Sorry, I know this didn’t show up worth a hoot. I tried to make it clearer. You can see it better here on Facebook. It’s probably a sign from the computer gods that you should “like” Cold Hard Cashner on Facebook.
Author: coldhardcashner
Iowa’s Omnibus Gun Bill Needs Help
The Omnibus Gun Bill (HF527/SF425) passed with overwhelming support in the Iowa House but appears to now be languishing in the Democrat-controlled Iowa Senate. Iowa Firearms Coalition (IFC), one of the state’s leading pro-gun groups, has been counting votes in the State Senate and believes the bill would pass easily, if only it would be released for a vote by the Senate’s anti-gun leadership.
In addition to legalizing silencers in the state (for those who undergo the requisite federal procedures), the Omnibus Gun Bill would also:
-
Update Iowa’s concealed carry law to move the retraining requirement to every 10 years instead of every 5.
-
Simplify the concealed carry permit renewal process and allow a 60 day window to renew.
-
Exempt military veterans from having to get training before applying for a Permit to Carry.
-
Remove the “permit to acquire” mandate for handgun purchases (FBI NICS program would still be used for purchases).
-
Clarifies that online training is acceptable for a concealed carry permit.
-
Remove the age restriction on minors shooting while supervised by a parent or guardian.
-
Make it illegal to share any identifying information about any of Iowa’s concealed carry permit holders.
-
Make all permits across Iowa uniform in appearance.
Not only have the NRA and IFC endorsed the bill, but the Iowa Peace Officers Association, Iowa Police Chiefs Association, and the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association as well. Despite this wide-ranging support, the bill now risks being sabotaged by a very small handful of anti-gun State Senators.
What can you do to help? IFC is urging everyone to take the following three simple steps (in their words):
Petition
If you haven’t already, please sign and share our petition calling on the Senate leadership to stop playing games and bring SF425 to a vote.
The anti-gun crowd has submitted a petition to block the Omnibus Gun Bill. They got a paltry 1,600 signatures. We’re betting we can top that pretty easily. Please take 30 second to sign and share this!!
Email
Contact your Senator, and the Senate leadership. Tell them you want to see SF425 brought to a vote AS IS. It’s time for a vote! Keep your messages brief, respectful and on point. Here’s a great example of an email to the Senate leadership. Send your emails to:mike.gronstal@legis.iowa.gov, steve.sodders@legis.iowa.gov, pam.jochum@legis.iowa.gov, joe.bolkcom@legis.iowa.gov, &
your Senator.
your Senator.
Don’t have your Senator’s email address? Not sure who your Senator is? Find who represents you and their contact info using our Legislative Action Center.
Call
NOTE: The Senate switchboard is only operational while the Senate is in session. The next time you can call and leave a message will be when the Senate returns to work on Monday at 1 p.m.
When you call the Senate switchboard – 515-281-3371 – on Monday leave a message for the Senate leadership: “Listen to the people of Iowa. Listen to Iowa law enforcement. Bring SF425 to a vote AS IS.” Ask that the message is delivered to Senators Gronstal, Sodders, Jochum and Bolkcom.
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.
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.
Starting Year 5 of ‘Shall Issue,’ Iowa has More Guns, Less Crime
As Iowa begins its fifth year as a “shall-issue” state it’s a good time to reflect on the fact that we now have a record number of law-abiding Iowans carrying firearms in public and lower violent crime rates than we did five years ago.
Iowa’s shall-issue weapons permit law was signed into law by then-Governor Chet Culver (D) on April 29th, 2010. It went into effect on January 1st, 2011. The new law tweaked the civilian permit to carry weapons in several ways, but most importantly it required sheriffs to issue permits to Iowans who passed a criminal background check and met several other criteria. Prior to this, sheriffs could arbitrarily deny permits for any reason known only to themselves, essentially leaving Iowa with 99 different permit laws and the potential for personal discrimination.
So where do we stand now?
A recent Fox News article notes that in 2010, before the new law, Iowa had not quite 40,000 permits to carry in force. Last year the number hit 220,000, five and half times what it was in 2010. That means about 7% of Iowa’s population currently has a permit to carry. With all those folks toting guns, what about all those predictions of increased carry causing “havoc and mayhem?”
Well, if Iowa has descended into bloody turmoil it sure isn’t reflected in our violent crime rates. According to FBI statistics in 2008 and 2009 Iowa averaged about 284 violent crimes per 100,000 population. In 2010, when the shall issue was signed, our violent crime rate was at 268.5 crimes. In 2011, the first full year the law was in force, the crime rate fell to 255.6. In 2012 it rose a bit to 265.6. Then in 2013 (the latest year I could find stats for) it fell again to 260.9.
