The legislative session is a bust

The Iowa Statehouse - Where legislation goes to die

Nothing substantial has come from Des Moines this session, not that many had very high hopes of any action this time around.

For instance, HF 2116 (a bill protecting private information) passed subcommittee and then withdrawn a couple of weeks later.

Or how about HF2012 (lowering the acceptable age for handgun handling)? Passed subcommittee and promptly went nowhere.

Despite some procedural wrangling on Constitutional Carry that also went nowhere, we so-far note a lack of pro-freedom legislation from the statehouse.

JPFO is recommending all gun owners in Illinois leave the state

JPFO has information on an proposed bill in the Illinois statehouse, HB4715. A registration scheme for every firearm in the state. This would be more draconian than Connecticut or New York.

Go to the JPFO alert, Illinois Attacks Freedom! Every Gun Maker & Gun Owner Should Leave Illinois Now!

Legislative update, prohibiting personal information disclosure

HF2116 is working its way through committee - "An Act prohibiting the disclosure of personal information except under specified circumstances and providing penalties."

First reading is that this law would apply to counties who have been providing gun permit information to local news agencies. As expected, the Iowa Newspaper Association is against this, coupled with the Attorney Generals' office and the School Administrators of Iowa.

It provides penalties for data breaches, and requires agencies to notify Iowans if they disclose information and get permission.

There's some positive sections in this bill and requires some further research.

Legislative update, Lowering the age of handgun possession

HF2012 passed the House Public Safety subcommittee on January 30. This bill lowers the age to 12 from 14 for a youth to possess a handgun without adult supervision.

Current law would penalize parents if a child under 14 has access or is in possession of an unsecured pistol or revolver. This would lower that age to under 12. There may have been cases where parents were charged without an incident occurring, typically this law has been used to charge parents after a tragedy has already taken place.

Although the Iowa Police Association is for it, those Methodist are firmly against it.

New legislation for our Illinois neighbors

IL State Rep. Kelly Cassidy introduces a gun registration Act: HB4715 aka the Firearms Registration Act

Provides that every person in the State must register each firearm he or she owns or possesses in accordance with the Act. Provides that a person shall not purchase or possess ammunition within this State without having first obtained a registration certificate identifying a firearm that is suitable for use with that ammunition, or a receipt demonstrating that the person has applied to register a suitable firearm under the Act and that the application is pending.

Thanks to Kurt Hofmann for the heads up.

The Hoplophobic Iowa Methodists

While reviewing HF2012 I looked up the lobbyists declarations and counted a half dozen "Against" declarations from people representing the Iowa Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church.

Currently children 14 and under must be under supervision of someone at least 21 years old while in possession of a pistol or revolver, or ammunition that can be used in a pistol or revolver. HF 2012 would lower the age to 12.

Apparently the Methodists don't care for that.

I think it would be best if the parents decided what age is appropriate but I think the motivation behind this legislation is to reduce prosecutions if a 14 year old kid is in their home alone and a handgun is somewhere in the house.

What is the motivations behind the Methodists?

In their 2013 Book of Resolutions the conference thinks a good idea to reinstate the so-called "Assault Weapon Ban".  

9337 Reinstate Ban of Assault Weapons(1995, 2005)

WHEREAS: The ban on assault weapons has expired;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Iowa Annual Conference calls upon the United States Congress to reinstate the ban on the sale of assault weapons and not to weaken or overturn the Brady Gun Control Law.

REVIEW BY: Board of Church and Society

 And they are against private sales of firearms by supporting getting rid of the misnamed "Gun Show Loophole"

9336. Gun Show Loophole(2003)

WHEREAS: A loophole in federal law allows firearm transfers between unlicensed individuals without a background check or record of sales (secondary sales), and 30-40% offirearm sales are estimated to take place at secondary markets, andWHEREAS: The majority of secondary sales occur at gun shows, allowing persons in prohibited categories to purchase guns without a background check or record of sale; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Iowa Annual Conference urges the Iowa

General Assembly to support the following requirements: 

a) that firearm sales between unlicensed individuals at gun shows be conducted through a federally licensed gun dealer to meet all federal and state laws, i.e., background check and sale recorded on federal form 4473; 

b) that the gun show promoter shall provide one or more federally - licensed gun dealers to conduct said background checks on the premises;

c) that these requirements shall apply to any part of the transaction taking place at a gun show. (It shall be illegal for someone to make an offer to purchase a firearm from an unlicensed individual, then take possession off - site); and

d) that violators are committing an aggravated misdemeanor.

