful means to carry the most effective tool of resistance. Researchers found that "when state concealed handgun laws went into effect[,] murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.” In our nation we now see that gun ownership is at an all-time high while the nation's murder rate is at all-time lows. (Despite this, 56% of Americans think gun crime is worse than 20 years ago. Thank you mainstream media!)
Of course our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms wasn't meant just to give us the means to resist muggers, murderers and rapists. It also gives us a defense "against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers" (in the words of jurist and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story).
Although 65% of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment exists as a hedge against tyranny, I've heard this idea pooh-poohed by modern intelligentsia who believe that common citizens armed with light weapons would no longer be able to stand up to a foreign invader or domestic tyrant armed with heavy weapons and even nuclear weapons. ("Resistance is futile.")
However, there are numerous examples of primitive indigenous forces wreaking havoc on more-advanced foreign occupiers. The Afghans, for instance, were able to fight the Soviets for nearly a decade, eventually expelling them, and they have kept us hemorrhaging blood and treasure and unable to declare victory for over twelve years now.
Whether the tyrannical oppressor is foreign or domestic, in his book The War of the Flea, Robert Taber makes a convincing case that as long a guerrilla force retains the support and good will of the general populace it is very nearly unbeatable. An American resistance movement fighting honorably against despotism would no doubt retain a great deal of popular support from the American people.
Even if it were to fail, would it not be better to try? Better to stand against tyranny? Is not better to die on your feet than live on your knees? In The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book about the Soviet forced labor camp system, it is recounted how the victims of Communist brutality regretted not standing up against their oppressors early on:
"During an arrest, you think since you are not guilty, how can they arrest you? Why should you run away? And how can you resist right then? After all, you’ll only make your situation worse; you will make it more difficult for them to sort out the mistake.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family?
"Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
"The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! We did not love freedom enough. Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not to sacrifice himself."
No wonder that our Founding Fathers wrote in several of their state Bills of Rights that, "The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." Whether it be against the petty crimes of street criminals or the high crimes of tyrants: Stand and resist!
While Colorado was passing its recent gun bans (including banning licensed concealed carry on college campuses), for instance, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs advised its students to vomit or urinate on themselves to repel a rapist. Active resistance could get the girl harmed, don't you know? This despite the fact that research going all the way back to the Jimmy Carter administration shows that of attempted rapes 32% were actually committed, but when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.
Rape isn't the only crime that armed defense has proven effective in resisting. After the Newton shootings President Obama called for a review of existing research on gun violence. The results he got probably weren't what he was looking for. The assessment from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council concludes that crime victims who use guns in self-defense have lower injury rates than other victims.
One 2006 Florida State University study cited in the assessment found that "self-protection in general, both forceful and nonforceful, reduced the likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance." It found that using a gun in self-defense reduced the risk of property loss as well minor or serious injury to the victim. In clinical language, it concludes: "Combined with the fact that injuries following resistance are almost always relatively minor, victim resistance appears to be generally a wise course of action." In other words, "Resist, damn it!"
You can see the macro-effects of individual armed resistance on our crime rates as well. Since violent crime peaked in 1991, twenty-four more states have enacted "shall issue" laws giving citizens a lawful means to carry the most effective tool of resistance. Researchers found that "when state concealed handgun laws went into effect[,] murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.” In our nation we now see that gun ownership is at an all-time high while the nation's murder rate is at all-time lows. (Despite this, 56% of Americans think gun crime is worse than 20 years ago. Thank you mainstream media!)
Of course our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms wasn't meant just to give us the means to resist muggers, murderers and rapists. It also gives us a defense "against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers" (in the words of jurist and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story).
Although 65% of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment exists as a hedge against tyranny, I've heard this idea pooh-poohed by modern intelligentsia who believe that common citizens armed with light weapons would no longer be able to stand up to a foreign invader or domestic tyrant armed with heavy weapons and even nuclear weapons. ("Resistance is futile.")
However, there are numerous examples of primitive indigenous forces wreaking havoc on more-advanced foreign occupiers. The Afghans, for instance, were able to fight the Soviets for nearly a decade, eventually expelling them, and they have kept us hemorrhaging blood and treasure and unable to declare victory for over twelve years now.
Whether the tyrannical oppressor is foreign or domestic, in his book The War of the Flea, Robert Taber makes a convincing case that as long a guerrilla force retains the support and good will of the general populace it is very nearly unbeatable. An American resistance movement fighting honorably against despotism would no doubt retain a great deal of popular support from the American people.
Even if it were to fail, would it not be better to try? Better to stand against tyranny? Is not better to die on your feet than live on your knees? In The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book about the Soviet forced labor camp system, it is recounted how the victims of Communist brutality regretted not standing up against their oppressors early on:
"During an arrest, you think since you are not guilty, how can they arrest you? Why should you run away? And how can you resist right then? After all, you’ll only make your situation worse; you will make it more difficult for them to sort out the mistake.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family?
"Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
"The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! We did not love freedom enough. Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not to sacrifice himself."
No wonder that our Founding Fathers wrote in several of their state Bills of Rights that, "The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." Whether it be against the petty crimes of street criminals or the high crimes of tyrants: Stand and resist!
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Introducing: Iowa Gun Grabber Hall of Shame
I'm rolling out a new separate page on the blog, "The Iowa Gun Grabber Hall of Shame." The purpose is to "honor" leaders in Iowa who use their positions to promote infringement upon the Second Amendment rights of their fellow citizens. If you know someone you'd like to nominate to the Hall of Shame, read the guidelines on the page and email them to me.
.jpg)
Monday, February 18, 2013
One More Good One
I forgot at least one more good gun bill in Des Moines, House File 170, the Iowa Firearms Protection Act. This bill follows the lead of several other states that have passed similar laws. It would exempt "firearms, firearm accessories,
or ammunition owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains
exclusively within this state" from enforcement of federal laws or regulation.
Superficially this may seem like a Second Amendment issue, since it deals with guns, but it's actually a Tenth Amendment issue. The concept is that arms made and remaining in the state don't fall under the federal government's authority under the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause.
The bill would forbid Iowa state officials and Iowa gun dealers from enforcing federal regulations on Iowa made arms remaining in state. It would also make it illegal for any federal agent to enforce federal regulations on Iowa arms. Federal agents doing so would be guilty of a class "D" felony. It would also allow the Iowa attorney general to defend a citizen of Iowa who is prosecuted by the United States government for any of the above.
