“If Ed Dolan feels that I insulted him don’t you think he should be the one complaining?”

He’s a good enough of a friend that I feel “compelled” to stand up for him. Besides, I respect people who will stand up for the Constitution . . . instead of helping to tear it down.

“I have called you no names yet you have resorted to insulting two writers you have a difference of opinion with. That hardly seems to be the adult way of discussing ones differences.”

Clarification – “bumble head” in this case was not an “insult or a name” . . . the usage was intended as a descriptive metaphor for a state of mind. Also, I have no “differences” with you. I just disdain this phony “pro-gun” bill. Hope that helps.

Thanks,

RI

If Ed Dolan feels that I insulted him don’t you think he should be the one complaining? I have called you no names yet you have resorted to insulting two writers you have a difference of opinion with. That hardly seems to be the adult way of discussing ones differences.

1) “Think Culver would sign open carry if he’s already lost the election?” Perhaps the question should be “will he sign EITHER bill if he’s already lost the election?”

2) “Because the term “under the influence” is already defined in Iowa law. It’s not just a collection of words. It IS a legal definition that states BAC .08%.” Then it needs to be SPECIFICALLY referenced in the bill (i.e. “per ICA blah blah blah) SO THAT WE DON’T HAVE SPURIOUS PROSECUTIONS. Anti-gun prosecuters in this state will try ANYTHING to push a conviction . . . I know: someone very close to me was the victim of a bogus anti-gun charge. Until you face that, please don’t insist that laws don’t need to be CLEAR.

3) “And it DOES NOT say aggravated misdemeanor.” The first version publicly released most certainly did; the NEW one at IC says “simple misdemeanor” . . . and I am fairly certain that has been changed SPECIFICALLY because people are raising their voices against it. And this provision STILL stinks.

4) “Maybe if the proposed law said AGGREVATED MISDEMEANOR you’d be correct. It doesn’t. It says Serious misdemeanor. You are arguing about a VERY, VERY old copy of a DRAFT of the bill.” Not quite that old – September 2009. It was the only copy available until a couple of days ago. Again, I believe that IC (NRA?) made MINOR modifications based on complaints they are hearing. Unfortunatly, not enough changes.

5) “It is defined. See point 2 above.” Sorry . . I ain’t buying it. Until the bill references the ICA for this provision, it ain’t defined.

6) “It’s always a good thing to insult people your trying to get to support you.” I think you went a long way towards starting that ball rolling when you attacked Ed and called him “disingenuous” and that he “parroted” IGO; please take a little of your own medicine on this one.

Bottom line . . this bill STILL stinks . . . and the NRA / IC should be ashamed of it.

To “Bill Logan” –

1) Great . . . nothing changes over time? And you are right, “Braindead” probably wouldn’t sign it (which is another good reason he shouldn’t be the “Republican” nominee). But TB ISN’T the governor anymore . . . and chances are about certain that we will have a NEW governor in 2010, one more likely to sign this.

Maybe but not before this bill must be signed. Think Culver would sign open carry if he’s already lost the election?

2) “The proposed bill would create a serious misdemeanor for someone caught carrying with a blood alcohol content above .08%.” Sorry, but it DOES NOT SAY .08% . . . I’ve read the bill. Specifically, it says: “A person who goes armed with a firearm while under the influence of alcohol . . . . commits an aggravated misdemeanor.” No mention of the amount in your blood.

Because the term “under the influence” is already defined in Iowa law. It’s not just a collection of words. It IS a legal definition that states BAC .08%. And it DOES NOT say aggravated misdemeanor.

3) “No life time penalty as you and Iowa Gun Owners are stating.” This is under FEDERAL law. As Jeff Knox points out in his article, all the legislature would have to do is add ONE DAY TO THE 2 YR PENALTY FOR AN AGGREVATED MISDEMEANOR and you would lose your gun rights for LIFE under Federal law!

Maybe if the proposed law said AGGREVATED MISDEMEANOR you’d be correct. It doesn’t. It says Serious misdemeanor. You are arguing about a VERY, VERY old copy of a DRAFT of the bill.

4) “do you seriously think anyone with the bad judgment to go armed when they’re too drunk to drive SHOULD be allowed to continue to do so?” It isn’t about being drunk . . . it is about DRINKING . . . ANY AMOUNT . . . BECAUSE IT ISN’T DEFINED IN THE BILL!

It is defined. See point 2 above.

Kudos to Ed Dolan for being a true second amendm
ent leader in Iowa . . . I’ll take a courageous man willing to stand up for our rights over these two ignorant “bumble heads” any day . . .

Thanks for the intelligent discourse. It’s always a good thing to insult people your trying to get to support you.

To Mr. “Duh” (good selection of a name for yourself sir).

1) “The IGO Bill did not even make it to the House floor on its own.”
That’s true . . . of course, no bill ever has. They don’t have legs of their own . . . none of them. They ALL HAVE TO BE CARRIED AND SPONSORED BY A LEGISLATOR.

