User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/7/2017 10:21:00 AM EDT
[#1]
     
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2017 10:33:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just find the wording extremely odd and non-definative . The offensive weapons part was omited, but i see nothing that says sbs and sbr are now legal to buy/own/make. Thats what i really need to see to get my good feelings and to get excited. You would think that if somethings that is an NFA item (and so scary  ) would have a crystal clear explination like the suppressor statement. 1 3 Section 1. Section 724.1, subsection 1, paragraph b, Code 1 4 2017, is amended by striking the paragraph. 1 5 Sec. 2. NEW SECTION. 724.1C Short-barreled rifle or 1 6 short-barreled shotgun ---- penalty. 1 7 1. For purposes of this section, "short-barreled rifle" or 1 8 "short-barreled shotgun" means the same as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1 9 {921. 1 10 2. A person shall not knowingly possess a short-barreled 1 11 rifle or short-barreled shotgun in violation of federal law. 1 12 3. A person who possesses a short-barreled rifle or 1 13 short-barreled shotgun in violation of subsection 1 commits a 1 14 class "D" felony. It clearly says that the only crime is (known) possession that violates the federal code referenced. That means that if it is legal federally, it is legal in Iowa. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2017 1:41:22 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1 3 Section 1. Section 724.1, subsection 1, paragraph b, Code 1 4 2017, is amended by striking the paragraph. 1 5 Sec. 2. NEW SECTION. 724.1C Short-barreled rifle or 1 6 short-barreled shotgun ---- penalty. 1 7 1. For purposes of this section, "short-barreled rifle" or 1 8 "short-barreled shotgun" means the same as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1 9 {921. 1 10 2. A person shall not knowingly possess a short-barreled 1 11 rifle or short-barreled shotgun in violation of federal law. 1 12 3. A person who possesses a short-barreled rifle or 1 13 short-barreled shotgun in violation of subsection 1 commits a 1 14 class "D" felony. It clearly says that the only crime is (known) possession that violates the federal code referenced. That means that if it is legal federally, it is legal in Iowa. But like i said, the wording is retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2017 1:51:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Does anyone from IFC actually come here? I thought in the past they had. I still would like to know what changes to the permitting process were included. We were hearing about lifetime permits before. Seems that was removed? Why was that removed if so? What are the changes in the process? I have heard there were still changes made to the permitting process several places, but no specifics. Thanks for any help anyone may have answering my question. Thanks.
Also if Lifetime permits were removed will that be brought up again next legislative cycle? I want more winning please  I for one do not get sick of winning 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2017 9:38:56 PM EDT
[#5]
I can't carry on city property, and the same for county property.
Did this bill address that? ...and I'm more confused than BigPony on what changes were made to the licence process. The impression I get is there is no change in the process to get a carry permit. No lifetime deal. No requirement to shoot at a range. Right? Wrong? Purchase permits. I heard they are good for five years. True? Choice of one year or five year? Just the one year purchase permit? Just a five year purchase permit (at what cost)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2017 9:46:29 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does anyone from IFC actually come here? I thought in the past they had. I still would like to know what changes to the permitting process were included. We were hearing about lifetime permits before. Seems that was removed? Why was that removed if so? What are the changes in the process? I have heard there were still changes made to the permitting process several places, but no specifics. Thanks for any help anyone may have answering my question. Thanks. Also if Lifetime permits were removed will that be brought up again next legislative cycle? I want more winning please I for one do not get sick of winning |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2017 9:49:52 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't carry on city property, and the same for county property. Did this bill address that? ...and I'm more confused than BigPony on what changes were made to the licence process. The impression I get is there is no change in the process to get a carry permit. Renewal permits no longer need training within 12 months. Just pay fee and it gets renewed No lifetime deal. Yep this was removed. No requirement to shoot at a range. There is no requirement for range shooting now or in this bill Right? Wrong? Purchase permits. I heard they are good for five years. True? Right now they are one year, after the bill is signed they will be five year permits. Remember your permit to carry works like a purchase permit. Choice of one year or five year? Just the one year purchase permit? Just a five year purchase permit (at what cost)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2017 11:33:39 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does anyone from IFC actually come here? I thought in the past they had.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2017 11:00:25 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lifetime permits where removed, as to why? I would guess politics. The change to the carry permit process is that when you renew you no longer have to take a refresher training course. Just go in and pay the fee and done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2017 12:29:50 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get it. But like i said, the wording is retarded. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
