Every Picture Tells A Story, Part XI

Iowa becomes the 19th state and 3rd state this year to adopt permitless or constitutional carry. What a change since the times when only Vermont had constitutional carry and a number of states didn’t allow carry in any form.

On Friday afternoon, Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA) signed House File 756 into law. In addition to adopting constitutional carry, the bill also removed Iowa’s pistol purchase permit. I hope the North Carolina General Assembly is paying attention to that facet of the bill!

Gov. Reynolds said in her statement:

House File 756 “protects the Second Amendment rights of Iowa’s law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals,” the governor said in a statement.

The new law also takes “greater steps to inform law enforcement about an individual’s mental illness helping ensure firearms don’t end up in the wrong hands,” she said.

“We will never be able to outlaw or prevent every single bad actor from getting a gun, but what we can do is ensure law-abiding citizens have full access to their constitutional rights while keeping Iowans safe,” the Osceola Republican said in the statement.

Thanks again to Rob Vance, we have a graphic that illustrates the growth of constitutional (and shall issue) carry since 1986. A better way of putting it is that it is a growth of freedom whereby now 19 state governments have recognized a citizen’s inherent right to self-defense without the need for a permit.

I anticipate that a 20th state – Tennessee – will be added to this list before much longer. Indeed, I was a bit surprised that Iowa beat them to the punch.

Predictably, gun prohibitionists and Iowa Democrats are not pleased by Gov. Reynold’s signing of the new law. They threaten to make it a campaign issue in 2022 when she comes up for re-election. If I were Gov. Reynolds, I’d quote the immortal words of Dirty Harry and say, “Make my day!”

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.


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).


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.


● 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.


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’);


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 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
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

Lead Shot Allowed For Dove Hunting In Iowa

The NRA-ILA released this message on dove hunting in Iowa this evening. Traditional or lead shotgun ammunition will be allowed for dove hunting in Iowa this season after the legislature’s Administrative Rules Committee overruled the Natural Resources Commission. This is that state’s first dove hunting season in 93 years.

Iowa: Administrative Rules Committee Strips Dove Rule of Traditional Ammunition Ban!

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Today, the Administrative Rules Committee met to review the National Resource Commission’s (NRC) final rule for Iowa’s first dove hunting season. In a nine-to-one bipartisan vote, legislators overwhelmingly rejected the NRC’s underhanded attempt to include a traditional ammunition ban in the final dove rule. This vote allows for a “session-delay” of the lead ammunition ban, meaning the legislature will have to act during the next legislative session to remove the ban from the final dove rule. However, Iowa’s first dove season will proceed and will not include a traditional ammunition ban.

During a recent NRC meeting last month scheduled to set bag limits and the length of Iowa’s first dove season in nearly a century, commissioners launched a surprise attack by passing a ban on the use of traditional ammunition while hunting doves. The appointed seven-member, commission flagrantly usurped the authority of the legislators who debated the same ban and overwhelmingly rejected it.

Here are three reasons why the use of traditional ammunition should NOT be banned:

  • No scientific studies regarding traditional ammunition have been shown to have any population-level impacts on doves or other species. In fact, doves are the most popular and abundant game bird hunted in America with population levels at all-time highs.
  • The price of non-traditional ammunition with similar performance characteristics is significantly higher and will keep many hunters from taking part in the historic dove season, especially in these dire economic times.
  • In addition to the lack of sound science, the Commission enacted the lead ammunition ban in an underhanded fashion with no public comment or notice.


It appears that some law enforcement officials in central Iowa are not too happy with the new “shall-issue” carry permits. Huxley Chief of Police Mark Pote sent a letter to local businesses last month advising them to post large signs saying no guns were allowed. In an on-camera interview with reporter Aaron Brilbeck of WHO-TV, he backtracked a bit.


One wonders if the phrase “with all deliberate speed” means anything to him.

Sean McClanahan of the Iowa Firearms Coalition called it what it was – scare tactics. Sean’s Des Moines Gun Rights Examiner column has more example of these tactics throughout Iowa.

H/T NRA News

Second Amendment Is Alive In Iowa

Yesterday was the first day that residents of Iowa could apply for carry permits under the new “shall-issue” system – and thousands of them did. Under the old system, it was at the discretion of the local sheriff if a person was granted a carry permit and the firearm had to be carried concealed. This led to situations like in Osceola County where Sheriff Douglas Weber denied the carry permit for Paul Dorr because he thought he was “weird”.

The cost for the permit is a reasonable $55 for five years.