REVIEW BY: Board of Church and Society

Am I incorrect in the assumption that tax-exempt organizations aren't supposed to be involved in political activity lest they lose such status?

Silencers (and more) for Iowans

Legislation from last year has been updated and introduced into the Iowa House Judiciary subcommittee. Adding silencers to the definition of  "offensive weapons" here in Iowa.

HF 384 defines offensive weapons as: machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns and now silencers\noise suppressors.

From the bill: 

724.2 Authority to possess offensive weapons.

All of the following are authorized to possess offensive weapons:  

1. The following persons or entities when the duties or lawful activities of the person or entity require or permit such possession:

            a. Any peace officer.

b. Any member of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard.

c. Any person in the service of the United States.

d. A correctional officer, serving in an institution under the authority of the Iowa department of corrections.

e. Any person who, under the laws of this state and the United States, is lawfully engaged in the business of supplying those authorized to possess such devices.

f. Any person, firm, or corporation who under the laws of this state and the United States is lawfully engaged in the improvement, invention, or manufacture of firearms.

g. Any museum or similar place which possesses, solely as relics, offensive weapons which are rendered permanently unfit for use.

2. The following persons who possess an offensive weapon which is a curio or relic firearm under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. ch. 44 and the federal National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C. ch. 53:

a. A resident of this state, if the offensive weapon has been permanently rendered unfit for the firing of live ammunition. The offensive weapon may, however, be adapted for the firing of blank ammunition.

b. A nonresident, if the offensive weapon is legally possessed by the person in the person’s state of residence and the offensive weapon is at all times while in this state rendered incapable of firing live ammunition. A nonresident who possesses an offensive weapon under this paragraph while in this state shall not have in the person’s possession live ammunition. The offensive weapon may, however, be adapted for the firing of blank ammunition.

3. A person who possesses a device described in section 724.1, subsection 8, or a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun, as those terms are defined in section 724.1, in compliance with the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. ch. 44 and the federal National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C. ch. 53. 

The way I read this, is that it removes state restrictions and defers to federal laws. 

More bills have been introduced and we will be keeping a eye on the golden-domed cesspool in Des Moines. 

Gun transfer bill introduced last Thursday

House File 164

The bill prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to another person without receiving verification from a federally licensed firearms dealer that information on the prospective purchaser or transferee has been submitted to the department of public safety for a criminal history background check and that a determination has been received by the department of public safety that the prospective purchaser or transferee is not prohibited under either state or federal law from possessing a firearm. A criminal history background check under the bill includes an inquiry  of the national instant criminal background check system maintained by the federal bureau of investigation.

Penalty of two years if you give or sell a firearm to another without the buyer going through a background check.

And don't think about passing down a family heirloom - no free passes for that.

Heads up from Iowa Gun Owners

Another bill introduced on Thursday:

House File 163

A bill banning magazines or "similar devices" that can hold greater than 10 rounds. And another two year prison sentence for the seller. It won't outlaw possession (yet) and it doesn't penalize purchasers. What if one orders a few mags from an out of state seller. This bill doesn't address that, so it would seem we would be able to buy them from sellers outside of Iowa legally. Maybe...

We have to keep alert on the cesspool that is in Des Moines although a couple of positive bills have been introduced the past few days as well.

