Groups Fire Back at Proposed Changes to Iowa Guns Laws

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

DES MOINES, Iowa — State Senator Joe Bolkcom, an Iowa City Democrat, can’t predict whether a wide-ranging bill to change guns laws will pass. But he is working with anti-gun violence organization to make sure Iowans understand the impact of the gun law changes.

“Allow guns to end up in the wrong hands,” Bolkcom said, expressing his concerns during a news conference at the Iowa Statehouse Monday morning.

Gun laws split political parties, which makes it more difficult to determine whether the gun law package passed in the Republican-led house can make it through the narrowly Democratic-held senate. The house version enjoyed widespread support with 75 of the 100 members voting for it.

Iowans for Gun Safety joined Bolkcom to grow opposition to the gun law legislation.

Among the changes passed by the house:

–Children under the age of 14 could use a handgun with adult supervision.

–The state would essentially eliminate the 72-hour mandatory waiting period for background checks for handguns.

–No longer require gun permit holders’ information be made public.

Supporters, like Rep. Matt Windschitl, a Missouri Valley Republican, said he believes the legislation would make people undergo more background checks, not fewer, as a result of the changes. He argues that potential buyers would have to get a background check every time they try to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. And that could make them get more checks than if they kept having to renew their permit annually.

He also disagrees that the changes would get more guns into criminals’ hands. Windschitl is committed to protecting constitutional rights and doesn’t think those who follow the law should get punished because of worries criminals could somehow get more access to weapons.

 

72 comments

  • John Smith

    This is nothing more than a bill to improve the “family business” of one of the bill’s legislative sponsors, with the NRA along to write the technical stuff. It is an absurd bill that seeks to make the Second Amendment a SECRET right, and that is just for starters.

    Watch this bill’s supporters carefully: They want to hide public records from Iowans, and they want to do so based not on facts in evidence, but on pure conjecture. And, “pure conjecture” is a polite way to describe it.

    • Ben

      Well Mr John Smith, is that your real name?
      Im guessing its not, but I can understand and respect that you value your privacy. My real name was published in a local newspaper simply because I purchased a gun permit.
      This bill has nothing to do with making the second amendment a SECRET right.

      • John Smith

        Well, BEN, that is sheer nonsense, from start to finish. Starting with your idiocy about monickers on an internet discussion board, all the way through to the end of your post.

        But, I’ll play along for the moment: What newspaper, exactly, published the PUBLIC RECORD of your gun permit, and where and when did this happen? Oh, and did some burglar then break into your home and steal your weapon based on this newspaper report?

        See, because I think you are purposely being deceptive, like the NRA.

      • John Smith

        OK, ALAN, thank you for the information. The only burglary I’ve seen involving guns in the last six months had to do with a break-in at a gun shop. Would you know if there have been others, that were related in any way to the City View publications you refer to?

      • Harold Peedmont

        Re: John Smith
        It might be a bit difficult to determine why, if any, permit holder burglaries occurred unless the perps confess upon arrest that their target was selected based on the Cityview posting. Unless we have evidence that they didn’t, it is certainly possible that they may have. If the list had never been made public, we would know for sure that the selection was based on some other criteria.

      • Debbie

        Well Ben, is this your real name? If you’re mature enough to buy a gun, you and your weapons lovers should be mature enough not to want to hide your license. Guns are not tools or toys. You, the NRA and it’s lovers have no regard for the safety of others it’s all about marketing weapons. Our Constitution was written when the guns were muskets.

      • Jeremy

        Debbie, our constitution was written when citizens had access to arms equivalent to that of the world’s most powerful, well trained fighting force. They used those weapons to throw off an oppressive government and secure your right to be wrong on the internet. They also secured my right to correct you. There is no language in the constitution, the Federalist papers, or any of the writings from the founders at that time that implies that citizens ought to be debarred the use of arms for any legitimate lawful purpose. So important was ensuring this right be unmolested by government, they specifically added the words “shall not be infringed”. Those words appear nowhere else in the constitution.

      • John Smith

        Sorry, HAROLD PEEDMONT, not having evidence of something doesn’t necessarily prove anything else. It only proves that you don’t have evidence of something.

