Iowa’s Revived Gun Bill: Good Law, or Not Good Enough?

• Friday, March 19, 2010, 6:23
• Battleground Iowa, Blogs
• 1,237 views
• 21 comments

• Share
  Delicious Digg Design Float Mixx Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati
• Printable version

About the Author

Battleground Iowa has written 222 stories on this site.

Emily Geiger writes from a conservative perspective on everything from politics to religion to pop culture. Like the original Emily of Revolutionary War era, this Emily is delivering important messages crucial to winning the raging war of the time, but today, this is a culture war rather than a traditional one. And, like the original Emily, sometimes it takes a woman to do (or say) that which lesser men lack the courage and tenacity to do.

21 Comments on “Iowa’s Revived Gun Bill: Good Law, or Not Good Enough?”

• 
  Timmy wrote on 19 March, 2010, 6:52

  First of all, IIRC the Sornsen bill was for “open carry”(ie: holstered in plain sight) which is fine by me but we are dealing with the realities of a dem majority here. I don’t give a damn about the motivations of Gronstal, etc., the fact is this bill is a good first step toward fixing the current situation and anybody that has the “all or nothing” attitude so popular amongst the cuckoo wing trying to denounce it is suffering from severe rectal-crainial inversion syndrome. Incrementalisim has worked well for the left, maybe we ought to give it a try once ourselves!
• 
  Real_Republican wrote on 19 March, 2010, 7:59

  Ms. Robinson (Allison is it?) – please go ahead and puke . . . it would be the best thing we have ever seen come out of you. Since your husband’s website here receives ad money from the NRA and runs their ads, we will take note of your clear conflict of interest and fiduciary bias in favor of supporting the NRA and their un-Constitutional bill.
  The “IowaRepublicinNameOnly.com” has long made it clear, through your statist, anti-constitutional rants, that you do not support the recognition of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and others. And to address your old, tired argument, taken right out of the statist Democrat “playbook” that these freedom robbing “laws” you advocate will somehow “stop some of them” who intend malevolence, is just plain absurd. Anyone who will murder, rape, or otherwise commit violent mayhem in our society don’t care one whit about whether or not the sheriff will issue them a piece of paper that says it is ok for them to carry a gun . . . in fact, it is a rare case indeed that someone with a CCW permit EVER commits anything beyond a speeding ticket offense. All the permit “laws” in this state do is deprive law abiding citizens of their God given right to defend themselves . . . and you and your statist friends in the Democratic caucus in Des Moines are only furthering that injustice. You and your husband Craig should really consider becoming Republicans someday . . . in the principled sense of the word . . . not in name only
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 19 March, 2010, 8:01

  Have any of you sorta-but-not-entirely-a-gun-whacko ’s considered that some commercial (private enterprise, remember?) establishments may not _want_ guns walking in and out of their front doors? Think of the logistics, folks.

  You go to the HY-VEE or Joe’s Garage and are met by a large, bright sign on the door telling you guns are not allowed on the premises, so what do you do? Just say to yourself, screw-em, andgo on in anyway? I thought repubs respect Business and the entrepreneurs who create them. Or do you stop, go back to your pickup truck and hide the gun under the seat (hoping some filthy adolescent skipping school that day didn’t watch you do it and will burglarize the truck when you go into the store) and then go back to the store? Or do you decide to boycot that business?

  I saw just such a situation recently down in Missouri. In the particular city I was visiting I encountered MANY such signs on store entrances.

  Seems like a pain in the butt to me, just for the small joy of having beaten The Liberals on the issue.