Our friends at the Tenth Amendment Center had a brief writeup on the bill here.
Superficially this may seem like a Second Amendment issue, since it deals with guns, but it's actually a Tenth Amendment issue. The concept is that arms made and remaining in the state don't fall under the federal government's authority under the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause.
The bill would forbid Iowa state officials and Iowa gun dealers from enforcing federal regulations on Iowa made arms remaining in state. It would also make it illegal for any federal agent to enforce federal regulations on Iowa arms. Federal agents doing so would be guilty of a class "D" felony. It would also allow the Iowa attorney general to defend a citizen of Iowa who is prosecuted by the United States government for any of the above.
Our friends at the Tenth Amendment Center had a brief writeup on the bill here.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Sunday, January 6, 2013
An Open Letter to State Rep. Muhlbauer
To:Dan.Muhlbauer@legis.iowa.gov
Dear Representative Muhlbauer:
Sincerely,
Dear Representative Muhlbauer:
I was interested in reading your recent interview in
the Daily Times Herald titled “Muhlbauer: Ban, seize semi-auto weapons.” In
the article it was suggested that you would like Iowa to ban and confiscate “big
guns,” “semi-automatics,” and those that are “not hunting weapons.”
Why do you believe that people may be able to own some
plinking firearms for recreational purposes but not defensive arms which may
serve a deadly-serious purpose? Probably your reasoning is that others, police
and soldiers, bear arms for that purpose. Indeed they do and thank God for them.
But the existence of these valiant “others” doesn’t
absolve the rest of us from our duties as Americans, as neighbors, as husbands
and fathers, or as men. If a fire started in your home would you not try to extinguish
it even though you’re not a professional firefighter? If your child or your
neighbor was injured would you not try to aid him even though you’re not a
certified paramedic?
Why then this attitude that being prepared to defend
oneself or ones family against criminal attack is unthinkable? Why then this
attitude that being prepared to stand in defense of liberty is superfluous? Unfortunately
this attitude is not uncommon among many pampered modern Americans.
What an unbelievably inflated sense of self-worth you must
have to believe that humbly-paid civil servants (with families of their own) have
a duty to risk their lives to defend your life and liberty while you won’t
shoulder any of the responsibility yourself!
I hope that, despite your best efforts, your fellow
citizens of Iowa will remain able to keep and bear arms without any more infringements
placed upon that right. Even if you don’t choose to personally exercise that
right, you and your family will be safer because of it.
Sincerely,
Benjamin R. Cashner
[Address & Phone Number Redacted]
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Iowa Gun Stories
As the public debates gun control and Congress reconvenes, the Second Amendment stories are piling up faster than I can get to them. Although I don't want to be a Johnny One Note, you can expect this blog to be pretty guncentric until some of this gun control craze blows over (if ever).
Here are a few stories from around Iowa:
In an interview with the the Carroll Daily Times Herald, State Rep. Dan Muhlbauer, D-Manilla, says Iowa lawmakers should ban "the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them" and “start taking them” from owners who refuse to surrender any illegal firearms through a buy-back program.
You can read the article linked above then let this asinine baby-kisser know what you think of his plan. Email: Dan.Muhlbauer@legis.iowa.gov Capitol Phone: 515.281.3221
Another plan coming from the brilliant minds on the pro-gun control side was posited in a supposedly tongue-in-cheek column in the Des Moines Register. In it, columnist Donald Kaul says his plan would:
If nothing else, the threat of the various bans that are being floated in the U.S. Congress has been good for business for may local gun sellers as well the world's largest supplier of firearms accessories, which is located right here in the Hawkeye state.
The Huffington Post reports that Brownells, located in Montezuma Iowa, has been swamped with orders for standard (20-30 round) AR-15 ammunition magazines. In one recent three-day period the company sold the number of AR-15 mags that it normally sells in 3.5 years. Apparently customers are fearful that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds may soon be banned, causing them to snap up the standard capacity mags while they are still available.
Let's all work to make sure that those concerns are unfounded.
Here are a few stories from around Iowa:
Iowa Lawmaker Dan Muhlbauer: Take Semi-Auto Guns from Owners
In an interview with the the Carroll Daily Times Herald, State Rep. Dan Muhlbauer, D-Manilla, says Iowa lawmakers should ban "the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them" and “start taking them” from owners who refuse to surrender any illegal firearms through a buy-back program.
You can read the article linked above then let this asinine baby-kisser know what you think of his plan. Email: Dan.Muhlbauer@legis.iowa.gov Capitol Phone: 515.281.3221
Des Moines Register Column Incites Violence Against Gun Owners
Another plan coming from the brilliant minds on the pro-gun control side was posited in a supposedly tongue-in-cheek column in the Des Moines Register. In it, columnist Donald Kaul says his plan would:
- "Repeal the Second Amendment[.]"
- Tie GOP leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner "to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control."
- "Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal."
- Raze the NRA's headquarters.
- "Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that 'prying the guns from their cold, dead hands' thing works for me."
Brownells Business Booming Before Ban
If nothing else, the threat of the various bans that are being floated in the U.S. Congress has been good for business for may local gun sellers as well the world's largest supplier of firearms accessories, which is located right here in the Hawkeye state.
The Huffington Post reports that Brownells, located in Montezuma Iowa, has been swamped with orders for standard (20-30 round) AR-15 ammunition magazines. In one recent three-day period the company sold the number of AR-15 mags that it normally sells in 3.5 years. Apparently customers are fearful that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds may soon be banned, causing them to snap up the standard capacity mags while they are still available.
Let's all work to make sure that those concerns are unfounded.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
'Well-Regulated Militia' All Around You
Just for review, the Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The U.S. Constitution repeatedly refers to three distinct political entities: the people, the States and the United States. The language of the Second Amendment clearly states that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms which is protected.
The syllabus from the Heller decision concludes: "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."
Still, you occasionally hear grumblings from disgruntled progressives who just can't believe that their collective interpretation, which held sway in academia and the media for much of the twentieth century, has been swept into history's dustbin. One such grumbling came as a guest column in last Sunday's Cedar Rapids Gazette entitled "'Well-regulated militia' is nowhere in sight." Since the author, Bob Elliott, is a former Iowa City councilman, perhaps it's not surprising that civilian arms bearing doesn't sit well with him.
