CDZ Iowa governor signs 'constitutional carry' bill that removes permit requirements for handguns

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So with everything that's been going on lately in our country I stopped to ponder the implications of this new law. Not too long ago I would have unequivocally been in the "YES!" camp but recent events have caused me to pause and think about why this was not my reaction this time.

I know the arguments for the gun control side - they don't want it easier for mentally unstable/enraged individuals to get their hands on a firearm and use it to cause carnage. My thoughts have often been, that we have current laws that allow people who try to purchase a weapon through legal channels but are denied because they are in a prohibited category to be prosecuted however the data shows they seldom are. I personally think most people if they're smart (just cause they're felons doesn't mean they aren't necessarily smart, maybe just "unlucky") don't go the legal route and acquire their weapons on the streets/black market. But those are known criminals and many of the mass shooting have been by individuals who are not in the system therefore they are not prohibited. I don't know how to correct for something like that although I know that the Parkland shooting could have been prevented had someone been willing to do what was necessary about Nikolas and not been so squeamish about the fact that he was young (a minor when he began causing serious problems for himself and others).

So when you can't solve all of THOSE problems all at once I then ask what new problems does this new law introduce by allowing people to carry a weapon without a license. From my research, the current states that allow license-less carry haven't seen any negative repercussions due to it. The next thing is, does it matter to you if a person is carrying a weapon lawfully or unlawfully if they are using it on you or someone else to commit a crime? Because that takes us back to how do you prevent someone from getting their hands on a weapon who is not a prohibited person but intent on mayhem? To me, we're back where we started and nothing has changed on that front, but now with additional people who have no criminal intent and just maybe perhaps couldn't afford the training or licensing fees or for whatever reason just don't want to be in the system, can still defend themselves.

So I'm interested in hearing something I may have overlooked in this whole scenario.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law Friday a law that loosens regulations on gun ownership by eliminating the need for a permit to buy or carry handguns in the state.​

​

The new law takes effect July 1, with many calling it a "constitutional carry" bill.​

​

"Today I signed legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of Iowa’s law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals," Reynolds said in a statement Friday afternoon.​

​

Iowa governor signs 'constitutional carry' bill that removes permit requirements for handguns​

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So with everything that's been going on lately in our country I stopped to ponder the implications of this new law. Not too long ago I would have unequivocally been in the "YES!" camp but recent events have caused me to pause and think about why this was not my reaction this time.

I know the arguments for the gun control side - they don't want it easier for mentally unstable/enraged individuals to get their hands on a firearm and use it to cause carnage. My thoughts have often been, that we have current laws that allow people who try to purchase a weapon through legal channels but are denied because they are in a prohibited category to be prosecuted however the data shows they seldom are. I personally think most people if they're smart (just cause they're felons doesn't mean they aren't necessarily smart, maybe just "unlucky") don't go the legal route and acquire their weapons on the streets/black market. But those are known criminals and many of the mass shooting have been by individuals who are not in the system therefore they are not prohibited. I don't know how to correct for something like that although I know that the Parkland shooting could have been prevented had someone been willing to do what was necessary about Nikolas and not been so squeamish about the fact that he was young (a minor when he began causing serious problems for himself and others).

So when you can't solve all of THOSE problems all at once I then ask what new problems does this new law introduce by allowing people to carry a weapon without a license. From my research, the current states that allow license-less carry haven't seen any negative repercussions due to it. The next thing is, does it matter to you if a person is carrying a weapon lawfully or unlawfully if they are using it on you or someone else to commit a crime? Because that takes us back to how do you prevent someone from getting their hands on a weapon who is not a prohibited person but intent on mayhem? To me, we're back where we started and nothing has changed on that front, but now with additional people who have no criminal intent and just maybe perhaps couldn't afford the training or licensing fees or for whatever reason just don't want to be in the system, can still defend themselves.

So I'm interested in hearing something I may have overlooked in this whole scenario.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law Friday a law that loosens regulations on gun ownership by eliminating the need for a permit to buy or carry handguns in the state.​

​

The new law takes effect July 1, with many calling it a "constitutional carry" bill.​

​

"Today I signed legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of Iowa’s law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals," Reynolds said in a statement Friday afternoon.​

​

Iowa governor signs 'constitutional carry' bill that removes permit requirements for handguns​

Do you think the Demoncraps will have their convention there in the next election?