  BTW, I am not an anti-gun whack, I am a former gun hobbyist who decided to sell off my toy collection when I began disliking many of my former fellow gun friends as they became militant and angry over the subject. They became something I didn’t want to be associated with.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 19 March, 2010, 8:18

  ConDem, it all depends on how you look at it. As a C/C permit holder, I’m happy with “fixing” the current law for now and the Baudler bill addresses most of those issues. I rarely carry, but I do respect the private owners rights by either not carrying or not going there if I am. As for the “kooks”, it always has to be all or nothing and they always seem more than willing to trash it for the rest of us if they don’t get it 100% their way. To these folks I ask that you try living in Illinois for a while before bitching to me about how bad you have it in Iowa!!!
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 19 March, 2010, 8:33

  Timmy, read the anger and militancy in the post just above my 8:01 posting.
• 
  Timmy wrote on 19 March, 2010, 8:55

  I did CD, I was just trying to deflect it with a bit of common sense.
• 
  Real_Republican wrote on 19 March, 2010, 10:04

  CD” (and friend “Timmy”) – you are perfect examples of where I speak. As with Ms. Robinson, you are “conservative” in your eyes only. As far as your “common sense” disdain of “militant and angry” (nice ad-hominem deflection by the way), I will take that as a compliment as you place me in honor with the founding fathers of this nation who stood on Concord Green, quite “militantly,” and defended their right to keep their weapons. I am certain that you both would hold these men in contempt as well, but such is the case with today’s “feminized man.” I know you don’t care, but I am truly sadened with your vitiated state of being.
  As far as your argument with yourself about the “respect of Republicans for property rights,” and the need to “bar guns from businesses,” or “respect property rights,” etc, I direct your attention to the fate of former Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675# , who, as a “good citizen” left her legally permitted CCW in her car (apparently one of the “rectifications” you extole), and “honored” the state law barring guns in restaurants, and private property rights, and was subsequently made to live through the horror of having to watch helplessly and undefended as her parents were systematically butchered by a madman, armed to the teeth with semiautomatic weapons.
  Oh yes: he didn’t have a permit, he violated state law, and “failed to respect the sensibilities “ of Luby’s Cafeteria when he drove his truck through the front window, climbed out and opened fire.
  So, you are right . . . we need to make sure that people cannot carry weapons to defend themselves in businesses like Luby’s . . . after all . . . feminized and demoralized men love helpless people.
• 
  Jeff wrote on 19 March, 2010, 10:06

  I agree with Conservative Demo on this one. If a business doesn’t want a gun on their property, that’s their right. Simply because you want to carry one in the public space doesn’t give you the right to bring a gun onto my private property. You are a private citizen, and so am I.
• 
  Scott M wrote on 19 March, 2010, 10:19

  I think the first amendment analogy is interesting. Do these people think that it’s unconstitutional to prohibit any reasonable restrictions on free speech, like the “fire” and the f-bomb examples?
• 
  Scott M wrote on 19 March, 2010, 10:23

  Oh, and as for ad hominem arguments, look at the pot calling the kettle black talking about all these “feminized” men. Good grief, it’s obvious the angry commenter doesn’t know any of the people he’s talking about. So sad he doesn’t realize how much damage he’s doing to his cause by coming off as so irrational and vindictive.
• 
  Real_Republican wrote on 19 March, 2010, 10:25

  Jeff – I’ll make note of that . . . but it really comes as no surprise that this website has a majority following of those who are statists in general, who also happen to fully support the legal creation of disarmed victims in our society. That is what the “Republican” party in Iowa has become . . . just a smaller copy of the “Democratic” party. I can’t help but wonder though what your comment would be if the madman I mention above had driven his truck through your store front window and opened fire . . . would you tell him he had no right to bring a gun onto your private property before, or just shortly after he perforated you? . . . well . . . at least I know you would protect your property rights at all costs . . . .
• 
  Real_Republican wrote on 19 March, 2010, 10:39

  Scott – yes, another one (again, no surprise) . . . you doubt that men in this age aren’t far less likely to protect themselves and others than once was? I would find that quite a position for one to take, given that all the “males” at the Virginia tech shooting were on their knees crying and begging for their lives as the shooter walked down the line and shot each one in the head systematically as they wept. Not one hand was raised in defiance to stop the rather slight of build murderer. If you don’t like the word “feminized,” then feel free to suggest a description of the current condition of “men” in our society that you feel is more “sensitive.” Perhaps we should have a contest to determine what is the best politically correct euphamism here. I look forward to your suggestions. As far as “I don’t know any of these people that I am talking about” . . . rest assured . . . I don’t want to. Oh and “damage I am doing my cause?” I have long given up on trying to reach the unreachable, particularly on this website . . . What I write here cannot have any noticeable postive outcome . . . but it is definitely entertaining . . .
• 
  Real_Republican wrote on 19 March, 2010, 10:43

