The Iowa Senate overwhelmingly passed a right-to-carry bill, and now the debate is moving on to the house. The biggest opposition is actually coming from our own side, who is pushing a Vermont carry bill. Vermont carry is a non-starter. It’s not going to pass. GOA and its state affiliates have consistently been willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good in state after state by opposing bills that stand a good chance of passing, and will make life measurably better for gun owners, and pushing bill that have zero change of passage. The best thing for Iowa is to pass this now, and we’ll work on Vermont carry in states where it’s feasible to push that agenda, such as Arizona currently.
19 thoughts on “Right to Carry Still Alive in Iowa”
Comments are closed.
Vermont carry has to occur in phases. If you’re introducing concealed carry into a place that doesn’t have it on a “shall issue” basis, you need those permits to give the general populace a feeling of security that the Government is vetting these people. It is also to counter the screeching from the VPC/Brady branches about “blood in the streets”. By pointing to the carry permit and its background check and (perhaps optional) training requirements, you can counter that argument.
Once you have the system in place and gathered data for 5-10 years with no “blood in the streets”, then you can push for Vermont carry with the strength of the data working for you. Nebulous “feelings” lose a lot of their punch when faced by factual reality.
I don’t understand why GOA and other groups don’t see that? In Maryland, I’d take bad good over any perfect because I know perfect will not happen here for 20 years at a minimum barring a SCOTUS miracle.
I don’t understand why GOA and other groups don’t see that?
I think their view is that it makes passage of VT carry less likely because gun owners get what they want and don’t want to fight to take it a step further. That’s a reasonable point, but I don’t think a reason to just do nothing. To some degree that problem can’t be helped.
GOA wants a stunning victory; rather than an incremental one.
I agree the incremental approach is the smart one. But, you better hurry up because the good times won’t last forever.
Why do you think that MikeB? Not saying we’ll continue to be on the offensive 100%, but I’m curious what you think is going to make the pendulum swing back the other way?
$10 says MikeB won’t answer Sebastian’s question. Any takers?
Arguably, the pendulum has been swinging our way since FOPA’86 (with the Hughes amendment and AWB ’94 being sticking points); given that we can now buy longarms for out of state FFLs and have federal pre-emption of firearms laws whiel in transit.
mikeb,
What do you predict is going to happen? Are you expecting a sudden sea change in public opinion against firearm ownership and carry? 80% of the states have “shall issue” systems and many have head them for a decade or two. No real issues there.
Or are you expecting a gun control ram through like with Obamacare? If that’s the case, just say so. I can tell you if you think Obamacare is unpopular, you haven’t seen anything yet. Or are you hoping for some form of court sanctioned approach to allowing the 2nd Amendment to be legislated to death New Jersey and Illinois style? So-called “reasonable regulation” that is anything but.
Does Vermont actually have a law on the books that says “Anyone can carry a pistol without a permit”, or is it just a case that there is no law in Vermont prohibiting permitless carry? My understanding was the latter. Which makes the quest for “Vermont-style carry” even more quixotic, IMHO.
There’s just no law that prohibits carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise.
I hope AZ goes through, joining AK. Then we’ll have two ironclad examples that the “all or nothing” approach is just as asinine as it appears at first glance.
Weer’d, I’ll take that bet, and since I wouldn’t trust you with my address, I’d like you to donate the 10 bucks to the Brady Campaign. Would you do that for me?
Sebastian and Matt, What I think is going to happen is, if things continue like they’re going, we’ll have more frequent headline-grabbing incidents linked to legitimate gun owners. There will be an increase in gun crime over a longer period, say five to ten years. It’s much too early to look at statistics and say the surge in gun buying just last year is not leading to more gun crime.
As that happens, the regular citizens are going to get fed up. They’re going to increasingly associate you guys with the fanatics who make headlines, somewhat wrongly, but you yourselves have debated the benefit vs. detriment of such things as open carry demonstrations. To non gun owners, these people are fanatics.
On the longer range, the makeup of the Supreme Court may very well change. If Obama can get himself re-elected, which I myself am ambivalent about, and if one or two of those conservative old men retire or die, there very well might be an anti-gun Court. Then things will change, it’ll become more acceptable to demand gun control, such things as the background checks and registration and licensing. The focus might turn more to the gun manufacturers, restricting their activities, rather than looking so hard at you individual gun owners.