I don’t if every hill and valley in these numbers can be ascribed to Iowa’s permit law, but the fact remains that their are many more lawful guns on the street and violent crime rates are lower than before the law went to effect. At any rate it proves that more law-abiding gun owners carrying in public does NOT cause Old West shootouts and chaos as we were warned. This experience puts us inline with most of the other 40 states who have seen crime rates drop after passing shall issue laws.
Most of the critiques of the law I see nowadays don’t rely on predictions of bloodbaths by deranged permit holders over fender benders but just on the fact that the idea of other Iowans carrying concealed weapons makes the critic feel “icky.” (Here’s one recent example.) Not the best argument to deny a constitutional right.
All in all I think we would have to rule Iowa’s shall issue a success. Iowa’s law-abiding gun owners have proven themselves to be a responsible lot. Now, about Constitutional Carry…
IA Reps Blum and King Vote Against Commissar Boehner
Two of Iowa’s three Republican U.S. representatives voted against the existing power structure on Capitol Hill as personified in John Boehner. 25 total Republicans voted against House Speaker Boehner, a Republican, which the Washington Post called “largest revolt against a House speaker in more than 150 years.” Unfortunately, Boehner was still re-elected to his speakership.
Freshman Representative Rod Blum of Iowa’s 1st District explained his vote thusly on his Facebook Page: “I was elected by Iowans to stand up to the status quo in Washington, DC, and I refuse to turn my back on them with my first vote. While I know Speaker Boehner is a good man and I respect the job he has done as Speaker, I must follow the will of the Eastern Iowans who rejected politics as usual in November and are calling for change in DC. With Congressional approval ratings at historic lows, it’s time for our elected officials to listen to the people and rethink business as usual so we can move our country forward together.”
Representative Steve King (IA-4) said of Boehner in a recent Breitbart column: “I know the pattern of his strategy and actions for the past 12 years to the point where I can predict the results. I am convinced Congress will not be allowed to restore its Constitutional authority under his Speakership and by refusing to do so, cannot call upon the courts to do so. How then, can I take an oath to the Constitution and put up a vote for John Boehner, almost in the same breath?
“We need a Speaker who will help us all keep our oath, including his own, to the Constitution, not one who has consistently blocked our efforts to keep ours. I will vote for an alternative candidate for Speaker. I can’t vote for John Boehner again.”
Blum and King’s opposition to Speaker Boehner seems to put them in good company with a good many of rank and file of their own party if not with ruling elite. A recent poll by Caddell Associates showed that “a stupefying 60% of Republicans who voted in the November elections either definitely or probably want someone other than Ohio Congressman John Boehner to be the Speaker of the House.” Two-thirds agreed with the statement that “John Boehner has been ineffective in opposing Obama.” When Republican voters were asked, “Is John Boehner for average Americans in his heart, rather than for special interests?” Only 44% said yes, and 43% said no.
“The GOP leadership, the lawyers, the lobbyists, the consultant class of the Republican party, and all the big donors don’t understand that these people are angry,” said pollster Pat Caddell of polling data. “They are saying that John Boehner doesn’t care about them, and all he cares about is the special interests. I’ve never seen anything like this in the base of a party.”
While I don’t have a lot of faith in Steve King, I’m hopeful that Rod Blum will continue to stand up to the corrupt two-party oligarchy in Washington D.C.
Book Review: "The FN FAL Battle Rifle"
When I received a signed copy of my brother Bob’s latest book “The FN FAL Battle Rifle,” a book about the Cold War rifle known as the “right arm of the Free World,” of course I was excited to read it. Bob is a former active duty Cavalry Scout, Desert Storm vet, forestry worker, and still an avid shooter and gun collector living in Montana. Suffice it to say he has a passion for firearms and military history.
Since I’m not quite the firearms technician nor military historian that my brother is, part of me was a little worried I might find parts of a “biography” of a rifle a little dry. However Bob kept the book quite interesting and accessible to us laypersons while still providing plenty of detail for gun wonks.
For many American gunnies the Cold War was a face-off between the American M16 and the Soviet AK-47. However the 7.62x51mm NATO Fabrique Nationale (FN) Fusil Automatique Léger (FAL) eventually equipped over 90 Western nations around the world, earning it the aforementioned nickname. The history of the FAL is a history of every bushfire war that popped up during the Cold War. The FAL showed up in most of them, officially or not. The FAL’s storied history reaches a crescendo during the 1982 Falklands War where both sides (the British and the Argentinians) used the FAL against each other. Bob’s book chronicles the whole history.
First Bob walks us through the development of the FAL right after WW2. Besides the technical aspects of developing the new weapon there was the political quarreling behind adopting a new NATO standard rifle round. The book then provides a brief rundown of the adoption and modifications made by each of the major nations issuing the new FAL. There is a section running down the major accessories adopted for the FAL including magazines, optics, rifle grenades and bayonets.
