From those of us here at IFC to you the American warfighter, thank you for your service to our great nation. You swore an oath to the United States Constitution, to support and defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic. It’s through your service and sacrifice that we can live and prosper here. There are generations of people in far off lands that have learned what freedom is through your service. Protecting the innocent and guarding our freedoms that are taken for granted by many, but not by us.
Here at IFC we value your service, that’s why we fought to add the Freedom Amendment to Iowa’s Constitution. It’s why we do everything within our power to prevent tyrannical laws like red flags or extreme risk protection orders, so that you can sleep peaceably knowing you won’t receive a 3am no knock. We will continue to work tirelessly to keep the very rights you fought for intact.
To show our gratitude we would like to offer you a discounted membership, simply click here and follow the prompts to join today. Thank You!
I’m urging you to flip your ballot and vote YES for the Freedom Amendment this November.
As a member of this community, and a volunteer for the group responsible for getting this measure on the ballot I feel its necessary people hear from me on this issue.
I’m the Communications Director of the Iowa Firearms Coalition. An all-volunteer grassroots Second Amendment advocacy group that fights daily for Iowans liberties.
As a combat veteran I’ve been to countries where average citizens can’t afford the rights or means of self-preservation.
As a first responder I understand fully the importance of protecting our children. Which is why the IFC pushed to allow off duty police to carry on school campuses, and to also change the law allowing schools themselves decide to arm staff or hire School Resource Officers.
That’s why I volunteer for the IFC, to preserve and protect the very freedoms I was once willing to sacrifice for abroad.
Voting for this amendment enshrines in the Iowa Constitution the recognition and protection of this fundamental human right.
Unlike what the opposition has continue to run, this amendment will not change the gun right status for prohibited possessors such as felons and domestic abusers. It will also not remove background checks.
The purpose is to restrict the chance any unconstitutional gun laws may have at passing. You can’t call yourself pro Constitution while being against this measure.
The issue is nonpartisan and is showing large scale support of over 60% of Iowans being in favor of it.
Strict Scrutiny is the piece that our opposition is taking issue with. It is the highest level of judicial review, often used when the constitutionality of a law is being challenged. What this means is that the courts must look at these cases with the highest level of prejudice. It shouldn’t be easy to strip Constitutionally protected rights, let’s not make it that way.
We know full well that if we would have added verbatim the Second Amendment, the anti-liberty crowd would still take issue with it.
So, vote yes, for freedom!
IFC Chair John McLaughlin shares thoughts on Spirit Lake arming school staff members, The Freedom Amendment, and IFC’s reaction to recent government overreach.
Does Bruen Herald the End of Constitutional Strict-Scrutiny Amendments? From an article at the Duke Center for Firearms Law, Andrew Willinger wrote the following:
This November, voters in Iowa will weigh in on a proposed state constitutional amendment that would make all gun regulations subject to strict scrutiny. The full text of the proposed amendment, which was approved by the state legislature in early 2021, is as follows (emphasis added):
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.
Iowa’s Freedom Amendment contains “strict scrutiny” language which is the 3rd and final sentence of the amendment. Simply put, it is the highest level of judicial review. In layman’s terms, a judge or judges should have a compelling reason to tinker with the law or case they’re reviewing. Interestingly, Bruen, moves past scrutiny tiers and solidifies the original context:
This issue is, in many ways, the primary point of contention between the majority and the dissent in Bruen: do tiers of scrutiny create a situation where courts too often “defer to the determinations of legislatures,” and does a history-focused test actually constrain such judicial deference? Bruen entirely repudiates tiers of scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. If one believes that Bruen’s historical-analogue test is more constraining and faithful to the original meaning of the Second Amendment, then it would be odd to simultaneously advocate for the type of strict-scrutiny amendment currently on the table in Iowa. It seems likely that those who supported strict-scrutiny constitutional amendments at the state level in past years will now turn their attention to attempting to harmonize the interpretation of state constitutional provisions with the interpretation of the federal Second Amendment. This also makes sense as a practical matter: once the federal constitutional right reaches a high level of protection, there’s no longer much to do at the state level—it only really matters that the right is protected by one of the two provisions.
If Bruen’s test is indeed on par with, or tougher than, strict scrutiny, we can expect this fact to halt the recent spurt of strict-scrutiny constitutional amendments at the state level. Instead, we’re likely to see a broader shift where state courts increasingly use the Bruen test to evaluate challenges under state constitutional analogues to the Second Amendment, even in states without a strict rule that such analogous provisions are construed in tandem.
I found this article, IFC Board Member and Chief Lobbyist, Richard Rogers, sent me both helpful and insightful. Here’s the context for all of us in Iowa. Strict Scrutiny, which we all agree should be applied to ALL questions of your basic human and civil rights, will be intact for your protection in Iowa. Whether future SCOTUS cases strengthen or diminish this will be realized in the future. But Iowa can have protection placed in its State Constitution.
Yes, there are gun grabbers, liberty haters, and the dangerous members of society out there that seek to thwart this virtuous endeavor. But what everyone should be asking themselves is pretty simple. Is there ANY human right or basic civil right that DOESN’T deserve strict scrutiny when discussing their restriction or curtailment?
Michael Ware – IFC Board
Iowa’s Freedom Amendment is “reckless” huh? What are you smoking? Since when are civil rights reckless? John and Richard dissect and correct.