Part 2:

Anyway, there are still details about the bill and the process I'm not at liberty to discuss.  Not because I'm harboring secrets, but because, to use your words, going public with certain things would sabotage the process.  I cannot publicly reveal flaws in the opposition's plans because that educates them about what they're doing wrong, which gives them the opportunity to correct their mistakes and make things worse for us.  Ever hear Napeoleon's maxim about never interrupting your enemy while he is making a mistake?  Well keep in mind that the fight is still ongoing...

If you want to know the inside track, catch up with me in person sometime.  I just can't discuss it publicly, in an open forum such as this, via e-mail, Facebook, etc.  I know that sucks and you have my sincerest apologies for it.  I have no doubt it's frustrating, but it's just the way it is.  If you and a couple of the others want to keep beating me and IFC up over "not telling you the whole story" or whatever, go ahead.  I'll take the ass kicking and I won't say a word about it after this.  I'm not going to let a couple detractors make me give up trying to expand our gun rights in this state, or give up doing so in the most responsible and effective manner possible in the actual conditions in the capitol.

ETA: I'm not down with the Arfcom jive talk, but I believe it is customary for me to say something about "owning page 29" here...

Part 3:



You keep saying this, but I'd like to see your proof that IFC has been busy attacking IGO.

I went back and looked, and we only alluded to them once in all our releases that I see, in the context of Senator Bertrand's misguided opposition.  I also alluded to them in one of my recent letters as well, because it was relevant to the narrative I was telling.  But we did not refer to IGO by name at any point, nor do we as a policy, nor do we even allude to them except in rare instances where it must be done for an explination.  

So I'd really like to know why you keep harping about us going after IGO.  Perhaps you're confused becuase so many people complain about IGO here and you think it's us?  Perhaps you're under the impression that the new anti-IGO Facebook group is sponsored by IFC (I promise you it is not)?  Whatever it is, frankly, I don't know WTF you're talking about and I'd really appreciate it if you'd knock off saying it.

Barry, I want to chime in and thank you for all your hard work this year.  Pretty awesome of you and everyone at IFC to volunteer all the time you do.  Also, thanks for taking the time to join here and explain some things, we really appreciate it.  You're a good man, and I assure you, myself and the vast majority of Iowa afrcom stand behind you.

Also, to reiterate what Barry said, The Truth about IGO is in no way associated with IFC, I assure you of that.  Just fed up, pro 2A Iowans.

Thank you to you and your team Barry!  That is the no-nonsense that says enough for me.  If it doesn't for others, God help them!

Not a problem, gentlemen.  It's genuinely our pleasure.  It's just doing the right thing, so no thanks are necessary.

And really, shame on me for not dropping by here more often...I know you guys discuss our issues a lot here.  I hear about it a great deal from Michael and Kurt, so I apologize for not being more "public" here.  I guess I'm more of a Facebook hood rat.  

Don't listen to a word Kurt says about us.  Its all lies and misrepresentations.

I laughed buts thats mostly for the GD heathens

Which one of you is Kurt?

Fair enough I don't have facebook I only know about the facebook stuff because of what is posted here so I'm sorry for making the mistake that stuff was being funneled down from IFC leadership.  I do know a lot of discussions on this topic took place here and a lot of that contained references to facebook.  You can think what you want of me, but notice I said nothing about this topic until AFTER the session was over.  DURING the session I was in full support and said nothing negative about IFC or any gun rights group for that matter.  DURING the session I was sending out the emails in support just like IFC membership asked and when ever they asked.  I'm a small town guy and absolutely do not like crowds and I also do not like talking on the phone so I didn't get involved in those ways.  I've never even been to a gun show in any way not even to browse.  I live in Oskaloosa and my name is Jamey if any of that matters.

My questions about the methodology used during the session are purely in interest of understanding the how and why and certainly not meant to be criticisms.  Not everyone is always going to agree so I don't know why you want to act like we are children just because some don't agree with the methods and others like myself just want some answers.

I do apologize if you took offense to my comments about attacking the IGO if none of that was funneled down from leadership.  My previous statements about their group do still apply to some of the members here who constantly feel the need to post about them here...It gets old...all of us here get it.

I still don't buy this 100%

The "May Issue" aspect on suppressors was to be expected. In fact I would have been stunned if it had been any other way. Nothing about the language in the suppressor legalization that came back from the senate being unacceptable was stated when it happened. That was never given as a reason for rejecting it. When the noise started about the "all or nothing" absolutist approach not sitting well with people, that would have been the time to say something in this regard. Instead it was simply stated that settling for only suppressors was unacceptable".

So was it that, or was it that no one at the state house wanted to look at the Gibsons and say "We're going to take this and come back for the rest next year"?

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely appreciate all of the hard work that everyone put in and this isn't to diminish their efforts in any way but something about the after the fact explanation seems "off" to me.

Edit: After reading through SF427 again, I am stunned as it wasn't may issue at all.