        I have yet to see that the State has some compelling interest to deny certain public records to citizens. None whatsoever.

      • Jeremy

        John Smith, there’s no compelling reason for lists of permit holders to be made known to anyone but law enforcement officers. There’s no demonstrable risk to public safety, there’s no reasonable assumption of risk on the part of the public in respecting my privacy rights. You can’t show that my peaceable exercise of my second amendment rights poses any immediate threat to you or the public at large outside of wild accusations, paranoid fantasy, and anthropomorphization of firearms. You’re welcome to show crime stats from states with confidentiality laws and prove the link between respecting privacy and violent crime. You’re also welcome to demonstrate what qualifies you to determine public risk better than the law enforcement professionals who worked hand in hand with lawmakers to draft this legislative package.

      • John Smith

        JEREMY, public records are PUBLIC RECORDS by definition. That means that they are created by public employees, and belong to the public. THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON NECESSARY TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SEE WHAT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE PUBLIC.

        Now, call the NRA and tell them the lame reversi-world “arguments” they’re feeding you are serving no purpose but to make you look foolish repeating them.

      • Scootiep

        John Smith, you stated the following “public records are PUBLIC RECORDS by definition. That means that they are created by public employees, and belong to the public. THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON NECESSARY TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SEE WHAT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE PUBLIC.” I’ll have you know that simply because a listing is created by a public employee does not make it public property. I have worked as an auditor for the state in the past. And if half of the listings I had made regarding health insurance, medical conditions relating to veterans, prisoners, or individuals on state provided health plans that involved medications for tracing claims were made public, there would be an outcry unlike anything you’ve ever heard. The point is that no other person has any business knowing what I own and what I don’t own provided what I own is legal. You have absolutely no right to that information. It may be a list generated by a public agency for purposes of tracking or checking validity according to some shady (at best) laws. But the PROPERTY in question is still PRIVATE.

      • Jeremy

        John, calling my argument “foolish” while you invoke tinfoil hat conspiracy theories in the same breath only serves to cement the view of your stance as subjective and unreasonable. As Scott pointed out, there are many records that “belong” to the public that we don’t get to see, and for good reason. As I’ve already stated, there is no compelling reason for the information to be public, and there’s no detriment to public safety for making it private.

  • Terry Johnson

    so what could go wrong if someone buys a weapon when they are angry and decide to channel it through their new toy?

    • vinnievincent

      JC, give that BS rhetoric a break! If ol John Smith can complain about propaganda from the NRA (whom is actually too liberal on their gun stance), I’ll complain about the rubbish you’re spouting from the Brady gun grabbing campaign. We’ll own all the guns we want, you guys are on a 90 degree steep slope to stop our 2nd Amendment right. What part of, shall not be infringed, is so hard to follow? Go live in Canada with all the other pansies!

      • John Smith

        Which part of the Second Amendment has the NRA left off of their headquarters building? Why didn’t they use the entire Second Amendment?

        OH, and WHERE, exactly, does it say anything in the Second Amendment about gun permits being kept secret from American citizens?

      • Jeremy

        John Smith, maybe you’ve forgotten about the fourth amendment? Right to privacy ring a bell? Funny how that’s good enough for you pervert and justify child murder with, but somehow it’s not sufficient to protect my right to keep my belongings a secret from you? I have the right to be secure in my person and papers, and free from unreasonable search and seizure. I suggest you take a remedial course in constitutional law, my friend.

      • John Smith

        JEREMY, your right to privacy has NEVER included public public records such as your ownership of a home or a car, for instance, or even your driver’s license.

        So, why should it be invoked regarding your gun permit? What can possibly be the rationale for that?

      • Jeremy

        John, the public has no need to know what I own. There is no need for permits to be public record. The administration of service to run the background check and issue the permit is paid by the permit fee, not tax dollars. There is no information pertaining to firearms ownership that needs to be accessible to anyone but law enforcement.

        I suggest you go to the DOT or courthouse and ask for my driver’s license or license plate information. I also suggest you call my insurance company and see if they’ll give you any information about me. Let me know how that works.