Iowa Legislative update, 2/6/13

HouseFile57 A reasonable force\stand your ground bill

The Senate version:  Senate File 96

A Bill to eliminate a permit to purchase a handgun and change it to a permit to purchase any firearm. It would be optional to use for acquiring firearms from an FFL dealer. A cursory reading gives the impression that no permits needed for private sales (even for handguns). House File 73 

 

House File 81. This would make carry permit information confidential. One thing I would like added is a penalty for making that information public. We should hold people who release that information accountable, both the public servant and the publisher.

 

House Joint Resolution 6: A Constitutional Amendment for the right to keep and bear arms

 

No "assault" weapon bans or some such nonsense have been introduced this year (so far). But a couple of other bills have caught my interest that require a bit more research.

 

Iowan's, contact your legislators regarding these bills and express your thoughts.

Almost restores my faith in the state legislature

Not quite.

Legislative output won’t be high this session

“When you can reduce the number of bills, that’s probably a good thing,” said Rep. Ralph Watts, R-Adel. “If you put all the code books side by side and you look at the growth of them over the years, you can really relate that — as those books grow, your personal freedom goes down.
“People complain about, ‘well, it’s a do-nothing Legislature.’ My experience in the time I’ve been here is the shorter time we’re here, the better off the people out there are; the less we get involved, the less we meddle in their lives,” Watts added.

Well said.

[Sen. Rob] Hogg, vice chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — an area that traditionally sees a lot of legislative action — said the panel took a limited approach this session to House-passed measures dealing with gun laws and other bills that seemed politically motivated or designed to take advantage of an election-year session.

 Because enjoying protections from prosecution\persecution while protecting yourself is "politically motivated" and has nothing to do with protecting one's life.

Looks like the legislature will adjourn on Friday, barring a recall from the governor.

No "castle doctrine", no addition to the state constitution, and traffic cameras will be allowed to expand across the state instead of banned.

Giving them a D- for not being freedom-minded legislators.

Traffic camera bill passes house

HF2450 prohibiting the use of traffic cameras, passed the house on a 58 to 42 vote.

It now goes on to die in the senate.

Those wacky gun owners in Iowa

Seems we're getting a little uppity towards the statehouse stooges.

"I think their proposal is wackadoodle, okay, its way out, way out, far right, its tea party extreme," says [House Minority Leader Kevin] McCarthy.

Just because the citizens want to codify civil rights protections for self-defense.

Oh, and having a right listed in the state Constitution? That's just "way out, way out," according the self-professed NRA member, McCarthy.

I guess he isn't looking at the lobbyist endorsements for HF2215, because the NRA endorsed self-defense in Iowa.

And the NRA endorsed the Constitution Amendment HJR2009.

Maybe McCarthy should turn his membership card in and join the Iowa ACLU, because he aligns more with them on these bills. He also is in lock-step with the regular bed-wetting county sheriffs.

“We’re not sure why it’s necessary to move (to) this next step so soon because we’re not sure that’s where Iowans want to be,” said Susan Cameron, a lobbyist for the Iowa State Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ Association, which represents law enforcement in Iowa’s 99 counties.

Would this be the same Iowans who sent their representatives to the statehouse in 2010? Those same representatives that voted 60-38 for the self-defense bill and 61-37 for the amendment? Seems like close to two-thirds of the representatives are in favor. In a republican form of government, they'd be representing the public.

But, I'm not a lobbyist, so what do I know about government?

As everyone can guess, they are stuck in committee in the senate. There are some procedural tactics that can still bring it to the floor but that would mean at least two Democrat senators would have to grow a pair and stand up to Gronstal, the Democrat leader in the state senate.

I'm not holding my breath, but there is a chance if we can annoy the crap out of them with calls and make some of them scared for their next election.

Maybe we can join other states that had to mop up the streets with all that blood running down them after passing castle doctrine, or Constitutional carry.

That did happen, right? 'Cause that's what we keep hearing from the anti-civil rights crowd.

Walk out protest at the statehouse

We used to have a cocker\lab mix that hated any other animal in our yard. She would chase squirrels, rabbits, cats, dogs, and a few neighbors out of what she considered "her" territory. Each time she would prance back, head held high in victorious glory, proud in her accomplishment.

