Dueling Gun Bills

Vermont Carry” vs. “Shall Issue” In Iowa

Once again this year, competing bills seeking to reform Iowa’s iniquitous weapons carry laws have been introduced. This year however, this seems to be causing a growing fissure in the gun rights community.

One bill, House File 596/Senate File 473, the “Vermont Carry” bill, is being touted as the “REAL Right-to-Carry Bill.” This bill is being pushed by the group Iowa Gun Owners (IGO) and was sponsored in the House by Rep. Sorenson (R-74) and in the State Senate by Sen. Hartsuch (R-41). It currently has 24 co-sponsors in the House and 9 in the Senate.

According to IGO, HF596/SF473 would “[restore] the 2nd Amendment in Iowa by eliminating mandatory government training, paying fees, and the whole concept of having to beg permission to exercise a Constitutional right.” The bill “would allow any Iowan, who is not a felon or otherwise barred by law from owning weapons, to carry a weapon for self-defense, concealed or openly, WITHOUT having to get government permission.” [Emphasis in original.] This is often called “Vermont Carry” because the only two states that allow it are Vermont and (more recently) Alaska. Many other western states, however, allow citizens to carry openly without a permit, while requiring a permit to carry concealed.

The other bill, which has not had been assigned bill numbers yet, is a “shall issue” law written by the NRA, and supported by the pro-gun groups Iowa Carry (IC) [of which I’m a dues-paying member], Iowa Sportsmen’s Federation, and the Iowa State Rifle & Pistol Association. Current Iowa law allows local sheriff’s total discretion on whether or not to issue weapons permits to qualified applicants. The current law says that sheriffs “may issue” permits, so it is often called a “may issue” law. This has essentially left Iowa with 99 policies on issuing weapons permits, one for each county. The new NRA bill would address the five key criteria identified as essential by Iowa Carry: “Shall Issue,” standardized training, reciprocity (with other states), an appeals process for permit denials, and privacy of records.

Although Iowa Carry had ostensibly partnered with the NRA on this bill, once NRA had assured IC that it’s five points would be addressed, IC appears to have then been relegated to the role of a father-to-be from the 1950’s, waiting nervously in the hospital lobby to see what the so-called “professionals” delivered. Input from us Iowa “local yokels” seemed to be pretty minimal (from my limited vantage point).

Surprisingly to some, the NRA bill has come under heavy fire from fellow guns rights activists, most notably IGO. While IGO’s disparagement might be casually dismissed as merely trying to push their own bill to the top of the heap, the criticism is coming from many quarters. Jeff Knox at The Firearms Coalition has been panning the NRA’s bill, as has Gun Owners of America.

Another voice joining the chorus is long-time gun activist Ed Dolan, currently the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” Project Leader for the Iowa Campaign for Liberty (C4L). Dolan has fought in the trenches for the Second Amendment here in Iowa for a good many years, including working for the NRA as an “election volunteer coordinator.” His is an opinion I respect. In a recent email on behalf of C4L, Dolan outlines problems with the NRA bill and endorses the IGO Vermont Carry bill.

One problem Dolan identifies with the NRA bill (and probably with any arms licensing regime) is that “it ignores constitutional principles by accepting the State’s power to reduce our God-given constitutional rights to fee-based, permitted privileges.” Indeed it’s hard to say that one has a “right” to keep and bear arms if one has to ask for government permission and pay to exercise it.

Dolan also identifies three nuts-and-bolts problems with the NRA bill, which he puts under the category of “Solutions in Search of a Problem.” Firstly, according to Dolan, the bill “[a]dds unnecessary federal restrictions to Iowa’s purchase and permitting process, barring thousands of peaceable Iowans from protecting their families.” From what I understand, the NRA bill would basically codify the dreaded federal Lautenberg Amendment into Iowa law. If we ever manage to get it repealed at one level, it would then still exist at the other.

