The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has just finalized the hunting seasons for several game species in Iowa.
NOTE: The waterfowl season dates are expected to be finalized later this month (August 2015).
Iowa Firearms Coalition is an entirely volunteer, grassroots, Second Amendment advocacy group. Responsible for bringing uniformity to Iowa’s Concealed Weapons Permitting process, IFC’s members work to protect and enhance Second Amendment rights in Iowa. An affiliate of the National Rifle Association, the IFC actively seeks to foster and promote the shooting sports. Sign up for our email list for the latest on Second Amendment issues in Iowa. You can support our work by becoming a member, or making a donation.
EARLY MIGRATORY SEASONS DATES
Dove Sep. 1 – Nov. 9
Special September Teal Sep. 5 – Sep. 20
SPECIES DATES
Rooster Pheasant Oct. 24-25 (Youth only)
Rooster Pheasant Oct. 31 – Jan. 10, 2016
Bobwhite Quail Oct. 31 – Jan. 31, 2016
Gray Partridge Oct. 10 – Jan. 31, 2016
Ruffed Grouse Oct. 3 – Jan. 31, 2016
Rabbit (Cottontail) Sept. 5 – Feb. 28, 2016
Rabbit (Jack) CLOSED
Squirrel (Fox and Gray) Sept. 5 – Jan. 31, 2016
Crow Oct. 15 – Nov. 30 AND
Jan. 14 – March 31, 2016
Pigeon Continuous Open Season
Coyote Continuous Open Season
Deer and fall turkey licenses are on sale Aug. 15.
SPECIAL SEPTEMBER CANADA GOOSE SEASONS Only in designated zones around Des Moines, Cedar Rapids/Iowa City and Cedar Falls/Waterloo.
Canada Geese Sept. 5 – 13
STATEWIDE
Special September Teal Season Sept 5 -20
Light Geese Conservation Order Jan. 16 – April 15, 2016
(white and blue phase snow geese
and Ross’ geese)
Doves (Mourning and Eurasian Collared) Sept. 1 – Nov. 9
Woodcock Oct. 3 – Nov. 16
Snipe Sept. 5 – Nov. 30
Rail (Sora and Virginia) Sept. 5 – Nov. 13
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset for all species except woodcock and teal during the special September teal season, which are sunrise to sunset.Daily Bag Limits:
Ducks: Daily limit is 6, including no more than 4 mallards (of which no more than 2 may be female), 3 wood ducks, 2 redheads, 3 scaup, 2 pintail, 1 black duck, and 2 canvasback.
Mergansers: Daily limit is 5, including no more than 2 hooded mergansers.
Coots: Daily limit is 15.
Geese: The daily limit for Canada geese is 2 from September 26 through October 31 and 3 Canada geese from November 1 through the end of the season. During the special September Canada goose season within the Des Moines, Cedar Rapids/Iowa City and Cedar Falls/Waterloo Zones, the daily is 5 Canada geese. The daily limits for white-fronted geese, brant, and snow geese are 2 white-fronted geese, 1 brant, and 20 snow geese.
Doves (Mourning and Eurasian Collared): Daily limit is 15.
Woodcock: Daily limit is 3.
Snipe: Daily limit is 8.
Rail (Sora and Virginia): Daily limit is 12.
Possession Limits:
Possession limits are three times the daily bag limit for ducks, coots and geese except light geese for which there is no possession limit and two times the bag limits for doves, woodcock, snipe and rails.
2015 Fall Turkey Hunting (if no changes are made)
License Types Season Dates
Gun/Bow Oct. 12 – Dec. 4
Archery Only Oct. 1 – Dec. 4 AND
Dec. 21 – Jan. 10, 2016
BAG LIMIT: Daily Bag and Season Possession Limit is one wild turkey for each valid license and transportation tag issued to the hunter.
