So, for 176 years Iowans have owned weapons, have hunted, have target shot, had marksman’s contests and used weapons for any and all legitimate purposes without a Right to Bear Arms amendment. …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you had a login with the previous version of our e-edition, then you already have a login here. You just need to reset your password by clicking here.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
So, for 176 years Iowans have owned weapons, have hunted, have target shot, had marksman’s contests and used weapons for any and all legitimate purposes without a Right to Bear Arms amendment. Even the assault-weapons ban, which was put into place after President Reagan was shot, did not require a 2nd amendment right to bear arms be added to Iowa’s Constitution. Now, however, the reactionary right Republicans who have been in complete control of the legislature for several years are, in addition to various liberalizing of weapon ownership and in light of an ever-increasing number of mass shootings, are proposing a twisted version of the U. S. Constitution 2nd Amendment be added to Iowa’s Constitution.
The text of the proposed amendment is:
Right to keep and bear arms. Sec. 1A The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any, and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny (emphasis added).
The text of the U.S.Constitution 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Clearly the proponents of Iowa’s proposed amendment intend it to be more intrusive (only three states use strict scrutiny as the basis for defending reasonable weapon regulation). Courts typically use of three judicial review tests: the ‘rational basis test,’ the ‘intermediate scrutiny test’, and the ‘strict scrutiny test’. The ‘strict scrutiny’ language is an overreach that could threaten future sensible gun safety legislation. Most states with some form of Second Amendment do not include ‘strict scrutiny’ language.
Senator Kevin Kinney said, “When you are placing strict scrutiny into the Constitution, you are going to be diminishing our laws that are on the books. To me that is going to make law enforcement more difficult.” (The Des Moines Register, Jan. 21, 2021)
If the proposed amendment doesn’t pass in November, it won’t have an effect on Iowans’ ability to own and use weapons since Iowans are still given the right of gun ownership under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. When you vote in November, make sure you turn your ballot OVER and vote NO to this unnecessary and intrusive amendment.
Harold R. Frakes
Brighton, IA