Mr. Elliott begins his piece writing about several recent shootings in Cedar Rapids which he alleges were carried out by "proud gun-wielding Americans, who apparently believe they represent something of a militia." I'm not sure about all the crimes Mr. Elliot is referring to but the three suspects arrested in the Kirkwood Apartment shootings were young punks with prior criminal records who were looking for drugs. I'm going to go out on a limb and say none of them were weapons permit holders or dues-paying members of the NRA.
Mr. Elliott then gets into the meat of the Second Amendment. "You may have noticed that the 2nd Amendment’s first two phrases focus on the necessity of a well-regulated militia," he writes. "I believe the Founding Fathers envisioned an organized and well-regulated militia." But did the Founding Fathers define "well-regulated" to mean being administered by a government bureaucracy as we do now? In their day, "well-regulated" often meant "well-trained."
Attorney Daniel J. Schultz explains: "[C]omparison of the Framers' use of the term 'well regulated' in the Second Amendment, and the words 'regulate' and 'regulation' elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term 'militia' had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, 'the people,' had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, 'well regulate' themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
"This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb 'regulate' the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article 'a in the phrase 'A well regulated Militia.'"
Mr. Elliott continues his guest column with, "I can’t believe [the Founding Fathers] had in mind more than 300 million people running around with weapons ranging from small caliber revolvers to assault weapons." I'll ignore for the moment the Goldilocks syndrome that Mr. Elliot, like so many gun prohibitionists, apparently suffers from ("This gun is too big! This gun is too small!") and focus on his first point in that sentence.
While the Founders may or may not have envisioned a nation with the staggering population that we now have, they certainly believed that the militia comprised the bulk of whatever that population may be. Consider the words of George Mason, the "Father of the Bill of Rights," who said, "[W]ho are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." [Emphasis added.]
If Mr. Elliott is worried that the Founders wouldn't appreciate Americans "running around" with so-called "assault weapons" that cosmetically resemble military rifles, he may want to read the words of "A Pennsylvanian," Tench Coxe, who said that "every [...] terrible implement of the soldier, [is] the birthright of an American."
The simple fact is that gun control laws have been loosened in the past decade or so and record numbers of Americans are now buying, keeping and carrying firearms and yet violent crime rates and accidental gun deaths keep dropping to historic lows. It seems that "We the Militia" are pretty well self-controlled (or "well-regulated) to me.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Rep. Lance Horbach (R-40) - Closing Remarks Iowa RKBA Amendment
Here is Rep. Horbach's (R-Tama) impassioned closing remarks on the House floor for the RKBA amendment HJR 2009.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Busy Week In Des Moines
Two good gun bills came up for debate this week in the Iowa House of Representatives. One was a proposed "Stand Your Ground Law" and the other would add a right to keep and bear arms provision to the state constitution. Both were passed out of committee as watered down versions but the full house was allowed to vote on the original strongly-worded versions of both.
Not having the votes to stop the bills, House Democrats walked out in protest. Fellow over-worked blogger stranded in iowa chronicles the statehouse soap opera in more depth here. After their hissy fit Democrats returned and graciously allowed the legislative sausage press to resume operation. Both pro-gun bills passed in the House largely along party lines.
The "Stand Your Ground Law," House File 2215, "provides that a person may use reasonable force, including deadly force, if it is reasonable to believe such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of another" and that "a person who is not engaged in an illegal activity has no duty to retreat from any place where the person is lawfully present before using force." The bill also provides that a person who uses reasonable force would be immune from any criminal prosecution or civil action for using such force.
Arguing against the bill Democrats fell back on the "wild, wild west" scenarios that they also said would materialize if Iowa passed the "shall issue" weapons permit law in 2010. House Democratic Leader Kevin McCarthy had this to say of the brainless savages he represents: “Maybe loading groceries in the back of a car in the Walmart parking lot, you look over, somebody’s taking a sack out — boom!” The bill's sponsor Representative Matt Windschit countered, "“I trust Iowans. I believe in them. Let’s give them an opportunity to defend themselves without the fear of frivolous prosecution.”
H.F. 2215 passed 60 to 38. It now advances to the Democrat-controlled Senate where it's future is murky.
Representatives voting FOR the bill were:
Representatives voting AGAINST the bill were:
Representatives voting FOR the bill were:
Representatives voting AGAINST the bill were:
If you're interested in these bills I would encourage you to sign up for the Iowa Firearms Coalition's email alerts here. They will send you timely updates on these and other Second Amendment issues in Iowa as well as offering an online resource to quickly and easily contact your elected officials when needed.
Not having the votes to stop the bills, House Democrats walked out in protest. Fellow over-worked blogger stranded in iowa chronicles the statehouse soap opera in more depth here. After their hissy fit Democrats returned and graciously allowed the legislative sausage press to resume operation. Both pro-gun bills passed in the House largely along party lines.
The "Stand Your Ground Law," House File 2215, "provides that a person may use reasonable force, including deadly force, if it is reasonable to believe such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of another" and that "a person who is not engaged in an illegal activity has no duty to retreat from any place where the person is lawfully present before using force." The bill also provides that a person who uses reasonable force would be immune from any criminal prosecution or civil action for using such force.
Arguing against the bill Democrats fell back on the "wild, wild west" scenarios that they also said would materialize if Iowa passed the "shall issue" weapons permit law in 2010. House Democratic Leader Kevin McCarthy had this to say of the brainless savages he represents: “Maybe loading groceries in the back of a car in the Walmart parking lot, you look over, somebody’s taking a sack out — boom!” The bill's sponsor Representative Matt Windschit countered, "“I trust Iowans. I believe in them. Let’s give them an opportunity to defend themselves without the fear of frivolous prosecution.”
H.F. 2215 passed 60 to 38. It now advances to the Democrat-controlled Senate where it's future is murky.
Representatives voting FOR the bill were:
Alons Anderson Baltimore Baudler Brandenburg Byrnes Chambers Cownie De Boef Deyoe Dolecheck Drake Forristall Fry Garrett Grassley Hagenow Hager Hanusa Heaton Hein Helland Horbach Huseman Iverson Jorgensen Kaufmann Klein Koester Lofgren Lukan Massie Miller, L. Moore Olson, S. Paustian Pearson Pettengill Quirk Raecker Rasmussen Rayhons Rogers Sands Schulte Schultz Shaw Smith, J. Soderberg Sweeney Taylor, J. Tjepkes Upmeyer Van Engelenhoven Vander Linden Wagner Watts Windschitl Worthan Mr. Speaker Paulsen
Representatives voting AGAINST the bill were:
Abdul-Samad Berry Cohoon Gaines Gaskill Hall Hanson Heddens Hunter Isenhart Jacoby Kajtazovic Kearns Kelley Kressig Lensing Lykam Mascher McCarthy Miller, H. Muhlbauer Murphy Oldson Olson, R. Olson, T. Petersen Running-Marquardt Smith, M. Steckman Taylor, T. Thede Thomas Wenthe Wessel-Kroeschell Willems Winckler Wittneben WolfeThe proposal to amend the Iowa Constitution, House Joint Resolution 2009, would add the following language to the state's Bill of Rights:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, as herein expressed, shall not be infringed. The right of an individual to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be infringed upon or denied. Mandatory licensing, registration, or special taxation as a condition of the exercise of this right is prohibited, and any other restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.H.J.R 2009 passed 61-37.
