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.
IFC Chair John McLaughlin shares thoughts on Spirit Lake arming school staff members, The Freedom Amendment, and IFC’s reaction to recent government overreach.
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?
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!
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.
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