Democrat State Party Platforms – Hawaii To Iowa

This is part three of my ten part series on the party platforms of the various Democrat state parties with regard to firearms, gun control, and the Second Amendment. I am publishing these in five state increments. This will probably be the last for this week as I leave in the morning for the Gun Rights Policy Conference as well as AMM-Con.

Hawaii

For a state with very strict gun control laws, the Democrat Party of Hawaii has very little to say about firearms or gun control. And that may be reason as there is little more that they can do without getting even the 9th Circuit to say no. They already require both permits to purchase and the registration of all firearms.

3. MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES SAFER NOW – in schools and on the streets and in our homes (including
advancing gun control measures such as ban on assault weapons and full background checks for all; make
elimination of police corruption a priority; advance restorative justice programs for offenders and oppose
privatization of prisons and provide an effective means of assisting victims of domestic violence).

Idaho

The Democratic Party of Idaho is one of the first states that I’ve researched so far that isn’t calling for a ban on “assault weapons” (sic) or magazine restrictions. They do call for universal background checks. Nonetheless, it is good to see a state that seems to be generally out of step with the gun control lobby.

14. WE SUPPORT THE FULL TEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: “​A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

● We demand universal criminal background checks.

● We demand laws that keep guns out of the hands of convicted domestic abusers.

● We support the rights of hunters and sportspersons in Idaho.

● We support scientific research on gun violence.

Illinois

According to Ballotpedia, the Illinois Democratic Party follows and adopts the national Democrats’ platform. The DPI’s website has no platform on it. That said, it is well known that Democrats in Illinois and especially in Chicagoland tend to be very anti-gun. There have been exceptions with Downstate Democrats but even that is changing a bit. Here is what the national platform has to say on “gun violence” (sic).

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.

I did learn a new acronym reading this – LCAM – which stands for large capacity ammunition magazines. That’s what you and I would call standard capacity.

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

Indiana

The Hoosier Democrats take a less restrictive approach to gun control than do their neighbors to the west in Illinois. They make no mention of magazines, “assault weapons” (sic), or even the favorite buzzword of gun banners, commonsense. They do call for universal background checks and closing the non-existent “gun show loophole” among other things.

Close the gun show and terrorist watch-list loophole and ensure every transaction involving the sale
of a firearm includes a comprehensive background check. Strengthen child access prevention laws to
ensure the safe storage of firearms.

Iowa

Iowa Democrats have adopted a whole laundry list of gun control items including a return to may-issue concealed carry, mandatory training, and a ban on open carry along with the usual things. They also want the Dickey Amendment which restricts the CDC from using funds to advocate for gun control repealed. Iowa Democrats also want to ban the private transfer of post-1968 firearms that that don’t have serial numbers. I’m not sure where that came from but I think it is aimed at 3-D printed guns and the like. They also oppose national concealed carry reciprocity (NCCR).

Gun Safety

We support:
340. guardian accountability for minor negligent-gun-access
341. public/private property gun-free zones
342. updated version of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, restricting:


a. silencers/suppressors

b. bump-stocks

c. high-capacity-magazines

d. fragmentary-rounds


343. mandatory safety/proficiency training
344. expanding NICS
345. firearm transfer universal background checks
346. registration
347. waiting periods
348. just-cause Sheriff discretion issuing Concealed-Carry
349. mandatory liability insurance for gun/ammunition
owners/sellers/manufacturers
350. GVROA(2017)
351. mandatory reporting lost/stolen firearms
352. reasonable gun-regulation/responsible gun-ownership
353. gun buybacks

We oppose:
354. open-carry
355. Dickey Amendment
356. NCCR
357. private post-1968 firearms transfers without serial numbers

Every Picture Tells A Story, Part V

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R-ID) signed “permitless” concealed carry (aka constitutional carry) into law on March 27th. It allows Idaho citizens age 21 and over to carry concealed without a permit within city limits. They already had this right outside city limits. This made Idaho the ninth state to have constitutional carry.

On Tuesday, the Mississippi House of Representatives concurred with the Mississippi Senate on amendments to HB 786. The Senate amendments expanded what was originally just a church carry bill into one that included that and constitutional carry. The amended bill passed both houses with veto proof majorities. The bill now goes to Gov. Phil Bryant (R-MS) who is expected to sign the bill. That would make Mississippi the tenth state to have constitutional carry and the third to pass it this year. Some have criticized the bill as also including “nullification”.  Actually the bill doesn’t include nullification as it merely states that Mississippi officials and law enforcement don’t have an obligation to enforce Federal gun control laws which is in line with existing Supreme Court precedent.

