IFC Victories and Disappointments in the 90th Iowa General Assembly
Iowa’s 90th General Assembly adjourned its second and final regular session in the wee hours last Saturday morning. Legislators left the Capitol after three and a half months and headed to their homes throughout the state. Some legislators are retiring, while others will now begin to ramp up their campaigns for the election next November – or, in some cases, for the primary election in June. Now is an appropriate time for those of us in the Second Amendment community to begin to evaluate how we fared in the 90th GA and start to plan for the 91st. First, the good news…
In case you missed the disappointments, take a LOOK HERE to view them.
Part I – Victories
Of the bills of primary interest to IFC this year, the following are the ones that passed both the House and Senate. The Students First Safety Act and the Second Amendment Privacy Act were signed by Governor Reynolds almost immediately. We expect that she will sign the others as well.
This bill is focused on enhancing security in Iowa’s schools. It directs school districts with a minimum enrolment of eight thousand students to employ at least one private school security officer or school resource officer in each high school building. These officers are required to undergo annual and quarterly training approved by the Iowa Department of Public Safety (DPS). School districts with less than eight thousand students are also encouraged to utilize security officers.
Most importantly in IFC’s view, the bill authorizes the issuance of professional permits to carry firearms to qualified school employees who comply with the initial and recurring training requirements to be established by DPS. Under this new law, school employees who meet these requirements and are authorized by their school to be armed are granted qualified immunity should they need to use reasonable force in the performance of their employment. The schools are also granted qualified immunity. It is expected that this provision will facilitate the ability of Iowa schools that choose to arm staff members to obtain insurance coverage by encouraging competition in the marketplace. The company that currently enjoys a virtual monopoly on public school insurance in Iowa has so far refused coverage to any school that authorizes armed staff.
IFC is confident that eliminating schools as phony “gun-free zones” and establishing rapid response security teams composed of armed school staff members is the single most effective means of limiting casualties should evil threaten to harm Iowa’s school children.
HF2652 – school security infrastructure
This bill established requirements and standards to improve public school security and provided for the training of existing school staff to form armed quick-response security teams under the provisions of the Students First Safety Act.
This bill is intended to prevent discrimination on the basis of transactions involving firearms and ammunition. It prohibits the assignment by financial institutions, credit card processors, etc. of transaction codes to Iowa-based retailers that specifically identify them as firearms dealers. The new law also prohibits a person or any unit of Iowa government from keeping a record or registry of privately owned firearms or their owners, with exceptions for criminal investigations, prosecutions, and the like.
HF2556 – a bill to strengthen current protections against regulation of weapons by political subdivisions of the state by establishing a schedule of damages that may be awarded by the court in lawsuits brought against a local government for enacting or maintaining an unlawful restriction in violation of Iowa Code 724.28. The damages may be assessed up to $5,000 for unknowing violations and up to $25,000 for knowing violations. This law becomes effective on Jan. 1, 2025. IFC wishes to acknowledge and thank Rep. Bill Gustoff for authoring this bill and shepherding it to enactment with wide bipartisan support. Rep. Gustoff is not only a great legislative champion of your Second Amendment rights but has been IFC’s attorney since our creation.
HF2421 – a bill to limit the liability of a federal firearms licensee (FFL) that enters into voluntary “firearm hold agreements” “for any act or omission arising from or subsequent to a firearm hold agreement and resulting in personal injury or death…, including the return of a firearm to the individual firearm owner…at the termination of a firearm hold agreement.” This bill was sought by Iowa mental health advocates and championed by IFC.
While several other minor bills endorsed by IFC passed, these – and the two failed bills to be discussed in Part II, were the main focus of IFC’s testimony at the Capitol and of our efforts to educate both legislators and the public.
Tomorrow, we’ll discuss two major disappointments and the implications of those losses.
-Richard Rogers – IFC Board Member and Chief Lobbyist
Brenna Bird, Iowa Attorney General, joins IFC on this episode of Warrior Wednesday. We break down the Bank of America “de-banking” hustle and discuss the action by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach. If you’re from KS or have an interest in the state, be sure to check in at kansasrifle.org (KSRA) and become a member. They’ve got a great organization there and IFC has worked with them in the past.
Arming school staff in Iowa passes the legislature and is signed by Governor Kim Reynolds. The public has questions and IFC is here to help answer them.
Question 1: [Regarding HF2586] I see Council Bluffs schools is saying they have no intention of arming their staff. My question is, is it up to the school board to give permission to the schools or teachers or are teachers and staff welcome to go ahead and start the process of getting their professional permits and carrying in school since the law took effect immediately?
Answer: [Sir,] it has always been the law that “A person who has been specifically authorized by the school to go armed with, carry, or transport a firearm on the school grounds for any lawful purpose” [724.4B(2)(a)] is exempt from the general prohibition on carrying or possessing a firearm at a school. The question is, WHO can make that authorization “by the school”? Presumably, the school’s principal or acting principal could authorize anyone with a (nonprofessional) permit to carry weapons to carry at a school. However, in a public school system, it seems unlikely that a principal – or even a superintendent – would do so without specific authorization from the school board. In any case, a school board could certainly rescind any such authorization if it wished.
As to the new law, it provides for a professional permit to carry to be issued to school employees. While the statute does not require authorization from a school in order to apply for such a permit, in practice it is very unlikely that any school employees will seek out the extensive training that will be required to attain and maintain certification for that permit. This is because the purpose of the specialized training for this professional permit is to allow schools and their AUTHORIZED armed employees to be granted qualified immunity from liability for the reasonable use of force used in the course of employment by the school. (Any law enforcement officer using force in response to a “situation” at a school has such qualified immunity. “Qualified” here means that there is a presumption of immunity from liability, but that presumption may be rebutted by evidence.)
