13 States Ban Machine Guns in America INCLUDING IOWA

13 States Ban Machine Guns in America INCLUDING IOWA

by | Mar 10, 2025

13 States Ban Machine Guns in America, INCLUDING IOWA – Why doesn’t Iowa legalize machine guns when they’re federally legalized?  Doesn’t that strike you as odd?  Why are these still banned in a state with the motto:  Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain?

That’s right.  Even though federal regulation makes ownership possible nationwide, Iowa joins the following states in banning machine guns by categorizing them as “offensive weapons” in Iowa code:  CA, CO, DE, HI, IL, LA, MA, MN, NJ, NY, RI, & WI.  Take a look at that gaggle of despot-laden oppressive states.  Most of them make your nose hair curl when you consider just how wretched they treat their citizens.  And Iowa is joining them in disarming you.  Did you ever think you’d enjoy the kind of tyranny Californians and New Yorkers suffer under daily?  If you like to ignore Supreme Court decisions like Bruen, you’re probably feeling pretty content right now.  But, if you’re liberty-minded, then you know that Iowa has it 100% wrong to ban something from you that is federally legal, especially in the realm of the Second Amendment.

Again, this year, we had support for this in the Iowa Legislature, but unfortunately, not enough to get a bill number assigned.  Here is the draft:

Offensive weapons repeal bill draft

What do you think should happen?  I’m curious…

In Libertatem,

Michael Ware – IFC Board

 

 

LEMON AND THE EPA?

LEMON AND THE EPA?

by | Mar 7, 2025

LEMON AND THE EPA?

What do Lemon and the EPA – the Environmental Protection Agency – have to do with 2A Rights? A lot more than you might expect. Let me explain in this Week’s 2a Wrap-Up. 

LEMON

Lemon v. Kurtzman is a legal case you might not know of by name, but you surely know its impact on everyday American life. The question was, “Do statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?” For decades after the 1971 Lemon ruling, there has been a schizophrenic wall between anything government and religion-related. 

However, the 2022 Kennedy v. Bremerton School ruling asked the question: “Is a public school employee’s prayer during school sports activities protected speech, and if so, can the public school employer prohibit it to avoid violating the Establishment Clause?” The Supreme Court clearly overruled its previous precedent in Lemon. 

From an American Thinker article written by Nate Kellum and Andera Justus, I quote:

“The Court’s decision in Kennedy, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, explicitly rejected the Lemon test, stating “But — given the apparent “shortcomings” associated with Lemon’s “ambitiou[s],” abstract, and ahistorical approach to the Establishment Clause — this Court long ago abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot. In place of Lemon and the endorsement test, this Court has instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by “‘reference to historical practices and understandings,” solidifying the shift away from its flawed framework in favor of a historical understanding of the Establishment Clause.”


The highlights here are mine, and my explanation of why, in just a moment. Read on!

THE EPA

The US Supreme Court just slapped down the EPA again. This time of all plaintiffs, it’s the City of San Francisco, arguing that the EPA’s 10 Billion dollar fine on the city was based on moving targets on treated sewer water discharge standards under the Clean Water Act that are so vague no one can meet them. The City’s attorneys argued:

“We simply want to understand our prohibition limits so we can comply with them,” Tara M. Steeley, the San Francisco deputy city attorney, told the justices.”


It turned out that SCOTUS does not allow moving targets or “end result” regulations. Justice Alito writing for the majority, stated: 

“Determining what steps a permittee must take to ensure that water quality standards are met is the EPA’s responsibility, and Congress has given it the tools needed to make that determination.  If the EPA does what the CWA demands, water quality will not suffer.”


This is the third major decision against the out-of-control EPA by the current SCOTUS.

 

THE TREND –
Establishment Clause must be interpreted by “‘reference to historical practices and understandings”

The trend is that our current court is reining in the Federal Bureaucracy and out-of-control States. The destruction of the artificial wall constructed in Lemon means instead States must follow the Establishment Clause as it was understood at the time of the Founding when related to the 1st Amendment. The government must follow the 2nd Amendment regarding “arms” regulations as understood at the time of the Founding (ATF, I’m looking at you). Now the EPA must follow the laws as laid down by Congress and not vague, capricious, and illegal “reinterpretations” of the federal law by unelected bureaucracies. 

These are huge wins for freedom.

 

IOWA LEGISLATIVE NEWS

As we approach Funnel Week, there is a lot of activity happening in Des Moines regarding your 2A Rights. I’ll refer you to the IFC-PAC Bill Tracker. Also, watch our social media for the latest updates and Action Alerts. The Action Center will have the latest Action Alerts when it’s time to reach out to your respective Representatives. 

