Who You Gonna Call…

Who You Gonna Call…



Who you gonna call for 2A legal help? Hopefully, you have enrolled in the IFC Trusted Partner: Firearms Legal Protection Plan.  IFC members get a significant discount when enrolling in FLP. Just login to your IFC member account, and click on the “Trusted Partners” page from the Menu across the top of the page, select your coverage, enter the Savings Code and enroll in the plan of your choice (your-state-only, all states, individual or family coverage).  To remind you about the particulars and benefits of this coverage, and why it is SO important, here is a replay of the Warrior Wednesday interview by IFC Board Chairman, John McLaughlin with FLP attorney, Bill Grammar.

If you haven’t enrolled in FLP, and you need 2A legal assistance, did you know that the NRA has Civil Rights Grants available? I can’t do it justice, but here are the details straight from NRA HQ:


         We are contacting your organization to notify lawyers about available funds for certain Second Amendment-related cases and to encourage lawyers to apply for funding assistance from the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.

         Each funding application will be assessed individually on its merits by the board of trustees of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, with priority given to cases that address issues of importance relating to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, state constitutional equivalents, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to self-defense.

Please find a flyer with the information, below. Further information can be found at www.nradefensefund.org or by submitting questions to this email: nracrdf@nrahq.org 

Remember, as the official NRA State Association here in Iowa, our members have access to these services. 

Help us defend all Iowan’s rights by joining or renewing your IFC membership here today. And please stay Ready at All Times

Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.

Dave Funk
Iowa Firearms Coalition




What bills has IFC helped to kill so far this legislative session you ask? Here’s the shortlist:

  • HF2297 – Gun confiscation (“Red Flag”) bill
  • HF2129 – Money for a study on “Prevention of Weapons Violence”
  • HF488 – State registration requirement for personally made Firearms and “unfinished frames and receivers”
  • SF2085 – Required private transfers of pistols and revolvers to go through FFLs and NICS
  • SF2080 – Ban on standard capacity magazines
  • SF2253 – Would have created a “Mental Health Firearm Safety Fund”

This is just a sprinkling of what the anti-gun Dangerous Quacks on the left have introduced this session, reminding people that the other side is continually trying this stuff — and we’re continually working to stop it. The anti-gun Dangerous Quacks also forgot to read the Iowa Constitution and its newest Amendment: #49 – The Freedom Amendment, which prohibits any of the proposals outlined above. That Amendment would not have happened if it were not for the combined efforts of IFC, our members, and ultimately over 65% of Iowa voters. 

Students First Safety Act update

IFC is hard at work trying to bring some urgency and economic reality improvements to the Students First Safety Act, Iowa HSB 675. Although its introduction is a step in the right direction, Iowa does not need another government empire-building program, which will take years to implement, to create an armed defense for all Iowa schools.  Instead, as you know, Time and Math mandate an immediate response to an armed attacker to minimize the casualties.

Brownells’ National 2A Day — 2/22/2024!

National 2A Day is coming up rapidly and Iowa’s own Brownells.com/2ADay is not just hosting events around the country, but is donating 4% of all sales the week of February 20-25th to several organizations, including IFC!

There are lots of sponsors to National 2A Day, make sure you support them and IFC this whole week.  Check out our new video interview with Cody Hinton of Brownells about this event!

Help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by joining or renewing your IFC membership here today. And please stay Ready at All Times

Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.

Dave Funk
Iowa Firearms Coalition

Iowa Needs a Gadsden Flag License Plate – 14 Other States Have

Iowa Needs a Gadsden Flag License Plate – 14 Other States Have

What does the Gadsden flag mean to you?

Christopher Gadsden was a South Carolina delegate to the Continental Congress and it is thought he designed the flag around 1775.  Gadsden likely drew on the idea Ben Franklin had put forth in the original 13 colonies with his timber rattlesnake flag as a symbol of unity 20 years earlier.  Franklin knew his “Join or Die” mantra was the pure and simple truth.  If the states hadn’t banded together, they would have been crushed.  I’ve read many people believe this flag was the official symbol of the American Revolution, and I’d agree something as simple as “Don’t Tread On Me” was and is a simple and apt description of what not to do to any American.  Ever.


Over the years the Gadsden flag has come to be a universal symbol of opposition to government overreach.  And I believe I can posit to anyone anywhere that our government on every level has become intrusive – Federal, State, County, City, and Local.  You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting some silly regulation that was poorly conceived, doesn’t do what was intended when enacted or authored, and ultimately hurts, rather than helps, the individual American Citizens.  Iowa House File 2424 (HF2424) finally brings us this coveted plate.