Representatives voting FOR the bill were:
Alons Anderson Baltimore Baudler Brandenburg Byrnes Chambers Cownie De Boef Deyoe Dolecheck Drake Forristall Fry Garrett Grassley Hagenow Hager Hanusa Heaton Hein Helland Horbach Huseman Iverson Jorgensen Kaufmann Klein Koester Lensing Lofgren Lukan Massie Miller, L. Moore Olson, S. Paustian Pearson Pettengill Quirk Raecker Rasmussen Rayhons Rogers Sands Schulte Schultz Shaw Smith, J. Soderberg Sweeney Taylor, J. Tjepkes Upmeyer Van Engelenhoven Vander Linden Wagner Watts Windschitl Worthan Mr. Speaker Paulsen
Representatives voting AGAINST the bill were:
Abdul-Samad Berry Cohoon Gaines Gaskill Hall Hanson Heddens Hunter Isenhart Jacoby Kajtazovic Kearns Kelley Kressig Lykam MascherMuhlbauer Murphy Oldson Olson, R. Olson, T. Petersen Running-Marquardt Smith, M. Steckman Taylor, T. Thede Thomas Wenthe WesselSince it amends the state Constitution, the bill must pass BOTH houses of the legislature during this session AND during next years session. It would then have to be approved by Iowa voters.
If you're interested in these bills I would encourage you to sign up for the Iowa Firearms Coalition's email alerts here. They will send you timely updates on these and other Second Amendment issues in Iowa as well as offering an online resource to quickly and easily contact your elected officials when needed.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Iowa Gun Owners on Iowa Caucus
I received the following from Iowa Gun Owners:
Iowa Gun Owners wants to inform you about where the candidates stand on your gun rights.
First some good news:
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Congressman Ron Paul (in alphabetical order), were the two candidates to complete the survey 100% in favor of your gun rights. This means that, amongst other things, they’ve pledged to:
• Repeal any legislation that would re-institute the so called “Assault Weapons Ban.”
• Repeal the 1993 Brady Bill which allows the government to track what guns you purchase, setting the stage for a national gun registry.
• Repeal legislation that bans guns on school zones, which leaves tens of millions of school children virtually defenseless as their teachers can’t carry a gun.
• Stop any attempts to pass a UN Small Arms Treaty.
Congressman Ron Paul has recently introduced legislation to deal with some of the issues mentioned here – thus putting his money where his mouth is.
These are the candidates that are not afraid of the anti-gun special interest groups, their pals in the media, and their friends in Congress. No one else has the record and the survey results that Congresswoman Bachmann and Congressman Paul.
But that’s where the good news ends.
We should mention that Senator Santorum has completed the survey as well. On his second attempt he answered the questions correct. However Senator Santorum has a history of anti-gun votes during his time in the US Senate - and it took a lot of activism on your part to get a signed survey.
Santorum voted for the NICS compliance act, mandating that you alert the federal government in nearly every case where you buy a firearm. That’s the last thing gun owners want – their government knowing that they are a gun owner.
Santorum also voted to mandate trigger locks on all new guns being sold. As Iowa Gun Owners documented recently, this has led to horrific murders in cases where victims couldn’t unlock their guns in time.
Yet Santorum refuses to apologize for these votes. His poor initial survey response, combined with his history of anti-gun votes leave us very concerned about his willingness to fight for gun owners should he be the GOP nominee or the President someday.
Newt Gingrich refuses to answer our survey, after his staff assured us that we would receive it. Gingrich used the power of his office and Speaker of the House to voice tremendous support for the Brady Bill. He even said that he wants to take away more of your freedoms by mandating that you surrender your thumb print to the government to be able to buy a firearm. Imagine being treated like a common criminal for wanting to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right!
It’s no surprise then that Newt’s State Chairwoman is none other that House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer. Upmeyer broke her written promise by working to KILL Constitutional Carry last session in the House.
Mitt Romney also refuses to answer our survey. But this should be no surprise. Romney has loudly proclaimed his support for mandatory waiting periods and mandatory background checks. But far worse, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed into law a PERMAMENT ban on so-called assault weapons.
Romney’s State Chairwoman is Assistant Majority Leader Renee Schulte. Schulte also lied to gun owners in Iowa by voting to kill Constitutional Carry last year in the House after taking gun owners' votes, time and campaign contributions.
Governor Perry and Former Governor Jon Huntsman have also refused our survey.
This has been an exciting process for us at Iowa Gun Owners. One campaign, that has since imploded, threatened IGO with a libel lawsuit for exposing the position of their candidate during the Iowa Straw Poll.
Another campaign’s staff almost attacked IGO staff and volunteers at a Fox News debate back in August because we were informing so many Iowans about the refusal of their candidate to put his views on the 2nd Amendment on paper.
Multiple campaigns have sought out our endorsement, although we can not and do not endorse candidates.
Our ONLY goal at Iowa Gun Owners is to doggedly find out which candidates really support your gun rights. Don’t forget, “everyone” is pro-gun at election time, or so they say.
We’ve learned that during last year’s mid-term elections. Even the worst candidate on the 2nd Amendment claims to support your rights.
That’s why we issue surveys. A survey doesn’t ensure that a politician will stay faithful to his pledge. But a candidate who refuses to go on the record on gun rights is certainly not a candidate who will support your right to keep and bear arms.
Please consider a small contribution to Iowa Gun Owners to help us cover the costs of our survey program. Our mail, email and robocall program was effective at exposing a slew of anti-gun candidates.
But as we approach the 2012 legislative session we need to replenish our coffers to be able to alert gun owners to the threats that will no doubt come out of the General Assembly this session.
Any amount is helpful. If you can donate $50 to help us pay for this program we would be very grateful. If that is too much, consider chipping in just $5 or $10 instead.
