No response from Brian Meyer -State Representative Democrat District 33

mike gronstal in the senate (D) supports cans.  add him to the support list.

I'm afraid some people will say what you want to hear when they think it will never make it to a vote. Not directed to anyone in particular.

Received a e-mail from Sen. Tod Bowman District 29 stating he supports the Bill.

From Art Staed
Thank you for your comments.  Like last year, I do not expect any gun bills to make it to the floor of the House for a vote this next session.
If any do I will consider your concerns and will carefully and thoughtfully  weigh the consequences of the legislation, especially the impact on the rights and safety of Iowans.
I believe in the 2nd amendment, and I don’t have any “views from out East”.  I’m a Midwesterner.
Sincerely,Representative Art Staed

According to a facebook post about his positions on issues, Josh Byrnes supports the bill.

List is up to date.

House
32 for HF384 v. 7 uncommitted or against

Senate
16 for HF384 v. 4 uncommitted or against


It's a big week for us guys. Don't let up now!!

That mirrors my response almost perfectly.

Call me slightly skeptical, but a yes vote is a yes vote whether it's from a R or a D.

you wouldn't have shall issue right now, if it weren't for mike gronstal making arrangements to build a leadership bill (that came out of his office) and ended up becoming law.  SF2379 (Senate File)...

mike isn't somebody i'd call a hard charger either way on 2A virtues.  but when he sees lots of people pushing for something, coupled with the fact that D's will get a bad name if they don't respond, then he acts.  i'm ok with that.  ask yourself what motivates a person to think this way...  it is simple.  they see 2A issues as a political winner.  why else would they get on board in times like this?

...now if the R's actually had the stones to do what they routinely get credit for, i'd be happy.  however, they do not...  or at least the vast majority don't.

************ edit

yes, there were lots of votes on SF2379.  while mike is the antichrist on some of issues i hold dear, he's a man of his word.  he sees value in 2A where many R's don't.  personally, i don't care if he does or doesn't like the 2A as long as he votes well on it and encourages others to as well.  he has in the passed and he should be given credit for it.  this initiative regards 2A goodies....  PERIOD.  i don't care what you think about him or any other legislator for their other pet projects, votes, etc.  we're talking about votes to get cans legalized and mike is for it.  

besides, without saying too much, i'd take his word over many house R's at the moment...

PLEASE READ THIS...  it is super IMPORTANT that you consider this:

here's the scenario all of us need to be cognizant of...  you contact your legislator.  phone, letter, in person, email, etc.  pick one for this example.

ME: I'd like to see an amendment to our state's constitution to include the right to keep and bear arms.  I have full expectation suppressors will be made legal in this state with the passage of HF384.
Legislator:  I have always supported the second amendment and I'll support this bill.

...that's it.  we sent a message.  they gave us a response.  we go home.  wait, what???  

the only way this works is if you stay on top of them.  the first volley back and forth is the beginning of a negotiation in sorts.  we make a specific ask, and they tell us what they think we'd like to hear.  this is for two reasons.  1, so you'll shut up.  2, so you'll like them.  both of those buy them time to grab ass around and do jack.  our response after a few days?  email back and make it clear in a kind way that we expect a result, not the good ol' college try...  there's a distinct difference.  we aren't asking for a 'support' on this bill.  we're asking for PASSAGE of this bill.  we can't settle for the response of support.  we want them to understand we require work to pass the bill.  we require motivation, a vote, etc.  'support' on a bill means that IF it comes up, they'll look favorably at it.  'support' does not mean they'll actually work on it.  ...and in my estimation there are TONS of legislators that don't want any gun bills to pass - BOTH R and D.  ...and i don't mean handful either...

IFC is providing a super means to begin this dialogue, but it is incumbent on you to follow up.  you have to tell them you expect passage and as your legislator you want them to become engaged on this issue.  they need to know you're telling your friends, family, and colleagues that you're being graded on this test.  they need to know all these people vote and you're motivated to be a part of the process.  if you don't do this, we don't win.

the plain and simple fact of the matter is this...  there are too few in this state that see just how much of a continual political winner 2A virtues are.  while sad, i'm afraid many otherwise decent legislators are going to have to be shown the door.  i'm tired of hearing 'support' when i know that response is hollow.  when i roll up, i'm asking for a result and nothing short will suffice.  we're providing political cover for them, providing votes, getting involved in elections, sending support their way, and they don't see the value in it.  maybe they will when those means of support are given to their primary or general election opponent...  

you have to call them up, email them back, etc. and urge them to make this bill a reality.  they MUST understand we're motivated and the good ol' boy paradigm is gone.  they'd love it if we'd shut up and go home.  they'd love it if 2A initiatives came up once every 25 years.  in fact, many think that is too often.  the only way we are going to shatter this silly notion is to remain focused on them with our wants and get motivated to either give them huge props for their work at election time or burn them to the ground for their lack of work on the most fundamental of freedoms...

