Skip to comments.Lawmaker aims to add more gun rights (IA)
Posted on 01/12/2012 6:46:10 AM PST by marktwain
owa is one of six states that doesnt have an amendment in their state Constitutions covering for the right to bear arms.
Council Bluffs lawmaker Mark Brandenburg wants to change that.
Brandenburg, a Republican who represents District 100 in the Iowa House, is co-sponsoring legislation for an Iowa version of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Like all amendments to the Iowa Constitution, it would require passage by two consecutive general assemblies of the Legislature and then a vote by the people.
Were just starting this in the House, Brandenburg said. Im hopeful of its passage, but its still early.
This legislation would reinforce the right of Iowans to bear arms guaranteed under the Second Amendment, he said.
And, I think its important to have individual states rights, too.
The amendment Brandenburg seeks would also provide protection to Iowans under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution if ever there were a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that infringed on 2nd Amendment rights, he said.
Brandenburg is also a co-sponsor of a bill to provide tougher penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. These penalties include the possible permanent closure of a business for a repeat offender, he said.
Its got some teeth to it.
The lawmaker who represents all of Carter Lake and western Council Bluffs added his top priorities are job creation, education reform and commercial property tax relief, but obviously other issues will be discussed during the 2012 legislative session that began Monday.
Brandenburg, who suffered a heart attack during last years session, is feeling much better these days, he added.
Its great to be back doing the peoples business, and Im determined to lose 30 pounds.
New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Minnesota.
I have a simple, one line bill...
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed for ANY reason.”
Straight forward and easy.
Why put all the burden of enforcing the law regarding illegals on the back of business when the federal government is protecting illegals here.
The federal govt. is mandating the granting of taxpayer benefits to illegals and then state governments would turn around and are willing to put out of business, any business employing them.
Seems to me far better to have them employed than simply sucking up taxpayer resources.
Let the feds get their problem straightened out first.
Well, ain't that a coincidence? Those states are on my "never set foot again" list, along with IL, CT, NH, RI, HI, and MA.
Curious about the reason for New Hampshire on your list.