• Throwback Thursday: “Local” MDA Activist’s Ambush Thwarted by IFC Members

    November 20, 2014

    Here’s a fun throwback from August. That’s when Mom’s Demand Action’s so-called “local” supporters attempted to get the drop on then candidate Joni Ernst in the middle of her Iowa State Fair stump speech. Prior to the event they sent out robo-calls searching for mom’s to come to the state fair and call out Joni.

    They were so desperate to get anyone to come out that they offered to reimburse these mom’s parking costs, admission fees, even the money spent on food they ate while at the state fair. You know it’s bad when you have to bribe people to come to your events.

    But here’s the real kicker: the calls were made from California, and if you planned on going you had to RSVP with the organizers based in California.

    Take a listen:



    Here’s what makes this story great: IFC members, with little more than 24 hours notice showed up in great numbers the day of Joni’s speech. The angry moms organized by out of state rabble rousers numbered somewhere in the half-dozen range. The speech went off without a hitch, and those moms who did show up didn’t make a peep.

    We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Good things happen because IFC members can always be relied upon to come together and make a stand for what’s right.

    What’s even better? You recognize the value of your freedoms and are willing stand up for them without having to be bribed!



    IFC is able to mobilize our members through a variety of means. The best way to stay up to date on critical events such as this is to join our email list. Please also consider following us on Facebook and Twitter.





  • Court rules California’s 10 day waiting period violates Constitution

    August 25, 2014

    Despite new gun control and background check efforts by anti-gunners, California gun owners have one small victory to celebrate. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation have defeated one portion of the California gun control schemes. More details from the SAF below:


    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant court victory in California in which the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the Golden State’s 10-day waiting period violates the Second Amendment “as applied to those individuals who successfully pass” the state’s background check prior to the ten days, and who are in lawful possession of an additional firearm.

    The ruling, by Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, a Bill Clinton appointee, also notes that the 10-day waiting period violates the Second Amendment for those individuals who pass the background check and who possess a valid CCW license. Joining SAF in the case was the Calguns Foundation and individual plaintiffs Brandon Combs and Jeff Silvester, for whom the case is named.

    “This ruling clearly addressed the issue we put before the court,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “We are naturally delighted with the outcome.”

    “This is a great win for Second Amendment civil rights and common sense,” Silvester concurred. “I couldn’t be happier with the outcome.”

    SAF General Counsel Miko Tempski added, “Basically, the waiting period doesn’t make any sense when someone has already been cleared, has a concealed carry permit and already owns a gun.”

    In his ruling, Judge Ishii relied on other SAF cases including Moore v. Madigan, Ezell v. Chicago and McDonald v. Chicago. He specifically noted, “The Court emphasizes that it is expressing no opinion on the constitutionality of the 10-day waiting period in general or as applied to first time California firearms purchasers.” Tempski said the court was not asked to broadly throw out the state’s waiting period in every situation, “so we don’t know if it would uphold waiting periods” as being constitutional.

    “With this victory,” Tempski said, “years of SAF and Calguns Foundation litigation are coming to fruition. We have built a solid foundation that allows us to successfully challenge irrational laws like this.”

    “California gun owners are not second-class citizens and the Second Amendment doesn’t protect second class rights,” said Combs, who is also CGF’s executive director. “This decision is an important step towards restoring fundamental individual liberties in the Golden State.”

    Gottlieb said today’s court ruling “once again underscores our mission to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”

  • IA Attorney General Endorses Extreme Gun Control Measures

    August 12, 2014

    Iowans, we’ve been let down once again by our state’s Attorney General (AG). A short time ago AG Tom Miller joined 7 other states and the District of Columbia to file an amicus curiae brief in support of New York state’s infamous SAFE Act (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013). What’s does “amicus curiae” mean? Literally translated the Latin phrase means “friend of the court.” These briefs are unsolicited, and intended to support one side or another in a legal challenge. Unfortunately for Iowa’s residents our Attorney General Tom Miller took it upon himself to support some of the most strict, overly regulatory gun controls laws anywhere. Miller, an eight term Democrat who’s up for reelection in November, joined AGs from California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Oregon on the legal filing. Notice a trend amongst that group? That’s right, they’re home to some of the most overbearing gun control regulations in the country. It’s important to note that an amicus curiae brief (fortunately) has no bearing on Iowa law. The real cause for concern is that Miller, an elected official representing our state and its 3 million residents went out of his way to support this terrible piece of gun control legislation. One can only imagine what New York inspired gun control measures Miller would like to see here in Iowa.

    What can we do?

    1. Write or call Tom Miller and explain your frustration with his decision to endorse New York’s SAFE Act. Remember to be civil and respectful.

    Iowa Attorney General
    1305 E. Walnut Street
    Des Moines IA 50319
    Phone: 515-281-5164
    Fax: 515-281-4209
    E-Mail comments to: webteam@ag.state.ia.us

    2. Oust Miller from Iowa’s Attorney General office. As mentioned earlier, Miller is up for reelection this year. Because so few people understand the role an attorney general plays, often times voters opt not to vote for an attorney general candidate while at the polls. This go around, let’s make our disdain for Miller’s gun control wishes known by sending Miller packing. On election day we here at IFC won’t forget Miller’s gun control wishes, and we’re hoping you won’t either.

    3. If you haven’t already, join us! Iowa Firearms Coalition is an entirely volunteer organization. We are the very definition of grassroots. We have one purpose, protect Iowans 2nd Amendment rights. The best thing you can do is become an official member. But if you can’t do that, at least join our free email list (we excessively spam you, and we won’t sell your info). While donations are much appreciated, we’re not here to raise money, we’re here to fight and our best asset is our core group of intelligent, freedom loving Iowans. Election season will soon be upon us, and we need as many allies as possible.

    What’s so bad about the SAFE Act?

    New York’s SAFE Act was rushed through the New York legislature in the aftermath of the 2012 Newtown tragedy. Many facets of the SAFE Act were unknown at the time it was voted into law, and as a result many of its provisions have been deemed simply unenforceable. Many freedom loving New York residents have vowed to not comply with the new law. New York’s SAFE Act includes the following:

    • Residents must register all so-called “assault weapons.” This applies to new purchases, and any existing firearms already owned by New York residents. Residents must also re-register these firearms every 5 years.
    • Definition of an “assault weapon” broadened to include any firearm with one or more cosmetic feature (pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet mounts, etc.).
    • Ban on the sale of all so-called “assault weapons” within the State of New York.
    • Ban on so-called “high-capacity magazines.” No firearm shall take a magazine that holds more than 7 rounds. No grandfathering of existing magazines is permitted.
    • Background checks required on all ammunition sales.
    • Universal background checks for all firearms sales.
    • Ban on all internet firearms sales.
    • Law enforcement may preemptively seize a resident’s firearms without a warrant or court order if that person is deemed mentally unstable.