I've been emailing through ifc since the other thread started. Still no response from either state rep Anesa Kajtazovic or Senator William A. Dotzler.

Bravo! This bears repeating.

"Support" is easy. Standing up and voting YES on HF384 is really the only thing that matters. Keep on 'em guys!

Good work! Emails are free, and at least they can't say they didn't hear from you.

I just received a e-mail response from Senator Mike Breitbach. He stated that if it comes before him he will support it.


I have not heard back from Representative Patty Ruff. She is married into a family of outdoor enthusiasts. All of them Hunt, Fish and are outdoors most of the time, I do not know yet if she will support this. I will send a more personal letter to her soon if she does not respond soon.

I hear you loud and clear!!!  Here is the email I just sent my representative:


Representative Vander Linden:



I want to thank you for your support of both HF384 and HJR4.  I am aware of your background as a helicopter pilot for the marines and I want to thank you for that service to our country as well.

I have talked to many people about gun rights in Iowa and these two bills specifically.  I have read many replies from other Representatives and Senators in Iowa about these two bills.  It seems we have a considerable amount of support for these.  

The problem is I see a lot of Representatives and Senators saying they would support these bills if they came up, but we don't see it happening this session.  There are various reasons whether it be they don't feel there is enough support or there just isn't time as there are more important issues to work on this session.

Well I think there is time.  Hard workers find time to get things done.  I also believe there is enough support for this, both in congress and the majority of Iowans.  

I know you are a sponsor of HJR4 and based upon your history, service of your country, and your short to the point replies to my emails I believe you are one of the stronger supporters of the 2nd amendment here in Iowa.  Your email responses have been short to the point and leave no doubt where you stand on 2nd amendment issues.

I would like to see this come to a vote.  I want to see the votes and let it be known to Iowans who supports the 2nd amendment and who doesn't.  I believe this is an election winning issue.  I believe if it was known to Iowans which politicians were against the 2nd amendment, those people wouldn't hold office here in Iowa much longer.

I would like to challenge you and the other supporting members of these bills to rally members trying to sit on the fence on this issue.  Let others members know we are watching this closely.  The majority of Iowans support the 2nd amendment.  It's an important enough issue, we have the support, and we definitely have the time to do what's right.  We need to quit letting this get pushed down the road and get it to a vote!



Thank you,

I emailed every single senator today well see what I get back. Tomorrow I'll make some phone calls.

bravo guys!  keep pushing.  i have it on good authority our the suppressor bill will be going through committee late wednesday if we can keep up the solid work!  then we'll have to push even harder to get it through the house floor and over to the senate.

2 that I heard from I didn't see on the list









 

also

 

i beg to differ mr hogg, we have had this in place for far to long with no good reason.

I got some sissy cop out crap from Hogg and a non-answer from Staed.  Yipee.

Ay carumba! The hits just keep coming from ole Rob don't they?

I don't even know what to say I'm so mad. Luckily there may be alternate avenues. I want this even more now. Let's crank this up to 11.

Got a similar email from hogg today, saying we don't need to worry about it this year and it's not important.  Let's keep pushing this guy.  

I got a very long and detailed response from Senator Hogg tonight as well that isn't really worth repeating here.  He also mentioned how the ban was signed by Governor Branstad in the early 1980's.

For some reason, I have a hard time believing suppressors were legal before that law.  From what I remember and what I still see to this day in the Iowa Code is that the Code underwent a major overhaul from the late 1970s through the 1980's on many issues, including criminal and motor vehicle law, many times deferring to federal guidelines and definitions (this is why window tint was suddenly illegal in 1985, along with the seat belt requirement).

If anyone knows the history of Iowa weapons laws from 1934 until 1984 please share, this would be good information to have.

When a senator or rep says ...  "we don't need to vote on it this year" ... to me they are saying ... "I'm against it and plan to vote no, but don't want to be on record as doing that, so during my next campaign I can say I support 2nd amendment rights".