Of course, there are some that aren’t happy with the new law. I hate to pick on librarians as my Mom was a school librarian for many years. And, of course, there is everyone’s favorite reference librarian Breda as well. However, some Iowa librarians seem to be in a snit over the new law.

Dee Crowner, director of the North Liberty Community Library, told LJ the city administration there has been working on the issue and that the library would abide by whatever policy the city chooses. However, she said the new law “scares the bejesus out of me.”

“Our library is in a community center that houses the recreation center, the aquatic center, the telecommunications department, and the library,” she said. “You can imagine how busy we are with people of all ages…. Why would anyone want to carry a gun in plain sight in a public place? For the power, to scare people, for the rush?”

H/T Mark Vanderberg

Concealed Carry, the First Amendment, and an Iowa Sheriff

U. S. District Court Judge Mark Bennett ordered Osceola County, Iowa Sheriff Douglas Weber to issue a concealed carry permit to Paul Dorr because the court found that Sheriff Weber had infringed Mr. Dorr’s First Amendment rights. Judge Bennett did not stop there. He ordered Sheriff Weber to take a college-level course involving the First Amendment.

Judge Bennett was quite colorful in concluding the Sheriff Weber had violated Mr. Dorr’s rights:

The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct, uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber’s own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of at least Paul Dorr.

Paul Dorr is a political activist who has been active in both the pro-life movement and the movement to lower government expenses. He had previously had an Iowa “nonprofessional permit to carry a weapon” (the equivalent of a concealed carry permit in Iowa) from the late 1990s until 2006. Thought he thought Mr. Dorr “weird”, Sheriff Weber had approved his permit in 2005 and 2006.

In 2007, however, Sheriff Weber denied Mr. Dorr’s permit writing on the application “Concern from Public. Don’t trust him.” The sheriff thought Mr. Dorr was “weird” and had heard many comments from the general public saying essentially the same thing. He also told Mr. Dorr that he wouldn’t approve any further permits for him.

What had changed in 2007 was that Mr. Dorr was engaged by the Osceola County Taxpayers Association (OCTA) to provide consulting services which included investigating government expenditures, writing and distributing leaflets, and writing letters to the editor. In particular, the OCTA was concerned with the expenditures of the public safety commission and the county attorney’s office. They felt the size of the expenditures were out of line for a county of the size of Osceola and one of the agencies they were concerned about was the Sheriff’s Office.

Judge Bennett said, in his opinion, that:

Giving Sheriff Weber more deference than is due his elected status, the court finds that Sheriff Weber denied Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit not because of the content of his First Amendment activity but because it was effective and agitated many members of the local community. Had Paul passed out flyers at 2:00 a.m. in a public park where no one was there to receive them, used a bullhorn deep in the woods where no one could hear him advocate his sometimes unorthodox views, or written letters to the editor in the Washington Post where few, if any, residents of Osceola County would read them, then Sheriff Weber would have granted Paul the permit. Paul was denied a permit precisely because Sheriff Weber believed that his free speech rights offended the majority of voters in Osceola County.

Because of this, the court “having found Paul (Dorr) proved a claim of First Amendment retaliation, will order Sheriff Weber to reconsider, and approve, Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit.” Mr. Dorr’s son Alexander was also a party to the suit but is only 20 years old. Given Alexander’s age, the court found Sheriff Weber was within his discretion to deny him a permit.

In my opinion, here is where it gets really interesting. Districts Courts have substantial leeway to order remedial training to ensure that such violations don’t take place again.

Sheriff Weber’s dramatic and stunning failure to appreciate, and to protect and defend, Paul’s basic First Amendment rights, compels remedial relief.

The court provides Sheriff Weber with the following guidelines concerning the class
that he must complete. First, the class must provide college level instruction on the United States Constitution, including—at least in part—a discussion of the First Amendment. The class may be taken online. Second, Sheriff Weber must obtain approval from the court before participating in the class. Approval must be obtained by filing, with the Clerk of Court, a motion for approval of the proposed class, which must contain a description of the class and contact information for the court to further inquire, if necessary, into the substance of the class. Third, upon completion of the class, Sheriff Weber must file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court stating that he has successfully completed the class. Sheriff Weber shall attach his transcript or other proof of completion to the affidavit—Sheriff Weber must obtain a passing grade or obtain an otherwise satisfactory assessment of his participation in the class.

According to the Sioux City Journal,

Dorr said Wednesday that he was pleased “justice is served. I get my permit back and the sheriff is being sent back to school. The harm done by Sheriff Weber against the 6th and 9th commandments has been made right.”

I have posted the entire opinion in Scribd and it makes for interesting reading.

Dorr Et Al v. Weber Opinion