Iowa Gun Bills

[duglynukem]

Two pro gun bills made it through the House of Representatives here yesterday. Now on to the state senate for consideration.

One bill "House Joint Resolution 2009" restores the wording to:

The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed. Mandatory licensing, registration, or special taxation as a condition of the exercise of this right is prohibited, and any other restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

The other bill House File 2215 removes a person's "duty" to retreat from an attacker.

Seems like a no-brainer to me...

 

[likescarsz28]

In South Dakota, we have had the law clarified for years that there is no duty to retreat. This year, a bill is approved and waiting for the Governors signature where there would no longer be a requirement for a citizen to possess a concealed weapons permit, as long as the person has a current South Dakota Driver License, and meets all of the requirements under the law.

I know very few people who ever leave the house without a big bore handgun. There is no crime to speak of where I live.

 

[Gonz]

If there is no longer a permit required to carry a concealed weapon, does that remove the instruction and safety aspect that comes as a result of taking the class to get your permit? While I'm all for people having the right to carry, is there a legitimate concern that if anyone (except those prohibited by law because they're a felon or whatever) were to start carrying then the instances of unnecessary brandishing and escalations of situations that should have been diffused will skyrocket? I personally have a permit to carry, but one of the key responsibilities of doing so is understanding that you need to learn when to walk away, and that carrying does not make you the local sheriff.

I'm just asking, not trying to start WWIII here.

 

[duglynukem]

[sub]

If there is no longer a permit required to carry a concealed weapon, does that remove the instruction and safety aspect that comes as a result of taking the class to get your permit? While I'm all for people having the right to carry, is there a legitimate concern that if anyone (except those prohibited by law because they're a felon or whatever) were to start carrying then the instances of unnecessary brandishing and escalations of situations that should have been diffused will skyrocket? I personally have a permit to carry, but one of the key responsibilities of doing so is understanding that you need to learn when to walk away, and that carrying does not make you the local sheriff.

I'm just asking, not trying to start WWIII here.

[/sub]

[sub]Iowa still requires a permit for concealed carry. However, obtaining a permit here is no longer at the discretion of the Sheriff. The arguments against concealed carry were: an expected increase in gun violence and gun accidents. The reality was the opposite here in Iowa. All that being said, regardless of the situation if you pull the trigger, you had better be able to justify it.[/sub]

 

[punk_lawyer]

This thread strikes me as being political...

 

[Aussie Shaun]

OMG you lucky Bastids. Not only are we not allowed to carry guns or have them unsecured ( must be locked in a gun safe ) but if some jerkoff breaks into our home we have to let them take what they want ( we cant hurt the miserable prick ) and if they hurt themselves while robbing us then they can sue us for injuring themselves on our property. If I had my way I would shoot or bash the Mongrel, but then I would be charged and sent to jail.

 

[likescarsz28]

If there is no longer a permit required to carry a concealed weapon, does that remove the instruction and safety aspect that comes as a result of taking the class to get your permit? While I'm all for people having the right to carry, is there a legitimate concern that if anyone (except those prohibited by law because they're a felon or whatever) were to start carrying then the instances of unnecessary brandishing and escalations of situations that should have been diffused will skyrocket? I personally have a permit to carry, but one of the key responsibilities of doing so is understanding that you need to learn when to walk away, and that carrying does not make you the local sheriff.

I'm just asking, not trying to start WWIII here.

There are no requirements for any gun safety or instruction classes of any sort here in South Dakota. You fill out the short application, you pay your $10, they perform the background and the Sec. of State signs your permit. I too have concerns that w/o the permit process, a few dumbasses could threaten our legal right to carry a concealed weapon. Excellent points.

