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:

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.”

Kaul can write whatever the hell he wants, but something tells me that if a pro-gun advocate wrote a column calling for political leaders to be dragged behind pickups, buildings to be destroyed and American citizens to potentially be killed, it would be the lead story on every news show in America.

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.

Feinstein’s Deliberate Collateral Damages

The unspeakable tragedy in Newton Connecticut has pushed the issue of gun control back into the national spotlight. Because of the sheer atrociousness of this crime, the issue seems to have some traction this time. There has always been a contingent of politicians and activists who have called for ever more gun control, but now it seems that some of the public is beginning to agree.

Since so-called “assault weapons” have been used in this and several other high-profile shootings, there is an increased call for regulation of this ill-defined class of weapons. Long time gun-hater Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the author of the original 1994-2004 federal “Assault Weapons Ban,” is more than happy to help. When Congress reconvenes in January she will introduce a new assault weapons ban even more stringent than the last.

I won’t take time here to expound upon the ineffectiveness of the old assault weapons ban. Many others have already done so. (Fox News: Assault-weapons ban no guarantee mass shootings would decrease; LA Times: The Big Lie of the Assault Weapons Ban ) I won’t spend time once again debating the old saw that “You don’t need an assault weapon to hunt ducks.” (Second Amendment- Purpose) In this post I’ll focus on another why Feinstein’s gun ban should be opposed.

Feinstein’s new ban would ensnare many otherwise law-abiding gun owners. The new ban affects many weapons not affected by the original ban. According to the NRA-ILA this would include the trusty old M1 Carbine, a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and ALL models of the AR-15. These weapons (as well as many others) could no longer be manufactured, sold, transported, or imported. Ones already in private possession would have to be registered with the federal government under the National Firearms Act and their owners would have to be photographed and fingerprinted and pay a $200 tax. (Never mind that BATF doesn’t have the staff to process the sudden influx of countless millions of these applications.)

Picture some old guy who’s had an M1 Carbine in the back of his closet since 1955. If the bill passes, he may very well be unaware that his old carbine has magically transformed into a schoolyard-spraying death hose that has to be registered with the federal government and that he is now in violation of federal law.

When most people picture an “assault weapon” they picture a semi-automatic rifle like an AK-47 or AR-15. However the ban extends to shotguns and pistols as well, so many other gun owners may find themselves caught similarly unaware.

These don’t appear to be the deranged killers that we want to put in jail, but will require the time and resources of our already overburdened police and courts all the same. Feinstein’s new gun ban would potentially make criminals out of millions of peaceable American gun owners and still not prevent some future mass shooting. Maybe that’s the plan.

Circular Illogic

Always Remember

Repeal Gun-Free School Zones

I was at work when I heard about the murder of the innocents in Newton, Connecticut. I remember hearing the President on the radio. “The majority of those who died today were children — beautiful, little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old,” Obama said with great emotion. “They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.”

These were children the same age as my own. Like many Americans, like many parents, I felt saddened, outraged and violated by the actions of this madman who committed these despicable acts. Emotionally this felt like the most traumatic attack since 9/11.

Two days later President Obama spoke at the prayer vigil for the victims and hinted about efforts to prevent future tragedies. “We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end,” said Obama. “And to end them, we must change.” But I wonder how much Obama and his allies are willing to change in response to tragedies like these.

It seems that the more of an abysmal failure a government measure is the more vehemently it will be defended by statists. In regard to school shootings the glaring failure is the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act (and its state and local clones). This law basically forbids the possession of a firearm in a school zone. Will Obama and his cohorts be willing to travel outside their own ideological comfort zone and listen to arguments that just maybe this measure does more harm than good? I’ll give them two reasons why the GFSZA should be repealed.

First, it’s unconstitutional. I realize that most politicians, like most of my countrymen, don’t care a fig about whether or not a law complies with the U.S. Constitution. But, since I once swore an oath to kill or die in defense of that document, I’ll include it here for nostalgia’s sake if nothing else. In this case you don’t have to just take the word of some blogger in his pajamas pounding a keyboard. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with me and already stuck the law down once.

The federal GFSZA was originally passed in 1990, but the Supreme Court ruled it to be an unconstitutional abuse of Congressional authority under the Constitution’s commerce clause in U.S.v Lopez (1995). To uphold the law, the court concluded, “would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.” In other words toting a gun in a local school is none of the federal governments damned business.

