July 28, 2008
by neighhay
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
These are the words of the Second Amendment, which along with nine other amendments known as the Bill of Rights, was ratified December 15, 1791, by three quarters of the state legislatures.
The right set forth in the Second Amendment of the citizens to bear arms has been under attack in many parts of the U.S. for decades, perhaps the most famous example being the triggerlock requirement and the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. that went into effect in 1976.
This year, in 2008, gunowners and citizens who support the Second Amendment (plus undoubtedly just as many or more who do not!) had been nervously awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. Finally, on June 26, the Supreme Court determined that the D.C. law violated the Second Amendment.
Although the immediate result might have caused a mildly celebratory mood among some gun owners, most are not naive enough to believe the issue of gun regulation has been put to rest. The fact that some may have considered this a victory shows how far—over thirty two years and more—we as a nation have strayed in philosophy and practice from the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
The D.C. ban was illegal and the Supreme Court decision was basically a non-decision since it declared only that the Constitution does indeed say what it says. In other words, since statements in the Constitution are by definition “constitutional,” and since the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, it should hardly have been necessary, and in fact it was redundant, for the Supreme Court to declare the Second Amendment to be constitutional. Evidently even if you go to law school and become a judge you may still be unable to grasp the ONE/TWO/THREE steps in this logic (let alone common sense,) as shown in the fact that the decision by the judges was a mere 5 to 4.
However, most important moving forward is to keep in mind that while the Court determined that the right to bear arms is the right of an individual as separate from the right of a group (specifically in regard to the Constitution’s use of the word “militia,”) the Court also determined that “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:plKlR3Pr-foJ:www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf+Heller+vs.+D.C.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Thus, although the decision declares that a ban on handguns is in violation of the Constitution, it quite clearly leaves the door open for the regulation of firearms since in the opinion of the court, regulation is not considered an “infringement” on the right to bear arms. Since the word infringe (from the Latin infringere, to break) has among other meanings that of frustrating, foiling, or encroaching upon, there may be a great deal of discussion in years to come as to the extent to which a particular kind of regulation or a particular degree of regulation encroaches upon the effectiveness of a citizen’s use of a firearm.
Immediately after this most recent verdict by the Supreme Court, lawsuits to protect the rights of gun owners, which had been drawn up just waiting to be filed, were initiated around the country— in Chicago, for starters. There is also a national movement underway to strike down the firearm ban currently in place in all national parks and national wildlife refuges. A petition has been created to inform the National Park Service that its “weapons regulations are invalid, unconstitutional and void.” (cf. http://www.iowacarry.org)
These two initiatives comprise the very minimum of action being taken nationwide, but more to the point for us in Iowa, how does our state measure up in terms of preserving and strengthening gun rights?
The Traveler’s Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States gives Iowa a “freedom score” of 50 out of a possible 100, on a par with Rhode Island (?!)— more conducive to freedom than Hawaii and Massachusetts (15 points each,) but a long way to go to enjoy the nearly 100% freedom experienced by Vermonters.
Specifically, among other restrictions, Iowans are required to obtain a license to purchase a handgun (but not for other firearms,) and they are prohibited from openly carrying without one. Further, permits for concealed carry are issued on a discretionary basis and if you are fortunate enough to be granted a permit you must make sure to pay the fee and renew it yearly or run the risk of losing it, perhaps for good.
As Iowa law currently stands, the hurdle for anybody wishing to obtain a concealed carry permit is your county sheriff. In order to be legal you must not only take a course, but pass a written test and demonstrate your ability at the shooting range. Next, which seems to be the most difficult part of the endeavor, you must convince your sheriff that you need the permit. Since the permits are issued on the basis of “may” rather than “shall, ” your sheriff must deem that you have good reason to carry a concealed weapon. The concern right now is that in many of our ninety-nine counties it seems the sheriff almost never or never thinks the applicant has a good enough reason.
“IOWACARRY.ORG was designed to create a place for Iowans with common interests to gather to exchange ideas and work toward the common goal of Iowa joining the majority of states that currently use ‘Shall Issue’ as the means of permitting their law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.” (http://www.iowacarry.org)
This organization’s website contains a wealth of information on the subject as well as discussions of experiences in different counties http://www.iowacarry.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=c705bc0658d8786c577309d8799eb7fa and a color-coded map rating the counties by difficulty of obtaining a permit http://www.iowacarry.org/counties%20map.html. The website is also involved in a work in progress to rate our sheriffs and sheriffs’ candidates http://www.iowacarry.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=13930 as well as the Iowa General Assembly candidates.
Iowa’s problematic relationship with our citizens’ constitutional right to bear arms doesn’t stop with our local sheriffs. By now I am sure almost everybody has heard Tom Harkin in his own voice and unfortunately unforgettable words express his twisted desire to take all the guns in the U.S. and put them on a ship and sink them to the bottom of the ocean. Unbelievable that this is our U.S. Senator since 1984 ( and before that he was ten years as the U.S. Representative for Congressional District Five,) unbelievable that this is the man who is supposed to be our mouthpiece and standing up for our rights in Washington, D.C.
Fortunately we now have someone who looks to be an excellent replacement for Senator Harkin; in fact many are hopeful that he can ” take Tom Harkin out.” This candidate for the U.S. Senate is Republican Christopher Reed of Solon who cautions, among other statements on his website http://www.christopherreed2008.com/, something similar to what I wrote above:
“It is ridiculous that the government would force vulnerability on its own citizens. Tom Harkin supported this gun ban for 32 years, while Washington, D.C., gave an ugly advantage to criminals. This is only one of several examples of Harkin whistling while constitutional freedoms are seized…The Tom Harkins of the world aren’t just going to go away. They will come back with another scheme to chip away at the Constitution.”
Indeed, stay alert— there is a lot of work to be done in Iowa.