We will put it to immediate use.
Also, you should know that Capitol insiders are reporting that some in the GOP establishment are working hard to remove the Constitutional Carry provision to the Iowa GOP Platform.
They are doing this because they know that their party looks bad when their platform professes support for Constitutional Carry - and then their party promptly caves into the anti-gun lobby in Des Moines and votes to KILL Constitutional Carry.
So they want to remove that portion from the platform.
Iowa gun owners who attend the GOP caucus should resist this and instead, offer this plank to strengthen the platform:
"We demand full restoration of 2nd Amendment rights and call for a state law authorizing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms, open or concealed, without a permit, an idea known as Constitutional Carry.
"We call upon the General Assembly to take immediate action on Constitutional Carry so that law abiding gun owners will no longer have to pay outrageous fees for permitting, submit to government mandated training, and have their fingerprints taken in the same manner that a criminal does."
For Freedom,
Aaron Dorr
Exectutive Director
Iowa Gun Owners wants to inform you about where the candidates stand on your gun rights.
First some good news:
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Congressman Ron Paul (in alphabetical order), were the two candidates to complete the survey 100% in favor of your gun rights. This means that, amongst other things, they’ve pledged to:
• Repeal any legislation that would re-institute the so called “Assault Weapons Ban.”
• Repeal the 1993 Brady Bill which allows the government to track what guns you purchase, setting the stage for a national gun registry.
• Repeal legislation that bans guns on school zones, which leaves tens of millions of school children virtually defenseless as their teachers can’t carry a gun.
• Stop any attempts to pass a UN Small Arms Treaty.
Congressman Ron Paul has recently introduced legislation to deal with some of the issues mentioned here – thus putting his money where his mouth is.
These are the candidates that are not afraid of the anti-gun special interest groups, their pals in the media, and their friends in Congress. No one else has the record and the survey results that Congresswoman Bachmann and Congressman Paul.
But that’s where the good news ends.
We should mention that Senator Santorum has completed the survey as well. On his second attempt he answered the questions correct. However Senator Santorum has a history of anti-gun votes during his time in the US Senate - and it took a lot of activism on your part to get a signed survey.
Santorum voted for the NICS compliance act, mandating that you alert the federal government in nearly every case where you buy a firearm. That’s the last thing gun owners want – their government knowing that they are a gun owner.
Santorum also voted to mandate trigger locks on all new guns being sold. As Iowa Gun Owners documented recently, this has led to horrific murders in cases where victims couldn’t unlock their guns in time.
Yet Santorum refuses to apologize for these votes. His poor initial survey response, combined with his history of anti-gun votes leave us very concerned about his willingness to fight for gun owners should he be the GOP nominee or the President someday.
Newt Gingrich refuses to answer our survey, after his staff assured us that we would receive it. Gingrich used the power of his office and Speaker of the House to voice tremendous support for the Brady Bill. He even said that he wants to take away more of your freedoms by mandating that you surrender your thumb print to the government to be able to buy a firearm. Imagine being treated like a common criminal for wanting to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right!
It’s no surprise then that Newt’s State Chairwoman is none other that House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer. Upmeyer broke her written promise by working to KILL Constitutional Carry last session in the House.
Mitt Romney also refuses to answer our survey. But this should be no surprise. Romney has loudly proclaimed his support for mandatory waiting periods and mandatory background checks. But far worse, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed into law a PERMAMENT ban on so-called assault weapons.
Romney’s State Chairwoman is Assistant Majority Leader Renee Schulte. Schulte also lied to gun owners in Iowa by voting to kill Constitutional Carry last year in the House after taking gun owners' votes, time and campaign contributions.
Governor Perry and Former Governor Jon Huntsman have also refused our survey.
This has been an exciting process for us at Iowa Gun Owners. One campaign, that has since imploded, threatened IGO with a libel lawsuit for exposing the position of their candidate during the Iowa Straw Poll.
Another campaign’s staff almost attacked IGO staff and volunteers at a Fox News debate back in August because we were informing so many Iowans about the refusal of their candidate to put his views on the 2nd Amendment on paper.
Multiple campaigns have sought out our endorsement, although we can not and do not endorse candidates.
Our ONLY goal at Iowa Gun Owners is to doggedly find out which candidates really support your gun rights. Don’t forget, “everyone” is pro-gun at election time, or so they say.
We’ve learned that during last year’s mid-term elections. Even the worst candidate on the 2nd Amendment claims to support your rights.
That’s why we issue surveys. A survey doesn’t ensure that a politician will stay faithful to his pledge. But a candidate who refuses to go on the record on gun rights is certainly not a candidate who will support your right to keep and bear arms.
Please consider a small contribution to Iowa Gun Owners to help us cover the costs of our survey program. Our mail, email and robocall program was effective at exposing a slew of anti-gun candidates.
But as we approach the 2012 legislative session we need to replenish our coffers to be able to alert gun owners to the threats that will no doubt come out of the General Assembly this session.
Any amount is helpful. If you can donate $50 to help us pay for this program we would be very grateful. If that is too much, consider chipping in just $5 or $10 instead.
We will put it to immediate use.
Also, you should know that Capitol insiders are reporting that some in the GOP establishment are working hard to remove the Constitutional Carry provision to the Iowa GOP Platform.
They are doing this because they know that their party looks bad when their platform professes support for Constitutional Carry - and then their party promptly caves into the anti-gun lobby in Des Moines and votes to KILL Constitutional Carry.
So they want to remove that portion from the platform.
Iowa gun owners who attend the GOP caucus should resist this and instead, offer this plank to strengthen the platform:
"We demand full restoration of 2nd Amendment rights and call for a state law authorizing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms, open or concealed, without a permit, an idea known as Constitutional Carry.
"We call upon the General Assembly to take immediate action on Constitutional Carry so that law abiding gun owners will no longer have to pay outrageous fees for permitting, submit to government mandated training, and have their fingerprints taken in the same manner that a criminal does."
For Freedom,
Aaron Dorr
Exectutive Director
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Emergency Powers Reform Bill Advances Too
From Des Moines Gun Rights Examiner (Iowa Firearms Coalition President Sean McClanahan):
HSB18 passed out of the [House Public Safety Committee] with a vote of 14-5, so it now goes to the floor of the full Iowa House of Representatives for debate. HSB18 is a reform to the Emergency Powers Act; if passed, HSB18 would make it illegal for a citizen to be removed of his or her ammunition or firearms during a state of emergency, and it would protect a citizen's right to transport and carry firearms during that time. Essentially, it prevents another "Katrina aftermath" from happening in Iowa.
