Iowa legislature Democrats go AWOL on gun rights
John sends us a tip that Iowa Democrats walked out on their session rather than debate gun rights for Iowans. At issue, is a constitutional amendment for Iowans to bear arms and the reasonable right to defend themselves and their property with firearms. The Democrats are outnumbered 60-40.
Other reaction has been predictable. Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorsky praised the House caucus have “absolutely done the right thing by refusing to allow House Republicans to misuse their power in this manner.”
Meanwhile, Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms blasted the Democrats for painting “themselves as the party of gun control by disappearing rather than debating” firearm civil rights of Iowa citizens.
Apparently the “misuse of power” is having a vote on an issue that Democrats don’t want to face. Cowardice, on the other hand, is running away from the issue. If they feel strongly about the issue, they should stand and convince the other side of their merit.
Category: Guns, Liberals suck
Of course the dems would run away from sensible debate on the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. All studies and data show that gun control DOES NOT WORK. In fact, during the Assault Weapons Ban, violent crime actually spiked.
In the current Nanny state, the Nannies need to be brought up on child neglect charges.
Not to mention that any ban on small arms is unconstitutional. I mean, the 2nd Amendment is pretty damn clear.
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I don’t agree with the dems leaving. Even if they know they will lose this vote, fine stay and register your vote against the bill. Don’t just leave. This bill will still be there when you get back.
The concern I have is with this part of the bill: “HJR 2009 would amend the Iowa Constitution in a manner that would allow anyone, regardless of criminal record, to legally possess a firearm in the state.”
A little disclosure here, I am former law enforcement. I even worked on the federal level for a few years. I still consult from time to time. This bill is a bad idea and needs to be re-written and fixed. That being said, the dems should have stayed and voted against it. Even if they lost, don’t just run. Also HF 2215 needs to be redone as well. There are many elements of the “castle doctrine” that need to be very detail oriented or you will open loopholes for criminals.
I have a CCW in both Utah and Arizona and I’m legal to carry in 38 states. I carry a Springfield XD9 or a Glock 17 most of the time. I have taught hunters education classes and CCW classes. I am extremely pro-gun.
But I would vote against this bill as it is written.
Further reading on this, I understand what they were trying to do. And the intent of the bill is good. They are trying to extend the legal concept of the castle doctrine to the public domain. They are also trying to make firearm ownership easier, which is a good thing. But the way that the bill is currently written it would open major loopholes where someone with a criminal record, or an illegal alien, could legally purchase a firearm. And the definition of “threat” is vague enough that it could cause other problems. The solution, however, is not for the dems to just leave.
UtahVet, regardless of what Iowa does, there is still the federal law on felons or illegal aliens possessing firearms and/or ammunition
#6
True, but I hate any law that I can see in advance causing skirmishes between local and federal law enforcement. It just causes more trouble than it’s worth. I feel the same way about certain gun control laws in Massachusetts that I believe are counter to the constitution.
True, and if true that this law would allow sales to convicted felons, it’s deeply flawed.
If they want to extend the Castle Doctrine, Michigan did this, you’re allowed to defend yourself anywhere you have a legal right to be.
Want my opinion? No? Too bad. I think the Fed has no right to tell what a state can/cannot do as far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned…
The Federal government was initially established to ensure that God-given rights, laid out in the Constitution, were not violated. That and the protection of life and personal property.
Anywho…yeah…giving guns to criminals (violent felons) is a no-go in my book.
They finally found it in their black little hearts to return back to the House after hearing all the backlash from the public about their childish temper tantrum only to lay blame on the Republicans for “lying to them.”
Democratic leader Kevin McCarthy said Republican leaders “have betrayed our trust and have told us today, contrary to what we were led to believe yesterday, that not only are they debating bills they said would not come up, they are going to attempt to alter the Iowa Constitution with extreme gun language that, if enacted, would turn Iowa into the Wild, Wild West.”
Typical exaggeration out of the gun grabbers. What makes me angry is they walked out of a debate on a bill that would finally grant castle doctrine to Iowa citizens.
They have been saying its going to become the wild wild west since Florida enacted concealed carry. I am still waiting for this to happen.
Jack, the darling of CurrenTV, Jenny Granholm, told us the same thing when Michigan finally became a “shall issue” state. Blood would run in the streets, shootouts at every gas pump in the state, shootouts in the grocery store check out lanes. If someone had held their breath when she said it, they’d be a skeleton now. Hasn’t happened, won’t happen.