  “I think the first amendment analogy is interesting. Do these people think that it’s unconstitutional to prohibit any reasonable restrictions on free speech, like the “fire” and the f-bomb examples?”

  Great! . . . I will contact my legislators and tell them that Scott wants a law so that he will have to have a permit issued by the county sheriff before he can utter any more stupid words . . . after all, we can’t let just anyone say what is on their mind, can we?
• 
  Scott M wrote on 19 March, 2010, 10:53

  You actually generally do have to get a permit to protest in public. Public protests can cause traffic headaches, a need for increased law enforcement presence, etc. Most people understand this.

  Now, answer the question. Do you support completely unlimited free speech as your analysis suggests is provided by the constitution, or do you think there can be certain reasonable restrictions on free speech, like not being able to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or to curse and use vulgarity on the public airwaves?
• 
  Real_Republican wrote on 19 March, 2010, 12:07

  “Now, answer the question. Do you support completely unlimited free speech as your analysis suggests is provided by the constitution, or do you think there can be certain reasonable restrictions on free speech, like not being able to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or to curse and use vulgarity on the public airwaves?”
  First of all, I never said, nor even suggested that “I support completely unlimited free speech,” nor did I say that “unlimited free speech is provided by the constitution.”
  An understanding of WHY the first amendment to the constitution was adopted is in order, and why “yelling fire in a crowded theater” or pornography, vulgarity, etc., is not protected speech. The first amendment was specifically written to protect POLITICAL speech, which generally took place in the colonial press, and is exactly what the British crown tried to control, to subsequently control the American colonists’ POLITICS.
  The first amendment rightly applied is an INDIVIDUAL right to political speech (which becomes the collective right of individuals who gather to conduct political speech). The permitting system for assemblies has been recognized by the courts as constitutional because it goes to issues of crowd control and ensuring orderly assemblies, and simple logistical issues like not blocking traffic, etc. The issuance of assembly permits CANNOT CONTROL WHAT SPEECH IS MADE, only that it be conducted in an orderly, civilized manner.
  Your analogy that this is comparable to the CCW permitting system doesn’t hold water, simply because assembly permits are NOT restrictions on political speech, only group behavior unrelated to the speech itself. Further, there are no constitutionally recognized permits for public speech BY SINGLE INDIVIDUALS: you or I can go to any public place and say anything bearing on political speech that we want to (which clearly doesn’t put anyone in harm’s way as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater) . . . doing so is PROTECTED speech under the first amendment.
  On the other hand, the CCW permit, particularly as it is currently in Iowa law, abridges a fundamental individual right, on the individual level (the 2A, post Heller, is now solidly in the camp of “individual right”) because it completely bars people from defensive use of firearms in public. We will see this summer with the Chicago case if it gets incorporated into the states, but if I were a betting man, I would say the odds are high that it will be. If that turns out to be the case, Iowa’s current proscription against any form of weapons carry whatsoever without the permission of the state is going to get challenged in court . . . guaranteed. I also suspect this is one more reason that Gronstal, Murphy and the rest of the Capitol Hill statists want to change the law: if they don’t, the courts are going to change it for them. They know their time is limited to keep up this charade.
  Also, as I have attempted repeatedly to make clear (and even Ms. Robinson passively admits to), the CCW permitting system serves absolutely no useful purpose to protect society. It is simply a “feel good” law. Anyone who has no compunction against committing murder or other mayhem isn’t going to go to the sheriff and attempt to seek a permit to carry a weapon. They are simply going to pick it up, climb in their car, and drive to do their dirty deed. All the permit system does is keep otherwise law abiding citizens disarmed victims in the face of these malevolent aggressors who have no regard for the law.
• 
  Real_Republican wrote on 19 March, 2010, 12:23

  BTW Ms. Robinson – you, or your lawyer friend, are at best, deceptive, and at worst, liars:
  “The lawyer said that it would be terrifying to think that these people could legally carry guns with them at all times. If you’ve ever spent time with drug addicts or severely mentally ill people, I think you’d agree” . . .