Given that the number of states with constitutional carry has increased to 10, Rob Vance and I concluded it was time to update the graphic showing the spread of freedom. The graphic below shows how the United States has moved from no carry to shall-issue and permitless carry over the last 30 years. As I said a few years ago, shall-issue is the new norm. Maybe one day I’ll be able to change this to constitutional carry is the new norm.

Here are the population statistics that accompany the above graphic:

0.4% No Issue, HI
27.0% May Issue, CA,DC,MD,MA,NJ,NY,RI
65.4% Shall Issue
7.2% Unrestricted, AK,AR,AZ,ID,KS,ME,MS,VT,WV,WY

At the same time that shall-issue and permitless or constitutional carry have expanded, violent crime has decreased. While correlation isn’t causation, I do think this is significant. When this graphic was first developed, Rob noted that there was no positive correlation between carry and violent crime. Unfortunately, he also noted that a negative correlation has not yet been proved. Linoge at Walls of the City has been studying gun ownership and the incidence of violent crime for a number of years. His latest is posted here. He has a similar result. Thus, neither more guns or less restrictive carry means more crime.

Why State Preemption Matters

I read two stories in the last 24 hours that reinforced why every state should have preemption on firearms issues. The gun prohibitionists oppose this saying, in essence, different laws for different locales lets us preserve our pockets of irresponsible gun control.

What makes these two stories different is that they come from red states where gun ownership is more the norm than the exception.

The first story comes from Nebraska where a judge last Friday ordered the return of a Lincoln man’s gun collection. The only problem is that the city ordinances of Lincoln won’t allow him to have them within the city. Under their city ordinances, a person convicted of a weapons charge (including knives) is forbidden to possess firearms within the city for the next 10 years.

Police confiscated 24 handguns last August from Kevin Williams, who was accused of illegally possessing them after being convicted of having an illegal pocketknife, the Lincoln Journal Star reported.

City Attorney Jeff Kirkpatrick said that during a 2010 traffic stop, Williams told a police officer that he had a butterfly knife. Police ticketed him for carrying a concealed weapon, because the knife was too long, and he ultimately paid a $75 fine.

Police learned four years later that Williams had purchased many guns, and his conviction on the weapons charge for the pocketknife made him ineligible to possess a gun in Lincoln for 10 years. An officer then seized Williams’ guns under a city ordinance on unlawful firearm possession.

The knife in question was a butterfly knife. The city charged Williams with unlawful firearm possession. However, he fought it in court and the city requested the charge be dismissed. The Nebraska Firearm Owners Association says this illustrates the need for consistent regulations statewide and I would agree.

The second story comes out of Idaho. In this story, an investigation of the Madison County Sheriffs’ Department shows that they used concealed carry permit fees to buy firearms for the department and for new carpeting. This came just months after the county commissioners approved a request by Sheriff Roy Klinger to increase permit fees by 38% (an additional $20) back in 2013. The sheriff had argued for the increase saying they couldn’t keep up with the demand.

Records turned over to IdahoReporter.com revealed the agency has spent more than $60,000 on expenses not directly related to concealed weapons permit administration since 2011, including two carpet purchases and one outlay for tile in the office. Klingler characterized those expenses as necessary upkeep for his agency and said his office vetted the purchases through the county’s legal team.

He also said critics focused only on larger purchases, but ignored how long his agency saved to be able to spend on the big-ticket items.

Klinger said his critics have a “nefarious” agenda and are engaging in a “hate campaign against government/law enforcement”. Interestingly, both the sheriff and his critics in the Idaho Second Amendment Association agree on permitless carry.

While Pruett and Klingler agree on permitless carry, the ISAA president said Klingler needs to take action to ease the burden on Idaho’s gun owners.

“The ISAA is here to protect Idaho gun owners and regardless of our agreement on permitless carry, we felt it necessary to bring this issue to light,” Pruett said with a nod towards Klinger’s advocacy for statewide permitless carry.

What surprises me most about the Idaho story is that there isn’t a uniform charge for a carry permit throughout the state.

Both of these stories reinforce the need for statewide preemption on firearms matters just like the arrest of a tourist at Ground Zero in New York City illustrates the need for nationwide reciprocity on carry permits.

H/T Josh and Susan