As of the time of this blog, many other states have Gadsden flag license plate options.  Iowa is leading the nation as one of the best 2A states – a tremendous change over the last 15 years.  But, we don’t advertise it.  I think we should.  If Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia have these options, why doesn’t Iowa?

The featured image you see is a rendition the DOT offered after liaising with Senate President, Amy Sinclair in the previous year.  We love it!  After speaking with the Senator, she essentially said, “Run with it!”  She very much wanted to see this become reality, as do we.  Iowa House Public Safety Chair, Phil Thompson was enthusiastic to run the bill, and Representative Jeff Shipley and Representative Bil Gustoff walked it through the committee process.


In Libertatem,

Michael Ware – IFC Board

Ghost Guns?  Are They Even Real?  The Gun Grabbers Think So!

Ghost Guns? Are They Even Real? The Gun Grabbers Think So!

IFC testimony on “ghost guns” was a wild ride this week.  Here is what you need to know about HF488…

IFC strongly opposes this bill, which is unwarranted, unwise, and most certainly unconstitutional.

This bill seeks to mandate that state-supplied registration numbers be engraved or permanently affixed to personally made firearms, as well as to items it terms as “unfinished frames or receivers”. Those are hunks of metal of which “most” (left undefined, but presumably 50%, plus a fraction) of the machining work necessary to turn the metal into a frame or receiver of a firearm has been accomplished. The bill makes it a crime for an individual who is not a federally licensed firearm manufacturer or dealer to build a firearm for personal use without affixing this registration number. Furthermore, no such individual may even possess an “unfinished frame or receiver” that is not marked with a registration number.

It must be noted here that what the bill defines as an “unfinished frame or receiver” is NOT in fact a firearm frame or receiver. Rather, it is a hunk of metal upon which some machining operations have been performed and which AT SOME POINT may be worked further in order to TRANSFORM it into a usable firearm part.

The personal manufacture of weapons, including firearms, is an ancient and worldwide tradition that continues to this day. Whether it be a pike, a bow, a spear, a sword, or the long rifle of the American colonists used to such effect in their war for independence, the weapons were historically hand-crafted by those who would wield them or by independent craftsmen. True mass production of firearms became possible only in the first half of the 19th Century.

Even today, there are many reasons why an individual might wish to manufacture a firearm for personal use, including for maximum customization, economy, or merely the benefit of learning and practicing the skills required. There are also law-abiding citizens who don’t want government agencies keeping track of what or how many firearms they might possess. (More on this later.)

There has never been a federal statute banning the manufacture of firearms by an individual for personal use, nor for requiring they be marked with serial numbers. It wasn’t until 1968 that federal law required firearms manufacturer and dealers to obtain federal licenses and to place serial numbers on their products.

With the rise in popularity in recent years of partially machined firearms parts kits that make building one’s own firearms easier and economical, there has been a corresponding wail of concern that this so-called “flood” of guns must be stamped out, or at least controlled. The catchy propaganda term “ghost guns” was created to further this aim. In the absence of a federal statute, the Biden administration pressed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to craft a new regulation that highly restricts these firearms parts and kits and requires registration similarly to this bill.

However, a federal district judge found that the ATF’s final rule was an unconstitutional abrogation of legislative powers granted ONLY to Congress. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has concurred and last week the ATF has been forced to appeal to the Supreme Court, where they seem likely to lose.

Furthermore, in October of 2022, a federal district judge ruled that the federal law making it a crime to possess a firearm with the serial number “altered, obliterated or removed” is unconstitutional under that Second Amendment, as there is no historical tradition dating from the founding era that would justify such a modern law.

Why do some politician and bureaucrats want to require serial numbers on firearms, including personally made firearms? They frequently claim that it is to help law enforcement solve crimes by “tracing” the chain of possession of a firearm backwards from a crime scene. However, this is an exceptionally dubious claim.  Criminals very seldom leave firearms that are traceable to them behind at the scene of their crimes.