SHOOTING HOURS:
Gun: 1/2 hour before sunrise to sunset
Bow: 1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset
2016 SPRING TURKEY HUNTING SEASON DATES (if no changes are made)
Combination Gun/Bow Licenses
Youth Season (Residents Only) April 9 – 17
Season 1 April 18 – 21
Season 2 April 22 – 26
Season 3 April 27 – May 3
Season 4 May 4 – May 22
Resident Archery-only Licenses: April 18- May 22
BAG LIMIT: Daily Bag and Season Possession Limit is one bearded or male wild turkey for each valid license and transportation tag issued to the hunter.
SHOOTING HOURS: 1/2 hour before sunrise to sunset
2015 – 2016 General Hunting Season Framework (if no changes are made)
It’s not always easy to describe why so many of us hunt, but Actor Chris Pratt puts into words what many people have tried. You may not think about hunting in the exact terms that Pratt does, but it’s nice to see a pro-hunting actor step forward every once in a while. Particularly in a time when actors and actresses often regurgitate anti-gun, anti-hunting rhetoric at the drop of a hat.
Iowa Firearms Coalition is an entirely volunteer, grassroots, 2nd Amendment advocacy group. Responsible for bringing uniformity to Iowa’s Concealed Weapons Permitting process, IFC’s members work to protect and enhance 2nd Amendment rights in Iowa. An affiliate of the National Rifle Association, the IFC actively seeks to foster and promote the shooting sports. Sign up for our email list for the latest on 2nd Amendment issues in Iowa. You can support our work by becoming a member, or making a donation.
Lawmakers in Ohio have just approved the legalization of suppressors for hunting. The bill is now waiting for Ohio Governor John Kasich’s signature (which he’s expected to sign). Our counterparts in Ohio, the Buckeye Firearms Association, have been working extremely hard to legalize suppressors. Yesterday the Ohio House of Representatives passed H.B.234 by a massive 69-16 margin. Once again we’re seeing that when legislators take the time to thoroughly examine the legalization of suppressors the vast majority of reasonable lawmakers find no reason to oppose such a bill.
A bill to legalize suppressors will likely be brought up again in the 2015 legislative session. Fortunately for Iowa’s firearms community Sen. Rob Hogg is no longer the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He’s been replaced by Senator Steve Sodders, of State Center. Sodders has been supportive of some of our pro-2nd Amendment bills in the past, but has opposed others.
Remember, the primary role of a suppressor is to reduce the overall sound signature of the host firearm to hearing safe levels. Contrary to popular belief, they do not “silence” or eliminate the noise of a gunshot. Rather, they trap the expanding gasses at the muzzle of a firearm and allow them to slowly cool, in a similar fashion to car mufflers. Their muffling capabilities intrinsically make them a hearing protection device for both the shooter and those around them.
If you’d like to see suppressors legalized in Iowa, there are two very important steps you can take right now before the 2015 legislative session begins:
Bonus: Sign up for our email list to for the latest on pro-2nd Amendment bills, and Action Alerts to help advance our cause.
Iowa Firearms Coalition is an entirely volunteer, grassroots, 2nd Amendment advocacy group. Responsible for bringing uniformity to Iowa’s Concealed Weapons Permitting process, IFC’s members work to protect and enhance 2nd Amendment rights in Iowa. An affiliate of the National Rifle Association, the IFC actively seeks to foster and promote the shooting sports. Sign up for our email list for the latest on 2nd Amendment issues in Iowa. You can support our work by becoming a member, or making a donation.
This bill would have created a distinctive vehicle license plate featuring the famous “Don’t Tread on Me” flag. During the War for Independence, the Gadsen flag became the first ensign of the Continental Navy. It has always been an icon of Liberty. Such a license plate would be a great complement to Iowa’s own flag, with its motto, “Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain”.
As the Gadsden Flag is frequently associated with Second Amendment rights, the introduction of this license plate would have been an appropriate recognition that nearly two-thirds of Iowa voters recently approved the Freedom Amendment, adding strong protections of the right to keep and bear arms to Iowa’s Constitution.
