Posted on 02/05/2018 11:45:29 AM PST by marktwain
Iowa is one of only six states that do not have a state constitutional provision that protects the right to keep and bear arms in some way.
The other five states without such a provision are California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. The two outliers on that list are Iowa and Minnesota.
Both states have strong Second Amendment activist organizations.
An Iowa legislator is attempting to remedy the lack of the constitutional protection. One of the reasons Iowa does not have such a protection in its constitution, is the process to enact constitutional amendment in Iowa is extremely difficult.
The resolution for the constitutional amendment has to pass the legislature, then an election must happen, then it must pass the legislature again. It will then be sent to the people as a referendum.
If the people vote for it, it will become part of the Iowa Constitution. Here is the proposed amendment.
Right to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use 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 the fundamental right of the people to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for all legitimate purposes. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.
The Republican leadership failed to allow the amendment to come to a vote in 2017. These amendments are immensely popular. The difficult part of the process is to bring the amendment to a vote.. If the Republican leadership opposes the amendment, it dies.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Has to be done twice, then the people pass it by referendum.
Why is that needed? It seems like it just adds a layer of confusion to people who want state law to override the 2nd Amendment.
It is a belt and suspenders, double protection issue.
The state constitutional provisions have protected the exercise of Second Amendment rights when the federal
government failed to enforce the Second Amendment.
It is also part of the checks and balances of the Constitutional system.
I have a problem with that passage. Who decides what is 'legitimate'?
This must have been written by illiterate lawyers or morons; but I repeat myself.
The vague wishy washy condition ..."shall be subject to strict scrutiny" can be circumvented in hundreds of ways. And abused in every way imagineable.
Tax the right into uselessness; tax the ammunition into uselessness; tax the cartridge into uselessness; tax the ingredients of the propellant into uselessness.
Microengrave the ammunition, etc., etc., etc.,
Back to the drawing board, idiots!
"Shall not be infringed directly or indirectly" MUST be unconditional, not subject to suspension, addition, modification or deletion."
Shall not be taxed. Shall not be restricted. Shall not require registration. Shall not have limitations. Shall not be subject to regulation. Shall not be be consisted a privilege.
The same people that decide what "Shall not be infringed" means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.