U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Barring further misadventure, the Iowa Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) constitutional amendment will be presented to Iowa voters in the general election scheduled for 8 November 2022.
The amendment passed the Iowa Senate 29-18. It passed the House 58 to 41. The votes were on strict party lines.
From the demoinesregister.com:
The Senate approved the resolution Thursday afternoon in a 29-18 vote along party lines after about two hours of debate. Hours later, the House voted 58-41, also along party lines, to pass the same measure. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans. Every Republican present voted in favor of the amendment, while every Democrat was opposed.
There were a few members which were not present for various reasons.
Republicans control both houses of the Iowa legislature. There are 32 Republicans and 18 Democrats in the Iowa State Senate. There are 59 Republicans and 41 Democrats in the Iowa House of Representatives. There was one Republican in the House who was not present, and three Republican senators who were not present. Their absence did not make a difference in the outcome of the vote.
Here is the amendment. From iowa.gov:
Right to keep and bear arms.
Sec. 1A. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.
Both Democrats and Republicans were willing to pass a constitutional amendment. The Republicans insisted the amendment actually protect the RKBA, by including the provision for strict scrutiny.
Other states, such as Hawaii, have the same language as the US Constitution, but the amendment in Hawaii has not prevented severe infringements on the RKBA in Hawaii.
Hawaii requires registration of firearms, special permission to purchase firearms, and refuses to allow open carry of firearms or to issue concealed carry permits to virtually all members of the public.
The Democrats were perfectly willing to pass an RKBA amendment, as long as it had no serious effect.
The Iowa procedure to pass a constitutional amendment is long and difficult. The amendment has to pass the legislature. Then an election must occur. Then the legislature has to pass the amendment again. The amendment will then be placed on the ballot for the next election.
In 2018, the legislature passed the amendment, but the Secretary of State failed to properly publish the amendment, as required by law. This negated the 2018 vote, requiring the process to start over. The Secretary of State apologized for the error.
Iowa is one of only six states which do not have an RKBA amendment in their state constitutions. The other five states are: California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York.
Several other states have passed RKBA provisions since 1997.
Wisconsin Constitution’s Section 25, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, passed in 1998 with 74% of the vote.
Kansas passed an amendment in 2010 with 88% of the vote.
Louisiana passed an amendment in 2012 with 74% of the vote
Missouri passed an amendment in 2014 with 61% of the vote.
Alabama passed an amendment in 2014 with 72.5% of the vote.
No RKBA amendment, which has been presented to the people on a referendum, has been defeated in an election.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Unless this repeals current laws which violate the RKBA (it doesn’t) and their State Guard and State Police are going to use force to defend the citizens from 2A violations at both the local and federal level (they won’t) then this is nothing but a feel good measure. Currently in the State of Iowa has several laws violating the RKBA: *handgun sales require permit *machine gun, sbr, and sbs ownership is prohibited *open carry is generally prohibited unless one possesses a recognized permit to carry *concealed carry requires a permit. *in a vehicle handguns may not be carried in a… Read more »
You just caused a lot of people to scratch their heads.
I just can’t help pointing out how useless this kind of political theater is. All it does is keep people voting for Republicans because they appear to be doing something while actually doing nothing. No anti-2A laws have been repealed and there are no provisions in this constitutional ammendment to prevent or punish government employees from continuing to violate your rights.
The level of hero-worship is astounding. No matter how many times Republican politicians let their base down, a large percentage of the voters will latch on to the next shiny politician and denounce anyone who points out facts or asks too many questions about the person, or expresses any skepticism. I vote for Republicans, but hold my nose when I do so. I understand why freedom-loving people have given up on them. I’m under no illusion any Republican politicians are pro 2nd Amendment or are interested in having a smaller, better, less intrusive, less expensive government. It’s just a slower… Read more »
Yeah, I’ve pretty much come to accept the fact that my rights will be violated regardless if it’s D or a R occupying the office. Sometimes they disagree on which rights to violate or to what severity but they violate regardless. Hell, Republicans have enacted more arms laws at the federal level in my 37 years than Democrats have. At least when a Democrat is in office Republicans actually oppose arms laws.
We’ll see how it goes this time. Under a second Trump term, with a Republican majority in the Senate, I think we would have seen: More Red Flag Laws Universal Background Checks “Fix NICS” Increased age to buy a rifle CDC “research” to put together a phony justification for more gun control Under Biden, with a split Senate, I think we will see: More Red Flag Laws (thanks to ex-LEO Republicans like John Rutherford) Universal Background Checks (thanks to ex-LEO Republicans like John Rutherford) “Purchaser’s Permit” (thanks to ex-LEO Republicans like John Rutherford) “Fix NICS” – prohibited persons to include those… Read more »
Replied – on hold (probably due to length)
Amendment includes requirement for “strict scrutiny”. Once amendment is in place, those laws can be challenged in court and would most likely fall. Amendment is in no way a knockout blow for civil rights, but sets the stage for many incremental steps. Rights were nibbled away, in the end they will be regained in a similar manner. State LEO could legally enforce upon local governmental units. Won’t do it unless ordered by the courts, but at that point they almost certainly would. If state LEO forcibly resists federal authority, it would not only be illegal, but would qualify as revolution… Read more »
Why should any state have to pass a RKBA if they have been granted state status, they should have to follow what the framers set out in the beginning
under our federal constitution and bill of rights, period.
I am tired of democrats trying to change the way the country was set up with their liberal ideas, we need less government overreach in our lives.
Respectfully musicman44mag,adding these words to the Iowa constitution is important because it requires judges to apply the highest level of judiciary scrutiny when judging arms freedom cases and shifts the burden of proof to Government to prove the potential harm if the challenged law is struck down. In the world we live, city, county & state legislatures will continue to write ordnances and laws that infringe on our God given rights. Like it or not, our peaceful, American process to fight infringements is fight them in the courts and not the streets. As Dean so aptly pointed out, this amendment… Read more »
First, the typo. “on Republican” should be “one Republican”.
Second, the substance. The Federal government has failed to protect the RKBA against state and federal infringements.
Why shouldn’t people use the tools available (such as state constitutional amendments) to protect their natural rights?