Kirsters Baish| The February 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida sparked perhaps the largest gun control debate our country has ever seen. Lawmakers in the state of Iowa used the shooting to take a different approach than liberal states did when refining gun laws.
The Des Moines Register reported that Iowa state legislators came up with a resolution in early March which people are hoping will wind up in a ballot measure which would allow citizens to vote for a “right to bear arms” to be put into the Iowa Constitution.
Lawmakers in both the State House and Senate talked about their opinions on the solution. The debate was intense, then both chambers voted in order to push the legislation.
The language used in the resolution claims that the state “affirms and recognizes” the constitutional right that is the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
The language fits in a tweet: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny."
— Barbara Rodriguez (@bcrodriguez) March 19, 2018
The state of Iowa feels that the Second Amendment “shall not be infringed.” They may very well become the fourth sate to impose “strict scrutiny” on any effort to try and restrict citizens’ gun ownership.
Western Journal reported:
That phrase caused much of the consternation among opponents of the measure, with several Democrats suggesting a new amendment could present additional hurdles in efforts to require permits or improve background checks.
A GOP backer in the Senate, however, said it is up to the voters to determine if the amendment goes too far.
“I trust the Iowa voter,” said state Sen. Brad Zaun. “They are going to tell us if they don’t like the language in front of us. They are going to tell us how important their Second Amendment rights are.”
Democratic State Senator Tony Bisignano stated that some opponents are concerned that supporters are viewing the Second Amendment as exactly what it is and in absolute terms.
He questioned, “Can you envision what arms will look like in 150 years? What we have today for arms is beyond their imagination.”
We wonder if she applies the same logic in her interoperation of the 1st Amendment and it’s extension to protect the phone, TV and internet. Surely advanced and more powerful firearms were more easily envisioned that the afore mentioned technological wonders at the time of the Revolution.
A Democrat critic had some harsh criticism, calling his Republican colleagues “tone deaf” for pushing a resolution that he claims made it seem as though they were getting ready for a “zombie apocalypse.”
State Senator Matt McCoy insisted that “haven’t even figured out how to secure our school buildings yet” and they shouldn’t be working on constitutional amendments that would expand gun rights. If a law could do it why not just make school shooting illegal and solve the problem. Oh yea, they already are.
One of his Republican counterparts felt that demographics to gun violence had more to do with it rather than actual physical access to guns.
State Senator Julian Garrett stated, “In the big majority of counties around the United States, there are no murders, or maybe one in a given year. It is only in concentrated areas where we have these murders.”
In the cases of many school shootings, the Parkland, Florida school shooting included, the killers have struck in what people normally considered a “safe” community.
Western Journal reported, “A joint resolution to advance the amendment process passed by a vote of 54 to 42 in the House before advancing to the Senate, where it passed 34 to 15.”