SF427:



Doesn't sound like may issue to me.

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=BillInfo&Service=Billbook&hbill=S3079&ga=86

Excerpt from IFC Email 3/31/15 "Senate Democrats Attempting Bait & Switch on SF425"



Again, not buying it.

I don't know who started the myth that SF427 didn't include the shall sign/certify language, but it does.  Nobody from IFC claimed otherwise.  The sticking point is somewhere in here:

Original SF427:



House OGB version:



The difference is minor but important.  This is a felony penalty we're talking about.  The senate didn't just cut out the suppressor language from the OGB, they made their own subtle changes to it that weren't acceptable.

The language put up by the house was NRA/IFC approved language and designed to protect you and your family members and friends.  The senate's version wasn't.

Ya, that looks important to me. A Felony for not even knowing that you committed a malum prohibitum crime, no mens rea. That's the statist way, alright.  Accidentally forgot your metal tube in a locked case in the car and your teenager gets pulled over for speeding? Boom, felony charge.

There are even finer points than that.

The senate version relies on the the Federal law existing indefinitely.  What happens if it's struck down in ten years?  Everyone's a felon.

The senate version would have relied upon an ambiguous definition of possession, whereas the OGB version phrased it "such possession is knowingly in violation of federal law," which would necessarily rely on the interpretation of "possession" at the federal level.

It's a whole bag of worms we really don't want to open.

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to how the legislature works. It's only June, are you telling me they are done working for the year? We don't have 6 more months to bring this up again?

Iowa has a part time legislature that convenes in the first part of each year.  They operate from about noon on Mondays through around 3:00 PM Thursdays, which gives them a 3 day weekend to allow for travel time home.  During the session, most of them live in hotels or rent apartments and have each other as roommates, only going home on the weekends.  They make $25,000 for their time; that amount is fixed regardless of how long after their scheduled ending time is.  Quite a few of them continue working their "real jobs" on the weekends or evenings as well.

Frankly, after seeing it in action first hand for so many years now, I think I'm adequately experienced enough to say with some authority that their job totally sucks.  It is literally one giant, daily pain in the ass, and unless they live within reasonable driving distance of Des Moines, I seriously can't imagine why any of them would want the job.  Everybody thinks it's a power trip or something, but that's just media and ideologue inspired nonsense.  In reality local politics is boring, frustrating, tedious work that on some days has a tendency to eliminate one's faith in humanity.  The good people who have the tenacity to do it are extraordinary, civic minded folks who deserve respect--not merely for their position, but for having the psychological makeup to endure it to try to eek out even the smallest of victories on our behalf.

Comedy answer: saying that the legislature "works" would be a stretch.
They may do a lot of work while in session, bus as you saw this year and many prior, they have special rules and procedures in place to circumvent the will of the people, and even the will of the super-majority of the legislature.

Just wondering, Is the six months a year thing common in other states too?

Texas is every other year outside of special sessions.  No, we're not special.

Like Spart said, part-time legislatures are pretty common.  Only a few states have full-time legislatures.  California comes to mind.

Depending on how you look at it full time legislature might be a negative.   Just more time to pass more laws and take more rights away.  The less they are in session the better as long as you can get your bills on the agenda.

While I find the result disappointing, I've gotta say that anyone who thinks the other political party hasn't done something similar is being niave. It's politics. It's disgusting. It's the reason that most of us wouldn't do well lobbying- we'd go off on the perpetrators, likely poisoning the relationship going forward (sound familiar?). That doesn't further the cause, so we take time off, regroup, and gird our loins for next session.

I couldn't do the job that our lobbyists do, and I'm thankful that they fought the good fight, for us. Unfortunately we came up short, but as Barry said, it'll probably pass next year given the circumstances. We can bicker amongst ourselves, or we can have some faith that they know what they're doing. I'm not that smart. I just move aluminum tubing around the sky.

Barry, I'd like to buy you and the others a drink and a good cigar. Let me know when we can make that happen. All gun owners in Iowa owe you guys a debt of gratitude.

Septic- hope you enjoy your VAC. It sounds good. Of course having my shotgun done FIRST would have been desirable. Unfortunately I made some more work for you this last weekend.

We'll talk when you get back!

I don't think there is anything wrong with people being unhappy with the outcome and asking questions.  I would guess that most of us here have never just accepted things without questioning authority and looking for the how, when, and why of things.  If someone is in a leadership position whether it be a politician or in the leadership of an organization representing others such as IFC they should expect there to be questions when things don't end the way we all wanted.  You also can't expect a large group of people with the same goals to all agree on how to get there.

I could never be a lobbyist and work with politicians basically kissing ass and trying to make friends with anyone you can.  I speak my mind and people that I talk to will always know how I really feel.  Politicians wanted the job they have and I wouldn't judge the jobs benefits just off of the salary they are being paid by the tax payers.  There are plenty of others who work away from home also whether it be construction workers or active military so the politicians aren't going to get any sympathy from me.