The vote was almost completely along party lines. Representatives R. Olson and Swaim were not present. All of the Republicans voted for the passage of HSB18, while all of the Democrats – with one exception – voted against passage. The lone Democrat who voted to protect the rights of Iowa citizens who own firearms was Representative Wolfe.
The final tally:
Voting AYE – to protect the rights of citizens:
Baudler
Shaw
Alons
Brandenburg
Fry
Hagenow
Klein
S. Olson
Rayhons
Sands
Tjepkes
Windschitl
Wolfe
Voting NAY – to allow your rights to be removed:
Kressig
Abdul-Samad
Berry
Gaines
Muhlbauer
Absent:
R. Olson
Swaim
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Iowa Firearms Coalition Announces 2011 Legislative Agenda
The dust had barely settled from the 2010 election when the Iowa Firearms Coalition (formerly Iowa Carry) announced its 2011 legislative agenda, working in conjunction with the National Rifle Association. The two groups successfully pushed through a "shall-issue" weapons permit law which was signed by Governor Culver in April of this year. The ambitious 2011 agenda includes an amendment to the state constitution, as well as legislation strengthening Iowa's firearms preemption laws, protecting those who use a gun in self-defense from civil liabilities, and allowing Vermont/Alaska-style carry of firearms without a permit.
The "Iowa Right to Keep and Bear Arms Constitutional Amendment" was first announced by the group on Jan Mickelson's radio show in early October. Iowa is one of only six states that has no provision in its constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Since Iowa voters rejected a constitutional convention on the November ballot, amending the state constitution will require that an identically worded amendment pass two successive legislatures, then be approved by Iowa voters.
The proposed wording for the amendment by IFC/NRA is: "The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and inviolable. Licensing, registration, special taxation, or any other measure that suppresses or discourages the free exercise of this right is forbidden."
Second, the "Iowa Firearm Preemption Act" would modify "the current preemption law to completely disallow a series of confusing, indiscernible 'Gun Free' zones intermittently spread across the state causing confusion," according to IFC's website. State firearms preemption laws basically state that local governments may not pass gun restrictions more strict than the state. This bill no doubt comes in response to recent efforts by local governments, such as Shelby and Hancock Counties and the cities of Ottumwa and West Burlington, to circumvent the state's current preemption law and ban permit-holders from carrying concealed weapons on county or municipal property.
Next is the "Iowa Family Defense Act." According to IFC: "Today, in Iowa, should you be forced to defend your life, you can be held liable for your act of defense in a civil court. Your act of self defense, or the defense of another, could be used against you. This piece of legislation would ensure your right to self defense without potential exposure to prosecution in a civil case from an attacker."
Lastly the "Iowa Constitutional Carry Bill" would apparently require "no permit for carrying or for the acquisition of firearms," thereby ensuring "that our right to keep and bear arms is not infringed at all, just as our forefathers intended." This would appear to be similar to legislation sought by the group Iowa Gun Owners in the 2010 legislative session.
This system is often called "Vermont Carry" and, in addition to that state, it is currently enjoyed in Alaska and most recently Arizona. IFC President Sean McClanahan told me recently that permits would still be available to those who wanted them, such as for people who wanted to carry concealed weapons into other states that recognize Iowa's permits, but would not be required to carry in Iowa.
McClanahan says the group will be considering other legislation as well, but these four measures will be the prime focus.
[This story also posted at Iowa Freedom Report.]
The "Iowa Right to Keep and Bear Arms Constitutional Amendment" was first announced by the group on Jan Mickelson's radio show in early October. Iowa is one of only six states that has no provision in its constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Since Iowa voters rejected a constitutional convention on the November ballot, amending the state constitution will require that an identically worded amendment pass two successive legislatures, then be approved by Iowa voters.
The proposed wording for the amendment by IFC/NRA is: "The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and inviolable. Licensing, registration, special taxation, or any other measure that suppresses or discourages the free exercise of this right is forbidden."
Second, the "Iowa Firearm Preemption Act" would modify "the current preemption law to completely disallow a series of confusing, indiscernible 'Gun Free' zones intermittently spread across the state causing confusion," according to IFC's website. State firearms preemption laws basically state that local governments may not pass gun restrictions more strict than the state. This bill no doubt comes in response to recent efforts by local governments, such as Shelby and Hancock Counties and the cities of Ottumwa and West Burlington, to circumvent the state's current preemption law and ban permit-holders from carrying concealed weapons on county or municipal property.
Next is the "Iowa Family Defense Act." According to IFC: "Today, in Iowa, should you be forced to defend your life, you can be held liable for your act of defense in a civil court. Your act of self defense, or the defense of another, could be used against you. This piece of legislation would ensure your right to self defense without potential exposure to prosecution in a civil case from an attacker."
Lastly the "Iowa Constitutional Carry Bill" would apparently require "no permit for carrying or for the acquisition of firearms," thereby ensuring "that our right to keep and bear arms is not infringed at all, just as our forefathers intended." This would appear to be similar to legislation sought by the group Iowa Gun Owners in the 2010 legislative session.
This system is often called "Vermont Carry" and, in addition to that state, it is currently enjoyed in Alaska and most recently Arizona. IFC President Sean McClanahan told me recently that permits would still be available to those who wanted them, such as for people who wanted to carry concealed weapons into other states that recognize Iowa's permits, but would not be required to carry in Iowa.
McClanahan says the group will be considering other legislation as well, but these four measures will be the prime focus.
[This story also posted at Iowa Freedom Report.]
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Iowa Firearms Group To Change Name
An Iowa pro-Second Amendment group that this year helped to improve Iowa's concealed weapons law is changing its name to reflect its expanding mission. From the Iowa Carry website:
"The name Iowa Carry will soon be history (the end has already technically taken place). Born in 2005 of a desire by one Iowan to stop the ability of his sheriff to unfairly deny him his Constitutional and God-given right of self-protection, then joined by another, and shortly thereafter by a handful of others, all with that same goal, Iowa Carry’s membership now numbers in the hundreds, with thousands of others looking our way for direction and leadership in seeking to protect and restore their firearm rights. Having recently achieved many of our concealed carry goals with the passage of SF 2379 (we do remind everyone that there is still work to be done, even in this area), we arrived at the conclusion that renaming ourselves the Iowa Firearms Coalition would more accurately reflect the direction we intend to take with this organization.