The bill provided that the fees for this specialty plate would have funded grants for education and training on these fundamental rights. In the awarding of these grants, the bill specified that “first consideration” would go to the official state association of the National Rifle Association and similar organizations. Iowa Firearms Coalition is, of course, the official state association of the NRA.
This bill was important to the future of IFC. It passed the House with bipartisan support and we had expected the Senate to approve it and send it to the Governor. It is not entirely clear why it failed in the Senate, but this is a severe blow to IFC’s plans to use those potentially significant grant monies for important educational initiatives, scholarships, and the like. It is too early to determine if it will be feasible for IFC to try to revive this effort in the next legislature.
Finally, we need to discuss the death of HF654 – the Safer Families Act.
Provisions of this failed bill included:
A much-needed correction to an erroneous word introduced into Chapter 724.15 in 2021. The error has resulted in the Iowa Courts wrongly prohibiting persons sentenced for certain misdemeanors from possessing firearms for two or three years.
“Cleanup” language (Chapters 724, 483A, 321G) in the wake of changes made in 2021, including:
Repeal of the obsolete “Manner of Conveyance” hunting statute that prohibits having a long gun in a vehicle on a public highway unless it and its magazines are unloaded and the gun is broken down or cased
Repeal of obsolete and confusing statutory language regarding carrying firearms on ATVs/snowmobiles
Elimination of several of the few phony “No Guns” zones remaining in Iowa law:
Publicly accessible and non-secure state and local government parking lots
Correctional facility parking lots (in locked vehicles in non-secure lots)
Regents’ university and community colleges (weapons in locked private vehicles)
Vehicles transporting children in foster care
Repeals the prohibition on casino management approving lawful carry of guns
Firearm Safety and Hunter Safety Instruction Programs in Schools
Allowed certain qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry firearms on school grounds
Persons with a Permit to Carry Weapons may have a concealed pistol or revolver in their vehicle while picking up or dropping off at a school
After a strenuous multi-year effort by IFC to craft and champion this important bill, it passed the House during the first session of the 90th General Assembly last year. The bill in its final form had dropped several provisions IFC had sought, but it included the most critical ones and laid the groundwork for more advancements in the future. Unfortunately, due to several other controversial issues taking up much of the Representatives’ time and attention last year, the bill was passed and sent to the Senate very late in the session. It also contained a provision regarding insurance coverage for schools that choose to train and arm staff members that turned out to be too problematic and needed to be modified or removed. For this and other reasons, the Senate failed to take up the Safer Families Act, but IFC worked to ensure that it was put on the unfinished business calendar. IFC fully expected that the Senate would take it up this year, amend it as necessary and send it back to the House.
Unfortunately, various circumstances combined to prevent that from happening. IFC worked until the very last days of the session to overcome the obstacles but were ultimately unsuccessful. Therefore, we begin now to plan how to revive these important legislative initiatives in the 91st General Assembly, most likely in a different form.
The Safer Families Act was an omnibus bill, meaning that it had several divisions dealing with separate parts of the Iowa Code. Such bills have both advantages and disadvantages. An advantage is that if you can get such a multi-part bill through the committee process and to the floor, there need be only one debate and final vote, whereas separate bills with the same provisions each have to pass through the committee process and then require separate debate and votes on the floor of the legislative chamber. Of course, an obvious disadvantage of a multi-part bill is that various parts may find different legislators in opposition, often making it difficult to gather sufficient support for the whole. IFC has had some great successes with omnibus bills, including the massive and momentous one in 2017. The permitless carry bill in 2021 was a mini-omnibus. However, it is IFC’s sense that going forward, we will need to focus on multiple smaller bills, each with a narrower scope. It certainly seems that tactic will bring a greater chance of success in the Senate.
Iowa Firearms Coalition intends to continue to build on our record of success in ensuring that the Iowa government recognizes, protects, and respects our fundamental right to keep and bear arms. We will continue to work to maximize individual liberty by streamlining and clarifying Iowa’s laws on weapons and use of force, and by eliminating unnecessary, obsolete, or unconstitutional regulations whenever possible.