      • John Smith

        Sorry, JEREMY, but there is over 200 years of settled law that says otherwise. See, otherwise, they wouldn’t need to try to pass a law.

        Is any of this starting to sink in?

      • Jeremy

        John, I’ll again point you to the DOT, Polk County, and progressive insurance. Please let me know when you’ve received the information you’ve requested.

    • Harold Peedmont

      No one I know considers guns to be toys. They are serious business.
      Not being snarky, just reinforcing how those who qualify to buy weapons and train with them view the responsibility that comes with it.

  • wespa831

    It just so happens that a background check, in Polk County, can take several weeks. Then if you pass the check, they will mail you a permit, which can take up to several more days. So you can not just go out and buy a hand gun. As for privacy? It’s nobody’s business what I do or don’t own. Maybe you control freaks should move to a different country, like Russia.

  • Tim sly

    Um that’s my son in that pic and he wasn’t killed by a gun so these people better get factual information

    • Doug McIntyre

      John smith you don’t have anything to say about my brothers son in a falsifying add of gun violence. Ist a shame you don’t have the courage to help other people out that really need help. Luke the parents that want to teach kids how to shoot and not be made a criminal for teaching their kids responsibly.

      • John Smith

        I have no control over any pictures that someone may choose to use or not use. If you have something to complain about, I suggest you take up with someone who might.

        Now, tell us all: Exactly what part of the Second Amendment grants underage persons the right to own deadly weapons? Or, for that matter, the part that guarantees the right of parents to teach the use of deadly weapons to their underage children? Is there a Jed Clampett Clause in there somewhere?

  • Ben

    RE: John Smith
    Cityview article April 21, 2011. In the article titled “Who’s Packing” the names of those who filed for a gun permit are listed in alphabetical order. No I have not been robbed, but if I were a criminal looking for a gun to steal that would be a good place to start.
    Please show me proof of your accusations because I think you are purposely being deceptive.

    • John Smith

      It’s probably just as well you’re not a criminal, then, since you are doing nothing but parroting the NRA CONJECTURE about burglars.

      My conjecture is that burglars tend to want to get in, grab stuff, and get out; they would be highly unlikely to pick a target where a resident is likely to have a gun to shoot them, not any more likely than it would be for them to spend time in a government office making notes about the names and addresses of gun permit holders.

      IOW, your NRA “justification” for why this bill is “needed” is unsubstantiated nonsense.

      • Ben

        I have never been a member of the NRA.
        So without any proof of your claims in your first post…. I will consider that as unsubstantiated nonsense and conjecture.

      • John Smith

        Well, BEN, what makes you think that I care one way or the other whether you’re an NRA member? Certainly nothing in one of my posts. Hint: You don’t have to be a member to be a parrot for their talking points.

        Now, regarding my original post, I see nothing in it that not a part of the public record of this bill or my opinion about it. So, you are going to have to be a LOT more specific about any “proof” you think is lacking. “Specific” being that quality which you seem to wish to avoid in your posts.

      • Jeremy

        Yes, they want to get in, grab stuff, and leave WHILE YOU’RE NOT HOME. Perhaps you don’t understand property crime. Most burglaries occur when people aren’t home, precisely due to the prevalence of armed citizens in America. Being able to confront a burglar is useless if you’re not home. There are multiple websites where people can pay a small amount of money and access reams of information about you using just YOUR NAME.

        I suggest that if privacy isn’t a concern for you, you post your address, schedule, passcode to your security system(if you have one), and list a few valuables You have stored in your home. If such a posting doesn’t appear, I’ll assume you’re only withholding said details for dubious reasons. After all, if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear.

      • John Smith

        OK, JEREMY, then you and your NRA buddies should have no problem showing the statistical correlation between the public records of gun permits and the burglary rates of the homes of the permit holders.

        So, where is it?

      • Jeremy

        I did you one better, John. I provided you specific examples where “gun lists” were used to harm innocent people. Sorry that isn’t enough for you. I guess since gun owners are less than human in your eyes, the trauma inflicted upon those in the articles is inconsequential to you.

