I have another article over at Opposing Views answering this accusation about NRA misbehavior in Iowa. I say contrived controversy, because to me it shouldn’t be a controversy. It would seem to me the accusation of NRA threatening a pro-gun state rep is overwrought, but what would folks expect if a politician votes with the anti-gunners on their right-to-carry bill? To me it doesn’t much matter if he was holding out for Vermont carry (which has no chance of passing.) You vote with the anti-gunners, you get graded with the anti-gunners. Pretty simple if you ask me.
21 thoughts on “Settling Some Issues from Iowa”
Comments are closed.
So your logic is to kick this guy out and replace him with a less pro-gun Congressman?
So not only do you have no problem with the NRA endorsing incumbents in races where they are sometimes worse than the challenger (a logic which you’ve explained numerous times on this site and on which I at least understand where you’re coming from) – you think it’s actually okay to support a MORE ANTI-GUN CHALLENGER because the incumbent is too pro-gun for the NRA?
This isn’t Sparta.
I don’t think you actually read the article.
Good opinion, Sebastian.
As an aside, I’d like to suggest that if there is one thing the gun controllers do better than us is to use language to their advantage. We can do that better … and don’t have to be dishonest about it.
Take, for example, how we distinguish states by calling them “Shall-issue” or “May-issue.”
Why aren’t we at least calling states like Iowa “Discriminatory-issue” states? “May” sounds indifferent … “Discriminatory” sounds onerous.
I don’t consider systems that prohibit individual rights to some but not others to be indifferent, I consider them to be discriminatory.
We can be more clever than we have been.
“but what would folks expect if a politician votes with the anti-gunners on their right-to-carry bill? To me it doesn’t much matter if he was holding out for Vermont carry (which has no chance of passing.) You vote with the anti-gunners, you get graded with the anti-gunners. Pretty simple if you ask me.”
HA HA HA HA perfect the enemy of the good. Either vote for our bill or we will put our support behind an anti-gunner is exactly the same thing you are speaking against.
Nate,
There might be a parallel in theory, but not in practice.
There are only two real world ways we have evidence for on how to get “VT carry”.
The first is to be Vermont. That one is kinda hard for other states to pull off.
The second is to be a generally gun-friendly state like AK or AZ, get a strong “shall-issue” law passed, amend it over time to get even better and show there are no negatives to the undecided voters and legislators and then, after a reasonably short period of time, go for unrestricted carry.
So to insist that a legislator use his brain and follow the game plan that works, rather than try to ride his unicorn in a futile charge for the perfect (perhaps threatening the achievement of the good) is simply intelligent pragmatism.
Doesn’t sound much better to me. True, this section sounds like the sheriff is to make sure that the qualifications have been met, but it seems to me that there is ample room to deny a permit, especially when that has been the standard in Iowa.
Rep Sorenson simply feels like the current bill is bad, watered-down, and the Iowa Gun Owners agrees.
And IIRC, the battle in the legislature over the “Vermont carry” bill was to get some of the “pro-gun” legislators on the record as having voted anti-gun, not necessarily to actually pass the bill (though that is the ultimate goal).
Reagan said it best: “… it is essential that we negotiate from a position of strength.”
As a Life member, and an Iowan, who also happens to be represented by Kent Sorenson (the representative in question) and someone who has watched the events unfolding here ringside, I have two words for you Sebastian, “Hog” and “Wash”. The bill that, as you say had no chance of passage my prag friend, went down narrowly; and why? because the NRA and Iowa Carry both actively lobbied against it. Why have a partial victory when you could have had a full victory? Oh… because you’re afraid you wouldn’t be needed anymore. Also hogwash, but I understand that you and your ilk are insecure. The NRA will be needed as long as there are A-Holes like the VPC and douchebags like Josh Sugarman. But you and our lairds of Fairfax need to realize that, while yes sometimes, you do need to go slow and be pragmatic, othertimes, you can go fast, that victory is right there for the plucking like a rich juicy peach dangling on an easily accesible low branch. The farther away you can set your goal from those who are our true enemies, the more they have to work to try to destroy our liberties. Sticking to a game plan simply because “that’s just the way it’s done. It’s always brought us victory” is called “winners syndrome” and it ultimately leads to defeat. Adapt to the changing situations, grab victory when you can. This in my opinion is why so many people are frustrated with the political process in this country. Too many weakminded politicans and their lackey’s trying to hold on to a staus quo, that favors those in power, too afraid to make changes in the direction of what is right. Which ultimately of course is the direction of Liberty for the people. Ultimately Sorenson will vote for the NRA’s bill, because it is a step in the right direction. But it’s a damn shame that he is going to be forced to vote for a single step rather than vote to win three quarters of the race.
Packetman:
I think you’re misreading the legislation.