  What either you or your lawyer friend conveniently left out is that neither the Sorenson bill, nor the Baudler bill have any bearing on this issue. Federal and state law already do, and have for a long long time, barred such people from even owning guns. To adopt the Sorensen bill, which would allow anyone who is not a felon and not otherwise BARRED BY LAW from owning a gun (which drug addicts and the mentally ill are), could legally carry without having to worry about a charge of aggrevated misdeamenor. This kind of deceptive “journalism” smacks of the leftist MSM.
• 
  Scott M wrote on 19 March, 2010, 13:08

  Heller may have clarified that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be time, place & manner restriction on that right like there is for free speech. You can carry guns as much as you want, concealed or out in the open on your own property. Once you start toting them around in public, to use your own words, that could “put anyone in harm’s way” if bad guys (i.e. people who have a proven propensity for violent or irrational behavior) can do that. Now, I think that there should be lots more law abiding people who carry out there. That would serve as a deterrent for bad guys. But the bad guys should have that same privilege.

  I also don’t think you can blow off the argument that these laws keep bad guys in jail longer. That’s always a good thing.

  You also can’t deny that many in your camp do argue that the 2nd amendment is an anytime, anywhere, no restrictions right, and the comparison to the 1st amendment points out that that’s just not true.

  Protest permits are limits on location of speech, and that is similar to limits on location of where you can carry a concealed firearm. You argue that somehow the specific claimed right of concealed public carry is analogous to a “type of protected speech analysis” with you claiming that this is like political speech, which is the most protected class of speech, but that just doesn’t make sense. It is far more similar to the time place and manner restriction analysis. And, by the way, there can even be some limitations on political speech.

  Out of curiosity, do you think it is constitutional for convicted felons have their gun rights taken away? Under the bill you support, (if state law were the only thing to worry about), could felons carry concealed weapons?
• 
  Scott M wrote on 19 March, 2010, 14:24

  Correction: ” But the bad guys should NOT have that same privilege.”
• 
  Real_Republican wrote on 22 March, 2010, 11:46

  “Heller may have clarified that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be time, place & manner restriction on that right like there is for free speech.”
  As I said above, but you have chosen to “step over,” there is no such thing as a “place and manner restriction” or permit for personal, individual, constitutionally protected, political free speech. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is NOT constitutionally secured free speech, and therefore the 1st amendment has no bearing on it whatsoever. Therefore, to suggest that such non-existent restrictions and/or permitting requirements are analogous to permits restricting the bearing of weapons is non sequitur. From this false premise, you make the leap to asserting that one’s constitutionally protected right to bear arms ends at one’s private property boundary . . . extending your comparison BACK to 1st amendment rights, this would suggest that people can have their right to freedom of speech restricted at their private property boundary as well . . . something that even a statist like yourself would no doubt find offensive and intolerable.

  Further , you create this strange blur about “toting” guns in public, and how if “bad guys can carry,” i.e. “people who have a proven propensity for violent or irrational behavior,” it will “put anyone in harm’s way.” The clear point I made above, and again you sidestepped, is the fact that anyone who is intent on committing violence on another will not seek one of your vaunted “permits” . . . they will, and always do, pocket their weapon, and go and commit their heinous act. That is because they have no fear of violating a gun-control law when they are going to commit a crime that ultimately will result in a much longer jail term than the silly “lack of a weapons permit” law. What you and Ms. Robinson refuse to acknowledge is that the people who will do such things will not be deterred by the silly government permitting system. If that were so, we would not have any murders in Iowa, because we already have one of the most highly restrictive “may issue” systems in the country that creates “the maximum level of protection” that you extol . . . and even you know that that just isn’t so.