  • Mark

    They don’t even know the currant law, You go to the Sheriffs office and fill out a permit to aquire and wait weeks sometimes a month then you can purchase a handgun. Ignorant people, 72 hours? You will be lucky if you can buy in a month!

  • stolen serial number afj0185

    I am probably wasting my time on Mr. Smith who has his mind made up already, but since he asked for it, I will submit my experience.

    My home was broken into later that year that the cityview article was published, and the only areas of my home that were disturbed were places where guns are normally kept. There were multiple indications that my home was targeted specifically because of firearms. I am aware of one other individual in the northern part of Polk County who had a similar experience within the same timeframe. In his case they only took his (500lb or so) safe and left the rest of his house alone.

    No one was caught, so there is no way to prove my (or his) home was targeted because of the article. On the other hand, it would be hard to argue that Cityview’s decision to publish my name did anything more than make me more apt to be on a criminal’s radar.

    If you run across the serial number in my username, please contact the Des Moines Police.

  • Jeremy

    If “John Smith” and the other antis can please point to proof that any of these policies increase violent crime or pose imminent danger to public safety, please do so.

    Many other states keep confidential the records of permit holders, can you demonstrate where this has allowed criminals to acquire firearms? Cite your sources.

    The same people shrieking about this bill swore up and down that the streets in Iowa would run red with blood if “shall issue” passed, yet crime has remained flat. Can someone point to where the violence they predicted came to pass?

    I’m also hearing lame comparisons to the Missouri background check law, which is nothing like the bill that’s passed the house and is propose in the Senate. Further, this legislative package was drafted with the help of Iowa law enforcement professionals. They support this legislation. Is there any chance “John Smith” or the rest of the rage-spittle soaked antis can tell me why Bloomberg, Giffords, and their paid astroturf “moms” are somehow more trustworthy than our law enforcement professionals?

    • John Smith

      Ah, another classic DIttohead argument “technique”: Lame attempts to shift the burden of proof.

      Well, bad news, JEREMY: In order to change a law, the burden of proof is SUPPOSED to be on those who propose the change to indicate a compelling interest of the state in doing so.

      And, that has clearly not happened in this case, not even a little.

      • Jeremy

        Neither COTUS nor the Iowa constitution were drafted with the protection of the “interest of the state” in mind, rather the protection of individual liberty is held sacrosanct. There is no compelling public interest served by the childish attempt to deter permit holders from exercising their rights by publishing their names. The nature of our system is for law and the exercise of government power to err on the side of restraint and respect for the rights of the individual unless good cause exists to do otherwise. This is the principle of due process. Government doesn’t have unlimited authority to violate the rights of the individual, burdening the individual with proving that law constitutes an egregious barrier to the exercise of a right. There are places like that in the world, and you’re welcome to live there.

  • andrea

    The 3rd picture is of a little boy who was NOT a victim of gun violence. This is VERY upsetting. You people need to get your facts straight before you put this stuff out there for the world to see. I knew that little boy and his parents. He was, in fact a victim, but not of gun violence. This needs to be fixed immediately. Absolutely unacceptable.

    • Bobbie

      Are there any rights for a non-gun lover in Our Constitution? Or does the gun lover have all the rights in their hands?

      • Jeremy

        What rights of yours does lawful gun ownership infringe upon?
        There is no right to safety, or the illusion of such. There is no right to leave your home and be free from being exposed to things that offend your sensitivities. You have no right to knowledge of others’ possessions. You’ve no exclusive right to use of a public space simply because you do or don’t carry a firearm. As long as someone carrying a firearm isn’t doing so unlawfully, it poses no immediate danger to you. Ascribing human characteristics to objects like evil, hate, or criminal intent doesn’t speak very highly of the stability of your mental state.

  • Chet Chesterfield

    What exactly did the founders mean by “well regulated”? No one ever reads that part of the second amendment, and I think it is logical to conclude that UN-regulated was NOT in their intentions or they wouldn’t have written it the way they did.

    • Jeremy

      I suggest you study original intent. First, you’ll notice that phrase refers to “the militia” not “arms” or the bearing of. Next, “well regulated” meant that the militia was to be uniformly equipped and trained.