Mean Joe:
So why would NRA lobby against a constitutional carry bill in Iowa and push a constitutional carry bill in Arizona? Also, what evidence do you have that NRA and Iowa Carry lobbied against the bill? Neither group opposes constitutional carry, but the votes aren’t there for it. Even if NRA and IC pushed for it, the votes aren’t there. You couldn’t even win a procedural vote, and a lot of those yes votes were likely people who wanted to get it to the floor to kill it, and put a lot of other legislators in a difficult spot.
Where is your proof,Sebastian? The NRA is notorious for trying to sink non NRA laws and movementsjust because they weren’t the originators.
Hold up Sebastian.
“You vote with the anti-gunners, you get graded with the anti-gunners…” So how about Clel Baudler being one of only two Republicans to vote against Constitutional Carry? And he did it three times!
The assumption that Constitutional Carry was impossible is belied by the vote counts in the House and Senate on the NRA bill. The bill passed overwhelmingly! When a bill passes by such overwhelming margins, there are two things that are certain: We left things on the table that we could have won, and we lost an opportunity to build a better case against “faux-gun” politicians who would have voted against stronger legislation.
The vote on the Constitutional Carry amendment was also telling. There were probably a few who voted for it just to cover their butts because they knew it was not going to pass, but it only fell short by a few votes even though NRA wasn’t pushing it and NRA Director Clel Baudler was actively opposing it – speaking against it and voting against it. Those who say Constitutional Carry had no chance are simply wrong. It had a very good chance this year and had the focus been on CC this year, had it failed, it would have had a much, much better chance for passage next year.
What was passed in Iowa was better than I was expecting, but it is far and away short of what it could have – and should have been, and it provides cover to politicians who are enemies to our rights and improves their chances of being reelected. It also sucks the wind out of the rights movement in the state and makes more reform harder to attain.
Did NRA threaten Sorenson and is that being blown out of proportion? Yes, and Yes. I believe they did and I think it was stupid, but I don’t think it is a major issue – just stupid.
Is the bill that was passed better than current law? Yes, but much depends on how Sheriffs and Iowa courts interpret the discretion they retain under the new law.
Did NRA botch things up in Iowa this year? Absolutely.
Could a better bill have been passed? Without a doubt.
What happened in Iowa this year should be used as a lesson – by NRA and by grass roots organizations – on how not to do things, but at this point, what was done is done and we should be focusing on what to do next.
Iowa Carry, Iowa Gun Owners, NRA, and every Second Amendment supporter in the state need to all come together now to work on defeating opponents this November and making plans for the strategy for next January. Having an NRA Board member vote wrong on Constitutional Carry really complicates the scoring for November, but it is what it is.
The time for arguing over this session of the General Assembly is past. It’s time to agree on and work together on the coming election.
Jeff Knox
http://www.FirearmsCoalition.org
The proof is both Iowa Carry and IGO’s appearance the the Jan Mikelson show on WHO when both bills were up for debate. Iowa Carry was clear in their statements as to why they were trying to block constitutional carry and do your pragmatic approach. For the record their reason that they stated was that the constitutionalist bill didn’t provide for a means of license issuance for reciprocity, when in fact that it did. You don’t believe me send an e-mail and ask Mr. Mikelson (Mickelson@netINS.net) or they probably have a podcast of that particular broadcast. Hey good job in addressing the meat of my argument!!! I did mispeak earlier though when I labeled Victory Disease as Winners Syndrome. I stand by the rest of my statement.
Sebastian,
Who’s to say an Iowa sheriff won’t do the same?
An excellent question Packet. The language contained in the current bill does read to give them that power. I don’t think you missread anything.
Also Sebastian, given that the current bill passed both houses by wide margins, who is to say that had the NRA and Iowa Carry joined with IGO and applied pressure, they could have won that procedural vote and passed the constitutional carry bill?
I guess we’ll never know now, will we?
Because I’ll bet you a dollar that the NRA will never su
never support a constitutional carry bill …… anywhere.
Packetman,
You’ve not been paying attention in Arizona, have you? The NRA has been cooperating with the AZCDL to support constitutional carry.* Basically all we need now is Brewer’s signature.
* See: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5647
I am looking at the bill (SF 2379) right now and do not see anything in amended sec. 724.7 that corresponds to the language The Packetman placed in a quote box above (comment #6). There does not appear to be any such language, under the new bill. At any rate there is none in that section.
That’s what Sebastian meant by saying that Packetman was “misreading the legislation.”
It looks like a pretty standard Shall-Issue bill. A good thing.
“It looks like a pretty standard Shall-Issue bill. A good thing.”
Yup.
I stand corrected regarding Iowa’s bill ….. apparently I was reading a previous house version that has obviously been amended.
And AZMike, AZ didn’t have much of anyplace else left to go with regards to the carrying of firearms …… so I’m not impressed that the NRA is on board with that effort.
Packetman,
Nice try. But you said ‘anywhere’ and AZ is in fact ‘anywhere’, at least last time I checked. Matthew Dogali of the NRA went to the AZ Senate on behalf of it just like the folks from the AZCDL did, and they deserve their share of the credit for applying pressure to pass it, especially after the Democrats tried to kill it in an earlier version.