So, like I said, get it while the gettin’s good, boys.
Well played, Mike. You have my email, send me your mailing address and I’ll send you a personal check (that happens to have my personal information printed on it) so you can make your very generous donation. The brady campaign needs all the help it can get in its twilight years of relevance.
As for your prediction you do appear to be 100% unaware of history, given that most gun control capitals in this nation have had the better-part of half-a-century to prove what you claim, and the end results is exactly the opposite of what you predict.
But unlike you, I’m a man of my word, so shoot me you address and I’ll have the check cut and mailed out this Saturday during morning post office hours.
It’s plausible, but I think unlikely. Traditionally, gun control becomes an issue when the ruling class feels threatened. That was the case in the 30s, with the first wave. And also the 60s with the second. The third wave didn’t amount to much, mostly the Brady Act, which we largely neutered to be much less than they actually wanted, and the AWB cost the Democrats Congress, and then expired because we got a sunset clause put into it.
So it would take something that would make the ruling class feel threatened. Of course, what these jerk offs in Michigan were planning would fall into that category.
MikeB302000,
There will be an increase in gun crime over a longer period, say five to ten years. It’s much too early to look at statistics and say the surge in gun buying just last year is not leading to more gun crime.
Just how much “time” do we have to give the antis to say ‘See Crime has GONE UP –ZOMG We’re all going to die”?
There was a surge of firearm sales when the misnamed Assault Weapon Ban went into effect. Actually it happened before and after.
There was a surge of firearm sales prior to 2000 due to the Y2K bug.
There was a surge of firearm sales after 9/11/2001.
How much time do we have to give the antis to cherry pick the data and try to ‘prove’ that ‘gun crime’ is going up?
So, like I said, get it while the gettin’s good, boys.
So, you admit that the goal of the antis is the ban or draconian restriction of our rights?
I thought the goal was only to prevent CRIMINALS from getting firearms.
Yet here you are advocating law abiding citizens — who have committed no crime and aren’t likely to commit a crime should buy firearms while we can.
It seems your mask slips when you least expect it. Of course this is nothing new for you.
Remember this statement you made
The proposal is to restrict and control the actions of the law-abiding in such a way that the criminals will be affected indirectly by diminished access. That’s the idea.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/09/29/so-you-want-to-talk-background-checks-eh/#comments
So tell us — from your personal experience with illegally owning firearms — which laws would have kept you from obtaining the firearms?
One other thing: the 30’s and the 60’s were both periods of not only social anxiety, but racial tensions the likes of which we haven’t really seen since 1968. The gun control of the 80’s was driven by the drug war, and there was a not insignificant amount of racism driving the reactions to the drug war. (Not just for gun laws, check the disparities in sentencing for powder cocaine vs crack cocaine). 94 was a little different in that the driving force wasn’t fear of other races, but fear of other ideology.
There just isn’t the kind of virulent racism, combined with trust in government, necessary to drive gun control right now.
The yahoos in Michigan *could* change that equation, except that they didn’t actually *do* anything. The boys at Precrime shut them down first. I can’t wait to see what the charges end up being, and if there was an FBI instig^H^H^H^Hformer involved. It took Ruby Ridge, and Waco, and McViegh/OKC; and all the gun control forces got was an AWB with a built in expiration date; in a congress and with a president with much more political capital. If the Beltway Snipers were active now I *might* see it, but only maybe. Too many people in too many states are currently living under liberal firearms laws for the feds to be able to make much headway; and the NRA learned too much from 86 and 94. The floor is set by Heller; handguns cannot be banned. That’s a powerful wedge in the door.
Just to pile on.
mike, check the studies, we’ve got over 30 years of data showing no correlation between increased or decreased gun access, increased public lawful carry and even increased raw and per capita possession numbers and an increase in crime or accident rates.
We win on the facts, plain and simple.
The media can and will cherry pick incidents, they always have, it’s their nature. “What bleeds, leads” has been a motto since cuneiform was invented and when the otherwise law-abiding are involved so much the better as it fits the often anti-gun narrative bent of many editorial staffs.
Still, regardless of opinions and editorializing, the actual science (and logic) is squarely on the side of the law abiding gun owner being minimally, if at all, restricted in possession and carry.