In the next section Bob points out that although the FAL was (thankfully) never used for its intended role of repelling a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, “[i]t did, however, give excellent service in battle around the world in many smaller wars and numerous insurgencies.” Bob gives a brief history of the FAL’s major use in combat by the British army from the 1948 Malayan Emergency to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and by other nations in African and Latin American bush wars, the Arab-Israeli Wars, the Indo-Pakistani Wars, and Vietnam. The FAL still pops up in combat zones today.
The book then has a breakdown of the capabilities of the FAL’s 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge as well as an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the FAL system itself. Bob also compares and contrasts the FAL with its two a main contemporary rival battle rifles the German G3 and American M14. The book is chock full of historical photographs, graphs, as well as several original historical battlescene paintings created specially for the book by British artist Steve Noon.
I thoroughly enjoyed taking the stroll down Cold War “memory lane” that “The FN FAL Battle Rifle” provided. I think anyone with a bit of interest in weapons and/or military history will enjoy it as well. I recommend you check it out.
Law Prof: Never Support a Law You Are Not Willing to Kill to Enforce
Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter had an excellent article at Bloomberg View. It’s good advice for our lawmakers. Here’s a few excepts:
“On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
“I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law.”
“I don’t mean this as a criticism of cops, whose job after all is to carry out the legislative will. The criticism is of a political system that takes such bizarre delight in creating new crimes for the cops to enforce. It’s unlikely that the New York legislature, in creating the crime of selling untaxed cigarettes, imagined that anyone would die for violating it. But a wise legislator would give the matter some thought before creating a crime. Officials who fail to take into account the obvious fact that the laws they’re so eager to pass will be enforced at the point of a gun cannot fairly be described as public servants.”
Do yourself a favor and read this outstanding piece HERE.
HT to Christopher Peters for bringing this article to my attention.
That’s the Ticket!
Unless you’ve had your telephone and television unhooked for the past four months, you know that the election is Tuesday. Like a growing number of Iowans I already voted by mail. Here are some of the people I was proud to vote for:
U.S. Senate:
Dr. Doug Butzier (L.)
Sadly, Doctor Doug passed away at the age of 59, Monday October 13, when the light plane he was piloting crashed. The good doctor was an emergency room physician and leader at Mercy Hospital in Dubuque.
Given his position, it might not be surprising that flaws in Obamacare and government interference in medicine are what helped convince Butzier to run for U.S. Senate. He believed that there should be a free market for healthcare, not “free” healthcare. He pointed out: “When you receive anything for ‘free,’ that means that someone else paid for it. You should not be forced to pay for or subsidize someone else’s healthcare. Government involvement only lowers the quality for everyone and drives up the costs.”Butzier also wanted America’s veterans to receive quality healthcare in their own communities rather than going off to shoddy government run VA hospitals.
Dr. Doug also believed in extending the free market into the education system as well. He believed in curtailing the Constitutional usurpation of the federal government and was a supporter of Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Although largely ignored by the media until his death, Dr. Doug Butzier stood out from his two mudslinging rivals for the Senate seat.
U.S. House Dist. 1
Rod Blum (R.)
Blum is owner of Digital Canal Software. He is also a student pilot, real estate developer, and has written a conservative column for the Telegraph Herald. Blum is active with Liberty Iowa, a leading “Constitutional conservative” group, and is endorsed by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.
The five “cornerstones” of Blum’s campaign are: 1. Personal Responsibility 2. Constitutionally Limited Government 3. Fiscal Sanity 4. Free Markets and Competition 5. Sanctity of Life.
Iowa Governor
Dr. Lee Hieb (L.)
Dr. Hieb is a long time orthopaedic surgeon who served as an officer in the U.S. Navy. See has written numerous articles in professional journals, political columns and has a forthcoming book, Surviving the Medical Meltdown.
Hieb states she will use the following principles in governing Iowa: “1. I shall always vote to increase individual liberty. 2. I shall sign and vote to restrain the power and scope and size of state government. 3. I will fight to eliminate any tax which compels citizens to pay for things they find morally objectionable. 4. I will legislate to push back the Federal Government from our border and exercise (for a change) our Tenth Amendment rights to state sovereignty.”
Iowa Secretary of State
Jake Porter (L.)
Porter is a business and non-profit manager who has served on non-profit boards, managed several political campaigns, and has retail management experience running multi-million dollar department stores. One of the Secretary of State’s most important duties is to oversee the state’s elections. Says Porter: “We need someone who is independent of the two major political parties to act as a referee and that is the type of candidate I am.” In addition to keeping the Secretary’s office independent and transparent, Jake wants to make starting a business in Iowa easier.
