#2ADAY IFC interviews Cody Hinton, from Brownells, about National 2A Day! Join us on 2A Day, February 22, 2024, to Celebrate. Advocate. Join®. Enjoy freedom with a free firearm rental or limited free ammo at select ranges. Plus, a portion of sales supports pro-2A organizations ALL THIS WEEK. Embrace your rights!
If you buy from Brownells.com this week a portion of those profits go to IFC, GOA, and SAF!
What does the Gadsden flag mean to you?
Christopher Gadsden was a South Carolina delegate to the Continental Congress and it is thought he designed the flag around 1775. Gadsden likely drew on the idea Ben Franklin had put forth in the original 13 colonies with his timber rattlesnake flag as a symbol of unity 20 years earlier. Franklin knew his “Join or Die” mantra was the pure and simple truth. If the states hadn’t banded together, they would have been crushed. I’ve read many people believe this flag was the official symbol of the American Revolution, and I’d agree something as simple as “Don’t Tread On Me” was and is a simple and apt description of what not to do to any American. Ever.
SUPPORT THIS EFFORT BY USING IFC’S ACTION CENTER TO SEND YOUR LEGISLATOR A MESSAGE HERE
Over the years the Gadsden flag has come to be a universal symbol of opposition to government overreach. And I believe I can posit to anyone anywhere that our government on every level has become intrusive – Federal, State, County, City, and Local. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting some silly regulation that was poorly conceived, doesn’t do what was intended when enacted or authored, and ultimately hurts, rather than helps, the individual American Citizens. Iowa House File 2424 (HF2424) finally brings us this coveted plate.
As of the time of this blog, many other states have Gadsden flag license plate options. Iowa is leading the nation as one of the best 2A states – a tremendous change over the last 15 years. But, we don’t advertise it. I think we should. If Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia have these options, why doesn’t Iowa?
The featured image you see is a rendition the DOT offered after liaising with Senate President, Amy Sinclair in the previous year. We love it! After speaking with the Senator, she essentially said, “Run with it!” She very much wanted to see this become reality, as do we. Iowa House Public Safety Chair, Phil Thompson was enthusiastic to run the bill, and Representative Jeff Shipley and Representative Bil Gustoff walked it through the committee process.
SUPPORT THIS EFFORT BY USING IFC’S ACTION CENTER TO SEND YOUR LEGISLATOR A MESSAGE HERE
In Libertatem,
Michael Ware – IFC Board
IFC testimony on “ghost guns” was a wild ride this week. Here is what you need to know about HF488…
IFC strongly opposes this bill, which is unwarranted, unwise, and most certainly unconstitutional.
This bill seeks to mandate that state-supplied registration numbers be engraved or permanently affixed to personally made firearms, as well as to items it terms as “unfinished frames or receivers”. Those are hunks of metal of which “most” (left undefined, but presumably 50%, plus a fraction) of the machining work necessary to turn the metal into a frame or receiver of a firearm has been accomplished. The bill makes it a crime for an individual who is not a federally licensed firearm manufacturer or dealer to build a firearm for personal use without affixing this registration number. Furthermore, no such individual may even possess an “unfinished frame or receiver” that is not marked with a registration number.
It must be noted here that what the bill defines as an “unfinished frame or receiver” is NOT in fact a firearm frame or receiver. Rather, it is a hunk of metal upon which some machining operations have been performed and which AT SOME POINT may be worked further in order to TRANSFORM it into a usable firearm part.
The personal manufacture of weapons, including firearms, is an ancient and worldwide tradition that continues to this day. Whether it be a pike, a bow, a spear, a sword, or the long rifle of the American colonists used to such effect in their war for independence, the weapons were historically hand-crafted by those who would wield them or by independent craftsmen. True mass production of firearms became possible only in the first half of the 19th Century.