Congress responded by adding a few words to the original GFSZA and passing it again. Bill Clinton signed it again and it’s been the law ever since. Although it’s been challenged in lower courts, it hasn’t made it back to the Supreme Court to be re-reviewed. Perhaps someday it will and perhaps the court will have the right mixture of political appointees to uphold it. Regardless of what the Supreme Court has said or will say about it, it is anathema to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

The second, and I think more practical, reason to repeal the GFSZA is that it doesn’t work. In 2000 Professors John R. Lott Jr. and William M. Landes released an exhaustive study of “Multiple Victim Public Shootings.” Some key findings from that study:

  • “Right-to-carry laws reduce the number of people killed or wounded from multiple victim public shootings as many attackers are either deterred from attacking or when attacks do occur they are stopped before the police can arrive.”
  • “Given that half the attackers in these multiple victim public shootings have had formal diagnoses of mental illness, the fact that some results indicate concealed handgun laws reduce these attacks by almost 70 percent is remarkable.”
  • “Not only does the passage of a right-to-carry law have a significant impact on multiple shootings but it is the only gun law that appears to have a significant impact.”
  • “[S]tates with the fewest gun free zones have the greatest reductions [in] killings, injuries, and attacks.”[Emphasis added.]

In a July 2012 New York Daily News op-ed piece, John R. Lott points out a salient fact from his continued research that should be required reading for everyone on both sides of this debate: “With a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.” That fact alone is shocking and points out the failure of “gun-free zones” of any kind in this country.

So who in America will “change” to help reduce tragedies such as the Sandy Hook slayings? Will Obama and his friends be willing to change their worldview enough to accept anything other than more restrictions on private gun ownership as a potential aid to the problem? Will the only real change be more loss of freedom, as has happened after so many tragedies in our nations history? I hope not. 

Our nation is already a little darker with the 20 little beacons of hope extinguished prematurely at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Let’s not make it darker still by making all the other children grow up in a land less free.

Gun Laws Don’t Protect Children

Honey Creek Resort Still Bleeding Dollars

A recent CR Gazette article reports that Iowa’s state-owned Honey Creek Resort continues to be an albatross around the neck of Iowa taxpayers. According to the article: “The resort’s revenue fell $549,766 short of its budgeted revenue of $6.4 million, which was better than fiscal 2011 when Honey Creek missed its goals by nearly $645,071.”

In 2006 the state issued $33.5 million in bonds (which means they borrowed $33.5 million) to partially pay for the new $58 million resort. Not to worry, taxpayers were assured, this beauty would pay for itself! (Picture a sweaty man with a bad combover, really wide tie and a plaid suit coat selling this idea to state officials.) The state could pay off the bonds with profits from the resort itself.

According to the rosy projections that the bond issue was sold with, the resort may suffer a small shortfall the first couple of years but should already be raking in a small $316,000 profit by the third year of operation.  Honey Creek is now in it’s fourth year of operation and it ended FY2012 with a loss of $549,766.

That money has to come from elsewhere in the Iowa DNR’s budget. The Gazette report again: “Revenue for fiscal 2012 did not cover bond payments and management fees for the resort, which caused the DNR to shift nearly $1.3 million from statewide conservation efforts to Honey Creek. More than $4.9 million in Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) funds have gone to Honey Creek since the resort opened.”

So the DNR built a luxury resort to stimulate the economy (not its job), it has hemorrhaged money ever since, causing the DNR to pull millions of dollars away from the enhancement and protection of Iowas natural resources (its job). Only in the world of government does that make sense.

But surely things could turn around and the state could start earning enough to make Honey Creek self-suffient. Read my much-earlier post Privatize Honey Creek Resort to see why I still wouldn’t like it.

State Guard Adds Protection Efficiently

Here’s an excerpt from my latest guest column in the Cedar Rapids Gazette.

“After Superstorm Sandy ravaged the eastern seaboard, the states of New York and Virginia, in addition to their National Guard forces, called upon another cost-effective crisis response asset that Iowa currently lacks: state guard units. Twenty-two states (and Puerto Rico) have active state guards, which are sometimes known as state militias or state defense forces, or SDFs.