 

[NoBueno]

I believe in relatively few restrictions on gun ownership, but harsh penalties for misuse of, or crimes committed with, firearms.
In other words, punish after, not before.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The bill does not provide blanket freedom to purchase guns without some hurdles.

Under previous law, a citizen would need to pass a background check to obtain a permit, which was required to buy or carry handguns. The new law still requires background checks or permits for federally-licensed dealers, but it does not require them anymore for individual vendors.

"some hurdles" LOL. So mentally ill Iowans can just buy guns like candy. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The bill does not provide blanket freedom to purchase guns without some hurdles.

Under previous law, a citizen would need to pass a background check to obtain a permit, which was required to buy or carry handguns. The new law still requires background checks or permits for federally-licensed dealers, but it does not require them anymore for individual vendors.

"some hurdles" LOL. So mentally ill Iowans can just buy guns like candy. What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah, the mentally ill who go and use those guns will be put 6 ft under. I am tired of the insanity, if you are crazy to shoot, you deserve to be buried...Got it.

 

[westwall]

So with everything that's been going on lately in our country I stopped to ponder the implications of this new law. Not too long ago I would have unequivocally been in the "YES!" camp but recent events have caused me to pause and think about why this was not my reaction this time.

I know the arguments for the gun control side - they don't want it easier for mentally unstable/enraged individuals to get their hands on a firearm and use it to cause carnage. My thoughts have often been, that we have current laws that allow people who try to purchase a weapon through legal channels but are denied because they are in a prohibited category to be prosecuted however the data shows they seldom are. I personally think most people if they're smart (just cause they're felons doesn't mean they aren't necessarily smart, maybe just "unlucky") don't go the legal route and acquire their weapons on the streets/black market. But those are known criminals and many of the mass shooting have been by individuals who are not in the system therefore they are not prohibited. I don't know how to correct for something like that although I know that the Parkland shooting could have been prevented had someone been willing to do what was necessary about Nikolas and not been so squeamish about the fact that he was young (a minor when he began causing serious problems for himself and others).

So when you can't solve all of THOSE problems all at once I then ask what new problems does this new law introduce by allowing people to carry a weapon without a license. From my research, the current states that allow license-less carry haven't seen any negative repercussions due to it. The next thing is, does it matter to you if a person is carrying a weapon lawfully or unlawfully if they are using it on you or someone else to commit a crime? Because that takes us back to how do you prevent someone from getting their hands on a weapon who is not a prohibited person but intent on mayhem? To me, we're back where we started and nothing has changed on that front, but now with additional people who have no criminal intent and just maybe perhaps couldn't afford the training or licensing fees or for whatever reason just don't want to be in the system, can still defend themselves.

So I'm interested in hearing something I may have overlooked in this whole scenario.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law Friday a law that loosens regulations on gun ownership by eliminating the need for a permit to buy or carry handguns in the state.​

​

The new law takes effect July 1, with many calling it a "constitutional carry" bill.​

​

"Today I signed legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of Iowa’s law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals," Reynolds said in a statement Friday afternoon.​

​

Iowa governor signs 'constitutional carry' bill that removes permit requirements for handguns​

People who carry guns for lawful defense aren't a problem. Instead, make carrying a gun to aid in the commission of a crime, a felony. And, more importantly, if caught, ENFORCE the darned law! In an overwhelming majority of cases where a bad guy uses a gun, the first thing that gets tossed out in the plea bargaining phase is the gun enhancement.

The only reason why DA's do that is to keep letting violent offenders out into society.

 

[LuckyDuck]

One deterrent to commit crimes (excluding the mentally deranged), would be that if you are found in possession of a "stolen" firearm, make such a crime "federal and invoke a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence. Such a sentence would be a clear deterrent to most rational thinkers.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

One deterrent to commit crimes (excluding the mentally deranged), would be that if you are found in possession of a "stolen" firearm, make such a crime "federal and invoke a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence. Such a sentence would be a clear deterrent to most rational thinkers.

While that makes sense, I think the target population is not dissuaded by the thought that they may go to jail.

Do you know if people who violate the laws because they're conducting street "business" or need money to survive or make ends meet are the same category of people as mass shooters? Because if they're not, then maybe society's approach to dealing with them needs to be different for each.