To do this, we need your help! We need our current members to renew or upgrade their memberships and to encourage their friends, family, and acquaintances to join as well. IFC’s mission is to protect the civil rights of all – and there is strength in numbers.
Additionally, especially throughout the primary and general election campaign seasons, contact your Representative and Senator. Let them get to know you and your concerns, especially regarding Second Amendment-related issues. If you want to eliminate phony “No Guns” zones, TELL them. If you think that schools should offer elementary students vital firearm safety instruction, TELL them. If you want to be able to voluntarily contribute to important education and training on the right to keep and bear arms by buying a “Don’t Tread on Me” Gadsden license plate, TELL them! Seek them out at events in your community or when you see them at the store or on the street. Let them get to know YOU and what you expect of them.
Together we can continue the restoration of essential liberty that is represented – and ultimately protected by – our natural and fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
-Richard Rogers – IFC Board Member and Chief Lobbyist
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.
IFC is working with Sen. Joni Ernst to protect FFL holders! 💪 On this week’s #2A4IA Warrior Wednesday, we explain what’s happening and what needs to be done to protect our 2A industry.
In this week’s President’s Message, I’ll provide a brief legal news update. First, we will start with some international news. A while back I wrote about Brazil and its experience that when the good guys are armed, murder rates drop.
This week it’s Trinidad and Tobago farmers who are asking that they be allowed to acquire firearms to defend themselves from rampant crime and cattle theft. From the Trinidad Daily Express:
“Farmers throughout the country should be granted firearm user’s [licenses] (FULs) to protect their farms from praedial larceny, according to Couva North Member of Parliament Ravi Ratiram, who called on Commissioner of Police Erla Christopher to issue licensed firearms to those affected.
Speaking at yesterday’s United National Congress (UNC) press conference, Ratiram said the country should equip farmers with the necessary tools to protect their livelihoods and safeguard produce and livestock.
… “I call upon Commissioner Erla Christopher to issue licensed firearms to registered farmers through firearm user’s [licenses] (FULs), granting them the power to safeguard their produce and livestock. This is not a plea, it’s a resounding demand for action, for change, and for justice…Commissioner Erla Christopher, the choice is yours—stand with our farmers or sit back and watch them fall victim to the criminal elements. The choice is clear, and the solution lies in your hand,” he said.
… “I spoke to one farmer who lost approximately nine head of cattle on his farm. We are talking about nearly $100,000. Farmers and fishermen have been asking for this type of relief where the Government cannot protect them, they are prepared to protect their families, their livelihoods, and properties…this is why we have issued these calls. This is something that came about in consulting with our farmers,” he said.”
Go figure…
Meanwhile, in California…
Out of the Ninth Circuit (yes, President Trump’s judicial appointments are making a difference out West) California’s law prohibiting the marketing of firearms and shooting sports to minors has been struck down for now on First Amendment grounds. Judge Kenneth Lee, writing the majority opinion stated:
“While California has a substantial interest in reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors, its law does not “directly” and “materially” further either goal. California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms. There is no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad. Nor has the state produced any evidence that truthful ads about lawful uses of guns—like an ad about hunting rifles in Junior Sports Magazines’ Junior Shooters—encourage illegal or violent gun use among minors. Simply put, California cannot lean on gossamers of speculation to weave an evidence-free narrative that its law curbing the First Amendment “significantly” decreases unlawful gun use among minors. The First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government’s muzzling of speech.
California’s law is also more extensive than necessary, as it sweeps in truthful ads about lawful use of firearms for adults and minors alike. For instance, an advertisement directed at adults featuring a camouflage skin on a firearm might be illegal because minors may be attracted to it.”
This law’s overly broad reach to make lawmakers feel good about doing something, even if it is ineffective or unprovable, does not pass any First Amendment test whatsoever. Maybe if the Ninth Circuit keeps up this kind of behavior, it will lose its nickname “Ninth Circus”.