List is up to date.

House
32 for HF384 v. 7 uncommitted or against

Senate
17 for HF384 v. 5 uncommitted or against

kraig paulsen and linda upmeyer both R from the house are YES votes.  please update.

senate focus is warranted at this time.  both R and D

Yep thats how I read it.

List is up to date.

House
35 for HF384 v. 7 uncommitted or against

Senate
17 for HF384 v. 5 uncommitted or against

Add 1 more to the yes



Thank you for your email.  I will continue to defend our Second Amendment rights and will be an advocate for legalizing ownership and the use of silencers on weapons by Iowans for all lawful purposes.

Sincerely,

Senator Charles Schneider

Iowa Senate District 22

Add Rep. Cecil Dolecheck (R) (District 24) to the support side.

I'm slightly hesitant to post this for fear that you guy's will let up, but you deserve to see the progress we're making just as much as I do... Yesterday I got an email response from Steve Olsen (House Speaker Pro Tem) saying:



Obviously this is very encouraging news.

Assuming this makes it out of committee as indicated, our odds look good in passing this through the House. **IF** this happens that's when the real works begins. As mentioned Sen. Rob Hogg ( [email protected] ) has made it clear he doesn't think gun issues deserve a vote - at least not this year. Keep in mind it's an election year, and currently the Iowa Senate is split 26-24 with the Democratic Party holding the slimmest majority possible (only two votes). It's in Sen. Hogg and the Democrats best interest to put this on the back burner. They could lose this particular vote, but an issue like this could very easily cause them to lose their majority in the Senate (which would be far worse than a bunch of gun owners finally getting the freedom to own suppressors). So there's some context as to why we have our work cut out for us.

The best tool we have at our disposal is our ability to communicate with legislators of all parties. We must be so vocal that we cannot be brushed aside. Sen. Hogg is convinced we don't need a vote on this? Well it's incumbent on us to convince every other Senator and Representative that this absolutely does deserve a vote. It's good legislation already in place in 39 other states. 39 other states that do not have a single crime tied to a suppressed firearm. Politicians fear elections, especially elections that come after controversial votes (which is why they try to stall controversial votes until after elections are over). What we need to do is make it very clear that if this does not get a vote than there will be repercussions come election day. Suppressors cut down noise related to using a firearm. They literally make shooting safer. This is legislation that makes guns safer. Not only that, it requires federal background checks done by the BATFE, and there's literally no known crime related to suppressors! Iowans want this. There's no logical reason why it doesn't deserve a vote.

/rant

This is grassroots politics, and it's awesome. You guys rock, now keep rocking the boat!

List is up to date.

House
36 for HF384 v. 8 uncommitted or against

Senate
18 for HF384 v. 5 uncommitted or against

Patti Ruff from McGregor is a Yes.

This isn't really conducive in anyway to our movement, but it is of interest if only to show how far we've come.

Suppressors were originally banned during the 70th General Assembly, in the first session (1983.)  The bill that did it was Senate File 155. It was passed unanimously (!!!) by the Senate on Feb 7th, 1983 and then again unanimously (!!!!!) by the House on Feb 25th, 1983. See here: SF155 (House vote on page 5.)

It was signed into law by Governor Branstad on March 14, 1983, two months to the day after he assumed office for the first time.

There were no provisions for individuals who legally owned suppressors at the time, they all became felons on July 1st, 1983 per the instructions in the bill - unless they moved out of the state or sold their suppressors.

This is also documented on page 32 of this document: (the PDF page, the printed page number is 7. warning: huge document) Laws of the 70th G.A., 1983 Sesion

What you should take away from this is not that Gov. Branstad gave us this awful treason against our freedoms, it is that not so long ago, Republicans and Democrats were united in opposition of freedom.  It is not the freedoms one party or the other rejects that bother me the most, it is the freedoms they both agree we shouldn't have.  Those are the ones we lose so easily, as demonstrated.

How lucky are we in this day and age that there is not only bipartisan (ish) support to restore our freedom, but a grassroots effort, support from great orgs like IFC and NRA-ILA, and enough transparency in government that we can at least hold our legislators accountable and be immediately aware of their actions?  Thanks for the internet, Al Gore.

Now grab five people and have them email their senator!

Email and call your senators!