Probably for most "rational" thinkers, being arrested and having to serve time in prison would put a serious crimp in their lifestyle so they're not generally the ones of concern.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So with everything that's been going on lately in our country I stopped to ponder the implications of this new law. Not too long ago I would have unequivocally been in the "YES!" camp but recent events have caused me to pause and think about why this was not my reaction this time.

I know the arguments for the gun control side - they don't want it easier for mentally unstable/enraged individuals to get their hands on a firearm and use it to cause carnage. My thoughts have often been, that we have current laws that allow people who try to purchase a weapon through legal channels but are denied because they are in a prohibited category to be prosecuted however the data shows they seldom are. I personally think most people if they're smart (just cause they're felons doesn't mean they aren't necessarily smart, maybe just "unlucky") don't go the legal route and acquire their weapons on the streets/black market. But those are known criminals and many of the mass shooting have been by individuals who are not in the system therefore they are not prohibited. I don't know how to correct for something like that although I know that the Parkland shooting could have been prevented had someone been willing to do what was necessary about Nikolas and not been so squeamish about the fact that he was young (a minor when he began causing serious problems for himself and others).

So when you can't solve all of THOSE problems all at once I then ask what new problems does this new law introduce by allowing people to carry a weapon without a license. From my research, the current states that allow license-less carry haven't seen any negative repercussions due to it. The next thing is, does it matter to you if a person is carrying a weapon lawfully or unlawfully if they are using it on you or someone else to commit a crime? Because that takes us back to how do you prevent someone from getting their hands on a weapon who is not a prohibited person but intent on mayhem? To me, we're back where we started and nothing has changed on that front, but now with additional people who have no criminal intent and just maybe perhaps couldn't afford the training or licensing fees or for whatever reason just don't want to be in the system, can still defend themselves.

So I'm interested in hearing something I may have overlooked in this whole scenario.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law Friday a law that loosens regulations on gun ownership by eliminating the need for a permit to buy or carry handguns in the state.​

​

The new law takes effect July 1, with many calling it a "constitutional carry" bill.​

​

"Today I signed legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of Iowa’s law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals," Reynolds said in a statement Friday afternoon.​

​

Iowa governor signs 'constitutional carry' bill that removes permit requirements for handguns​

People who carry guns for lawful defense aren't a problem. Instead, make carrying a gun to aid in the commission of a crime, a felony. And, more importantly, if caught, ENFORCE the darned law! In an overwhelming majority of cases where a bad guy uses a gun, the first thing that gets tossed out in the plea bargaining phase is the gun enhancement.

The only reason why DA's do that is to keep letting violent offenders out into society.

Why would they WANT to keep violent offenders in society? That doesn't make sense, if you're trying to solve a problem.

 

[Desperado]

So with everything that's been going on lately in our country I stopped to ponder the implications of this new law. Not too long ago I would have unequivocally been in the "YES!" camp but recent events have caused me to pause and think about why this was not my reaction this time.

I know the arguments for the gun control side - they don't want it easier for mentally unstable/enraged individuals to get their hands on a firearm and use it to cause carnage. My thoughts have often been, that we have current laws that allow people who try to purchase a weapon through legal channels but are denied because they are in a prohibited category to be prosecuted however the data shows they seldom are. I personally think most people if they're smart (just cause they're felons doesn't mean they aren't necessarily smart, maybe just "unlucky") don't go the legal route and acquire their weapons on the streets/black market. But those are known criminals and many of the mass shooting have been by individuals who are not in the system therefore they are not prohibited. I don't know how to correct for something like that although I know that the Parkland shooting could have been prevented had someone been willing to do what was necessary about Nikolas and not been so squeamish about the fact that he was young (a minor when he began causing serious problems for himself and others).

So when you can't solve all of THOSE problems all at once I then ask what new problems does this new law introduce by allowing people to carry a weapon without a license. From my research, the current states that allow license-less carry haven't seen any negative repercussions due to it. The next thing is, does it matter to you if a person is carrying a weapon lawfully or unlawfully if they are using it on you or someone else to commit a crime? Because that takes us back to how do you prevent someone from getting their hands on a weapon who is not a prohibited person but intent on mayhem? To me, we're back where we started and nothing has changed on that front, but now with additional people who have no criminal intent and just maybe perhaps couldn't afford the training or licensing fees or for whatever reason just don't want to be in the system, can still defend themselves.

