RKBA Proposed for Iowa Constitution

This would be the strongest in the nation, I think:

β€œThe right of an individual to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and inviolable. Licensure, registration, special taxation, or any other measure that suppresses or discourages the free exercise of this right is forbidden.”

Even stronger than the Second Amendment. It’s very important that this passes.

15 Responses to “RKBA Proposed for Iowa Constitution”

  1. Bob S. says:

    They need to add “And this time, we really mean it!”

  2. Gene Hoffman says:

    I think that would make the new carry permitting law unconstitutional.


  3. Jake says:

    I think that would make the new carry permitting law unconstitutional.

    Maybe, but it looks like it would also make any carry restrictions unconstitutional, too. It would effectively mandate Constitutional Carry for Iowa.

  4. Robert says:

    I’d suggest dropping the word “legitimate” from the proposed amendment. It makes the claim that much stronger, and removes an ‘arguable’ point — self-defense is legitimate, but is 3-gun? Some lefty would certainly argue “no”, so nip that in the bud.

  5. Mobo says:

    As those of us in PA learned the hard way, a prohibition on registries might not be enough to prevent their funcional equivalent, records of sale.

  6. Sebastian says:

    If you make it for all other purposes, laws against armed robbery would be arguably unconstitutional.

  7. Sigivald says:

    The only negative I can see is that it seems like it makes it unconstitutional to prevent violent felons from being armed.

    I’m not sure that’s necessarily bad, but I’m not sure it’s wholly good, either.

    Indeed, read plainly, with “inviolable”, it implies that prisoners have a right to bear arms in defense.

    I suspect no court would interpret it that way, but on its plain text, it might actually be TOO strong… which is a refreshing failure for a gun-related law, honestly.

  8. Sebastian says:

    It could be interpreted that way, but not necessarily. Plus, federal law would still be controlling.

  9. Maxpwr says:

    I’ve NEVER liked the “and all other lawful purposes” language.

    Granted, the courts will have to look at the intent of the law/amendments when adopted, but look at the Wisconsin RKBA amendment:

    “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”

    This amendment lists hunting as purpose to bear arms, however, I would argue that tomorrow the Wisconsin Legislature could outlaw all hunting in the state if it chose to do so.

    This amendment says we have the right to bear arms for hunting, but doesn’t say we have the right to hunt. Therefore we have the right to bear arms for “defense”, but doesn’t mean self-defense couldn’t be outlawed.

    My point is that I think this language is weak when we add the “for all other lawful purposes” because those other lawful purposes might be eventually outlawed.

    It’s almost as bad as Illinois “subject to the police power” Well, that basically makes the amendment useless because it is still subject to the Police Powers.

    Just come out and say the people have the right to keep and bear arms, period. The other language about licensing, registration, and taxation is good since it won’t be controlled by laws passed in the legislature.

  10. Maxpwr says:

    After re-reading the Iowa amendment, I think it is worded much better than the Wisconsin amendment.

  11. Ian Argent says:

    “legitimate”, not “lawful”. Important distinction.

  12. Arnie says:

    I may have to move next door to Iowa. Depends on how castle doctrine does in Nebraska’s legislature.

  13. Chas says:

    “… suppresses or discourages the free exercise of this right is forbidden.”

    I’d like to see that read, “…suppresses, discourages or infringes the free exercise of this right is forbidden.”

    Nice to have a hat tip to the US Second Amendment there, so people don’t continue to misconstrue “shall not be infringed” to mean “shall be infringed”.

  14. btr says:

    Sounds pretty good. Might need a definition of “arms” or to say “all sorts of arms”.

  15. This sounds like it might be too strongly worded to get past Iowa voters. I would rather have something a little less effective actually in the Iowa Constitution, than something this strong that will be derided as “NRA fundamentalism” and not get passed.