Amendment to HSB133 Explained

How did the amendment change the bill?

Use our Advocacy Campaign to send a pre-written email to your House member urging them to vote Yes on HF517 (formerly HSB133).

After being postponed a day, and then more than four hours after they were initially scheduled to vote on HSB133, the House Judiciary Committee voted to approve HSB133 with an amendment. Here’s an overview of what that amendment does (you can read the full text of HSB133 on the Iowa Legislature’s webpage):

  • The current Permit to Acquire system remains in place, but it is now valid for 5 years instead of 1
  • Hunter Safety Course is now accepted as valid Permit to Carry training
  • Anyone possessing an SBR and/or SBS without proper BATFE paperwork will be charged with a Class D felony (just like current Iowa suppressor law)
  • Removed Permit-less Carry (explanation below)
  • Private investigators may carry on school grounds while performing work duties
  • Permits will be uniform across the state, and include “invalid when intoxicated” on them
  • Campus Carry removed
  • Preemption clarification – Gives standing to a person adversely affected by a local ordnance or policy regulating firearms (e.g. if a city makes the public library a gun free zone, a citizen could hypothetically sue)
  • Capitol Carry clarification – applies to the capitol building only and requires that a person carries concealed. i.e. no open carry in the capitol
  • Creates immunity from noise pollution lawsuits for target shooters in rural areas

What happened to Permit-less Carry?

The amendment to HSB133 removed permit-less carry (i.e. Constitutional Carry), the Iowa Firearms Coalition recognizes this issue is a major priority for our members, here’s the chain of events that lead to striking permit-less carry from HSB133.

When HSB133 was initially drafted more than two months ago permit-less carry was one of the many provisions in the bill. As various legislators studied the bill and provided input it became obvious that this particular issue would be a sticking point. Several revisions of the bill were drafted, each making slight tweaks here and there all in an effort to secure enough votes to pass permit-less carry and the rest of HSB133. Eventually it appeared there was consensus on the language and the bill was introduced approximately two weeks before the first legislative funnel of 2017.

Once the bill was introduced and out in the public our allies began getting feedback on the bill. Much of it was the same old predictable anti-gun stuff — “There will be blood in the streets,” “No one wants these laws,” “Mob violence and vigilantes will reign over Iowa,” the same, tired arguments we hear about every bill we introduce. But we did receive some very astute and legitimate feedback that indicated the HSB133 permit-less carry language (as it was introduced) would inadvertently mess with other provisions of Iowa’s weapon laws causing many problems. So, once again the House Judiciary Committee set about amending the permit-less carry provision of HSB133 while hurrying to still meet the March 3rd legislative funnel deadline.

It’s important to note that there have been at least seven revisions to this language since it was first drafted. Each time the bill got tweaked it got a little more complex. Each time a new concern was raised and addressed the permit-less carry provision got a little more unwieldy. Eventually things got to the point that the proposed permit-less carry provision was the exact opposite of what it is supposed to be. Instead of clean and simple, it was complex and had numerous hurdles. At that point it was obvious that this portion of HSB133 had gone off the rails, and that’s why the truly pro-Second Amendment legislators pulled permit-less carry from HSB133. It had become a choice between passing an onerous permit-less carry law that had been watered down, or scrapping it and doing it the right way at the next available opportunity.

Reminder: Second Amendment Day 2017 next Tuesday (3/7). House leadership has told us they’re trying schedule HSB133 a vote in the full House on the same day as Second Amendment Day. Join us and watch the legislature in action as we march toward the passage of a major pro-gun owner law in Iowa!

Remember, we faced a very similar situation is 2015 while trying to legalize suppressors. Senate Democrats offered a severely compromised suppressor bill full of poor language and numerous legal pitfalls. We had members howling that we should take the deal because they wanted suppressors so badly, even if the law was full of crappy language. Much to those members chagrin, we held fast, said no to the bad suppressor bill and then came back in 2016 and forced a rock solid suppressor bill through the legislature and into Iowa’s legal code. We find ourselves in a very similar situation this year with permit-less carry. Accept a less than optimal bill right now, or bear down and do it the right way even if it takes a little while longer? When it comes to our freedom and our right to keep and bear arms, we chose to do things the right way.