So I'm interested in hearing something I may have overlooked in this whole scenario.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law Friday a law that loosens regulations on gun ownership by eliminating the need for a permit to buy or carry handguns in the state.​

​

The new law takes effect July 1, with many calling it a "constitutional carry" bill.​

​

"Today I signed legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of Iowa’s law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals," Reynolds said in a statement Friday afternoon.​

​

Iowa governor signs 'constitutional carry' bill that removes permit requirements for handguns​

The Tennessee General Assembly passed a sweeping expansion of gun rights in the state in March, approving legislation to allow most adults to carry a handgun without receiving a permit.
Tennessee joins 18 other states with similar laws waiving carry permit requirements

 

[westwall]

So with everything that's been going on lately in our country I stopped to ponder the implications of this new law. Not too long ago I would have unequivocally been in the "YES!" camp but recent events have caused me to pause and think about why this was not my reaction this time.

I know the arguments for the gun control side - they don't want it easier for mentally unstable/enraged individuals to get their hands on a firearm and use it to cause carnage. My thoughts have often been, that we have current laws that allow people who try to purchase a weapon through legal channels but are denied because they are in a prohibited category to be prosecuted however the data shows they seldom are. I personally think most people if they're smart (just cause they're felons doesn't mean they aren't necessarily smart, maybe just "unlucky") don't go the legal route and acquire their weapons on the streets/black market. But those are known criminals and many of the mass shooting have been by individuals who are not in the system therefore they are not prohibited. I don't know how to correct for something like that although I know that the Parkland shooting could have been prevented had someone been willing to do what was necessary about Nikolas and not been so squeamish about the fact that he was young (a minor when he began causing serious problems for himself and others).

So when you can't solve all of THOSE problems all at once I then ask what new problems does this new law introduce by allowing people to carry a weapon without a license. From my research, the current states that allow license-less carry haven't seen any negative repercussions due to it. The next thing is, does it matter to you if a person is carrying a weapon lawfully or unlawfully if they are using it on you or someone else to commit a crime? Because that takes us back to how do you prevent someone from getting their hands on a weapon who is not a prohibited person but intent on mayhem? To me, we're back where we started and nothing has changed on that front, but now with additional people who have no criminal intent and just maybe perhaps couldn't afford the training or licensing fees or for whatever reason just don't want to be in the system, can still defend themselves.

So I'm interested in hearing something I may have overlooked in this whole scenario.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law Friday a law that loosens regulations on gun ownership by eliminating the need for a permit to buy or carry handguns in the state.​

​

The new law takes effect July 1, with many calling it a "constitutional carry" bill.​

​

"Today I signed legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of Iowa’s law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals," Reynolds said in a statement Friday afternoon.​

​

Iowa governor signs 'constitutional carry' bill that removes permit requirements for handguns​

People who carry guns for lawful defense aren't a problem. Instead, make carrying a gun to aid in the commission of a crime, a felony. And, more importantly, if caught, ENFORCE the darned law! In an overwhelming majority of cases where a bad guy uses a gun, the first thing that gets tossed out in the plea bargaining phase is the gun enhancement.

The only reason why DA's do that is to keep letting violent offenders out into society.

Why would they WANT to keep violent offenders in society? That doesn't make sense, if you're trying to solve a problem.

Because ultimately they want bad guys to hurt people so that they can propagandize the crimes to be able to enact gun control legislation. That is the only thing that makes their actions make any sort of sense. Criminologists KNOW that roughly 8% of the criminal population commits 80% of the violent crime. That 8% is CONSTANTLY let go to prey on the innocent.

 

[LuckyDuck]

One deterrent to commit crimes (excluding the mentally deranged), would be that if you are found in possession of a "stolen" firearm, make such a crime "federal and invoke a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence. Such a sentence would be a clear deterrent to most rational thinkers.

While that makes sense, I think the target population is not dissuaded by the thought that they may go to jail.

Do you know if people who violate the laws because they're conducting street "business" or need money to survive or make ends meet are the same category of people as mass shooters? Because if they're not, then maybe society's approach to dealing with them needs to be different for each.

Probably for most "rational" thinkers, being arrested and having to serve time in prison would put a serious crimp in their lifestyle so they're not generally the ones of concern.

When the Trump administration, via an Executive Order, made destroying federal statues a felony, punishable by a 10 year prison sentence, the destroying of statues suddenly stopped. Now that the current pro-Marxist administration is undoing all of Trump's Executive Orders, such activities may resume.