"While concealed carry issues will remain an integral part of our operation, we will be expanding into any and all other areas concerning firearms—the ongoing rejuvenation of our Second Amendment rights in all aspects; hunting privileges; sport shooting; self-defense training; socialization with like-minded individuals; publication, promotion, and advocacy in all of the media; individualized interests, be they handgun, rifle, shotgun; and perhaps most importantly, integrating our message and activities with other like-minded organizations (hence, the coalition moniker). While Iowa Carry (now the Iowa Firearms Coalition) carried the load for several years, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that it was the assistance of the National Rifle Association this past year that put us over the top! We look forward to working closely with Chris Rager and other NRA representatives in the years ahead!" [Emphasis in original.]
Regardless of the name, I wish the Iowa Firearms Coalition well!
"The name Iowa Carry will soon be history (the end has already technically taken place). Born in 2005 of a desire by one Iowan to stop the ability of his sheriff to unfairly deny him his Constitutional and God-given right of self-protection, then joined by another, and shortly thereafter by a handful of others, all with that same goal, Iowa Carry’s membership now numbers in the hundreds, with thousands of others looking our way for direction and leadership in seeking to protect and restore their firearm rights. Having recently achieved many of our concealed carry goals with the passage of SF 2379 (we do remind everyone that there is still work to be done, even in this area), we arrived at the conclusion that renaming ourselves the Iowa Firearms Coalition would more accurately reflect the direction we intend to take with this organization.
"While concealed carry issues will remain an integral part of our operation, we will be expanding into any and all other areas concerning firearms—the ongoing rejuvenation of our Second Amendment rights in all aspects; hunting privileges; sport shooting; self-defense training; socialization with like-minded individuals; publication, promotion, and advocacy in all of the media; individualized interests, be they handgun, rifle, shotgun; and perhaps most importantly, integrating our message and activities with other like-minded organizations (hence, the coalition moniker). While Iowa Carry (now the Iowa Firearms Coalition) carried the load for several years, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that it was the assistance of the National Rifle Association this past year that put us over the top! We look forward to working closely with Chris Rager and other NRA representatives in the years ahead!" [Emphasis in original.]
Regardless of the name, I wish the Iowa Firearms Coalition well!
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Second Amendment Essentials- Part 3
Why it's Needed
In previous columns we have examined how the Second Amendment protects an individual right. We looked at how “the militia” referenced in the amendment referred to all law-abiding citizens. Although it is clear that the Founding Fathers wanted an armed populace, our modern friends and neighbors may wonder why.
Besides the necessity of putting wild game on the table, the founders realized that the right to keep and bear arms gave the people a defense against various threats to their lives and liberty. Joseph Story, the famous jurist and Supreme Court Justice put it this way: "The importance of this article [Second Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." I would add common crime to that list as well.
Admittedly the risk of foreign military invasion is pretty remote. Fortress America is protected by oceans on two sides and friendly neighbors to the north and south, but who knows what the future holds? Any nation foolish enough to send an invading army into the United States would be in for a fight. Even if they were able to defeat American military forces and capture certain areas, the armed citizenry would be able to conduct a campaign of guerrilla warfare against the occupiers. As Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other examples have proven, armed civilians on their own turf are often harder to defeat than professional armies.
Thomas Paine: "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Domestic tyranny, unfortunately, may be a more likely threat than foreign invasion. Our founding fathers understood that an armed populace was the final, last ditch safeguard against government suppression of the people’s liberty, when all the other “checks and balances” had failed.
Joseph Story: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium [safeguard] of the liberties of a Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them[.]"
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
Defense against crime is probably the most relevant of these issues to modern day Americans. Police can’t (and in a free society shouldn’t) be everywhere. This means that the duty to protect the individual resides with the individual himself. Some places have recognized that fact while others have tried to hide from it.
John Jay: "Even if it was practicable, would it be wise to disarm the good before 'the wicked cease from troubling?'" [citing Job 3:17]
A look at crime rates from around the country shows that areas with the most restrictive prohibitions on civilian gun ownership have the highest crime rates (e.g. Washington D.C.), while areas with the least restrictive gun laws have some of the lowest crime rates (e.g. Vermont). States that legally recognize the right to carry concealed firearms, for instance, have 26% lower total violent crime and lower rates of murder by 31%, robbery by 50%, and aggravated assault by 15%, than states that do not recognize the right to carry.
America’s crime rates have remained low while the number of guns in private ownership has greatly increased and the number of licensed concealed carriers has also increased. Compare that to England and Australia which have seen their violent crime rates (including gun crimes) skyrocket after passing near-total gun bans. According to the U.N., these two countries now have higher violent-crime rates than America. Noted crime researcher Professor John Lott summed it up succinctly in the title of his book, “More Guns, Less Crime.”
The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The militia that the framers referred to was all citizens capable of fighting. The amendment therefore protects an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is necessary to defend themselves from crime, invasion and tyranny. Now, just as then, that's important.
End of series.
In previous columns we have examined how the Second Amendment protects an individual right. We looked at how “the militia” referenced in the amendment referred to all law-abiding citizens. Although it is clear that the Founding Fathers wanted an armed populace, our modern friends and neighbors may wonder why.
Besides the necessity of putting wild game on the table, the founders realized that the right to keep and bear arms gave the people a defense against various threats to their lives and liberty. Joseph Story, the famous jurist and Supreme Court Justice put it this way: "The importance of this article [Second Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." I would add common crime to that list as well.
Admittedly the risk of foreign military invasion is pretty remote. Fortress America is protected by oceans on two sides and friendly neighbors to the north and south, but who knows what the future holds? Any nation foolish enough to send an invading army into the United States would be in for a fight. Even if they were able to defeat American military forces and capture certain areas, the armed citizenry would be able to conduct a campaign of guerrilla warfare against the occupiers. As Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other examples have proven, armed civilians on their own turf are often harder to defeat than professional armies.
Thomas Paine: "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Domestic tyranny, unfortunately, may be a more likely threat than foreign invasion. Our founding fathers understood that an armed populace was the final, last ditch safeguard against government suppression of the people’s liberty, when all the other “checks and balances” had failed.
Joseph Story: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium [safeguard] of the liberties of a Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them[.]"
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
Defense against crime is probably the most relevant of these issues to modern day Americans. Police can’t (and in a free society shouldn’t) be everywhere. This means that the duty to protect the individual resides with the individual himself. Some places have recognized that fact while others have tried to hide from it.