Iowa Candidate Gun Grades 2014
Here are the candidate grades for Iowa’s office seekers. The first grade is from Gun Owners of America, the second is from the National Rifle Association. I personally put more weight in the GOA grade. If GOA or NRA is in UNDERLINED BOLD type, that means that candidate is endorsed by that organization. NRA does not grade independent or third party candidates. An asterisk denotes an incumbent. Libertarians Party candidates are in red because they kick ass.
Federal Office
U.S. Senate:
Braley (D) GOA: F NRA: F
Butzier (L) GOA: NR
Ernst (R) GOA: A NRA: A
Smith (I) GOA: NR
Congressional District 1:
Blum (R) GOA: A NRA: AQ
Murphy (D) GOA: D NRA: D
Congressional District 2:
*Loebsack (D) GOA: F NRA: F
Miller-Meeks (R) GOA: B NRA: AQ
Congressional District 3:
Appel (D) GOA: F NRA: C-
Holder (I) GOA: NR
Wright (L) GOA: A
Young (R) GOA: NR NRA: AQ
Congressional District 4:
*King (R) GOA: A NRA: A
Mowrer (D) NR NRA: C-
Explanation of GOA Grades:
WHAT THE NRA GRADES MEAN
On Police "Militarization" Part 2
In the last post I posited that there is an obvious need for the police and the violent use of force. I concluded that, while there probably should be some limits on police weaponry, the debate over specific “militaristic” equipment is less important than debating how and when it is employed.
As you can see in the accompanying infographic from reason.com, SWAT teams (the embodiment of militarized police) are being used more and more often. The approximate number of SWAT raids doubled from about 30,000 in 1995 to 50-60,000 in 2005. However you measure it, that’s a hell of an increase.
While we all envision SWAT operations for reasons such as hostage rescue or active shooters, but as you can see, these types of operations only amount to about 7% of SWAT raids. Most raids are for search warrants, usually involving drug searches.
So the trend seems to be for violent SWAT raids to be used more often and for more mundane reasons. This trend is what concerns me. As both police and civilians become desensitized to this it may continue to spread until no-knock SWAT raids are the default answer for every police call.
Every interaction I’ve ever had with the police has been polite, professional, and non-threatening. I’d like my kids to become adults in a similar world, not one where any unpaid parking ticket can earn you a midnight home invasion with flashbang grenades and guns in your face.
Also, as a Second Amendment supporter, when I read stories about perfectly legal weapon permits being used as justification for SWAT raids, I get a little concerned.
The Feds: Assault-Popping The Constitution
While so far we’ve only discussed REAL cops, the trend toward “militarization” is active with the U.S. Federales as well. Unlike local cops, B.S. regulatory agencies like the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Education and the IRS can’t say they are arming up to protect us from violent predators in our communities. More likely these arms will be used to shove unpopular edicts down the people’s throats.
While federal agencies are arming up, the feds are encouraging local cops to do the same. The Depts. of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security all have grant programs to provide weapons and equipment to local police for the perpetual wars on drugs and terror. I’m going to focus on the DOD’s “1033 Program,” which gives free military equipment to local law enforcement, but most of the arguments against it work on the other programs as well. So, why should we end the 1033 Program?
Firstly, it’s unconstitutional. If you read the powers granted to the United States government by the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8, arming local police isn’t one of them. Ironically. while arming the militia IS a constitutional power, the 1033 Program which can give defense equipment to local cops is NOT authorized to give any to State Guard (militia) units. (Congressman Joe Wilson and a few others have introduced the State Defense Force Improvement Act which would give State Guard Forces access to extra military equipment several times, but it has not passed.)
Secondly, we can’t afford it. No organization that is $18 trillion in debt should be giving anything away to anybody. This equipment could be auctioned off to police departments and private citizens rather than given away. Police departments could still get equipment at fire sale prices and the money could toward balancing the budget.
Thirdly, even if you agree with the basic premise of the 1033 Program, since it is a federal program it only takes about one sniff to find waste, fraud, abuse, and general insanity. Some counties sheriff departments have “received enough [musical] instruments to start their own marching band, if they wanted to” from the program. The defense department has given local police bouncy castles, $16,500 ice cream makers, $11,000 pizza ovens and much more. Yes, the U.S. military is giving local cops $3,500 popcorn poppers (to keep you safe), just as the Founders of our great nation envisioned. Unless these are dangerous “assault poppers” that only specially trained police can be trusted with, I think they could hit the auction block.
The 1033 Program should be suspended immediately. While local cops do need equipment, they need to figure out how to get it without federal giveaways funded by placing our children in debt. Budgets are always tight, but if state and local governments do some soul-searching on what their purpose is, they can cut the frivolities and focus on core functions like police.
In conclusion, there is “militarization” of our police in this country. What weapons and tactics are appropriate and how much is “too much?” I don’t know. But in a free state it’s a good debate to have sooner rather than later.
Cold Hard Cashner 