      To understand what “the militia” is, I suggest you refer to the militia acts, which deal specifically with the distinction between the organized and unorganized militia. I also suggest you familiarize yourself with the phrase “right of the people”, as it refers directly to that which “shall not be infringed”. Here’s something to get you started.

      http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

  • sam

    Since the gun owners are such whiny babies why don’t they just list those who don’t have guns. That way non-gun owners will have some of their rights protected. We should be demanding more police protection if any of these bills pass. Also the names of each Representative and Senator should be published whenever someone is hurt or killed by these bills.

    • Jeremy

      Sam, pray tell how will having your name published in the newspaper protect your rights, and what right or rights will it specifically protect?

      If you wish to be left alone, and not have others demand to know what’s in your home, vehicle, or being carried on your person, are you a “whiny baby” or an American asking that your privacy rights be respected?

      “Bills” don’t kill people Sam, people do. Bad people who don’t follow the most basic of laws in our society, let alone any of the provisions of this bill. Do you think the criminal with an illegally acquired firearm will do you the courtesy of telling you he’s carrying a weapon illegally in public? Do you think someone with a black market firearm applied for a permit to purchase or underwent a background check?
      Can you cite an instance where a lawfully purchased suppressor was used in a violent crime?
      Can you demonstrate where arbitrary limits on when kids can learn to shoot prevented accidents, or worse, school shootings?
      Can you prove a link between respecting the privacy rights of your fellow Americans and an increase in violent crime or other demonstrable public danger?
      Are you imminently more qualified to judge risks to public safety than the law enforcement professionals who worked with legislators to write this bill?

      It’s worth noting that police have no legal obligation to protect your life or property, that’s your job. That’s the reason that pre-existing natural right was codified by the founders and those who drafted the Iowa constitution. If you plan on “demanding”, I certainly hope you plan on providing additional resources to facilitate the implementation of said “demands”.

  • Jeremy

    I have to say I find the use of the third photograph fraudulent and egregious. Shame on Dave Price and tv13 for airing this report without checking facts. That child was not a victim of gun violence. I know his father and you should be ashamed for reopening old wounds, exploiting grief and compassion for political ends.

  • Ache Pee

    John Smith:”This is nothing more than a bill to improve the “family business” of one of the bill’s legislative sponsors”.
    Tell me how? And what is wrong with improving any business. That’s what most laws do anyways, regardless of the sponsor. You need to be tolerant of us just like we have to be tolerant of closed minded ” yous ” .
    Debbie:”Our Constitution was written when the guns were muskets”.
    The muzzle loaded musket was the cutting edge of firearms technology back then.They would be fighting with muskets against muskets and today we will fight with AR15s that are today’s musket, just as the computer is today’s quill and parchment. The NRA is not about marketing weapons,they are about protecting this country, promoting safe firearms handling and your birthright of protecting “you and yours”.
    Chet Chesterfield:”well regulated”
    Well regulated did not mean controlled as it would today. It meant back then, “trained and equipped”. A trained and equipped militia is necessary to the Security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.”
    I am trained and equipped (as thousands of others)through the Department of Civilian Marksmanship program to help fight for a “free state” for you if it comes to that situation.
    Yeah I know this is falling on deaf ear and the intolerant.Oh well,discussion boards never solve any problems anyways. I’m out.

    • John Smith

      It is not my responsibility to educate you, PEE. You’re going to have to take some personal responsibility yourself.

      Suffice it to say, the bill would directly impact not only gun sales but sales of silencers/flash suppressors in a positive direction. Because, you see, it is the intention of the bill’s sponsors to not only make OWNING firearms SECRET from the public, but to make it harder to detect when they are fired. Because, of course, what good is a secret gun if some citizen can tell when you’re using it?

      • Jeremy

        Is a “secret gun” like a “ghost gun” John? Tell me, can you cite an instance where a legally purchased suppressor has been used in a crime? Suppressors don’t make guns whisper quiet like you see in the movies, it only reduces the measurable noise output by a certain percent, think 100db instead of 160. I suggest you watch this video, the gentleman featured seems to share your dismal level of firearms acumen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0

  • Clyde

    so which gun law, prevented Columbine, Sandy Hook etc. ? Simple question, that nobody slows down to answer. We have laws against drugs, murder etc. But doesn’t prevent it. But wait here is gun laws to prevent gun violence and we got it right. Why do massacres seem to always happen in gun free zones?
    And for the big question, why would anyone try to talk sense with John Smith?