What happened today reminded me of her. The democrat legislators left the statehouse furious that two gun bills were up for debate today, stating they were "blindsided" by GOP leadership by the plans to have debate. Never mind that the NRA and IGO sent out alerts of this upcoming debate yesterday. So apparently a whole bunch of gun owners in the state knew more about the goings-ons at the statehouse than the democrat leadership.

You know, the ones who actually are paid to serve a term in the legislature.

Funny how regular joes would be fired for walking out of a job, but I guess it doesn't matter if you are an elected official.

Here's what reminded me of my dog:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Des Moines said the chamber’s 40 Democrats decided to return after deciding they’d made their displeasure clear regarding a lack of notice about the bills and concerns the proposals would gut the state’s gun laws.

Holding their heads high, confident that they made their "displeasure clear." No matter that howls of protest and ridicule that are on comments in different online articles throughout the state.

Jim kept us informed while I was at my job. You know, one that I would be fired from if I up and left unannounced. Here's Jim over at Travis McGee Reader:

The case of the runaway hoplophobes

Update: Theeeyyyrrr Back

Iowa's Own RKBA Amendment and UPDATE: SYG approved

Since I haven't been doing my job very well lately of informing my readers on the statehouse bills, I apologize. I've been working at a job that I would be fired from if I stomped my feet and walked out.

The "Stand your ground" bill is one that got the democrats pants in a twist. HF2215 passed the full House 60-38 pretty much on party line. Here's a list on how they voted. This has been stuck in committee as HF573.

The democrat's arguments that they were blindsided is complete bovine excrement. The House Journal from February 3rd, reads:

INTRODUCTION OF BILL House File 2215, by committee on public safety, a bill for an act relating to the justifiable use of reasonable force and providing a remedy.
Read first time and placed on the calendar.

An amendment was filed three days later:

AMENDMENT FILED
H–8004 H.F. 2215 R. Olson of Polk

A better saga of the walkout farce by the democrats is from the Register.

Now about that Amendment to the state Constitution? It passed 61-37 and, again, the "blindsided" whining doesn't hold since it was placed on the schedule on February 24 as HJR2009 replacing HJR2005. The bill history is here for HJR2009.

The argument that the legislature should be working on important bills like reducing your property taxes (later the counties revalue your property so you end up paying more - always happens) doesn't wash. They had time to pass important bills like HF2230 to make sure that property between a levy is in an abstract. Or this bill to define the word "hydronic."

Important stuff to one and all, but don't argue that there are more important bills that those regarding your unalienable rights. Not one bill introduced is more important than a bill that protects or destroys a person's rights.

Who cares that you can pay less taxes if some thug can cause you harm and then sue you if you try to stop him? You can pay zero taxes because the thug and his\her family sued you and took it all. Who gives two wits that the state honored the Tuskegee Airmen today if you're stuck in jail convicted for defending yourself from a rapist?

Name me one bill more important than one that secures a citizen's rights.

The bills will now head over to the state senate where they will languish and die since Gronstal runs the show over there.

Thanks to all of those who held the legislators' feet to the fire and got these bills passed today.

And thanks Jim for the heads up. I was knee deep in an unappreciated but necessary activity to keep my fellow employees working.

Because if I don't do my job, I would lose it. (Unlike certain state legislators.)

Legislative roundup, 2/13/12

The state preemption bill, HF2114 is stuck in committee. This would clearly prevent local ordinances against carrying firearms by law-abiding citizens. The map on the right shows many counties that have enacted such barriers for us.

The "stand your ground" bill, HF573 is also in committee.

The legislation to ban automated camera systems for enforcing traffic laws, HF2214, again, is still in committee. According to the "fiscal notes" for the bill, Cedar Rapids has issued over 100,000 violations in the past 12 months at $100+ per ticket. This million dollar cash cow would end the stuffing of the police department's pension fund, where it's reportedly deposited.