Moving On…
Then, in the continuing saga out of New Mexico: As you know, Governor Grisham imposed an unconstitutional Executive Order banning the open or concealed carrying of firearms for thirty days in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. It was quickly slapped down in Federal Court. An excellent analysis can be read by our friends at BearingArms.com and of course, she’s now trying to guilt the rest of us for not agreeing with her and trying to repackage it to only include parks and playgrounds. If nothing else, Gov. Grisham has displayed true contempt for both the Federal Constitution and New Mexico’s. “Karen’s” like her should never be allowed in elected office.
Lastly, in my recent Ready at All Times President’s Message I wrote about the growing ChiCom threat not just to Taiwan but also to the United States. One has to wonder why Chinese companies are smuggling suppressors and Glock Full Auto Switches into the USA packaged as toys. Well, if I were planning Mumbai-style attacks and sabotage in the US, I’d be smuggling those item’s here for the thousands of military-age Chinese males that Biden is allowing to walk across the US-Mexican border unimpeded, to provide them with the tools they need to attack Americans and our infrastructure.
If you read through the 9-11 Commission Report, a recurring theme was that our intelligence agencies did not connect the dots before the attacks. Hopefully, any post ChiCom attack on Taiwan and the USA will not cite the same errors in the future. But under apparently-compromised Joe Biden, I doubt it.
Those gun control dangerous quacks are playing a long game but so are we at IFC. Help us by joining or renewing your IFC membership here today.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Governor Newsom wants California Gun Control for all of America and to turn America into the mucked-up mess that California has become. Sometimes you read an article so good, all we can do is pass it along in its entirety. So here goes an editorial from AmmoLand.com:
“Gov. Newsom Wants To Export California Gun Control Across America”
Gun control politicians really are coming for America’s guns. There’s no denying it after California Gov. Newsom made his proposal for a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution official.
Gov. Newsom wants to export strict California gun control to the rest of America. He introduced a proposal for a Right to Safety – an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would strip Second Amendment rights from individuals and instead make the government the arbiter of which firearm “privileges” would be allowed. That’s a recipe for disaster. California is more than just the canary-in-the coal mine for what happens when gun control politicians run rampant on rights without proper checks against abuse of authority. The state is also a harbinger for what happens when law-abiding citizens are stripped of their ability to lawfully defend themselves and more protections are afforded to criminals than to their victims.
The proposal was introduced by California state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer as Senate Joint Resolution 7. The resolution “calls on the U.S. Congress to call a constitutional convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment.” The intent is to affirm that state and local governments can negate Second Amendment rights and write their own gun restrictions, creating a patchwork of varying gun control across the nation and impose a series of gun control restrictions that California already has in place which have proven impotent in stemming the tidal wave of crime.
California Crime
Just one day after dropping this brick on the feet of the American public, federal workers in San Francisco were instructed to work remotely due to rising crime. Traveling into the city has become so risky, that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a memo to employees stating, “In light of the conditions at the (Federal Building) we recommend employees … maximize the use of telework for the foreseeable future,” according to a New York Post report. That office is in the Nancy Pelosi Federal Building in San Francisco, named for the Speaker Emerita. The building is also home to her district staff and U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) and Department of Transportation (DoT). It is unclear if the other departments issued similar warnings.
The “stay-away” memo reflects the worsening crisis of lawlessness in San Francisco and across California. The City by the Bay has descended in a “promised land of milk and fentanyl” as crime and drugs run unabated. Grocery and drug stores are shuttering over thefts and Gumps, a luxury retailer that’s been in San Francisco for 166 years, warned that this might be their last year because of a “litany of destructive San Francisco strategies…” the retailer wrote to Gov. Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed.
Gov. Newsom is unbothered by the downward spiral of the city where he was once mayor. He’s focused on his gun control 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would codify national age-based gun bans by raising the minimum age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21. It would also mandate universal background checks, which are unworkable without a national firearm registry. That’s prohibited by federal law. Gov. Newsom’s proposed Constitutional amendment would also implement a waiting period for all firearm purchases, immediately delaying the ability of law-abiding Americans to exercise their rights. It would also ban ownership of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), or as California’s antigun politicians call them – “assault weapons.”