Permit-less carry is a weighty issue. For many of our members it’s a simple concept, but for others who are not liberty minded gun owners it takes some time to digest and come around. Very few things happen quickly in politics. The Iowa Firearms Coalition still has lots of allies in the legislature. But even more important than that is the fact that numerous lawmakers have been educated on permit-less carry (something many of them never spent much time considering) and they’re now that much closer to passing this law, the right way, here in Iowa.

HSB133 still contains LOTS of pro-Second Amendment stuff. Stand Your Ground, repealing the ban on supervised youth shooting, SBRs/SBSs and more. With your help we’ll get this bill signed into law and enhance the right to keep and bear arms of Iowa’s 3+ million residents. By now you’ve probably seen or heard, our opposition is pulling out all the stops. We need your help. Come to the capitol on March 7th for Second Amendment Day 2017. Help us show that Iowans want this bill. That we’re reasonable people. That these are reasonable bills. The anti-gunners are working overtime to paint us, and HSB133 as a liability. We need you to help us show the legislature otherwise. Please join us in the capitol on March 7th!

TL;DR – Summary:

Permit-less carry language within HSB133 had been revised many times by the legislature. Eventually it got to the point that it became to complex and unwieldy, the exact opposite of what it should be. Due to time constraints (the first funnel), rather than pass a sub-optimal version of permit-less carry, the House Judiciary Committee decided to remove that provision of HSB133.

HSB133 still contains a ton of good stuff and we need you in the capitol March 7th for Second Amendment Day 2017 to show the legislature they need to pass this bill.


Our readers said:

Write us your thoughts about this post. Be kind & Play nice.
  1. Gene says:

    Although it’s not everything we wanted it’s a far site better than where we’re at…full steam ahead!

  2. duane baier says:

    Should be a amendment for protection from law suits by the criminal an there family

  3. Michael says:

    The ambulance chasers lobbied hard to strike the protection from lawsuits.

    • Gene says:

      Duane,
      707.6 Already covers that doesn’t it?
      707.6
      Civil liability.
      No person who injures the aggressor through application of reasonable force in defense of the person’s person or property may be held civilly liable for such injury
      No person who injures the aggressor through application of reasonable force in defense of a second person may be held civilly liable for such injury.

  4. Adam says:

    OK, so I can understand why Constitutional Carry probably didn’t belong in an omnibus bill (I don’t understand why we do omnibus bills). But why was campus carry struck out? It’s time the snowflakes learn they don’t live in a special world where special rules apply. Anyone whom applies even a modicum of logic to the situation realizes “Gun Free Zones” are least safe places to be. “Gun Free Zones” should be stricken from our vernacular and should hold no legal standing.
    PS How come we never hear WHO want’s these items taken out of our bills? Give us names, then we’ll know who to call, who to email.

  5. Gary Barton says:

    It would seem to me if the legislators have concerns, they should get off their rear end and check with other states that have had the same type of bill and see that a blood bath doesn’t occur after passing these bills. Wake up! We here in Iowa have some of the most restrictive and half baked laws in the whole United States. Stand your ground is a must with a provision that a person being threatened with bodily harm by someone caring a tire iron or baseball bat or a weapon SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO TURN YOUR BACK AN TRY TO RUN! THIS IS A PERFECT WAY FOR CERTAIN DEATH TO THE PERSON BEING ATTACKED. If we are forced to use a weapon to defend ourselves, our family members or a person being attacked and have to use a weapon we should never be charged with a crime and end up in jail or prison.

    • Steve says:

      Coming from a former Illinois resident, the laws here in Iowa governing firearms are much more relaxed and common sense based than the ones just across the river. I expect Iowa will be fully implementing laws that are guided by the Constitution long before Illinois does.

  6. chad says:

    Thank you for all your hard work. I’m happy to see pro gun bills moving forward.

  7. Joe Diaz says:

    How exactly would Hunter Safety remotely cover the laws and information people need to know before they carry? Nothing in the hunter safety course about prohibited areas, what one can carry etc. That’s probably not a good thing.

  8. Gene Hinders says:

    Yes….as Chad said…Thank you for all the hard work and hours!

  9. Jim says:

    I don’t think I will ever understand the thinking behind the permit to acquire. but that’s a relatively small thing.