1 3 Section 1. Section 724.1, subsection 1, paragraph b, Code 1 4 2017, is amended by striking the paragraph. 1 5 Sec. 2. NEW SECTION. 724.1C Short-barreled rifle or 1 6 short-barreled shotgun ---- penalty. 1 7 1. For purposes of this section, "short-barreled rifle" or 1 8 "short-barreled shotgun" means the same as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1 9 {921. 1 10 2. A person shall not knowingly possess a short-barreled 1 11 rifle or short-barreled shotgun in violation of federal law. 1 12 3. A person who possesses a short-barreled rifle or 1 13 short-barreled shotgun in violation of subsection 1 commits a 1 14 class "D" felony. It clearly says that the only crime is (known) possession that violates the federal code referenced. That means that if it is legal federally, it is legal in Iowa. But like i said, the wording is retarded. It might be safer to just strike it and have no mention in the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2017 12:46:45 AM EDT
[#11]
KCCI did an article on Windschitl's call out of IGO. Maybe the word will finally get around like it should:
http://www.kcci.com/article/state-lawmaker-calls-iowa-gun-owners-group-a-scam/9250891 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2017 3:27:46 PM EDT
[#12]
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/guest-columnists/examine-the-facts-about-stand-your-ground-20170407
Alarmist and rambling/disjointed editorial against the SYG bill, from a writer who claims to be both on the board for the anti-gun group "Iowans for Gun Safety" (actually for gun bans, in their manifesto), and a member of the Izaak Walton League. Standard jumping from point-to-point while conflating unrelated issues and and failing to logically support any chain of reasoning with evidence. I wonder if that private group might want to remove from their membership someone who invokes their name in the context of being: -against allowing the possession of arms for hunting while on snowmobiles/ATVs -against suppressors and noise reduction while hunting -against personal defense from criminals -against teaching handgun safety to kids ( http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/guest-columnists/what-does-iowans-for-gun-safety-stand-for-20160217 ), -against Equal Protection / Shall Issue ( https://www.facebook.com/pg/IA4GS/about/?ref=page_internal ), -against permit privacy |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2017 10:32:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/guest-columnists/examine-the-facts-about-stand-your-ground-20170407 Alarmist and rambling/disjointed editorial against the SYG bill, from a writer who claims to be both on the board for the anti-gun group "Iowans for Gun Safety" (actually for gun bans, in their manifesto), and a member of the Izaak Walton League. Standard jumping from point-to-point while conflating unrelated issues and and failing to logically support any chain of reasoning with evidence. I wonder if that private group might want to remove from their membership someone who invokes their name in the context of being: -against allowing the possession of arms for hunting while on snowmobiles/ATVs -against suppressors and noise reduction while hunting -against personal defense from criminals -against teaching handgun safety to kids ( http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/guest-columnists/what-does-iowans-for-gun-safety-stand-for-20160217 ), -against Equal Protection / Shall Issue ( https://www.facebook.com/pg/IA4GS/about/?ref=page_internal ), -against permit privacy
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2017 10:12:25 AM EDT
[#14]
Lets see this signed!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2017 8:31:44 PM EDT
[#15]
From the IFC facebook page
It's official, the Omnibus Gun Bill, HF517, will be signed into law by Governor Terry Branstad tomorrow morning!!! The Iowa Firearms Coalition will be there, just as we have been all session long pushing this through until the end! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2017 9:14:40 PM EDT
[#16]
Congratulations, guys!
Maybe I'll have to finally move over the border. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2017 9:35:50 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the IFC facebook page
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2017 9:37:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Celebrate Good Times...Come on!!!!!!
Its a Celebration 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 11:02:00 AM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 11:15:17 AM EDT
[#20]
Im gunna buy some stamps...got 2hundo in my pocket.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 11:44:37 AM EDT
[#21]
This is a great day for gun owners in this state.
Does anyone have a link to the final bill language with the strikes removed and new language in place? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 2:09:52 PM EDT
[#22]
What is the effective date of this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 2:13:24 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the effective date of this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 2:15:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the effective date of this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 3:15:24 PM EDT
[#25]
Best. Day. Ever. in Iowa at least. Thanks to all Iowans who played even the smallest of roles up to the big dogs for getting this done.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 4:39:56 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Permit privacy and youth handgun shooting are effect now, the rest is July 1st. Also allows me to take my nephews shooting (including handguns this time) when they come visit from TX. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 6:35:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Question for anyone here who may know...
The City of Davenport a couple years ago passed a city ordinance making it a crime to carry a firearm in city parks. I used to ride the trail a lot but always carried in a pack in case of loose dogs (which has happened to me while riding) or worse. Anyways the reasons why are technically irrelevant. One of the parts of this law pre-empts local ordinances restricting gun rights. Would that ordinance be stricken down then as of July 1? Or would it remain in effect under a sort of grandfather rule or something? Hopefully some of you smart guys here (I definitely am not one lol) knows the answer to this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 6:44:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Current law. The new bill adds to it. We shouldn't have needed to but our AG sent out an opinion letter saying towns could still set limits on their own property. To the best of my knowledge no one has been charged with violating such a law. Most cities only make resolutions with no real teeth.