Here’s the kicker. Gov. Newsom honestly believes all this can be done “while leaving the Second Amendment intact”.
That’s dishonest – intellectually, politically or any other lens through which to view it. What Gov. Newsom is proposing – and California lawmakers are now considering sending to the U.S. Congress – is nothing short of gutting the Second Amendment.
California Control
These are flagrant civil rights violations. Denying rights to adults under the age of 21 relegates firearm ownership to a privilege – granted and rescinded at a government’s whim. The government would usurp the rights endowed by “our Creator” and assume that role. Gov. Newsom would codify a national age-based gun ban – downgrading the Second Amendment to a second-class right. Free speech, free exercise of religion and free press would be preserved for adults at 18 but not the right to keep and bear arms. It is impossible for Gov. Newsom to claim that his proposal leaves the Second Amendment intact.
Gov. Newsom would also institute a federal government watchlist for every firearm owner in America – simply for exercising a civil liberty. Universal background checks won’t work without a national firearm registry, which is prohibited under federal law. To follow a firearm from creation to destruction requires that the owner of that firearm be listed on a searchable national database. That’s also called a government watchlist. There would be no tolerance for watchlists of who attends a church, mosque or synagogue. Yet, Gov. Newsom doesn’t believe this requirement tramples rights.
Gov. Newsom believes that anyone wanting to exercise their right to lawfully purchase a firearm should be required to wait – without defining what that wait time is. California currently has a 10-day mandatory waiting period, despite the fact that every gun buyer in that state passes the same background checks and fills out the same Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) Form 4473 as a gun buyer in Virginia. Using the same First Amendment analogy, there would be no national appetite for telling Americans they must wait 10 days to “cool off” before making a redress against their government.
Gov. Newsom’s proposed ban on MSRs – or so-called “assault weapons” isn’t a ban in future sales. It’s a ticket for the government to seize lawfully-owned and possessed rifles. The text of the proposal is a “prohibition on the private possession” of these firearms. There are more than 24.4 million MSRs in circulation since 1990. They are the most-popular selling centerfire rifle in America. Gov. Newsom would institute not just a ban on selling these rifles but would necessitate a government seizure of them as well.
California Dreaming
Critics say this isn’t about actual gun control but political posturing. Call it gun control “peacocking” for when Gov. Newsom could potentially throw his name into the ring as a possible 2024 Democratic presidential nominee. That is, if President Joe Biden is unable to compete for re-election.
“Newsom right now is trying to appear to be a presidential as possible for either a 2024 or 2028 run at the White House,” said Washington-based candidate advisor Erica Taylor to the California Globe. “This amendment thing, it is pretty obvious to be a ploy. You put out a proposed amendment like this for attention. You don’t put out a press release on it after every little thing you do with it.”
Just over a year ago, Gov. Newsom “unexpectedly” dropped by The White House while President Biden was out of the country. He later told media he wouldn’t challenge President Biden in 2024. However, his unplanned White House visit caught the attention of many as him measuring the drapes and envisioning himself occupying the Oval Office.
The notion of all the drama of a 28th Amendment being nothing more than show might not be out of the question. After all, it is not much more than window dressing that would never garner national support.
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visitnssf.org”
I wish I could say it as well! Remember to be Ready at All Times and never forget that those anti-freedom dangerous quacks are playing a long game but so are we at IFC. Help us by joining or renewing your IFC membership here today.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Are the lower Federal Courts going rogue against SCOTUS’s Bruen decision? To answer that question we have to look at how case law is developed in America. We all know that Congress writes legislation, and the President either vetoes or signs it into law. After that, various administrative agencies write rules and regulations, some with criminal penalties and some with civil penalties.
After a party challenges or enforces that law, and once it’s been to trial, appeals can be brought based upon the outcome of the trial (either civil or criminal). That’s an overly simplified explanation on how to develop case law.