Secondly, Dolan says the bill “[i]nvents a new victimless crime of being ‘under the influence’ (undefined) while carrying. I call it the ‘Two beers, too bad’ law. You lose your gun rights forever without ever ‘skinning that smokewagon!’” While no one advocates drinking while armed, “under the influence of alcohol” would be open for wide interpretation by anti-gun police and prosecutors. Would a gulp of wine at communion or a gargle of Scope put you “under the influence?” We just don’t know. Let me also add: “Skinning your smoke wagon” sounds painful!

Thirdly, the NRA bill “[r]aises the [permit to carry] age from 18 to 21 years of age. Again, why?” It would be pretty hard to explain to an 18 to 20 year old Iowa Guardsman why he can be trusted to carry a Javelin antitank missile in Afghanistan but not a six-shooter at home, but civilians only three years older than himself can.

If Iowa gun owners learned anything last legislative season (when a mediocre gun bill was amended into an atrocious gun bill), these “compromises” that the NRA has built into the bill will be treated as a floor, not a ceiling, by anti-gun legislators. You would think the NRA would make their bill as clean and tight as possible to start out; but they didn’t. When it emerges from the legislative sausage press it will be even worse.

This is not to say the shall issue bill is entirely without merit. It would bring Iowa’s carry laws in line with the Iowa Constitution’s mandate that laws have a “uniform operation” across the state. That is important. And it would redress those five points sought by Iowa Carry.

Iowa Carry, for its part, doesn’t oppose IGO’s Vermont Carry bill, it just doesn’t think it’s politically doable right now. “We’ve had a hard enough time going from may issue to shall issue,” said Sean McClanahan, president of IC. “It’s just not politically feasible.” He adds: “We lost rights a little at a time. We have to take them back little by little.”

There is truth to those words. People who forgo “better” (shall issue) in hopes of “best” (Vermont Carry), often end up with neither. Unfortunately, in this case I have serious doubts that the “better” option is really better.

At the risk of alienating some of my friends at Iowa Carry, I’ll be pushing my representatives to support the Vermont Carry bill (HF596/SF473) and not the NRA bill. Second Amendment purists might not be able to win the battle for Vermont Carry in Iowa, but it’s a good hill to die on.


18 thoughts on “Dueling Gun Bills”

  1. Unfortunately, those who have attacked the NRA bill do not present all of the facts accurately. The NRA has prepared a multi-page fact sheet that will address all of these concerns, and it will be released when the legislation is formally given an HF assignment.

    Iowa Carry will publish the fact sheet when it is available for general dissemination.

    Dying on a hill before your goal is attained is still dying on the hill – but you do so for no reason.

    Sean McClanahan
    Iowa Carry


  2. Did anyone notice which groups aren't busy putting out stories and press releases that encourage divisive behavior amongst RKBA groups? Just
    something I noticed…