724.28 Prohibition of regulation by political subdivisions.
A political subdivision of the state shall not enact an ordinance regulating the ownership, possession, legal transfer, lawful transportation, registration, or licensing of rearms when the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation is otherwise lawful under the laws of this state. An ordinance regulating rearms in violation of this section existing on or after April 5, 1990, is void. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 7:52:40 PM EDT
[#29]
So that ordinance was never really legal to begin with? As I said, I really need things spelled out simply to me, my apologies
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 7:57:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So that ordinance was never really legal to begin with? As I said, I really need things spelled out simply to me, my apologies |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 9:08:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IANL, but I would say no. It's up to you if you want to push it now. The new bill gives you standing to sue the city. I would assume loose dogs/no armed security would be a good enough reason to challenge it but once again IANL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So that ordinance was never really legal to begin with? As I said, I really need things spelled out simply to me, my apologies |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 9:10:22 PM EDT
[#32]
So no one has a link to the cleaned up bill? Reading through all the strikeouts and additions is tedious.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2017 10:56:15 PM EDT
[#33]
I was under the impression parking lot law, not just capitol grounds, was a part of the bill? Did I miss the language in the bill I read or was it not there to begin with?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2017 2:36:06 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was under the impression parking lot law, not just capitol grounds, was a part of the bill? Did I miss the language in the bill I read or was it not there to begin with? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2017 3:00:59 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From Clinton County and iirc that was only a resolution for the populace and a policy for city employees. See if you can find the language and post it. Personally I never regarded it as effecting me in the slightest and still won't. 12.72.060 Recreational Activities C. Hunting and Firearms. No person in a park shall: hunt, trap or pursue wild life at any time. No person shall within a park use, carry or possess firearms of any descriptions, or air rifles, spring-guns, bow-and-arrows, slings or any other forms of weapons potentially inimical to wild life and dangerous to human safety, or any instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges, or any kind of trapping device. H. Firearms, Missiles and Fireworks. No person in a park shall: carry, shoot, fire, explode or impell, any firearms, air rifles, bows and arrows, pellet guns, sling shots, fireworks, firecrackers, rockets, torpedos or missiles or explosives of any kind in any park, without a permit from the director. (Ord. 76-582 § 1 (part): prior code § 31.01-6). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2017 6:27:42 AM EDT
[#36]
So KWQC TV6 in the QC did a typical liberal shitbag story on the gun bill passage. Interviewed some lady dog from MDA who was playing up all the things they stopped from happening with the bill to keep people in Iowa safer.
Made me want to puke. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2017 7:27:02 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is Scott County I am referring to and expressly the City of Davenport (iit is a Davenport City Ordinance, not County) 12.72.060 Recreational Activities C. Hunting and Firearms. No person in a park shall: hunt, trap or pursue wild life at any time. No person shall within a park use, carry or possess firearms of any descriptions, or air rifles, spring-guns, bow-and-arrows, slings or any other forms of weapons potentially inimical to wild life and dangerous to human safety, or any instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges, or any kind of trapping device. H. Firearms, Missiles and Fireworks. No person in a park shall: carry, shoot, fire, explode or impell, any firearms, air rifles, bows and arrows, pellet guns, sling shots, fireworks, firecrackers, rockets, torpedos or missiles or explosives of any kind in any park, without a permit from the director. (Ord. 76-582 § 1 (part): prior code § 31.01-6). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
From Clinton County and iirc that was only a resolution for the populace and a policy for city employees. See if you can find the language and post it. Personally I never regarded it as effecting me in the slightest and still won't. 12.72.060 Recreational Activities C. Hunting and Firearms. No person in a park shall: hunt, trap or pursue wild life at any time. No person shall within a park use, carry or possess firearms of any descriptions, or air rifles, spring-guns, bow-and-arrows, slings or any other forms of weapons potentially inimical to wild life and dangerous to human safety, or any instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges, or any kind of trapping device. H. Firearms, Missiles and Fireworks. No person in a park shall: carry, shoot, fire, explode or impell, any firearms, air rifles, bows and arrows, pellet guns, sling shots, fireworks, firecrackers, rockets, torpedos or missiles or explosives of any kind in any park, without a permit from the director. (Ord. 76-582 § 1 (part): prior code § 31.01-6). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2017 7:31:16 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So KWQC TV6 in the QC did a typical liberal shitbag story on the gun bill passage. Interviewed some lady dog from MDA who was playing up all the things they stopped from happening with the bill to keep people in Iowa safer. Made me want to puke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2017 7:51:19 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw that several times. I was just amazed how the MDA saved the world from something that was never at risk, namely background checks. Guess you have to sound effective even when you didn't accomplish anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2017 9:27:21 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So that ordinance was never really legal to begin with? As I said, I really need things spelled out simply to me, my apologies I'm pretty sure it was already legal to carry in state capitol buildings, but people were prohibited anyway. Just like it is legal to carry at the Scott County courthouse, but it is prohibited. NO political subdivision includes the city of Davenport, and Scott County. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2017 11:39:11 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct, the local ordinance had no legal meaning because state law said they couldn't do it. I'm pretty sure it was already legal to carry in state capitol buildings, but people were prohibited anyway. Just like it is legal to carry at the Scott County courthouse, but it is prohibited. NO political subdivision includes the city of Davenport, and Scott County. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2017 2:28:57 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet the question remains how Scott and Clinton Counties will no justify their metal detectors and prohibition of firearms in their respective courthouses. I guess they could claim security concerns of some sort but not sure how that would stand. As I understand it, they say "no guns allowed" because of the jail part. They intentionally closed other entrances to the building to force everyone to go through the metal detector. I suspect someone could challenge them in court to make them open the other entrances back up. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File