Recently voters in Oregon passed Ballot Measure 114 that outlawed “large capacity magazines” and required gun registration. That law has been challenged in federal court and a bench trial was held by the U.S. District Court. Judge Karin Immergu released her findings on July 14th that the new state law is constitutional.
Judge Immergu “weighed” the evidence she heard and clearly did not follow the guidance SCOTUS set down in Bruen. Her reasoning is clearly flawed, and the best analysis I have seen on the ruling so far was by RedState.com author JimThompson. I’ll quote a large section here because it’s so well written:
“In short, this court admitted some evidence but dismissed other evidence, such as:
“…between 1990 and 2018, there were 304.3 million detachable magazines in circulation in the United States.” Of those, “approximately 160 million had a capacity of eleven rounds or greater.” She found that that evidence “was entitled to little weight” (page 24). Instead, she found the testimony of an expert on self-defense use to be compelling. That evidence was that LCM is rarely used in self-defense and therefore were not in “common use.”
That is a stunning finding. It means that any gun or accessory not typically used in self-defense could be seen as not meeting the “common use” test and therefore could be banned.
This seems in conflict with what Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his Hellerdissent (before he was a sitting SCOTUS Justice).
“There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller‘s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional.”
And in the remanded matter ofNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court was not inclined to side with what seemed to be laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms — like Oregon’s Measure 114. Judge Immergu frequently cherry-picked from Bruen to satisfy her conclusions.
Also of note, current LCM owners are “exempt” inasmuch as they can keep what they already own. If there is a compelling “public safety” concern because most mass shooters used LCMs, and they can cause more injury and death, why then are current owners not ordered to turn in their LCMs? If an LCM is “more” dangerous than a 10-round capacity magazine, and is an existential public safety threat by just existing, then it is a danger now, not just in the future. Oregon didn’t attempt to confiscate LCMs because the state knew that such a measure would go down in flames. But that still leaves me wondering — if something is “dangerous,” how can the state justify not asking for all LCMs to be turned in?
Magazine capacity is highly related to the lethality of a weapon, because capacity is what determines the number of shots that can be fired within a given time without having to pause to reload. Tr. 6/6/2023 513:5–10. State laws banning LCMs reduce the incidents of mass shootings between 48 to 72 percent and decrease the number of fatalities that occur in these mass shootings by 37 to 75 percent. Tr. 6/6/2023 506:14–19. Defendants presented credible evidence at trial demonstrating that the relationship between restrictions on LCMs and reductions in mass shootings is so pronounced that it is a causal relationship, meaning that the restrictions were at least partly responsible for the reductions. Tr. 6/6/2023 507:20–508:1
I am not convinced that Judge Immergu’s reasoning is sound and suspect it will not hold up on appeal. It seems that ignoring that millions of LCMs are owned (and never used in mass shootings) is a fatal flaw in her ruling. Her finding that although they are owned by millions not typically used in self-defense seems like a pre-conceived conclusion in search of facts to support it.
California, Hawaii, Washington, and now Oregon have passed laws restricting LCMs–even though these laws, like Measure 114, will eventually make their way to SCOTUS and, in my opinion, will be found unconstitutional.
Be careful what you ask for, Oregon. It may come back to bite you.
2024 Matters – Vote Thoughtfully!
Jim’s excellent analysis leaves out one important consideration. The left relies on activist judges to interpret our Constitution the way they want it. They do this because they cannot win in the court of public opinion or through the normal legislative process. Oregon is in the 9th Judicial District, the most liberal of all districts. My guess is that this is the first of many “set up” cases needed to strike down Bruen in a future more liberal SCOTUS. This is one reason that Presidential elections are so important. Who controls the White House controls the future of the judiciary. Let’s not fall for the next shiny thing come 2024 and ensure a pro-gun and pro-constitutionalist Presidential nominee comes out of the Iowa Caucus a winner and gets elected next year.
The anti-freedom dangerous quacks are playing a long game but so are we. Help us by joining or renewing your IFC membership here today.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
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