  3. There are some factual errors in your post Ben. The “under the influence” section does not include a provision barring you from firearms ownership for life – though it could result in the permanent loss of concealed carry “privileges.” The move from 18 to 21 is also an argument point. My reading of the current Iowa statutes suggests that an 18 to 21-year old can obtain a permit to carry, but others tell me that I missed a conflicting provision in another section of the law which limits that to “professional” carry – cops and armed security guards – not personal carry. Since the only way a person 18 to 21 may legally obtain a handgun under current law is for it to be given to them by a parent, grandparent, or first-generation aunt or uncle, the whole issue of carry is pretty convoluted.
    Also, the issue of Lautenberg is a bit over-blown. What the last version of the NRA bill I saw said was that several specific provisions of federal law – the “disqualifiers” – apply to obtaining an Iowa carry permit and that if those federal laws are amended, the amendments apply to Iowa. In other words, anyone not prohibited by federal law to possess a firearm, and who meets certain Iowa-specific criteria, shall be issued a permit. If the federal law changes – for better or worse – the standard in Iowa tracks with it. It really is silly to suggest that Iowa should issue concealed firearms permits to persons who are prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm. The way NRA originally wrote that section was terrible. Their current version is still unnecessarily cumbersome, but it is not directly objectionable within the context of accepting the whole “permit to exercise a right” premise.
    What you did not mention is that the NRA bill retains a requirement that a person obtain a “Permit to Acquire a Handgun” before they can acquire a handgun. That provision should go away in any decent shall issue bill. There is also a whole new section of law included to address the “NICS Improvement Act” passed a couple of years ago. That was another NRA screw-up which was moderated from seriously flawed to just unpleasantly odoriferous by people like GOA challenging and pushing against the grain.
    The most important thing to be noted by those who accuse me and others of “dividing gun owners” is that the original proposal from NRA was absolutely awful. The fact is that the current version of the NRA proposal is at least the 3rd or 4th improved revision since I started writing on the subject. That should indicate that our objections and criticisms are having some positive effect.
    My objective is not to divide the rights community, but to try and get the best bill possible passed for Iowa. I would encourage everyone to contact NRA and your legislators and insist that the serious flaws remaining in the proposal be removed before the bill is voted on.
    Iowa had an opportunity this year for either a stunning victory or an Alamo. The good thing about Alamo's is that they can serve as a rallying cry and get our troops enthused and activated. Had NRA, Iowa Carry, and other rights advocates rallied round the IGO bill this year, it would have either passed or provided the political ammunition to help bring down a bunch of anti-rights politicians – thus setting the stage for passage next year. By coming in with their lowball offer, NRA blew that opportunity.
    Politics is an art, not a science. No one is ever absolutely right about anything, much less everything, when it comes to political action, but there are obvious times to bunt and times to swing for the fences. This was clearly a “swing for the fences” year in Iowa. The bases were loaded with only one out, but NRA stepped up to the plate looking for a walk. The people of Iowa should not settle for a mediocre bill when something better is absolutely possible.
    Jeff Knox, http://www.FirearmsCoalition.org


  4. Re: McClanahan:
    “Iowa Carry, for its part, doesn’t oppose IGO’s Vermont Carry bill, it just doesn’t think it’s politically doable right now.” Of course, they won't come out and support the second amendment enshrined in the IGO bill either. Chris Rager, the NRA-ILA liaison specifically told Kent Sorensen that he would declare for the “Vermont” bill two weeks ago; we're still waiting . . . So, like the reality of it or not, Iowa Carry and the NRA simply do not support the second amendment in Iowa . . . Sorry, but you just can't argue with that one. Either declare for the IGO bill, or you simply do not support the second amendment, because that's exactly what the bill is about.
    “We've had a hard enough time going from may issue to shall issue,” said Sean McClanahan, president of IC. “It's just not politically feasible.” Well . . . Let's concede here that it wasn't “politically feasible” using the methods that Mr. McClanahan enjoined over the many years they have tried to change Iowa law. Iowa Carry early on attached themselves at the hip to virtually one player in the legislature: Clel Baudler . . . To this day, they treat Baudler like he is some kind of god that cannot be discredited for the total lack of effort he has made over the years to actually SPONSOR a true “shall issue” bill. In fact, this bill, written by the NRA, is the FIRST TIME Baudler has ever been the sponsor of a true “shall issue” bill, and only now because he has been forced to by the aggressive grass roots activity that IGO leveraged so well to get the floor vote last year (yes Sean, it WAS only a procedural vote to suspend the rules and vote the bill “germane” . . Say what you want . . Those who voted against it were showing their true anti-self defense stripes – and NO, the vote on your bill wasn't the “same thing” . . Your bill was full of all kinds of anti-gun provisions added by the anti's with amendments . . . I personally called my legislator and asked him to vote against your bill, because it was full of so much anti-gun crap. The Sorensen vote last year in the house was as close to a “pure second amendment vote” the Iowa legislature has ever seen).
    “We lost rights a little at a time. We have to take them back little by little.”
    Ok Sean . . . When do we start? With your (NRA) bill, we have to give up freedom to get the things you want . . . Seems like a Faustian bargain to me. A good time to start “taking them back” would be to see you actually support the second amendment by declaring FOR the IGO bill.
    “Dying on a hill before your goal is attained is still dying on the hill – but you do so for no reason.”
    Hell Sean . . . At least some of us are willing to charge the damn hill . . .
    “Unfortunately, those who have attacked the NRA bill do not present all of the facts accurately.”
    Facts –
    1) You want to raise the age for a permit from 18 to 21; Currently, under Iowa law, with all due respect to Jeff K., an Iowan 18 years of age, who is subject to the draft and is therefore apparently old enough to carry a gun in battle to defend the rest of our sorry a_ _ _ s, can get a permit and carry concealed in the presence of a licensed adult . . . I always (mistakenly) thought the NRA was all about training(??) What could be better than to have an 18 year old carry in the company of an adult that can show him how, why, where, what the laws are etc.? I don't know any other way to see this provision other than patently stupid, and anti-self defense training . . . It sounds like something right out of the Sarah Brady's official “playbook.”