Even today, there are many reasons why an individual might wish to manufacture a firearm for personal use, including for maximum customization, economy, or merely the benefit of learning and practicing the skills required. There are also law-abiding citizens who don’t want government agencies keeping track of what or how many firearms they might possess. (More on this later.)
There has never been a federal statute banning the manufacture of firearms by an individual for personal use, nor for requiring they be marked with serial numbers. It wasn’t until 1968 that federal law required firearms manufacturer and dealers to obtain federal licenses and to place serial numbers on their products.
With the rise in popularity in recent years of partially machined firearms parts kits that make building one’s own firearms easier and economical, there has been a corresponding wail of concern that this so-called “flood” of guns must be stamped out, or at least controlled. The catchy propaganda term “ghost guns” was created to further this aim. In the absence of a federal statute, the Biden administration pressed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to craft a new regulation that highly restricts these firearms parts and kits and requires registration similarly to this bill.
However, a federal district judge found that the ATF’s final rule was an unconstitutional abrogation of legislative powers granted ONLY to Congress. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has concurred and last week the ATF has been forced to appeal to the Supreme Court, where they seem likely to lose.
Furthermore, in October of 2022, a federal district judge ruled that the federal law making it a crime to possess a firearm with the serial number “altered, obliterated or removed” is unconstitutional under that Second Amendment, as there is no historical tradition dating from the founding era that would justify such a modern law.
Why do some politician and bureaucrats want to require serial numbers on firearms, including personally made firearms? They frequently claim that it is to help law enforcement solve crimes by “tracing” the chain of possession of a firearm backwards from a crime scene. However, this is an exceptionally dubious claim. Criminals very seldom leave firearms that are traceable to them behind at the scene of their crimes.
The REAL goal is REGISTRATION of all firearms. Governments throughout history have found it much easier to control an unarmed populace than an armed one. Again, the concern is not truly for criminals, but for the vastly larger numbers of honest citizens. (In fact, according to a 1968 Supreme Court ruling, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.) (Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)
Some real-world examples of how fruitless these traces of “crime guns” tend to be, even in jurisdictions with mandatory gun registration:
In the meantime, we Americans must realize that registration enables confiscation and remember some examples from recent history and their horrific consequences:
Iowa Firearms Coalition urges you to kill this bill. We will always fight to ensure that government recognizes, protects, and respects the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms. It is the right that is the ultimate guarantor of all our other rights and both the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions clearly state that it “shall not be infringed”.
IFC requested this bill be killed and it was…
-Richard Rogers – IFC Board Member
School Safety – The Iowa Firearms Coalition (IFC) is deeply committed to improving the protection of Iowa’s students and educators. This topic has been an IFC priority for several years and we have weighed the advantages and limitations of the various security options currently being discussed. The issue is complex and multifaceted, and we can’t offer a single, definitive answer. However, IFC believes we can help you explore some different perspectives and consider potential next steps.
SEND THIS LETTER TO ELECTED OFFICIALS BY CLICKING HERE
Points to consider:
Don’t unnecessarily limit the options: The current discussion seems limited to certain approaches like SROs and/or armed staff. It’s important to acknowledge the potential drawbacks of being limited to only these options, as well as the extent to which insurance company pressure is an inhibiting or determining factor
Invisible fence of protection (?): The current primary concept of school security seems to be that by prohibiting responsible adults from possessing normal tools of self-defense (principally firearms) anywhere on the property of a school, we have erected an invisible fence of protection for those children and staff within. But one must question the rationale behind this choice and whether it truly serves the best interests of safety. In fact, the “honor system” Iowa uses in schools now places everyone within them at risk. Stickers and signs announcing a “Gun Free Zone” deter only the law abiding, not those with evil intent. In fact, they are clearly counterproductive, as those planning mass-murder overwhelmingly choose just such areas for their attacks. Iowa only adopted this posture in 1995. It has not worked and should not be considered irreversible. Previously, Iowa hadn’t erected these “No Self-Defense Zones”, nor did this nation have a history or tradition of preventing responsible citizens from being armed at a school.
