Way to go Iowa!

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Iowa Amendment 1, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment, was on the ballot in Iowa as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022.[1] The measure was approved.

Iowa Amendment 1
Result	Votes	Percentage
Yes	745,118	65.13%
No	398,881	34.87%

With 95% of precincts reporting.

Summary: Provides that the right of the people of Iowa to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny. Full Text: Article I of the Constitution of the State of Iowa is amended by adding the following new section: Right to keep and bear arms. Sec. 1A. 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.[5]

”

 

[gabenzeke]

Now we just need the right to hunt, trap, and fish added to the constitution and we'll be set.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[General RE LEE]

Tennessee has the right to hunt, fish, trap, etc in our Constitution.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

It appears as if Iowa passed an amendment that says the US Constitution applies there.

 

[Wapiti1]

It appears as if Iowa passed an amendment that says the US Constitution applies there.

These days, it never hurts to have insurance.

Jeremy

 

[FLATHEAD]

Never hurts to reaffirm the obvious (to most), especially with the current
political atmosphere.

 

[gabenzeke]

It appears as if Iowa passed an amendment that says the US Constitution applies there.

It adds language that says gun control should be viewed critically. Another hurdle in the way of gun control.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

It adds language that says gun control should be viewed critically. Another hurdle in the way of gun control.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

That's fluff language with no legal worth. Would there ever be a case where legislation isn't viewed critically?

 

[gabenzeke]

That's fluff language with no legal worth. Would there ever be a case where legislation isn't viewed critically?

Yes. See every piece of legislation ever for examples. Often legislation is passed that contains thousands of pages with only hours for people to read it.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Yes. See every piece of legislation ever for examples. Often legislation is passed that contains thousands of pages with only hours for people to read it.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

And of course the legislators will readily admit that they didn't give it a critical review, right?

 

[gabenzeke]

And of course the legislators will readily admit that they didn't give it a critical review, right?

If it were one of those pieces of legislation being challenged, and you ask someone under oath if they read the entire bill (thousands or tens of thousands of pages) prior to voting in favor (only hours after receiving the language in the bill), I think that solves the problem and wouldn't meet the criteria of critical review.

I don't get it. This is the firearms sub section of a hunting specific forum. What exactly is the problem in your mind with reaffirmation of the second amendment at the state level? All state constitutions reaffirm various parts of the US constitution. Many of them specifically call out the second amendment. It really comes across as though you don't believe in strengthening the second amendment. In that case, why are you here?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

If it were one of those pieces of legislation being challenged, and you ask someone under oath if they read the entire bill (thousands or tens of thousands of pages) prior to voting in favor (only hours after receiving the language in the bill), I think that solves the problem and wouldn't meet the criteria of critical review.

I don't get it. This is the firearms sub section of a hunting specific forum. What exactly is the problem in your mind with reaffirmation of the second amendment at the state level? All state constitutions reaffirm various parts of the US constitution. Many of them specifically call out the second amendment. It really comes across as though you don't believe in strengthening the second amendment. In that case, why are you here?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

It is meaningless fluff that does nothing to strengthen 2A.

 

[gabenzeke]

It is meaningless fluff that does nothing to strengthen 2A.

Good to know. I'll be sure to write the IFC so they can notify their attorneys and con law SMEs that Fartrell Cluggins said they're wasting their time.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[RS_Non-Res]

Doesn't say "critically". It does say "subject to strict scrutiny" which is a legal term for a specific process of evaluating compliance. I just forget what the 8th grade description of the process is.

Google is my friend after 2 thumbs-up: Strict scrutiny is the highest form of review that courts use to evaluate the constitutionality of laws. Under strict scrutiny, the government must show that there is a compelling, or very strong, interest in the law, and that the law is either very narrowly tailored or is the least restrictive means available to the government. Lower standards are called intermediate scrutiny and rational basis. The wording of this amendment is probably the strongest possible.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Doesn't say "critically". It does say "subject to strict scrutiny" which is a legal term for a specific process of evaluating compliance. I just forget what the 8th grade description of the process is.

THAT moves it clearly out of the realm of meaningless fluff.