While the law is currently in effect, the statute requires that the Iowa Department of Public Safety will design a curriculum for initial and recurrent training and certify trainers for this special permit. Thus the availability of the training and permits is months away – at least.
Question 2: Lewis Central schools is saying they tried to arm a security guard and their insurance said they would be dropped if they allowed him to carry. Is there an answer for this? Would this law also pertain to teachers in daycares?
Answer: The company that has a virtual monopoly on public school insurance in Iowa has refused to cover schools that arm existing staff, including teachers. However, it is my understanding that the Des Moines Public Schools now employ their own “Security Officers”, after ending the previous arrangement with DM Police Dept. for SROs. It is my understanding that these security officers are armed, but that may not be correct. I don’t know.
As I said in the comment above, the whole point of the professional permit and specialized training for armed school employees is to be able to grant qualified immunity to schools and their armed staff. It is hoped that doing so will bring new insurers into the market for coverage in Iowa, if not convince EMC to change its policy in this regard.
As to teachers and other staff at daycare facilities, they are not prohibited by Iowa law from being armed, including with firearms – UNLESS they are on school property. The prohibition in Iowa law applies to the property of public AND private schools, grades pre-K to 12.
Thanks to IFC Board Member, Richard Rogers, for the responses!
Is the New Finland Firearm Policy a New World Gold Standard? If it isn’t, it is a close second to the very best! I was sent this article by a friend earlier today outlining Finland’s bold and savvy approach to the country’s firearm policy. From the article:
Finland is taking a bold step forward in national defense and public safety with its groundbreaking initiative to open 300 new shooting ranges across the country. This extensive project not only aims to enhance military readiness and civilian preparedness but also integrates responsible gun ownership into the fabric of Finnish society. As geopolitical tensions rise, Finland’s proactive strategy sets a global standard for empowering citizens while fortifying national security.
WOW! That’s like a dream come true. In reality, it simply makes sense. But, when you’re used to silly and ignorant people making far-left policies, acronym agencies dreaming up all-new restrictions and calling them “regulations,” along with a Biden White House and Dept of Justice gone mad, you tend to lose your perspective on what constitutes common sense.
Finland is pushing a government initiative to build 300 new shooting ranges, which is tantamount to some serious civic investment. This will create jobs, keep people working, and provide safe environments to realize their liberties. Not only does this encourage and make simple things like responsible gun ownership and safe practices, it also provides a sense of patriotism and preparedness to a country with a LOOOONG border with Russia. This eventually leads to a strong nation less likely to be attacked, unlike the Ukraine where firearm ownership was mostly barred. The Fins will be out sport shooting, hunting, and practicing, all while boosting their proficiency. Any bets on crime? That’s right… Provided they keep the stats and report them without fudging the way the US departments like to, you’ll see crime fall. From the same article:
Finland’s strategic expansion of shooting ranges represents a robust approach to enhancing national security and fostering a culture of responsible gun ownership. By creating more opportunities for training and education, Finland not only strengthens its defensive capabilities but also boosts local economies and supports recreational activities. This comprehensive initiative serves as a model for countries worldwide, demonstrating the importance of preparedness and resilience in an unpredictable global landscape.
I couldn’t have said it better. Take a long hard look at what firearms ownership SHOULD look like when encouraged for all the right reasons by a government that wishes to empower and TRUST the public they seek to serve, rather than take rights from them in a clumsy attempt for control.
If the Bank of America is de-banking conservatives and working to have us labeled as domestic terrorists why should we care? What happens when we get de-banked? Who is going to help us? According to this ARTICLE at foxnews.com:
Over a dozen Republican attorneys general are warning a major U.S. bank against alleged practices of “de-banking” certain customers because of their religious or political views.
In a letter obtained exclusively by Fox News Digital, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, along with 14 of his Republican colleagues told Bank of America CEO Brian T. Moynihan that the company “appears to be conditioning access to its services on customers having the bank’s preferred religious or political views.”
I’m glad our next-door neighbor has an Attorney General willing to defend its citizens. Guess who else has an Attorney General willing to defend its state? IOWA! Attorney General Brenna Bird is leading the charge to protect Iowans from discriminatory practices and collusion to label Iowans as domestic terrorists with the Biden White House.
Too bad there aren’t a few ways to get ahead of this intrusion specifically in Iowa. THERE ARE. Support AG Bird in her reelection bid, and THANK your legislature for pushing through an MCC bill (AKA the 2nd Amendment Privacy Act) yesterday (check those specifics out over on ifcpac.org where we track legislation and legislator’s actions HF2464). With HF2464 the state of Iowa disallows “merchant codes” that essentially rathole purchases of firearms, ammo, etc. into a certain category for future action.
This isn’t anything new. The Obama administration ran Operation Chokepoint. The Feds leaned on banks that did business with firearm retailers, manufacturers, resalers, etc. by placing them in “high risk” status. This “high risk” status made it hard for them to bank, insure their businesses, and operate. This is the literal enactment of a weaponized government against completely legal, ethical, and moral businesses. Biden learned well from his old boss.
Find the letter AG Bird signed that pushes back against de-banking customers and working with the FBI and others in weaponizing against Americans below!
Sign up now for our e-mail alert list to stay plugged into what's going on with your 2A rights here in Iowa.
IFC will never sell, rent or share your personal information, including your e-mail address, with any third parties for any purposes without your express permission. IFC may share your personal information for the purpose of delivering our e-mail to you or as required by law.
Recent Comments