Common sense approaches: IFC suggests exploring existing approaches used outside schools, which could broaden the discussion and potentially lead to more effective solutions. Many states are changing their laws to allow citizens with permits to carry to do so within schools (AL, NH, OH, OR & UT). The otherwise draconian (and surely unconstitutional) federal Gun Free School Zones Act, allows persons with a permit to carry to be armed at and in a school. Studies in multiple states have proved that citizens who hold a permit to carry commit crimes at such an exceptionally low rate that even sworn law enforcement officers do so at a rate that is six to ten times higher. These are not the people to be concerned with.
Additional perspectives to consider:
Root causes: Addressing the root causes of violence and creating a safer society overall could be more impactful than focusing solely on school security measures. This might involve tackling issues like poverty, mental health, access to firearms, and fostering a culture of respect and non-violence.
Community involvement: Engaging the broader community, including parents, students, teachers, and mental health professionals, in developing solutions could lead to more comprehensive and sustainable strategies.
Alternative approaches: Exploring other potential solutions beyond SROs and armed staff, such as improved security protocols, mental health support programs, conflict resolution training, building positive school climates, and allowing legally permitted adults to carry defensive weapons in schools, could all be beneficial.
Next steps:
Research and learn: Gathering information from various sources, alternative security measures, and the impact of insurance company policies, can inform your perspective. Certainly, consultation with IFC, with their Educator Academy, NRA with their School Shield Program, John Lott and his Crime Prevention Research Center should be a focus.
Remember, there’s no easy answer to this complex issue. By considering different perspectives, engaging in open dialogue, and advocating for solutions based on evidence and common sense, we can work towards creating a safer environment for everyone in schools.
SEND THIS LETTER TO ELECTED OFFICIALS BY CLICKING HERE
In Libertatem,
Michael Ware – IFC Board
The Students First Safety Act / Iowa House Study Bill 675 has been rolled out. By the time this President’s Message Blog has been published, it’s had its first hearing up at the Iowa State House.
HSB675 needs some work before IFC can fully support it. You can find more details here about the bill by IFC past Chairman Michael Ware. But I’d like to point out to you how the Iowa State Education Association feels about your kid’s safety, time, and math.
“Melissa Peterson from the Iowa State Education Association says firearms in the schoolhouse is a risky idea. “Accidents always happen when you’re around students regardless of what age they might be, and we think that quite frankly the stakes are just too high. We should not take the risk. More firearms does not equal more safety,” Peterson said.
Peterson says school resource officers can negatively impact the learning environment for students who have adverse relationships or perceptions of law enforcement. Some school districts have done away with SROs for that reason.”
That quote is from a February 9th, 2024 KCRG story, and my hat is off to reporter Conner Hendricks for presenting both sides of the issue. 
My concern is that our statewide teachers union does not live in real-ville. Most thinking adults know the fastest way to stop an attacker is to shoot them right now. Not in ten minutes, but right now. Reducing the potential number of victims by terminating the attacker’s ability to continue immediately beats calling 911 and waiting several minutes or more for a police response.
Oh, and the safest kids’ sports in the United States are shooting sports and archery, go figure. Even Time Magazine in a March 7, 2019 article about High School Clays in Minnesota:
“As for safety: more than 70,000 students have fired 42 million shots since 2008. No one has reported a single injury, according to the league.”
For those who think I might be picking on the ISEA because it’s a union, know this: As a retired member of the Airline Pilots Association (the Pilots Union) and an ALPA Security Coordinator, I fully support employees’ rights to organize. But let’s remember who led the charge to arm pilots with handguns after 9/11…it was the pilot unions in America.
I get that ISEA is a business, but my advice to Ms. Peterson is to get out of the woke propaganda business and back to doing what’s best for our kids.
Help us defend all Iowans’ rights by joining or renewing your IFC membership here today. And please stay Ready at All Times.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Dave Funk
President
Iowa Firearms Coalition
Recent Comments