    I would like to voice my agreement of those above me in saying thank you for the work you do to help restore our natural rights.

    Along with that am I reading this bill correctly? 724.5 Division III it states
    Sec.10.Section724.7,subsection1,Code 2017,is amended to read as follows: and then goes on the say the permission slip will be good for the life of the permit holder? and if so how were you able to slip that one past.

  10. Scott says:

    I appreciate the deeper explanation on the loss of permit-less carry. This actually isn’t even a big deal to me, I don’t mind carrying my permit. However, do you have any more information on the loss of campus carry and the preemption clarification and how that all transpired?

  11. Jim stringer says:

    Push ahead for stand your ground,we’ll take what we can get for now thanks for your hard work. We’ll be watching…

  12. DL says:

    My reading of the bill leads me to believe that in order to purchase a handgun, a person must acquire a permit to carry. Is that correct? If so, that seems like a more restrictive standard than the current system. I would think that many, perhaps a majority, of persons who want to purchase a handgun have no desire, or perhaps ability, to obtain a carry permit.

  13. DL says:

    **Add on to previous message…

    If we’re truly trying to advance 2A rights, why not eliminate the permit process entirely?

  14. Jack Hoover says:

    I wish the GOP would start growing a pair of balls and go after these bills with some pissed off passion. We control the votes so start demanding instead of asking in a whisper with our hats in our hands. You all consider this a step forward yet I feel the GOP does less with more. You don’t act like you give a shit about commanding respect. You constantly cow-tow to these weak assed LIBS. You consider tiny steps forward success.
    How the hell are you going to get Constitutional Carry passed? I’ll tell you, with that attitude, NEVER!

    The State of Iowa’s motto on our flag is “OUR LIBERTIES WE PRIZE AND OUR RIGHTS WE WILL MAINTAIN!” Really? We don’t act like it. Other States are LIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF US!!! The SW part of the USA is looking better and better.

  15. Andy says:

    OK, since I have gotten absolutely NO WHERE sending emails to inform about a possible problem to IFC, sending three to Matt Windschitl and also leaving him several voice mails, I’ll try this forum to see if I can get someone to pay attention.

    I believe I have found what I believe to be a typographical error in the language used in Division X, Section 704.7, subsection 1 in HSB133 that needs to be addressed. It’s quite possible this language could make the difference of the support the bill may need to pass simply because of what it says. Here is the line as it read at the time of the subcommittee meeting and has not changed to date:

    1. As used in this section, “violent felony” means any felonious sexual abuse involving compulsion or the use of a weapon or any felonious assault, murder, kidnapping, robbery, arson, or burglary.

    Does anyone see a problem here? I have read this bill many times and hand lengthy email debates with Mary Wolfe dismantling her concerns about the bill. It was with the 6th email and having read this part of the bill close to a dozen times that I saw what I believe to be grammatical error. With the language as is, in a court of law it could provide for the protection of property with deadly force.

    “or the use of a weapon or any felonious assault, murder, kidnapping, robbery, arson, or burglary.”

    I believe the word “or” between “weapon” and “any” should be the word “for” and was meant to read as follows…..

    or the use of a weapon for any felonious assault, murder, kidnapping, robbery, arson, or burglary.

    Does anyone else agree with me about this?

  16. Alan F. says:

    Settle down dude. Probably nobodys paying attention because either there too busy making laws, your wrong or probably because they don’t need your hysterical and acusatory rants sent to them or left in their voicemails. And even if it is a grammar error you do realize they can fix it even after its voted? So chill out man an take a breath.

    • Andy says:

      Alan F…
      Interesting reply. The part about nobody paying attention should be the most concerning because lawyers are suppose to pay attention to those details and no, I am not aware they can fix it even after it is voted on. I don’t normally follow the process of bills becoming laws so I don’t know all the procedures, pitfalls and formalities, but I am interested in this one so I’ve been more engaged. I’m assuming this fix your referring to is an amendment….which is what they just got done doing.
      If the name of the legislation game is support, it seems to me with such a simple change it would have made sense to address that with the most recent amendment…you know…since they were “fixing” it to make it more palatable for those they needs support from anyway.

Express your thoughts