  5. 2) You want to incorporate the provisions of ultra-anti-gun U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, USC Title 18.922 into Iowa law, that deprives someone who has only been convicted of a misdemeanor crime, EX POST FACTO (let's not get caught up in the fact that ex post facto laws are proscribed by the Iowa Constitution – this is just too “purist” for Mr. McClanahan) of their second amendment rights. Few people know that in Iowa, “domestic abuse” convictions DO NOT EVEN REQUIRE PHYSICAL CONTACT. Not to mention that under this putrid law, American's are deprived of their due process rights and can have their second amendment rights striped from them without so much as a hearing if a judge issues a restraining order against them. PLEASE don't bore me by telling me this doesn't happen . . . I personally know many people that have already experienced it. A good friend of mine was a 29 year veteran as a distinguished detective on the Denver, Colorado PD . . . When they passed Lautenberg, he lost his job because he no longer could carry a gun. His vicious crime? He had spanked his 18 year old daughter nearly 20 years earlier because she was trying to leave the house to make an illegal drug purchase. This constituted “domestic violence.”
    You refuse to acknowledge what other much more reliable and knowledgeable experts have verified (http://gunowners.org/ne0702.htm) and that is that the BATFE has put upwards of 200,000 veterans on the NICS “no buy” list simply because the word “adjudicated” in USC 18.922 (d)4 and (g)4 has been “interpreted” by the “trustworthy government” as 'adjudication can be made by any “lawful authority.”' . . . Got it? That means NO court, NO hearing, NO due process, only some bureaucratic paper pusher deciding that you can't defend yourself anymore . . . . . .
    3) You want to make it a serious misdemeanor in Iowa for a person to carry or possess a loaded firearm while “under the influence of alcohol.” You don't exclude a person on his own property . . Nice . . . and nowhere in the bill do you define “under the influence” at any given BAC, but keep relying on the idea that somehow this is otherwise defined in Iowa law. . . . If that is the case, then REFERENCE the damn provision in Iowa law that defines “under the influence” so that some prosecutor won't make this up as he goes. This is the kind of crap that happens in Iowa courtrooms all the time.
    4) Your bill creates this absolutely un-intelligible provision for a “conditional permit” if for some bizarre reason, the sheriff can't get enough information to make up his mind as to whether you qualify for a permit or not within 30 days. Let me see: NRA = “we believe in NICS” . . . That is “National INSTANT Background Check.” Hummmm . . . What is wrong with this picture? Thirty days vs. “Instant” . . . Doesn't it follow that if it is possible to determine “instantly” that a person is qualified to OWN a gun, that the same is possible to determine if he/she is qualified to CARRY a gun? Or am I just being too “purist?” Of course, on top of this moronic position, there is absolutely no provision for the end of the “conditional” status . . . And of course the 30 day waiting period you propose comes right out of a Brady “sweet dream” . . . I just feel sorry for the poor stalked women who is totally scared to death that some guy is going to cut her throat, and you want to make her wait 30 days before she can exercise her “second amendment right.” You will have to help me on this one . . . I find this more bizarre every time I read it!


