Another constitutional amendment, on gun rights (Iowa - Legal CCW without a permit)

A constitutional amendment that would ban any state law that discourages gun ownership is under consideration in the Iowa House. For example, the proposal would make it illegal for the state to require permits for carrying concealed weapons.

Just last year the Iowa Legislature voted to make it easier to get a permit, requiring county sheriffs to issue a license to anyone who meets basic safety and legal standards. Christopher Rager, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, says a recent case before the U.S. Supreme Court shows gun owners need additional protection.

“It was a 5-4 ruling and there were four Supreme Court Justices who believed there isn’t an individual right in the U.S. constitution that protects rights that were, obviously, bestowed on us prior to the formation of government,” he says.

The proposed amendment would forbid the state from requiring that guns be registered or even taxed. ”Forty-four states have this in their state constitutions and Iowa is one of only six states that don’t protect their citizens or the individuals within their state,” Rager says.

http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/02/01/another-constitutional-amendment-on-gun-rights/

I thought the dissenting opinions didnt say we didnt have a right to bear arms, they just disagreed with the majority in its sweeping decision.

The dissents, both of them, agreed on the individual right. The dissent was based on other issues, e.g. level of scrutiny etc.

But the gun control fans normally don't bother actually reading what the dissents actually were. It's easier for the factose intolerant to stereotype and generalize.

just sayin'

I can't imagine anti-choice advocates claiming the right to invoke dissenting opinions in Roe V Wade.

Our points were that the gun control fans keep pointing to the two dissents in Heller vs. DC/Fenty as if they prove something all by themselves.

But most of them never really took the time to even read the dissents and have no idea what they dissented about. They jump to a conclusion that they must have disagreed with the whole individual right issue and that they agree with them. As long as they disagree with the majority they must be somehow right. Your example of Roe v. Wade is a good comparison, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind citing the dissenting opinions to try and make a successful argument.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You can rant, rave, or foam at the edges of your mouth about how illegal it is and the only person that's listening is you ... and maybe the head nurse on your ward.

You can get back to us if Heller and McDonald are ever overturned by judges you approve of, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that to roll around. I'm sure law schools around the country are waiting for your amici briefs on it so they can amend their textbooks to correct Heller and McDonald to reflect your singular POV. In the meantime, every court in the country has to respect them as binding precedent.

None of the 2nd amendment related decisions seem to be going the way you'd like them to.

Next Iowa drops permits entirely, then Wisconsin becomes #49 for CCW and the whole magazine limit thing is already out of the news and going nowhere except for Brady fundraising letters.

In fact, they are against the rules. But you know that.

Pot to kettle--You're black!

LOL!

Or do you want to be in that category all by yourself?

We'll all be eating bloody cereal before you know it!

I'm STILL waiting for that to happen.

when these rulings only endanger more people.

"when these rulings only endanger more people."

As another poster so wisely said:

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Consider it dismissed.

=more gun deaths. Irrefutable.

just because you refuse to acknowledge actual .gov statistics doesn't make them go away....maybe you have repeated this complete lie so long you actually believe it...or...

Explain then, how gun ownership is at an all time high, and gun deaths haven't risen in parallel.

Thats an invitation to debate, in case you aren't aware.

Accept or decline?

Grow it so big and so widespread, that the antis can never again pull a 1994.

and the more sensible restrictions are ignored...THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT WE WILL RETURN TO A 1994 situation.

So we should move toward a 1994...to prevent another 1994... :rofl: Yeah right.

Thats gonna happen. :eyes:

Maybe on or about the 12th of never.

Never again.

So they can get the murder rate back up.

That has to be a sickening and soul sucking thing to hope for.

the gungeoneers are full of misrepresentations and snide remarks...but their posts lack substance.

"So to get the laws you want, you have to hope for a massive rise in violence?"

Well that's a disgusting misrepresentation. My point is that if the absolutist extremists get their hearts desire (repeal of the NFA) we will likely see a rash of horrific violence, and at that point there will be a push for gun control laws that even I think are too extreme. But it was a cute little misrepresentation, I'll grant you that.

...not even the dissents (which presumably you agree with, at least in part).

Instead, we get wharrgarbl about "illegally appointed judges".

When you can explain what it is exactly about Heller and McDonald you disagree with and would like to see overturned we can talk.

"It's bad, and it's just going to get worse." won't cut it

therefore his appointments to the court were illegal...and all decisions made by that court are not legitimate. That's pretty straightforward. No real progressive democrat could really disagree with that thought process, though I understand that conservative republicans would.

There are several good points made in the dissents to the heller decision. Stevens points out that this is a radical decision that overturns previous precedent. He points out that the "well regulated militia" clause has meaning, that it was worded this way intentionally. This is an irrefutable point that he makes well.

Breyer points out that the 2nd amdnement is not an absolute right, and that laws regarding firearms in cities are reasonable today, just as they were in colonial times when many such laws were in effect in various cities.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

But that wasn't the subject here. You didn't address the point I made at all, nor do I expect that you will. Gungeon posters are terrible at dealing with the points tha I make.

There are times that I fall short, that my arguments are not sound and there are times where I lower myself to the level of the gungeon posters by being as snide and snotty as they are. I don't think it's particularly fair to hold me to a higher standard.

How nice of you to inform us troglodytes about how "progressive democrats" think.


Maybe you could be some kind of political officer here. You know, just to keep us on the straight and narrow.

I seem to recall some Russian word that describes the position. I'm sure it will occur to me sooner or later...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=245730#246118

"These illustrate *why* gun ownership by the masses is a progressive idea"


When you can demonstrate that the armed progressives in the referencesI linked to required some sort of government imprimatur to

legitimately own and bear their firearms, I'll listen to you.

"gun control laws that even I think are too extreme"

What exactly could those be?

Would you care to elaborate?

Who are you talking to with that nonsense? You sound like you are trying to convince yourself.

the gungeon, and this poster in particular, admonishes me to be polite in the face of irascible anger...but as we see here, it's just hypocrisy.

Are you talking to yourself again?