Iowa finally got onboard with Constitutional Amendment

[pawngal]

The language of the constitutional amendment reads: "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"
Voters approve constitutional amendment on gun rights - Iowa Capital Dispatch

 

[dockmurgw]

"Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny"

Would that sentence actually make this a Constitutional Recommendation?

 

[DeplorabusUnum]

Meanwhile here in Oregon we have a 10 round magazine limit about to pass. Also before buying any gun you'll need a $65 permit to purchase a gun which includes a background check. I'm sure this is really going to help solve our crime problem. Sheeeeesh.

 

[robvious]

Congratulations Iowa...

 

[lihpster]

Meanwhile here in Oregon we have a 10 round magazine limit about to pass. Also before buying any gun you'll need a $65 permit to purchase a gun which includes a background check. I'm sure this is really going to help solve our crime problem. Sheeeeesh.

Never thought I'd consider leaving the PNW, but here we are.

 

[Ameshawki]

Sailed through. IFC deserves all the credit.

 

[Countrycuz]

Well, it's a lot better than before, when we had no protection in the state constitution.

 

[steelslaver]

Good for Iowa, the strict scrutiny thing is a bit odd, but, good if having the strict scrutiny is before the law is passed, not after. Look at what some areas have done to the US Constitution's 2nd and it usually takes decades for strict scrutiny to get around over turn many of the restrictions.

Some states have the right to bear arms in their constitutions yet, those same states won't allow you to have a loaded rifle in your private vehicle, and won't let you buy large capacity magazines and limit the use of some types of actions. . Just how much actual scrutiny did those laws get? But, then some people don't think they are any big deal and don't care about their rights being tramped.

 

[CH4]

Congrats Iowa!
However, I thought Bruen killed the balancing tests of strict and intermediate scrutiny. Text, History and Tradition is now the test when determining the constitutionality of a law.

 

[John Patrick]

Congrats Iowa!
However, I thought Bruen killed the balancing tests of strict and intermediate scrutiny. Text, History and Tradition is now the test when determining the constitutionality of a law.

Bruen imposed strict scrutiny on all courts nationwide analyzing laws and regulations burdening the 2nd Amendment.

Laws and regulations imposing burdens on other fundamental Constitutional rights, like free speech, exercise of religion, etc have been analyzed using strict scrutiny. Now the 2nd Amendment right to own and bear arms (and, made explicit in Bruen, the right to armed self defense) joins the other fundamental Constitutional rights.

It’s easier for those interested in strict scrutiny standards to Google it than for me to explain it, but it’s a substantial improvement over a balancing test or “intermediate“ scrutiny.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Well done, Iowa.

My opinion on the intent of strict scrutiny is that they're not waiting for Federal scrutiny. If Podunk Holler passes some restrictive gun ordnance the Iowa courts will be all over it, no Federal lawsuit needed.

 

[John Patrick]

I’m confused (a common state of mind for me) as to how strict scrutiny would possibly apply here. But I’ll let finer legal minds debate it and I’ll just sit back and listen.

Google will be better than my explanation, but:

The .gov wishes to pursue a legitimate.gov interest but doing so infringes on a fundamental Constitutional right. 1. Must be a legitimate .gov interest. 2. Must minimally infringe and there is no alternative means of advancing the .gov interest.

Re 1st Amendment, the old and often used example is that it can be Constitutional to have and enforce a law preventing someone from yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. .gov interest is to prevent theater goers from being trampled in a mass exit.

Most likely Constitutional, imo, infringement on 2 Amendment rights, forbidding felons from purchasing or owning firearms. .gov interest is preventing a felon who has not been pardoned or otherwise lawfully had his rights restored from owning a firearm in recognition of high recidivism rates among felons.

 

[dockmurgw]

Does this include handguns? Or did they follow Montana's lead and exclude them from constitutional protections?

 

[steelslaver]

or be like vermont where their constitution allows the state to tell them when they can load their gun of their choice, and limit how large their magazines can be, much like California? Does it give towns and cities the power to regulate just how much gun powder they can have? Ore will it be a true free state and allow people to sell own property to each other without mandating government tracking of such sales? Will it allow an 18 year olds, who is old enough to vote and die for their country the right to purchase and carry the gun of their choice unlike places where their state constitution actually gives their citizens little actual protection and allows the state to trample them? A constitution or an amendment mean actually very little if your state government can and does keep adding whatever restrictions they please, instead of always passing laws that increase your rights like MONTANA does.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

"Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny"

Would that sentence actually make this a Constitutional Recommendation?

Yes. Iowa copied from Louisiana

How will “strict scrutiny” be legally defined, I wonder.

It had been defined by the COurts-look it up. Basically it means that only if the law is the ONLY way to achieve a legitimate state aim and only is it sdoes so in the most mimimally invasive way possible will it be considered as meeting this test

 

[Bald1]

Meanwhile here in Oregon we have a 10 round magazine limit about to pass. Also before buying any gun you'll need a $65 permit to purchase a gun which includes a background check. I'm sure this is really going to help solve our crime problem. Sheeeeesh.

Is that $65 permit required for every gun you purchase? Or just the first one? The wreaks of a tax if it’s every gun,

 

[robertrwalsh]

Well done Iowa. Even if a later (democrat-socialist) supreme court decides to weasel out on Bruen residents of Iowa will still have some protection. That is better than a sharp stick in the eye.

With regard to the Oregon law it will be in federal court on December 2. Theoretically it takes effect December 8. IMHO it is very likely to be ruled unconstitutional in light of the Bruen decision.

 

[DeplorabusUnum]

Is that $65 permit required for every gun you purchase? Or just the first one? The wreaks of a tax if it’s every gun,

I believe the permit is good for 5 years, after which you must shell out another $65 (or $200?? who knows?)if you wish to purchase another gun.

 

[S&WIowegan]

Flyover country

I moved to Iowa from NY/NJ over 30 yrs. ago for business and family reasons. I grew up a gun kid on a farm anf owned a few odd pieces which I kept hidden in the big cities. It only took me a few months to find gun shows, gun stores and shooting ranges. I quickly became a gun nut and competitive shooter.

As the decades roll by and we see what happens to states that attract a lot of technology types from east and west coasts, I affirm my love of flyover country. just look what's happened to Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Arizona.

 

[delcrossv]

Yes. Iowa copied from Louisiana


It had been defined by the COurts-look it up. Basically it means that only if the law is the ONLY way to achieve a legitimate state aim and only is it sdoes so in the most mimimally invasive way possible will it be considered as meeting this test

Federally, I believe the language is " a compelling state interest" so it has to be on the level of yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater kind of interest. Not just a legitimate "nice to have" kind of interest.

Much harder to meet that standard.