  6. 5) Your bill makes it possible for the sheriff to revoke your permit if you are only the “subject of proceedings that could lead to the person's disqualification.” Let's not even talk about due process . . . I am sure that is too “purist.” But I will relate that the DHS makes pretty regular “investigations” into people's lives for nothing more than bruises and scratches on kids that they got on playgrounds . . . A coworker of mine just went through a year long investigation by the DHS for just such a situation. After long and painful “interviews” with him, his family and his daughter, he was finally cleared. But under your bill, he would be deprived for a year or better of his ability to defend himself and his family, and have to go through the effort to get his permit reinstated. Again, PLEASE don't tell me that a DHS investigation won't qualify under this section as a “proceeding” . . The “authorities” will ALWAYS interpret the law in such a way that gives them the maximum power over us.
    There is more . . . But why bother? Iowa Carry and the NRA simply won't listen to the grassroots gun owners in this state when it comes to this bill (and, logically, that would explain why lots of their members are abandoning ship and joining IGO; see above article . . They can see the sellout a mile away) . . . Iowa Carry and the NRA could EASILY amend their own bill to take out these egregious provisions before it is submitted, and then all of this “splitting of gun factions”(for those above who are b _ _ _ching about it) would come to a rapid end. Why won't you listen Sean? Is it pride? You know that these provisions are absolute “BS,” but you won't lift a finger to work to improve this bill.

    Re: Mr. “Cashner:”
    “People who forgo “better” (shall issue) in hopes of “best” (Vermont Carry), often end up with neither. Unfortunately, in this case I have serious doubts that the “better” option is really better.”
    Mr. “Cashner” . . You are my selected “hero for the week.” I wish we could get more so-called “pro-second amendment activists” to actually stand up and support it . . . With a united, strong voice in this state, we could literally TELL the legislature they were going to vote for the second amendment . . . and they would . . . Or lose their “seat at the table.” These people are scared witless of any backlash at the polls . . . NOW is the time to push for the goal, rather play the same old tried and proven fruitless “weenee out and water down our message” game so that we can get a “compromise” with the anti-gunners and help them get re-elected in November.
    “At the risk of alienating some of my friends at Iowa Carry, I’ll be pushing my representatives to support the Vermont Carry bill (HF596/SF473) and not the NRA bill.” Don't sweat it . . . I've been doing it for months . . . After a while, you enjoy “outing” the phonies and their sellout of our freedoms.
    “Second Amendment purists might not be able to win the battle for Vermont Carry in Iowa, but it’s a good hill to die on.” We're not going to die on that hill bro' . . . As long as there are true freedom heros in our midst like you, we can't be beaten.


  7. Wow! People actually read this thing!

    Thank you to Sean and Jeff for the information. Thank you to Straight Shooter for the compliment (to me anyway) and the comments.

    I think it's great that we can have this discussion in Iowa. As I'm sure Jeff would attest, getting ANY change here in Iowa is going to be hard-won. Whatever happens let's hope it's change for the better.


  8. I'd also agree that this is going to be a hard fight to get a good bill passed in Iowa. Not because of the competing organizations that are fighting for their respective bills, but we have some pure politicians in Des Moines that want nothing more than for both of these bills to go away.

    This isn't an Iowa Gun Owners vs. Iowa Carry fight, this is a gun owners vs. politicians fight.


  9. Stranded –

    “This isn't an Iowa Gun Owners vs. Iowa Carry fight, this is a gun owners vs. politicians fight.”