 

[Coyote]

I don't understand why people are so gung-ho on not requiring a permit to carry gun. If you are going to carry a gun, you ought to be able to show you know how to responsibly handle it and you can shoot with some degree of accuracy and you are legally entitled to have a gun. Yes, it's a right. But it's the ONLY right that applies to a tool designed expressly for the purpose of killing. My state is (once again) trying to jam through a campus carry bill that failed before, and I totally oppose it on many different levels. (kids, away from home for the first time, alcohol, guns - what could possibly go wrong?). Why is it so impossible to have a rational responsible discussion about guns in this country?

 

[K9Buck]

I don't understand why people are so gung-ho on not requiring a permit to carry gun.

Then you agree that people should also need a permit to exercise their first amendment rights too, correct?

 

[K9Buck]

Why is it so impossible to have a rational responsible discussion about guns in this country?

The left wants to outlaw the ability of the people to carry guns with the exception of leftist elites.

 

[Coyote]

I don't understand why people are so gung-ho on not requiring a permit to carry gun.

Then you agree that people should also need a permit to exercise their first amendment rights too, correct?

No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.

 

[K9Buck]

No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.

"Shall not be infringed".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Requiring a license to carry a concealed firearm is likewise 'constitutional carry.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So with everything that's been going on lately in our country I stopped to ponder the implications of this new law. Not too long ago I would have unequivocally been in the "YES!" camp but recent events have caused me to pause and think about why this was not my reaction this time.

I know the arguments for the gun control side - they don't want it easier for mentally unstable/enraged individuals to get their hands on a firearm and use it to cause carnage. My thoughts have often been, that we have current laws that allow people who try to purchase a weapon through legal channels but are denied because they are in a prohibited category to be prosecuted however the data shows they seldom are. I personally think most people if they're smart (just cause they're felons doesn't mean they aren't necessarily smart, maybe just "unlucky") don't go the legal route and acquire their weapons on the streets/black market. But those are known criminals and many of the mass shooting have been by individuals who are not in the system therefore they are not prohibited. I don't know how to correct for something like that although I know that the Parkland shooting could have been prevented had someone been willing to do what was necessary about Nikolas and not been so squeamish about the fact that he was young (a minor when he began causing serious problems for himself and others).

So when you can't solve all of THOSE problems all at once I then ask what new problems does this new law introduce by allowing people to carry a weapon without a license. From my research, the current states that allow license-less carry haven't seen any negative repercussions due to it. The next thing is, does it matter to you if a person is carrying a weapon lawfully or unlawfully if they are using it on you or someone else to commit a crime? Because that takes us back to how do you prevent someone from getting their hands on a weapon who is not a prohibited person but intent on mayhem? To me, we're back where we started and nothing has changed on that front, but now with additional people who have no criminal intent and just maybe perhaps couldn't afford the training or licensing fees or for whatever reason just don't want to be in the system, can still defend themselves.

So I'm interested in hearing something I may have overlooked in this whole scenario.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law Friday a law that loosens regulations on gun ownership by eliminating the need for a permit to buy or carry handguns in the state.​

​

The new law takes effect July 1, with many calling it a "constitutional carry" bill.​

​

"Today I signed legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of Iowa’s law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals," Reynolds said in a statement Friday afternoon.​

​

Iowa governor signs 'constitutional carry' bill that removes permit requirements for handguns​

This is solely political theater, having nothing to do with ‘protecting’ the Second Amendment.

There’s nothing ‘un-Constitutional’ about requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon, and the Supreme Court has upheld as Constitutional the prohibiting of carrying concealed weapons.

Indeed, in states where carrying concealed weapons is unlawful, requiring a license to do so is needed to ensure residents are not in violation of the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't understand why people are so gung-ho on not requiring a permit to carry gun. If you are going to carry a gun, you ought to be able to show you know how to responsibly handle it and you can shoot with some degree of accuracy and you are legally entitled to have a gun. Yes, it's a right. But it's the ONLY right that applies to a tool designed expressly for the purpose of killing. My state is (once again) trying to jam through a campus carry bill that failed before, and I totally oppose it on many different levels. (kids, away from home for the first time, alcohol, guns - what could possibly go wrong?). Why is it so impossible to have a rational responsible discussion about guns in this country?

Because the last thing conservatives want is to have a rational, responsible discussion about guns.

Doing so would take from conservatives one of their beloved wedge issues used to divide the American people; conservatives would no longer be able to lie and fearmonger about guns.