Mountain Man MedicalIFC TRUSTED PARTNER OF THE WEEK : MOUNTAIN MAN MEDICAL

Listen to IFC Board Chairman talk about ‘why Mountain Man Medical’ and tell you about these Professional trauma kits assembled to the specifications of the Iowa Firearms Coalition.

I have several MMM IFC kits and carry one in each of my vehicles and in my Bug Out Bags. We suggest you consider doing the same.

Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by renewing or joining IFC today.

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

Dave Funk
Member, Board of Directors
Iowa Firearms Coalition
#2A4IA

Federal Judge Rules Ban on Machine Guns Unconstitutional

Federal Judge Rules Ban on Machine Guns Unconstitutional

by | Feb 4, 2025

Federal District Judge rules the federal ban on possession of machine guns (obtained post-1986) is unconstitutional!

Be aware that a federal district judge in Mississippi has just ruled, albeit grudgingly, that the federal law [18 U.S.C. § 922(o)] prohibiting possession or transfer of a machine gun that was not lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986, is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment rights of the appellant and has dismissed the criminal charges against him. As this was a criminal case, the decision is “as applied” only to that individual. This leaves open the possibility that the law might withstand constitutional scrutiny with a different set of facts. It would take a successful “facial” challenge to invalidate the law broadly.

This is at least the second federal district judge to rule this way since the Supreme Court upended Second Amendment jurisprudence in its Bruen decision in June 2022. As noted in this judge’s opinion (attached), Bruen has rendered “obsolete” or “abrogated” previous court precedents upholding the law in such cases.

Iowans, consider this:

  • Iowa Firearms Coalition has long had a goal of eliminating Iowa’s ban on the possession of machine guns, even if they are lawfully possessed under federal law (as is permitted by at least 37 other states).
  • This decision is indicative of how much the Bruen decision has upended Second Amendment jurisprudence by reasserting the original understanding that “shall not be infringed” is an “unqualified command” (Justice Thomas writing in Bruen). If such a notorious and long-standing (1934 & 1986) “gun control” law can be overturned (as Bruen itself did New York State’s 109-year-old Sullivan Law), what more seemingly mundane laws may be violating the fundamental right to keep and bear arms? Iowa needs to take stock…

Here are the key points from the court decision:

  1. Defendant and Charges: Justin Bryce Brown is charged with possessing a machine gun, which violates 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2).
  2. Legal Framework:
    • Section 922(o) bans possession of machine guns unless they were legally possessed before the law’s effective date.
    • Section 924(a)(2) prescribes penalties for unlawful possession of machine guns, including fines and imprisonment.
  3. Defendant’s Motion: Brown moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that as he has no felony convictions, his Second Amendment rights protect him from prosecution under these statutes.
  4. Legal Precedent and New Standards:
    • Previous precedents on Second Amendment rights are considered obsolete due to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, which established a new historical paradigm for Second Amendment challenges.
    • The government must now show that the firearm restriction aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
  5. Government’s Arguments:
    • Argued that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual” and thus can be banned.
    • Cited historical regulations against carrying arms offensively or publicly, but these were not deemed relevant to possession in one’s home.
  6. Court’s Analysis:
    • No historical analogues support banning the possession of machine guns in one’s home, especially when not used offensively or in public.
    • The government failed to demonstrate that machineguns are “unusual” given there are reportedly 740,000 in the U.S., suggesting they are not uncommon.
  7. Decision:
    • The court dismissed the case against Brown, finding the government did not meet its burden under the new Bruen test to show machinegun possession is outside Second Amendment protections for non-felons in their homes.
  8. Judicial Reflection:
    • The judge expresses skepticism about the historical analysis method mandated by Bruen, highlighting the confusion it has caused in lower courts and the potential for judicial overreach in historical interpretation.
  9. Conclusion:
    • The motion to dismiss is granted, but this does not preclude the government from enforcing the statute in other cases where they can meet the new legal standard.

-Richard Rogers – IFC Board Member and Chief Lobbyist

IFC Warrior Wednesday EP86 with Michael Cargill and the ATF

IFC Warrior Wednesday EP86 with Michael Cargill and the ATF

by | Jan 22, 2025

Michael Cargill, whom you read about earlier here on IFC’s Blog, has scored a big win for mom-and-pop FFLs across America and right here in Iowa.  Check out this week’s Warrior Wednesday broadcast and remember, 10% off all your Brownells.com orders over $150 when you’re an IFC member…  Think about it – if you place any sizeable order, that discount will be easily worth your IFC membership…