From  Senator Rob Hogg

Thanks for your additional thoughts.  This issue is a new one to me this year, and to my knowledge the repeal of the ban has not been proposed before this General Assembly (2013-14).  The ban has been in effect since 1983, when the Legislature passed the ban and Governor Branstad signed it.  I am trying to do more research to learn why they did that.  If you know that history, that would be helpful.

Because it has not been an issue before, I actually think it is important for the public process to let the public weigh in during an election cycle on the issue either for or against the concept.  I personally don't have a position for or against the proposal.  If I had to vote this year, I would vote no, because I have not been convinced that we should change the law, and because I have heard from several law enforcement officers that they oppose it.  But as I have told the groups, I am not bringing it (or any gun bills) up for a debate this year, and I am going to let the public process work over the next year and see if there is a public consensus or at least broad public support for changing the law.

Thanks again.

Rob

Senator Rob Hogg
State Capitol
Des Moines, IA 50319
515-281-3371 (Switchboard)

He also asked if we knew the reason the issue came up in "83". What prompted everyone to vote this in? Does anyone know the answer? Can we find some pro gun Law Enforcement to show support.

Because everybody in the House and Senate had seen "Dirty Harry" by then?

There has never been a good reason to ban suppressors.  Even the federally illegal ones are used in an astonishingly small percentage of crimes, let alone the federally legal ones we are talking about legalizing in Iowa.

Recent response from Guy Vander Linden;

Thank you for your supportive comments.

I’m sure it appears that there has been little progress on these bills, but those of us who advocate for 2nd Amendment issues are doing all we can to further them.  Please continue to speak out to other legislators and encourage other Iowans to do the same.  I agree with you that we can win this, but we must continue the momentum.


Regards,

Guy

not sure i know that answer to that one.  to be honest, it doesn't matter.  when was there a ban on any 2A virtue that was warranted?  that is the question that boss hogg needs to be asked.  ...and it won't matter how he answers, as it'll be pure bullshit.

don't get distracted on the political double speak.  simply put, I DON'T CARE WHY YOU GUYS ERODED MY RIGHTS.  I WANT THEM BACK!

keep pushing guys!  the only way we win is to be relentless.  get your spouse to participate.  get the folks you see from the range to participate.  get your family and friends to participate.

IF YOU GATHER JUST FIVE PEOPLE TODAY TO USE THE IFC ACTION CENTER TO SEND A MESSAGE, JUST THING WHAT THAT'LL DO!!!!!!

Another round of emails sent to the house if nothing else we'll badger them into submission

List is up to date.

House
37 for HF384 v. 7 uncommitted or against

Senate
19 for HF384 v. 5 uncommitted or against


I just checked, HF384 is on the Judiciary Committee's agenda. They meet at 3:00 today. It's the last item on the agenda. Link to the agenda(s) - click on "Show/Hide" on the right side of the Judiciary row.

There's 21 legislators on the Judic. Comm., by my count we have 11 commitments of support from members that sit on this committee.
Right now here's how it looks based on our suppressor education campaign. I'll update with how each person voted as soon as I can.

Good link off of the IFC facebook page.  Sent and Shared!

Sen. Sandy Greiner (R) would vote for it.

Greiner, Sandra [LEGIS] [email protected]
9:30 AM (1 hour ago)

I doubt very much if it will make it to the floor for debate... but if it does, I'll vote in favor of it.  /shg

There are folks posting responses from their reps over at the IFC forum, let's make sure we count them in this as well.

Positive response from Sen. Frank Wood: http://www.iowacarry.org/forums1/index.php?showtopic=25881&st=40&p=166406&#entry166406
Positive response from Rep. Dave Deyoe: http://www.iowacarry.org/forums1/index.php?showtopic=25881&st=20&p=166294&#entry166294 and http://www.iowacarry.org/forums1/index.php?showtopic=25881&st=0&p=166288&#entry166288
Positive response from Sen. Dan Zumbach: http://www.iowacarry.org/forums1/index.php?showtopic=25881&st=20&p=166314&#entry166314

List is up to date.

House
39 for HF384 v. 7 uncommitted or against

Senate
21 for HF384 v. 5 uncommitted or against

I've added the ones you've listed. But I can't promise I'll check there ahead of every update.

If you guys see a new addition could you please post it in this thread? I think I've done a decent job catching most of the responses, but I can't be certain I'm getting them all. Thanks gang.

You are doing a GREAT job!  Thanks!