  “But the bad guys should have that same privilege.” . . . newsflash: because of the victim disarmament laws that you advocate, they already have better privileges than the law abiding . . . criminals carry guns without the needless bother of getting a permit.

  “I also don’t think you can blow off the argument that these laws keep bad guys in jail longer.” . . . in fact, I can, and I will. This is a ridiculous argument. The maximum penalty for carrying without a permit, which is a general intent crime, meaning THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO VICTIM FOR ITS VIOLATION, is one year. Are you honestly arguing that a one year jail term is sufficient to keep a dangerous person off the streets of Iowa? In fact, if “these guys” (ostensibly those who carry without a permit) are truly dangerous to Iowans, why would you argue that they should be returned to the streets at all? I would guess that even you will not advocate for a life sentence for someone who is caught carrying a weapon without “permission” from the state . . . yet you argue that these guys are “dangerous.” Why would you not argue for a life sentence for someone who is “dangerous” in our society? Bottom line, gun-control never makes sense . . .

  “You also can’t deny that many in your camp do argue that the 2nd amendment is an anytime, anywhere, no restrictions right, and the comparison to the 1st amendment points out that that’s just not true.” Again, you have completely stepped over the false logic of your argument that I have clearly pointed out above, and that is that you are comparing non-constitutionally protected speech with a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. There is absolutely no proscription against constitutionally protected speech in this country, and there should be absolutely no proscription against constitutionally protected second amendment behavior, i.e. the freedom to simply carry a gun, which harms absolutely no one.

  “Protest permits are limits on location of speech, and that is similar to limits on location of where you can carry a concealed firearm.” Once again, protest permits do not apply to individuals . . . they apply to assemblies, and they are limits on personal behavior unrelated to speech. There is no control of WHAT is said at such assemblies whatsoever, so this is NOT a violation of the 1st amendment. Assembly permits are constitutional expressly because they are not limits on speech, but on the manner of assembly. Therefore, you already have the assembly restrictions on you want, and it doesn’t matter if you apply them in the light of speech, or the carrying of weapons: neither behavior is legitimately restricted under such a permitting system because it has nothing to do with either constitutionally protected right. People have the right to exercise free speech at permitted assemblies, and they should also retain their second amendment right to carry at them as well.

  “by the way, there can even be some limitations on political speech.” Really? I don’t think the current SCOTUS would agree, having knocked down McCain-Feingold correctly just recently . . . but I am all ears . . . please give us an example of such restrictions.

  “Under the bill you support, (if state law were the only thing to worry about), could felons carry concealed weapons?”
  The answer is “No” . . . both federal and state law proscribe the OWNERSHIP of guns by felons . . . let alone carry. But, even you have to recognize that these laws do NOT stop them from carrying concealed weapons. Criminals, by definition, simply do not obey the law, and no amount of wishing on your part is going to change that.

  “Do I think it is constitutional for convicted felons to have their gun rights taken away?” While the loss of rights for felons is firmly embedded in centuries of common law history, it generally has applied to violent felons, to which I would agree . . . . in modern society, we have made so many non-violent crimes felonies when they should not be, I am inclined to say “no” to non-violent cases. Otherwise, these crimes should be made misdemeanors at best. To deny someone the right to protect their life and the lives of their family because they intentionally wrote some bad checks year ago, and subsequently paid their debt, is absurd.
• 
  Conservative Demo wrote on 22 March, 2010, 11:53

  Doonesbury today apparently is venturing into a bit of fun with open carrying.

  http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/
• 
  Real_Republican wrote on 22 March, 2010, 13:56

  Thanks Mr. Demo . . . pretty much proves my point that this website is visited mostly by liberals and (another way of saying the same thing) RINO’s . . I doubt anyone would ever accuse Trudeau of being right of center!

Write a Comment

Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!

You must be logged in to post a comment.