    At the most fundamental level, this is about freedom lovers vs. statists . . . we shouldn't fool ourselves: The statists now invade every corner of political life . . . both “parties,” and many organizations that we expect to be otherwise. He who is truly vigilant these days will watch and study very carefully, because people you think are your “friends” . . . in truth are not doing you any favors. If we are serious about our freedom, we shouldn't be afriad to tell them that we know it is so.

    Take care,



  10. To Jeff Knox – as always, insightful comments, and glad to see that you're still keeping track of the fun here in Iowa. 🙂

    To SS – until you come clean with who you really are, as everyone else who has chosen to lead this “debate” has done, there will be no debate from me. Hiding behind your mask of anonymity is cowardly. If you are really interested in fighting the good fight and “dying on the hill,” you should at least have the temerity to show your identity. Otherwise, you are a troll looking for a fight.

    To everyone else reading – HF 2241 was introduced yesterday, the “new and improved” Sorenson bill. Sadly, it too has been changed from the much-ballyhooed HF 596. You get Alaska carry, and some visitors get carry rights in Iowa, but there is no privacy of records, no appeals process for permit applications that get denied, training requirements that can still be abused, and the 18-21 fiasco is still left unsolved, just as it is now.

    There are no “perfect” bills to be had this year. So you get what you can, survive the fight, and come back another day to carry on where you left off.

    Mr. Cash, thank you for allowing your blog to be a location for some of this information to be posted.



  11. Enough speculation! The NRA bill is introduced as HF2255. It can be read and all the nonsense about what it does and does not contain can go away.

    Also introduced is HF2241 which is the Sorenson/IGO “Alaska Carry” bill.

    I'll take the NRA bill with Shall Issue right now over a possible 10 year fight to get “Alaska Carry” here in Iowa. Oh, you didn't know, Alaska was Shall Issue for about 10 years before they were successful at a no permit bill. I'm just sayin'. . . .


  12. “To SS – until you come clean with who you really are, as everyone else who has chosen to lead this “debate” has done, there will be no debate from me.”

    Sorry . . that's “Old, expected news.” For the sake of others, here is some history: McClanahan knows that I have an “inside track” to the information flow on this issue, and he wants desperately to find out what and who it is. He tried to tell others that I didn’t have copies of the original bill from the NRA to deflect from the horrible provisions in it; and “surprise surprise!” I posted the bill. That set him back a just a tad . . . In fact, he just “dissapeared!” He has been desperate ever since to find out who I am.

    Operatives in battle don't tell the enemy who they are or where they are getting their strategic and tactical information; neither will I; I am fighting for freedom in Iowa. I will give him a small break here though, because I recognize that it isn't that he WON'T answer . . . It is because he CAN'T answer . . . There are no answers that can explain this stupidity. So suffice the disastrous content of the bill to stand as I posted it. I'm ok with that if he is. Rumor has it that McClanahan is kind of in “melt down mode” anyway because the pressure of the opposition to this bill is getting to him. And besides, as was pointed out, he really has pretty much become the NRA's “whippin' boy.” I think we should have some pity on him, even if he does deserve it. He's really in an uncomfortable position.

    However, I am glad that he posted this disjointed response, because others can see the desperation of the inert attack on Sorensen's bill. This is good, because it further demonstrates to others reading this that McClanahan really is not the kind of person who should be leading a gun law issue in Iowa. I am sure that he is a nice guy in general, but he has no head for logic (which explains why he won't take on the NRA). To wit:

    “but there is no privacy of records”

    Gee, could that be because the records are ELIMINATED, except for reciprocity, under Sorenson's bill, because we no longer need to beg for permission from the sheriff to exercise our second amendment rights in Iowa, and there will be no reason to make records?