John Jay: "Even if it was practicable, would it be wise to disarm the good before 'the wicked cease from troubling?'" [citing Job 3:17]
A look at crime rates from around the country shows that areas with the most restrictive prohibitions on civilian gun ownership have the highest crime rates (e.g. Washington D.C.), while areas with the least restrictive gun laws have some of the lowest crime rates (e.g. Vermont). States that legally recognize the right to carry concealed firearms, for instance, have 26% lower total violent crime and lower rates of murder by 31%, robbery by 50%, and aggravated assault by 15%, than states that do not recognize the right to carry.
America’s crime rates have remained low while the number of guns in private ownership has greatly increased and the number of licensed concealed carriers has also increased. Compare that to England and Australia which have seen their violent crime rates (including gun crimes) skyrocket after passing near-total gun bans. According to the U.N., these two countries now have higher violent-crime rates than America. Noted crime researcher Professor John Lott summed it up succinctly in the title of his book, “More Guns, Less Crime.”
The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The militia that the framers referred to was all citizens capable of fighting. The amendment therefore protects an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is necessary to defend themselves from crime, invasion and tyranny. Now, just as then, that's important.
End of series.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Second Amendment Essentials- Part 2
An Individual Right
In the previous post we dispelled the idea that "the militia" referred to in the Second Amendment means a "select militia," such as today's National Guard. Instead the "general militia" that the Constitutional framers referenced meant all citizens capable of bearing arms for defense.
Although both sides of the current gun debate could probably squabble over the definition of "the militia" indefinitely, the Founding Fathers left little doubt as to what they meant. It is clear that the right they referred to was an individual right. The following quotes should further dispel any doubts:
Patrick Henry: "The great object is that every man be armed... Every one who is able may have a gun."
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own lands."
Zachariah Johnston: "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them..."
Samual Adams: "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress […] to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
James Madison: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Tench Coxe: "[T]he people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Akhil Reed Amar (Modern Yale Law School Professor): "The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to 'the people', not the 'states.' As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical and when the Constitution means 'states,' it says so." [See below.]
The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [Emphasis added.] The people and the States are two separate entities. The United States is a third.
Its ridiculous to think that "the people" referred to in the Second Amendment actually means "the States." It is the same "the people" who have the right to peaceably assemble under the First Amendment. It is the same "the people" whose "right [...] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment. If we apply the gun-prohibitionists' "the people means the States" logic to the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it becomes clear how absurd their logic is.
All this led the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude in the 2008 landmark Heller decision: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
In the previous post we dispelled the idea that "the militia" referred to in the Second Amendment means a "select militia," such as today's National Guard. Instead the "general militia" that the Constitutional framers referenced meant all citizens capable of bearing arms for defense.
Although both sides of the current gun debate could probably squabble over the definition of "the militia" indefinitely, the Founding Fathers left little doubt as to what they meant. It is clear that the right they referred to was an individual right. The following quotes should further dispel any doubts:
Patrick Henry: "The great object is that every man be armed... Every one who is able may have a gun."
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own lands."
Zachariah Johnston: "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them..."
Samual Adams: "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress […] to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
James Madison: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Tench Coxe: "[T]he people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Akhil Reed Amar (Modern Yale Law School Professor): "The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to 'the people', not the 'states.' As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical and when the Constitution means 'states,' it says so." [See below.]
The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [Emphasis added.] The people and the States are two separate entities. The United States is a third.
Its ridiculous to think that "the people" referred to in the Second Amendment actually means "the States." It is the same "the people" who have the right to peaceably assemble under the First Amendment. It is the same "the people" whose "right [...] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment. If we apply the gun-prohibitionists' "the people means the States" logic to the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it becomes clear how absurd their logic is.
All this led the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude in the 2008 landmark Heller decision: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Second Amendment Essentials- Part 1
Who Are the “Militia?”
With the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 ruling in D.C. vs. Heller, declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, we might think that the debate over the Second Amendment has been put to rest. However, we gun owners can’t get complacent. As the saying goes, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” We need to keep educating ourselves and our neighbors about the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitutions reads simply, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." People who dislike civilian gun use often focus on the phrase “a well-regulated militia” as proof that the amendment doesn’t protect civilian ownership.
So, who are the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment? For the definition of the militia at the time that the Bill of Rights was written we must look at the statements of the Founding Fathers who were alive at the time. Here are a few examples:
George Mason: "[W]ho are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." State Gazette of S. Carolina (Sept. 8, 1788): "Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." Samuel Adams: "The militia is composed of free citizens."
Tench Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
The Founding Fathers drew a distinction between the "general militia" composed of the body of the people and a "select militia" which received special weapons and training from the government (like today's National Guard). They viewed "select militias" with almost as much suspicion as they did standing armies, as the following quote demonstrates.
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. Congress passed The Militia Act of 1792 that declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were members of the militia. It also stated that "[e]very citizen... [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or flintlock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints…[,]” in short, that every male citizen be armed. As with other rights, such as voting and owning property, the right to keep and bear arms was slowly extended to women and minorities through the years.
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982): "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment... There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."
It is clear that when the founders referred to “the militia” they meant all law-abiding citizens.
With the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 ruling in D.C. vs. Heller, declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, we might think that the debate over the Second Amendment has been put to rest. However, we gun owners can’t get complacent. As the saying goes, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” We need to keep educating ourselves and our neighbors about the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitutions reads simply, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." People who dislike civilian gun use often focus on the phrase “a well-regulated militia” as proof that the amendment doesn’t protect civilian ownership.
So, who are the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment? For the definition of the militia at the time that the Bill of Rights was written we must look at the statements of the Founding Fathers who were alive at the time. Here are a few examples:
George Mason: "[W]ho are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." State Gazette of S. Carolina (Sept. 8, 1788): "Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." Samuel Adams: "The militia is composed of free citizens."
Tench Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
The Founding Fathers drew a distinction between the "general militia" composed of the body of the people and a "select militia" which received special weapons and training from the government (like today's National Guard). They viewed "select militias" with almost as much suspicion as they did standing armies, as the following quote demonstrates.
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. Congress passed The Militia Act of 1792 that declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were members of the militia. It also stated that "[e]very citizen... [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or flintlock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints…[,]” in short, that every male citizen be armed. As with other rights, such as voting and owning property, the right to keep and bear arms was slowly extended to women and minorities through the years.
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982): "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment... There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."
It is clear that when the founders referred to “the militia” they meant all law-abiding citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
