Bruen Ends Tiers of Scrutiny?  Take a Look…

Bruen Ends Tiers of Scrutiny? Take a Look…

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.[2]  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?

In Libertatem,

Michael Ware – IFC Board

AR/AK Platform Most Popular Centerfire Hunting Rifle

AR/AK Platform Most Popular Centerfire Hunting Rifle

Winchester Ammunition conducted a survey of 1600 centerfire rifle hunters and the results were published by our ally the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The study shows that 60% of hunters who use a centerfire rifle prefer that of the Armalite and Avtomat Kalashnikova.

It should come as no surprise that the two most popular platforms in the world are the tool of choice when harvesting animals for nourishment. With the modularity of the AR and the reliability of the AK, they’re both a proven and effective choice.

We’ve heard for years the left proclaiming that “AR’s aren’t for hunting!” This study proves that the most popular weapons of choice for protecting liberty and filling the freezer are that of the modern sporting rifle. Below is a quote from someone who likely in casual conversation says “I support the Second Amendment but…” 

The Tampa Bay Times transcribed Nelson’s Fox & Friends appearance, where he said, in part: “I want you to know I grew up on a ranch. I have grown up with guns. I have hunted all my life. I hunt with my son still. An AR-15 is not for hunting, it’s for killing. And the question is, should this be a legal weapon in our society?”

From competition, conservation and casual use, it’s hard to beat the AR. With it being capable of hosting many calibers, from shotgun and .22 up to 45.70 and more. The ability to simply swap an upper to change calibers makes it ideal for any situation and Americans any aged(responsibly).

The AK has been used in combat since it’s inception, unlike the AR. It is an unstoppable weapon system, rain, mud, or heavy abuse won’t slow it down. They’re the only good thing that has come from Communism. The first time I was ever able to fire an AK was in Afghanistan. Who knows what that rifle had seen, killed, or saved. All I know is it was on the good guys side, it’s wood was weathered, finish was non existent but it still fired like it was brand new. No telling how accurate it was as I fired it full auto into a berm. Nonetheless, a solid choice for hunting where it’s permitted.

Here is the article from which the information was pulled.

In the comments, tell us what your favorite platform and caliber is for harvesting wild game and please consider becoming a member of the Iowa Firearms Coalition today!

Dangers of Red Flag Laws

Dangers of Red Flag Laws

You can’t surf the web, social media, or tv channels without seeing the news of yet again another preventable mass shooting. Like clockwork the self proclaimed leaders of the world are promising to impose restrictions that only affect those of us who follow the current laws. Meanwhile, they are tucked away in ivory towers secured by the very men and women they wish to disarm. I know this all to well, because I am one of those people who frequently provides security to them. I do it because I truly believe everyone has the right to speak freely, protest peacefully, and feel secured in their day to day life. Obviously they’re well aware of the hypocrisy, they’re just playing the for profit game of politics. 

I’m going to be candid; I believe red flag laws are the line in the sand for a lot of people. On one hand I understand a large majority of our government and country want them. On the other, there are those who believe this absolutely is the hill to die on. Then there are always those who just go along with the majority often out of ignorance. Either way, imposing red flag laws to put it bluntly will result in casualties on all ends. 

There aren’t many issues that I stress over, but if I were to feel uneasy about something it would be red flag laws. As I stated above, I think it’s a line in the sand, not that I have a line, but it is something that will push people to a breaking point as well as force them to take a side in the true fight for freedom.

What we know;
• They violate due process (4th Amendment)
• They will absolutely be used out of spite by anyone who knows you have weapons and suddenly decides you shouldn’t have them. They can make a phone call, without evidence, and have you arrested, your rights stripped making you guilty until proven innocent.
• We’ve seen many times where Peace Officers leave their jobs due to being given an unlawful order, I imagine “blue flu” will be even more common in this case.
• Veterans or anyone with post traumatic stress will be targeted.
• Veterans/First Responders already don’t seek treatment for mental health out of fear of repercussion, this will only make it worse.
• It is going to be deadly for anyone enforcing them or on the receiving end.
• Above all it’s a violation of freedom.

I am a Veteran, and a first responder who unfortunately is put into situations that have been and will be burned into my memory for the rest of my life, that is a burden I’m willing to take on so someone else doesn’t have to. If red flag laws were to be imposed, I am now a target for them because of the things I was put through. I just trained a SWAT team to breach buildings, am I to believe they would use those same tactics against me? I don’t believe it, because those folks are the same caliber of people as myself.

I know Veterans currently who don’t attend AA meetings, don’t claim PTSD at the VA, don’t attend support groups because they are afraid of being red flagged. With that the possibility of having their insurance rates increased, and afraid their civil rights may be precluded. What incentive do folks have to work on or improve their disposition if we punish them for it? That is right now even without red flag laws, just imagine if we did have them, suicide rates would increase drastically.

It would take one heated debate, one online comment taken out of context, a breakup, or an angry neighbor making a phone call to local law enforcement to have someone embarrassed, violated, rights stripped, or worse. That is the danger of red flag laws, and it would affect anyone regardless of political affiliation. It would absolutely be weaponized. 

I agree our mental healthcare system needs fixed, I agree mass shootings need prevented, but red flag laws aren’t the path to preventing these tragedies.

Join the fight today by clicking Iowa Firearms Coalition.

The Taxman Cometh!

The Taxman Cometh!

We are a country birthed from rebellious acts such as the Boston Tea Party, so color me shocked when I heard the news of the IRS wanting to hire 87,000 new agents. There are roughly 80,000 IRS employees currently, so this would double the agencies tax collectors. The claim is that the agency will be targeting those large corporations and wealthy people who are great at avoiding taxes. We all know that shouldn’t require doubling their agency and that it will most definitely be targeting those of us who work, go home, and want to be left alone. President Reagans popular quote about the 9 most dangerous words comes to mind.

The funding is coming from the Inflation Reduction Acts $80 billion dollars, $46 billion of that is going to the IRS new super soldier program. The worst part of this in my opinion is the job posting the IRS listed then hurriedly removed, see below. Three of the five bullet points on the job posting reference that this job is very dangerous. Why would collecting taxes be dangerous? It’s not like 75% of the average Americans income is taken through taxes…ha.

It’s an eerie feeling seeing the anti police crowd once again fund a federal police force. We just saw for the first time a federal agency raid a former president. Maybe the FBI thought hidden in Melania’s wardrobe was Hillary’s 30k emails, Jeffrey “didn’t kill himself” Epstein’s client list, or Hunter Bidens laptop, the world may never know. Regardless of your party affiliation, you should understand this is an unprecedented act. I can’t imagine the IRS will be any less tyrannical. Weaponizing federal policing agencies with a political motive is dangerous, for everyone. 

Imagine if you will, 87,000 new school resource officers, that seems like a good way to protect our most precious resource. It’s a shame the powers that be won’t ever come to a bipartisan solution that truly does protect our innocent and serve the American people.

If the Boston Tea Party were to happen today, what would it look like?

Join Iowa Firearms Coalition today by clicking here!

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” Proverbs 29