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.
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.
Nice theory – but that’s not what happens down in Des Moines – we did the best we could. I don’t remember you being there in one of the conference rooms.
Take it or leave it. We won’t get another chance.
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.
Of course I will vote on it. I know Matt Windschitl the House leader from Missouri Valley. My wish is that we also get the F/A restriction lifted like our neighbor state of Nebraska.
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.
I was born and raised in Kalifornia but left in 1989 for good because of politics and gun rights, then Boeing recruited me to Seattle. Left in 1996 because of same issues. Met a gal from Iowa and that is how I ended up in Iowa. Iowa is all red. No dimocrat at the federal level in Iowa thank God.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
HKPRO Forums
1.9M posts
89.4K members
Since 2000
Actually created in 1999 (the original posts from the first database were lost), we are a forum dedicated to and laser-focused on Heckler & Koch firearms, Heckler & Koch accessories and the owners and enthusiasts that love them! Come join the discussion regarding HK pistols, long arms, NFA arms, HK accessories, HK history and trivia and more.