A few teenagers last week, with great lamentations, tried to persuade the lawmakers to create a law to compel the underage moped\motorcycle riders to wear helmets. I didn't know there was a law prohibiting the wearing of helmets. There was nothing on the books to prohibit a young girl from wearing a helmet last year when she tragically died in an accident.

Mauser-Medic noted that at least one of these teenaged lobbyists is probably too stupid to make it on her own. Too bad in a couple of years she'll be a voter.

Here are some other bills floating around the various committees in Des Moines.

SF457 Stricter requirements for carry permits.

SF112 Regulating gun ranges.

Both of these were stuck in committees since last year but could appear on the radar, especially as a compromise amendment to a good bill.

Keep those calls, letters and emails going to the gold dome in Des Moines.

Legislative update 1/23/12

One bill that is currently in the Public Safety Committee is HF320, a law prohibiting confiscation of firearms and ammunition during an emergency declaration. It also has a remedy for unlawful confiscations.

Who could be against this bill?

Carlos Jayne and his one-man Iowans For Gun Safety

IA. State Sheriffs' & Deputies' Assn.

League of Women Voters of IA

IA. League of Cities

IA. State Assn. of Counties

Because why would anyone need to defend themselves during an emergency?

Bills to eliminate the purchase permit for pistols and revolvers, HF220 and a companion bill: SF264

The same group above doesn't approve of these either.

A bill to not require a permit to carry if one wants to have a firearm on their personage when they go out and about. HF291

Current law exempts permits only while on your property or place of business, and while hunting or target practice.

And the usual suspects are against it as well.

A bill to exempt firearms manufactured in the state that stay in the state, HF121 probably isn't going anywhere, but interesting.

And I really don't have to tell you who's against it, do I?

Iowa has its own "Stand Your Ground Bill" working its way through committees: HF573

I thought Life was a basic human right, but even the ACLU of Iowa is against that one.

There are a few other pieces of legislation at the state house and if we'll be keeping an eye on them for you.

Iowa traffic cameras, 2012

Iowa City is looking to fill their coffers with some added cash.

The state is getting involved with HF2048

That bill flat out prohibits the use of traffic cameras in the state.

Stand your ground bill fails in Minnesota

MaddMedic has the sad news.

The Senate leadership did not sacrifice SF 1357 for other priorities. They made a deliberate, political decision to refuse to put the bill on Governor Dayton’s desk.

From Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance

Tired of paying a mortgage?

Can you say loophole?

Fine Point of Iowa Law: Thanks to a loophole recently sanctioned by the Iowa Court of Appeals, Matt Danielson and his wife, Jamie, now own their home in Ankeny, Iowa, outright (value: $278,000) after making just one monthly mortgage payment. Iowa law regards a home mortgage by a married couple as automatically void if only one spouse has signed it, and a thusly voided mortgage is treated as fully satisfied. (The purpose was to prevent one estranged spouse from exploiting the other, but the voiding is automatic regardless of the circumstances.) Legislators are currently trying to change the law to leave the discretion of voiding up to judges.

Found at Chuck Shepherd's News of the Weird.

More background on the Danielsons here.

Constitutional Carry in Wisconsin?

The bill is on the move. "This bill eliminates the prohibition against going armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon."

A newly floated bill that would allow Wisconsin residents to carry concealed weapons without getting permits, background checks or training would essentially let the state catch up with the latest thinking in gun law, according to backers who call the approach "constitutional carry."

Others, however, seem stunned at the idea that anyone who could lawfully own a gun could carry it just about anywhere, under a coat or in a purse, without any government oversight.

Gun bills trigger applause, dismay

And what did the Iowa legislature do this year regarding "Constitutional Carry?"

Stand your ground bill in Minnesota goes forward

While our gun rights bills died in committee, our neighbors to the north are working towards protecting victims of violence.

Deadly force bill gaining traction in Minnesota Legislature

[A] bill that would give Minnesotans more flexibility in using deadly force to defend themselves and their properties cleared its first legislative hurdle Thursday. The Republican-controlled House Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy and Finance Committee voted 10-7 to send the measure to another committee.

And our legislature in Des Moines did what?