Short answer? YES. Here is why…
Because the language of our Amendment is more specific (“fundamental individual right”) and requires that any law or regulation that is challenged as a restriction of this right must survive the MOST difficult judicial review, “strict scrutiny” – a near-impossible test for an infringement on a fundamental right. In addition, it would be a state-level backstop if federal courts lessen or continue to ignore Second Amendment protections, even if the amendment was repealed.
What about the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution?
There is an understanding of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution that is often flawed. The Bill of Rights was NOT intended to apply to the states and has only been slowly – and in part – “incorporated against” the states by Supreme Court decisions since the adoption of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War. The Second Amendment was not held to restrict state and local governments until 2010! And that decision has been loudly claimed to be “wrongly decided” by many who seek to have it reversed, including Hillary Clinton in her never-ending quest for the Presidency.
Those who would deny us the ability to keep and bear arms have worked successfully for over a century to ignore the true meaning of the Second Amendment. The language of the Freedom Amendment is intended to thwart those efforts.
When Iowa adopts the Freedom Amendment’s strong protections of the individual and fundamental right to keep and bear arms on November 8, 2022, it will essentially serve as a backup to the Second Amendment, available if the Courts, Congress, or the Executive ignore or further abuse the protections of that amendment. In addition, its requirement that potential infringements on the RKBA must be considered by Iowa courts under the doctrine of “strict scrutiny” should be a powerful tool for citizens seeking to prevent Iowa authorities from attempting to enforce state OR federal restrictions on that right.
Given the carnage in Buffalo and Uvalde this past month, it is clear we need stonger laws to protect public safety. “Strict scrutiny” goes beyond common sense. The right to have a gun is not absolute. Reasonable restrictions are necessary .
The gratuitous harm of others isn’t carnage. It is the purest definition of evil. …And you appear to be of the dangerous notion that levying restrictions, AKA “reasonable restrictions” for choices in self-defense on the 99.9% of the culture that are the good guys, somehow translates into “public safety” for all. Do the bad guys follow the rules? Are you actually going to deny that irrefutable truth?
You’re the dangerous one here. You don’t think. You don’t love. You don’t truly care. But you believe if you take from somebody else, something you don’t particularly care about, society will be “safe” somehow.
Grow up. Your posture breeds the environment that allows evil to flourish. You’re part of the problem, not part of the solution. It is time you used your mind and heart in unison.
Also, Jeremy Brigham, Executive Director of Iowans for Gun Safety, would you provide a list for the public of all the basic human rights that SHOULDN’T be viewed with strict scrutiny? Why don’t you tell my black friends their race doesn’t pass muster for strict scrutiny. Or tell my Muslim friends their choice of religion doesn’t require a judge to view a restriction of their practice of faith with strict scrutiny. What about your right to free speech that you used here to promote stripping others of their civil liberties while creating new victims? Should that right’s restriction not be viewed under the highest level of judicial review?
Do you even know what judicial review when deciding to restrict a fundamental human right even is? It appears not… They must not have mentioned that in the Bloomberg intro meeting to get your New York-based funding package.
You state ““Strict scrutiny” goes beyond common sense.”, but fail to provide reasoning for that. U.S. courts have long recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right (deriving from our very humanity) that PREEXISTED the Constitution and Second Amendment and which in no manner depends upon them for its existence.
The standard of “strict scrutiny” is the standard of judicial review most appropriately applied to regulations that threaten fundamental rights and is generally employed in cases involving freedom of speech, freedom of belief, etc. Should we not employ it in Second Amendment cases because you find it inconvenient? Do you think that the right to possess at the ready tools for self-defense (an extension of the right to life iteself) is a second class right? IFC does not.
Vote YES on the Freedom Amendment on November 8!
Given what’s happening right now at the federal level, I wish this were already in the Iowa Constitution! Kudos to all of you who have worked for years to bring this Constitutional Amendment this the people of Iowa! Let their voices ring loud, with their vote!