HKPRO Forums banner

I voted on Iowa Constitution 2A

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

Iowa Constitution 2A passes big 🤛🏻

2K views 12 replies 6 participants last post by  propel 
#1 ·
This is the most important state of Iowa election issue of my lifetime.
Iowa will be adopting a version of the second amendment for our state constitution. The most fantastic part of the wording is that future legislators will have a much more difficult time rolling back our rights by statute because it proscribes a “strict scrutiny” standard for judicial review.

The court uses different levels of analysis concerning constitutional issues. Strict scrutiny is the gold standard. This provision is on the backside of your ballot - be sure and vote YES.
 
#3 ·
I would respectfully disagree with the original post as to the import of the contemplated constitutional provision.

Strict scrutiny is not, in my experience, the "gold standard". Rather, courts applying strict scrutiny to restrictions on firearms possession can easily conclude states have a compelling interest in safety, and those courts may put on a challenger a burden to prove that the restriction fails some interest-balancing--in a process where a trial court concludes the challenger did not meet the burden. See State ex rel. Schmitt v. Choi, 627 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. 2021), available at STATE EX REL. SCHMITT v. | 627 S.W.3d 1 (2021... | 20210202247| Leagle.com.

A standard of text, history and tradition, under which restrictions not widely followed at both the founding and at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment (a fulsome application of Bruen's approach), is a more suitable test. Better still would be provision that, in addition, affirmatively stated that the right is to be construed so as to generally allow law-abiding persons to carry firearms in the course of their daily lives; and that no government-mandated prohibition is permitted where the restriction (i) does not inhibit firearms possession elsewhere (allows anonymous storage of firearms) and (ii) where those who possess the property take steps that assure that no one can possess weapons in the location.

One point of having it in a State constitution is so as to have an alternative venue for challenge from the Federal courts, even if they putatively apply Bruen, because the lower Federal courts have to date often been reluctant to follow guidance of the Supreme Court and taken restrictive views of firearms rights. So, by way of example unlike ordinary approaches, the 4th Circuit, in degree." U.S. v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011), restrictively construed Heller by stating firearms rights are a "vast terra incognita"--meaning an unknown land--and then adopted an approach inconsistent with Heller (an approach Bruen invalidated). I expect Iowa would be better served were the provision written differently.

I have had some experience interacting with State politicians who have sought to secure firearms rights. My sense is that the efforts would be more beneficial with more work on the drafting of provisions that seem to much effort to pass but the spirit of which courts can evade.
 
#5 ·
We have quickly transitioned from this proposed constitutional provision being the "gold standard" to "we did the best we could."

I would respectfully suggest that I have not identified a "theory", as OP writes. Rather, I have demonstrated what happens when a provision of the type OP referencing is adopted, by showing an actual case. And there are lots of cases where courts apply balancing tests, of the type contemplated by a level-of-scrutiny requirement, and the restriction is found to pass constitutional muster.

Another illustration of failure in drafting is provided by Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act which was written in a way that facilitates challenges that are now ongoing in a Federal courts.

I will admit that I am not in Iowa and did not attend your referenced conference, though I have testified on a number of bills before my own state legislature (including at least one significant one where the NRA's legislative liason failed to make an appearance).

Further, I would respectfully suggest that a convincing argument for the utility of a proposed State constitutional change, were it adopted, cannot be founded on speculation as to what efforts I personally have or have not taken, as to an individual State jurisdiction or nationally.
 
#6 · (Edited)
Wish we had a crystal ball - this was
in progress before Bruen. I will call your idea platinum.

I haven’t “transitioned“ from anything - take care - hope Missouri works out for you.

It was difficult enough to get legislators on board - easy to sit back and nit pick at this point in time / serves no purpose.

Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best
Otto von Bismarck
 
#12 ·
And we can't even convince our county to declared itself a 2A sanctuary, a symbolic move that has little if any force, but simply demonstrates the county gov't supports the constitution of not only the US but the state as well.
Good job Iowa. If my state ever goes full communist I may have to relocate there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: propel
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top