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

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?
The issue has been that those that have generally been given permission to carry a concealed firearm, have been restricted to celebrities, politicians, et cetera, while your average citizen has been turned away on the request. The Constitution implies equal protection and just because your average citizen isn't a high profile individual, doesn't mean that he/she/it doesn't deserve protection from would-be criminal assault and/or robbery.
If the person isn't a felon or someone out committing crimes, all they should have to do is take a quick safety class and familiarize themselves with their firearm during the class. No permit needed.
 
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.

You need certification to cut someone's hair but not buy a weapon...
 
Requiring a "license" is an infringement. The purpose of the amendment is so that citizens can be armed in order to protect themselves from a totalitarian government, which is exactly what the nation has and is becoming.
"totalitarian government,"

Then why do you want to give the "totalitarian government," so many arms... Lets be clear US Government takes on a few wacko states and it will be over in a week...

What the fuck makes you think a state could defeat US Government?

But I will say that the US Government would be Police... So you are saying you want a gun to shoot Police... Then you are saying that you have the right to a gun and nobody should be worried...
 
"totalitarian government,"

Then why do you want to give the "totalitarian government," so many arms... Lets be clear US Government takes on a few wacko states and it will be over in a week...

What the fuck makes you think a state could defeat US Government?

But I will say that the US Government would be Police... So you are saying you want a gun to shoot Police... Then you are saying that you have the right to a gun and nobody should be worried...
The police have no legal obligation to come to your aid. So why wouldn't you have a gun to protect yourself and your family?
 
You need certification to cut someone's hair but not buy a weapon...


Cutting hair isn't a Right.....How about permission from the government to vote? Or to buy or write books.......? Or having to ask permission to be a Catholic, a Jew or a Muslim?
 
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.

What is the point of requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm when the 2nd amendment already says that right is automatic for those who are responsible with them?
 
It seems to me that regarding this issue there is 2 types of people: those who obey the law and those who don't. The first group of people are not the problem; it is the 2nd group that will carry a gun with or without a permit and do what they do. Requiring a permit does not deter the bad guys but it will disarm the rest of us or at least make it more difficult to carry a firearm in public, so where's the sense in that?
 
It seems to me that regarding this issue there is 2 types of people: those who obey the law and those who don't. The first group of people are not the problem; it is the 2nd group that will carry a gun with or without a permit and do what they do. Requiring a permit does not deter the bad guys but it will disarm the rest of us or at least make it more difficult to carry a firearm in public, so where's the sense in that?

Not only that those permits are normally not required for Rifles at all the logic of requiring a permit to carry a gun concealed while openly carry rifle without permit doesn't make sense to me.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top