 

[likescarsz28]

OMG you lucky Bastids. Not only are we not allowed to carry guns or have them unsecured ( must be locked in a gun safe ) but if some jerkoff breaks into our home we have to let them take what they want ( we cant hurt the miserable prick ) and if they hurt themselves while robbing us then they can sue us for injuring themselves on our property. If I had my way I would shoot or bash the Mongrel, but then I would be charged and sent to jail.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and for the most part, I respect them all, but personally, I would never kill a man for robbing my home. I would retreat and call 9-1-1. This being said, if there was a threat of great physical harm to me, my family or another upstanding citizen, and there was no option for me or them to run away and escape, the poor guy would be a DMF. It would be horrible and I would have to live with it (as would any witnesses or the family of the DMF) for the rest of my life.

 

[Aussie Shaun]

OMG you lucky Bastids. Not only are we not allowed to carry guns or have them unsecured ( must be locked in a gun safe ) but if some jerkoff breaks into our home we have to let them take what they want ( we cant hurt the miserable prick ) and if they hurt themselves while robbing us then they can sue us for injuring themselves on our property. If I had my way I would shoot or bash the Mongrel, but then I would be charged and sent to jail.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and for the most part, I respect them all, but personally, I would never kill a man for robbing my home. I would retreat and call 9-1-1. This being said, if there was a threat of great physical harm to me, my family or another upstanding citizen, and there was no option for me or them to run away and escape, the poor guy would be a DMF. It would be horrible and I would have to live with it (as would any witnesses or the family of the DMF) for the rest of my life.

Maybe I worded that wrong, what I meant to say is, if some SOB broke into my home while my family and I were home there would be hell to pay for the person silly enough to invade my castle. I could never kill another human ( outside of armed conflict-war ) but a mans home is his castle.

 

[likescarsz28]

OMG you lucky Bastids. Not only are we not allowed to carry guns or have them unsecured ( must be locked in a gun safe ) but if some jerkoff breaks into our home we have to let them take what they want ( we cant hurt the miserable prick ) and if they hurt themselves while robbing us then they can sue us for injuring themselves on our property. If I had my way I would shoot or bash the Mongrel, but then I would be charged and sent to jail.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and for the most part, I respect them all, but personally, I would never kill a man for robbing my home. I would retreat and call 9-1-1. This being said, if there was a threat of great physical harm to me, my family or another upstanding citizen, and there was no option for me or them to run away and escape, the poor guy would be a DMF. It would be horrible and I would have to live with it (as would any witnesses or the family of the DMF) for the rest of my life.

Maybe I worded that wrong, what I meant to say is, if some SOB broke into my home while my family and I were home there would be hell to pay for the person silly enough to invade my castle. I could never kill another human ( outside of armed conflict-war ) but a mans home is his castle.

I am with you Shaun. Any bad guys found in my house at night would be found there in the morning.

 

[duglynukem]

OMG you lucky Bastids. Not only are we not allowed to carry guns or have them unsecured ( must be locked in a gun safe ) but if some jerkoff breaks into our home we have to let them take what they want ( we cant hurt the miserable prick ) and if they hurt themselves while robbing us then they can sue us for injuring themselves on our property. If I had my way I would shoot or bash the Mongrel, but then I would be charged and sent to jail.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and for the most part, I respect them all, but personally, I would never kill a man for robbing my home. I would retreat and call 9-1-1. This being said, if there was a threat of great physical harm to me, my family or another upstanding citizen, and there was no option for me or them to run away and escape, the poor guy would be a DMF. It would be horrible and I would have to live with it (as would any witnesses or the family of the DMF) for the rest of my life.

Maybe I worded that wrong, what I meant to say is, if some SOB broke into my home while my family and I were home there would be hell to pay for the person silly enough to invade my castle. I could never kill another human ( outside of armed conflict-war ) but a mans home is his castle.

I am with you Shaun. Any bad guys found in my house at night would be found there in the morning.

likes, I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[likescarsz28]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/141525753.html



Looks like the castle doctrine was vetoed by the Governor in MN. A wise man that I respected very much once told me, "I would rather tried by nine than carried by six".