Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Page Hometown » Iowa
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Page / 7
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 4/7/2017 10:21:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2017 10:33:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2017 10:33:38 AM EDT by amaixner]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iasc300ia:
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.
View Quote

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.
Link Posted: 4/7/2017 1:41:22 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By amaixner:



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.
View Quote
I get it.

But like i said, the wording is retarded.
Link Posted: 4/7/2017 1:51:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2017 1:52:18 PM EDT by BigPony]
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
Link Posted: 4/7/2017 9:38:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2017 9:46:09 PM EDT by AR-10]
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)?
Link Posted: 4/7/2017 9:46:29 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigPony:
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
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 4/7/2017 9:49:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2017 9:51:04 PM EDT by DeltaGunner7994]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AR-10:
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)?
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/7/2017 11:33:39 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigPony:
Does anyone from IFC actually come here? I thought in the past they had....
View Quote
I'm a life member. I did gun show tables and local campaigning heavily for 6-7 years (before I had 3 kids and that took over my time). I don't think that the guys who spend their time at the capitol building or working on wording and strategy have much excess time, unfortunately, and they have also become very wary of talking about information that the anti-freedom side would use against us. Everything on the internet is public.
Link Posted: 4/8/2017 11:00:25 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaGunner7994:


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.
View Quote
Thanks. That does make it easier. Still disappointed lifetime permits were removed. Of all the things in the bill that is what was removed? Seems odd, but ok.
Link Posted: 4/9/2017 12:29:50 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iasc300ia:
I get it.

But like i said, the wording is retarded.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iasc300ia:
Originally Posted By amaixner:



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.
I get it.

But like i said, the wording is retarded.
I read that washington state's SBR law screwed up the first time because it said you could posess, transport, acquire, etc. an sbr, but since it did not say manufacture, ATF disapproved all the form 1s that had been approved already.

It might be safer to just strike it and have no mention in the law.
Link Posted: 4/9/2017 12:46:45 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 4/10/2017 3:27:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2017 3:28:25 PM EDT by amaixner]
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
Link Posted: 4/11/2017 10:32:52 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By amaixner:
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
View Quote
C'mon Terry B. Sign the bill already
Link Posted: 4/12/2017 10:12:25 AM EDT
Lets see this signed!!!
Link Posted: 4/12/2017 8:31:44 PM EDT
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!
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/12/2017 9:14:40 PM EDT
Congratulations, guys!

Maybe I'll have to finally move over the border.
Link Posted: 4/12/2017 9:35:50 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaGunner7994:
From the IFC facebook page
View Quote
Woohooo
Link Posted: 4/12/2017 9:37:20 PM EDT
Celebrate Good Times...Come on!!!!!!


Its a Celebration
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 11:02:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/13/2017 11:07:17 AM EDT by DeltaGunner7994]
It's done. Big thanks to everyone involved and the IFC!



Link Posted: 4/13/2017 11:15:17 AM EDT
Im gunna buy some stamps...got 2hundo in my pocket.....
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 11:44:37 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 2:09:52 PM EDT


What is the effective date of this?
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 2:13:24 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hurtback:


What is the effective date of this?
View Quote
Should be July 1st
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 2:15:54 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hurtback:


What is the effective date of this?
View Quote
Permit privacy and youth handgun shooting are effect now, the rest is July 1st.
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 3:15:24 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 4:39:56 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaGunner7994:


Permit privacy and youth handgun shooting are effect now, the rest is July 1st.
View Quote
Perfect, time to save up some cash for those form 1s.

Also allows me to take my nephews shooting (including handguns this time) when they come visit from TX.
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 6:35:45 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 6:44:45 PM EDT
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.
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 7:52:40 PM EDT
So that ordinance was never really legal to begin with? As I said, I really need things spelled out simply to me, my apologies
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 7:57:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigPony:
So that ordinance was never really legal to begin with? As I said, I really need things spelled out simply to me, my apologies
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 9:08:06 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaGunner7994:
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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaGunner7994:
Originally Posted By BigPony:
So that ordinance was never really legal to begin with? As I said, I really need things spelled out simply to me, my apologies
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.
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.
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 9:10:22 PM EDT
So no one has a link to the cleaned up bill? Reading through all the strikeouts and additions is tedious.
Link Posted: 4/13/2017 10:56:15 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 4/14/2017 2:36:06 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By river_rat:
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?
View Quote
I don't recall hearing that provision ever mentioned.
Link Posted: 4/14/2017 3:00:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/14/2017 3:07:20 AM EDT by BigPony]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By river_rat:


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.
View Quote
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).
Link Posted: 4/14/2017 6:27:42 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 4/14/2017 7:27:02 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigPony:
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).
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigPony:
Originally Posted By river_rat:


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.
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).
I mentioned I was from Clinton County as a proximity reference. I never saw where this was invoked and I would have considered it illegal anyway, meaning I would go by state law. The only thing I saw was a resolution that was termed more toward county employees in Scott County Park.
Link Posted: 4/14/2017 7:31:16 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigPony:
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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 4/14/2017 7:51:19 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By river_rat:


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.
View Quote
Taken straight from the Aaron Dorr playbook. The only piece they left off was the "send me money".
Link Posted: 4/14/2017 9:27:21 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigPony:
So that ordinance was never really legal to begin with? As I said, I really need things spelled out simply to me, my apologies
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 4/14/2017 11:39:11 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By The_Reaper:


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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 4/14/2017 2:28:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By river_rat:


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.
View Quote
Scott county has an interesting situation because the entrance to the jail is the same as to the sheriff's office and courthouse.
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.
Page / 7
Next Page Arrow Left
Page Hometown » Iowa
Top Top