“Unlike the National Guard, which is operated by the state and federal governments, SDFs are funded and operated solely under the authority of the state. They are under the command of the state governor and cannot be called into federal service. While the National Guard has proved itself to be extremely good at its job, SDFs offer several advantages that allow them to nicely complement National Guard forces.”

 
You can read the entire column here.

Marijuana Bills Heading For Des Moines (Again)

After voters in Colorado and Washington state approved laws that legalized possession of regulated recreational marijuana, two Iowa lawmakers hope to introduce more modest marijuana-related bills here in the Hawkeye State. Iowa state Rep. Bruce Hunter (D-Des Moines) and state Sen. Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City) are preparing to introduce bills which would allow medical marijuana with a prescription.

In 2010 the Iowa Board of Pharmacy voted unanimously that legislators should allow prescription use of marijuana.  A Des Moines Register Iowa poll at that time showed that 64% of Iowans supported allowing patients to use marijuana with a doctor’s approval.

Hunter and Bolkom’s bills will face an uphill battle in the 2013 session. House Republicans say they do not support the effort and Governor Branstad says he will veto any bill that would legalize marijuana in any form.

Perhaps opponents of allowing marijuana in any form are being influenced by the likes of Peter Komen­dowski, pres­i­dent of Part­ner­ship for a Drug-Free Iowa, and Steven Lukan, the direc­tor of the Governor’s Office of Drug Con­trol Pol­icy. “What we’re doing,” said Komen­dowski, “is send­ing a mixed mes­sage to our kids that some drugs are OK and some aren’t OK. If you know kids, it’s extremely con­fus­ing to them if you’re not on message.”

Lukan spoke referring to supposedly higher levels of THC in marijuana. “A good analogy I was given is that back in the ’60s, smoking a joint was like drinking three beers. You achieved a quick high that didn’t stick around as long,” Lukan said. “Today smoking a joint can be like drinking a keg.”

Long-time Iowa marijuana law reformer Carl Olsen takes both men to task on his blog:

“So, the mes­sage we’re cur­rently send­ing, accord­ing to these two, is that alco­hol is okay and mar­i­juana is not. Pre­scrip­tion drugs are okay and mar­i­juana is not. That mes­sage is exactly the oppo­site of what it should be. These intel­lec­tu­ally bank­rupt rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the legal drug indus­try haven’t made a step toward mak­ing alchohol and tobacco ille­gal in Iowa, or deny­ing access to pre­scrip­tion drugs. Alco­hol and tobacco, along with pre­scrip­tion drugs, are the biggest killers out there. Mar­i­juana has never killed anyone.

“So, the mes­sage, kids, is that you should drink lots of alco­hol and smoke lots of cig­a­rettes so you can get sick and use lots of pre­scrip­tion drugs. Got it? Good, now shut up and do what you’re told.”

Let’s hope that the forward momentum of the two states that just legalized recreational marijuana, as well as the 18 states that have already approved the use of marijuana with a doctor’s prescription, will allow Iowa to take the common sense step of at least allowing medical marijuana to ease the pain and nausea of select patients in our state.

Debt: Taxation Without Representation

As you probably know, the federal debt is now over $16 trillion. Members of both political parties (elected by us) have added to this staggering total for decades. The debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency and Obama has managed to rack up more debt than that in just one term. As you may have heard, we reelected him.

Technically it’s Congress that wields more power over the federal government’s purse strings than the president. Despite record low approval ratings of these big spenders, we just sent 91% of the incumbents back to Congress. Don’t look for a sudden change to frugality there.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the federal debt will be $25 trillion by 2021. Unfortunately, CBO projections historically have been about 40% low 80% of the time.

Of course none of these figures include the unfunded liabilities that we are going to have shell out for Social Security and Medicare. These currently stand at about $121 trillion. Any way you slice it there is a mountain of debt coming down.

Children who didn’t get to vote for or against the crooks running up this debt will one day labor to repay it. Perennial Iowa Libertarian candidate Dr. Eric Cooper has called this “taxation without representation in its purest form.” It is hard to argue otherwise.

“No taxation without representation” was the rallying cry that lead the American colonists to rebel against the British Empire. Someday, when we hand a future generation of Americans the bill for tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of taxation without representation, they will be just as morally justified to do to us what the founding generation did to the redcoats.