2) “If it passed the procedural vote it still needed to go to the Senate and Gov. Hardly one vote away from passing.” Do you really think that rural Democrats that voted to make it “germane” would be likely to vote against its passing? That is the whole point . . . TO MAKE THE ANTI-GUN REPRESENTATIVES VOTE . . . SO WE CAN SEE WHERE THEY STAND. That is why Brian Quirk, for example, who voted against it, and lives in a very rural district, is going to have to answer to accusations of “anti-gunner” in the next election. “DUH” for you is right!

3) “Can you or the IGO give us a Bill number please?” HR596.

4) “Upon reading the bill, most of those things are already in current law!” Bull crap . . . there is no provision in Iowa law to deny someone of a permit if they are only SUSPECTED of having committed a crime. There is no provision in Iowa law that deprives someone of a permit if a so-called “authority” writes an OPINION that you are a threat. There is no provision in Iowa law that makes you an aggravated misdemeanant if you drink an undefined amount and then carry a gun, etc. AND BESIDES, EVEN IF THIS WERE TRUE, WHY IN THE HE_ _ WOULD YOU WANT TO LEAVE THESE PROVISIONS IN THE LAW?!?

5) ” It is Federal law to be 21 to purchase a handgun. Iowa law is also 21 for a non-professional permit and 18 only for a pro-permit.”
Well then . . . THAT certainly makes it right to deprive 18 to 21 year olds of their rights, doesn’t it? Specially when these same folks are subject to a DRAFT to defend your sorry A _ _!!!

To “Bill Logan” –

1) Great . . . nothing changes over time? And you are right, “Braindead” probably wouldn’t sign it (which is another good reason he shouldn’t be the “Republican” nominee). But TB ISN’T the governor anymore . . . and chances are about certain that we will have a NEW governor in 2010, one more likely to sign this.

2) “The proposed bill would create a serious misdemeanor for someone caught carrying with a blood alcohol content above .08%.” Sorry, but it DOES NOT SAY .08% . . . I’ve read the bill. Specifically, it says: “A person who goes armed with a firearm while under the influence of alcohol . . . . commits an aggravated misdemeanor.” No mention of the amount in your blood.

3) “No life time penalty as you and Iowa Gun Owners are stating.” This is under FEDERAL law. As Jeff Knox points out in his article, all the legislature would have to do is add ONE DAY TO THE 2 YR PENALTY FOR AN AGGREVATED MISDEMEANOR and you would lose your gun rights for LIFE under Federal law!

4) “do you seriously think anyone with the bad judgment to go armed when they’re too drunk to drive SHOULD be allowed to continue to do so?” It isn’t about being drunk . . . it is about DRINKING . . . ANY AMOUNT . . . BECAUSE IT ISN’T DEFINED IN THE BILL!

Kudos to Ed Dolan for being a true second amendment leader in Iowa . . . I’ll take a courageous man willing to stand up for our rights over these two ignorant “bumble heads” any day . . .

You should know better. During the time you said we had a pro-gun majority and a willing governor, I personally called you and asked about CCW reform. Your response, and I paraphrase, “Don’t even bother. The effort isn’t worth it and Branstad will never sign it.” Have we re-written history here or do you just not remember the past that clearly.

It’s disingenuous to say that Iowa Gun Owners came even close to getting their bill passed. Are you trying to convince the rest of Iowa that had they gotten one more vote we’d have open carry right now? You above all should know that’s not true.

You parrot the same mis-statements of the proposed legislation that Iowa Gun Owners have tried to use to scare people, the same tactics the Obama administration use to drive a more socialist state by the way.

There is no “new” aggravated misdemeanor clause for carrying after having one beer . The proposed bill would create a serious misdemeanor for someone caught carrying with a blood alcohol content above .08%. No life time penalty as you and Iowa Gun Owners are stating. And, do you seriously think anyone with the bad judgement to go armed when they’re too drunk to drive SHOULD be allowed to continue to do so?

You really believe that Iowa is going to go from what we have now to Alaska style in one complete kitchen sink Bill?

The procedural vote that IGO like to claim was such a victory was just that a procedural vote. The IGO Bill did not even make it to the House floor on its own. If it passed the procedural vote it still needed to go to the Senate and Gov. Harly one vote away from passing.

Next, the NRA “Bill” was only a DRAFT proposal. It is not actually a Bill as it has yet to be introduced. Can you or the IGO give us a Bill number please? Also any DRAFT Bill being lied about by the IGO was used fully aware that it was not a final version.

Upon reading the bill, most of those things are already in current law! That means the NRA did NOT propose them. It is changing the Iowa from a may issue to shall issue. When you go from nothing to something that is an improvement.

It is Federal law to be 21 to purchase a handgun. Iowa law is also 21 for a non-professional permit and 18 only for a pro-permit. This is often misread.