  13. “no appeals process for permit applications that get denied”
    What appeal would be needed? You don't need a permit to carry in-state, and if you get a permit, which is for reciprocity purposes only, they are “shall issue.” The only point of denial is if “the person is not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law from possessing or transporting a firearm.” (McClanahan: I know you are not listening, but here's a good choice of language for you rather than incorporating Lautenberg and all that other crap). For what it is worth, there already IS a legal appeals process available through the courts for denial. It is in our Constitution, and it is called “redress of grievances.” I know someone who is appealing a rejection right now, and it appears that person is going to get a permit, even under existing law. This is a total “strawman” cover up for the sellout in the IC/NRA bill.

    “training requirements that can still be abused” . . again, he is referring only to training that would be associated with someone who applies for a permit for reciprocity, not in-state carry. HOWEVER, the bill says “a private individual or a professional organization who shall conduct the training consistent with training standards set forth by the National Rifle Association.” How do you like that? We gave the NRA the lead on that one, and McClanahan says he doesn't trust them! And this isn't “standardized” and allows “abuse?”

    “the 18-21 fiasco is still left unsolved, just as it is now.”

    BS! . . . There is NO FIASCO. This sounds just like the idiot anti's who want to “close the gun show loophole,” trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist . . Currently, an 18 year old can get a permit and exercise the same under the direction of a permitted adult! . . . This is a PERFECT training scenairo, as long as we have to have permits . . and McClanahan wants to RUIN IT with their bill by taking permits from 18 year olds! . . . Please: stop trying to “help” us! BTW, on the NRA's own “fact sheet” that McClanahan references (yes Sean . . . I already have it, before it was available for “general dissemination”), they admit that McClanahan is wrong about this issue and that what I have outlined above is EXACTLY what the 18 year old permit is for. WHY on earth would anyone who is “pro-gun” want to sacrifice a valuable training period like this!?

    As all can see, I am willing, and able, to defend what is in Mr. Sorenson's bill . . . What a novel idea!!

    STILL not expecting answers from the freedom grabbers, I remain otherwise yours,



  14. “The NRA bill is introduced as HF2255. It can be read and all the nonsense about what it does and does not contain can go away.

    I'll take the NRA bill with Shall Issue right now over a possible 10 year fight to get “Alaska Carry” here in Iowa.”

    Yeah . . . great! . . . whooeee! No doubt you are also excited about the 20 odd anti-gun Democrats that are cosponsoring this sellout bill and will walk to the polls in November and say “hey there . . . look at us! . . . we are all for the second amendment” . . right after they got done voting to take more Iowan's guns away.

    BTW – the nonsense is still there . .



  15. Oh yeah . . . one more thing. I predict right here and now that the NRA bill will “sail” out of the “public safety” committee, and head right into the waiting hands of the anti-gunners who want to amend the crap out of it to weigh it down. The “Republicans” will accept LOTS of changes no doubt (Baudler always has). It will be fun to watch how much garbage McClanahan and company are willing to accept before they throw in the towel to kill this soon to be ruptured bird.

    On the other hand, Baudler will make certain that the IGO bill gets killed in committee. In the end, Sorensen will stand up in the house chamber, long after the NRA bill is dead and buried, unless the “Republicans” vote for a much worse disaster than it already is, and move for a floor vote for his bill. Let's all hold our breath right now . . . will Baudler, for the first time in his overly long political career grow a pair, and actually stand up for a floor vote for the NRA bill?

    Well . . . I didn't mean you should really hold your breath . . . because that is likely to be pretty “anti-climactic.”



  16. Thank you strandediniowa for saying what I probably should have. It's okay and healthy that we may have substantive differences on how we think things should be done, but I hope we don't make it personal and turn on others who are generally supportive of the Second. The people we may disagree with at the present moment may be useful allies someday.


  17. Ben –

    “but I hope we don't make it personal and turn on others who are generally supportive of the Second. The people we may disagree with at the present moment may be useful allies someday.”

    “If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

    “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

    “When you sit down to negotiate on what you already have, you lose.” ~ Mass. State House Rep. Marie Parente

    “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” ~ William Pitt

    “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it” ~ Justice Learned Hand



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s