    • gun extremists

      Your mentality is like we’re all going to die eventually so what’s the point of taking care of ourselves. sick Clyde sick

      • Jeremy

        No, that’s the opposite of his mentality. Criminals aren’t abiding gun free zones, and removing the ability of the law abiding citizen to “take care of themselves” seems to be the highest priority for those in the anti-rights movement. Passing more bad laws that don’t prevent tragedies and punish law abiding gun owners in the process isn’t the solution.

  • jennifer

    Channel 13, you need to check the facts of your news stories. Gavin Sly was not involved with a gun death. I can not understand how these people are exploiting this little boys death in a lie.

    • an extremely very concerned citizen

      There are victims from guns every day. We non gun owners must expect more police protection from these wackos.

  • Concerned Citizen

    I haven’t picked up a trashy Cityview since they published that list. I found it VERY irresponsible of them.

    • an extremely very concerned citizen

      Hilarious! Like these gun bills are responsible! The gun lovers do not care nor want the the non-gun owners to have any rights. It’s all marketing guns and power.

      • Concerned Citizen

        Cityview listed legal carry license owners and their addresses. What does it have to do with Non-gun owner rights? Is there an amendment for that? What marketing or power are you speaking of?

      • Jeremy

        I’ll ask the same question I asked Sam, how does anything in this bill, or lawful gun ownership in general effect your rights? Please be specific. Concealed carriers are statistically the least likely to break the law, even minor infractions. Further, law enforcement professionals in Iowa support and helped craft this bill and a majority of police officers around the country support the right of citizens to carry firearms. Is it your assertion that our cops, and cops around the country are bought off by shady figures in smoky back rooms?

  • Ski

    Since we have a captive crowd here and not to change the subject but on a related issue,why do most counties ONLY accept cash for payment of purchase and carry permits? Vehicle plates, property tax and anything else can be paid with check/credit card. The local county won’t even make change. That is, you can’t pay for a $10.00 permit with a $20.00 bill ,while you can actually see $5.00 and $10.00 dollar bills in that cash box used for that money. What’s up with that?

  • Shannon

    How disgusting that they put, used, exploited, lied about Gavin’s death!!! I bet they didn’t even know his name when they used him as an “example”. There was no permission from his father, why? Oh because that is NOT HOW GAVIN DIED!!!!!! How disrespectful! How is the public supposed to trust these people who want to fight for laws and “protect” us when they don’t provide the truth and just take whatever and fabricate it to strike emotions of people that have no idea what the truth is! Tim deserves so much more than an apology for this!!! How dare those people and WHO for even showing it!!! This news station should have known right away as well since the True reasons of Gavin’s death where reported on daily for about a week! That’s not a story anyone can forget and it has nothing to do with guns, gun vigilance, or gun safety!! This is outrageous!!!! Opening up a probably still barely healed wound just for selfish reasons to try to fool others! If you have to make up stories to try to win you’re case and get something passed then that obviously means it’s a stupid issue and you know you’re fighting a lost cause so you result to fabricating a tragic incident and twisting it into a different tragic incident just to help you and your stupid “cause”! This poor family!! Are the other “gun victims” real or made up like Gavin was?! I hope you lose your job for this! Caught in a lie! You didn’t think the family or anyone would notice?!!!!!! Duh!!! If you’re that dumb to think that through you shouldn’t be representing any causes what so ever!! A public apology is so petty! Much much more should be done to try to make this up to Tim! Oh Tim is Gavin’s father. I’m sure you didn’t know that when you put a picture up of a poor child with an untimely death and made up a story. Fix this! If even possible! I hope you get fired and sued for this! Nothing but a liar but we should take your side in passing this bill.

  • Náramky

    I’ve learn a few good stuff here. Definitely worth bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how much attempt you set to make this kind of great informative site.

Comments are closed.