The REAL goal is REGISTRATION of all firearms. Governments throughout history have found it much easier to control an unarmed populace than an armed one. Again, the concern is not truly for criminals, but for the vastly larger numbers of honest citizens. (In fact, according to a 1968 Supreme Court ruling, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.) (Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

Some real-world examples of how fruitless these traces of “crime guns” tend to be, even in jurisdictions with mandatory gun registration:

  • During testimony before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. Registration and licensing divert police from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.
  • Licensing and registration also haven’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania state police could not identify a specific crime solved by the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases, they could provide no details.
  • During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.” Crime Prevention Research Center

In the meantime, we Americans must realize that registration enables confiscation and remember some examples from recent history and their horrific consequences:

  • Hitler used the gun registration records from the Weimar Republic to strip German Jews of their lawfully possessed firearms, then murdered them en masse
  • Mao Tse Tung – who killed more of his own people that Hitler and Stalin combined – systematically confiscated firearms as he consolidated power in district after district, then executed anyone found with a gun
  • Fidel Castro distributed guns to perhaps a million and a half Cubans, but upon seizing and consolidating power, he took them all back, again under pain of death.

Iowa Firearms Coalition urges you to kill this bill. We will always fight to ensure that government recognizes, protects, and respects the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms. It is the right that is the ultimate guarantor of all our other rights and both the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions clearly state that it “shall not be infringed”.

IFC requested this bill be killed and it was…

-Richard Rogers – IFC Board Member

The REAL Discussion About School Safety is Here

The REAL Discussion About School Safety is Here

School Safety – The Iowa Firearms Coalition (IFC) is deeply committed to improving the protection of Iowa’s students and educators. This topic has been an IFC priority for several years and we have weighed the advantages and limitations of the various security options currently being discussed. The issue is complex and multifaceted, and we can’t offer a single, definitive answer. However, IFC believes we can help you explore some different perspectives and consider potential next steps.


Points to consider:

Don’t unnecessarily limit the options: The current discussion seems limited to certain approaches like SROs and/or armed staff. It’s important to acknowledge the potential drawbacks of being limited to only these options, as well as the extent to which insurance company pressure is an inhibiting or determining factor

Invisible fence of protection (?): The current primary concept of school security seems to be that by prohibiting responsible adults from possessing normal tools of self-defense (principally firearms) anywhere on the property of a school, we have erected an invisible fence of protection for those children and staff within. But one must question the rationale behind this choice and whether it truly serves the best interests of safety. In fact, the “honor system” Iowa uses in schools now places everyone within them at risk. Stickers and signs announcing a “Gun Free Zone” deter only the law abiding, not those with evil intent. In fact, they are clearly counterproductive, as those planning mass-murder overwhelmingly choose just such areas for their attacks. Iowa only adopted this posture in 1995. It has not worked and should not be considered irreversible. Previously, Iowa hadn’t erected these “No Self-Defense Zones”, nor did this nation have a history or tradition of preventing responsible citizens from being armed at a school.

Common sense approaches: IFC suggests exploring existing approaches used outside schools, which could broaden the discussion and potentially lead to more effective solutions. Many states are changing their laws to allow citizens with permits to carry to do so within schools (AL, NH, OH, OR & UT). The otherwise draconian (and surely unconstitutional) federal Gun Free School Zones Act, allows persons with a permit to carry to be armed at and in a school. Studies in multiple states have proved that citizens who hold a permit to carry commit crimes at such an exceptionally low rate that even sworn law enforcement officers do so at a rate that is six to ten times higher. These are not the people to be concerned with.

Additional perspectives to consider:

Root causes: Addressing the root causes of violence and creating a safer society overall could be more impactful than focusing solely on school security measures. This might involve tackling issues like poverty, mental health, access to firearms, and fostering a culture of respect and non-violence.

Community involvement: Engaging the broader community, including parents, students, teachers, and mental health professionals, in developing solutions could lead to more comprehensive and sustainable strategies.

Alternative approaches: Exploring other potential solutions beyond SROs and armed staff, such as improved security protocols, mental health support programs, conflict resolution training, building positive school climates, and allowing legally permitted adults to carry defensive weapons in schools, could all be beneficial.

Next steps:

Research and learn: Gathering information from various sources, alternative security measures, and the impact of insurance company policies, can inform your perspective. Certainly, consultation with IFC, with their Educator Academy, NRA with their School Shield Program, John Lott and his Crime Prevention Research Center should be a focus.

Remember, there’s no easy answer to this complex issue. By considering different perspectives, engaging in open dialogue, and advocating for solutions based on evidence and common sense, we can work towards creating a safer environment for everyone in schools.


In Libertatem,

Michael Ware – IFC Board