Iowa Must Change The New Open Carry Law
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 6 months ago
So says Dave Nagle:
By Washington, D.C., standards it was cold that first day of March 1954. The sky was overcast with rain, a relatively strong southerly wind and the temperatures hung in the low to mid-50s.
The four arrived around noon at Union Station, having taken the train down that morning from New York. They ate lunch and then debated whether to complete their task or simply go back home. Three wanted to stop, but the fourth was adamant and said she would do it herself. She started walking up the hill to the Capitol and the three reluctantly followed.
They entered the House of Representatives, assured security they did not have cameras, and sat in the gallery above the floor. With about 240 members in the chamber, the debate over an immigration bill was vigorous.
The next day, the Washington Post reported the four suddenly stood up, the leader shouting, “viva Puerto Rico libre” and fired their pistols into the legislative body. Five members of Congress were hit, two critically, before the assailants were subdued.
This is important. The Puerto Rican nationalists were carrying one .38-caliber automatic handgun and three German Lugers. The total fire power was six rounds in the .38 and seven in each of the three Lugers. The number of shots fired by the four individuals was 30.
I thought of this incident when I read the Republican-led Iowa Legislature just voted in, and the governor signed, a law to make it easier to obtain handguns (called the Open Carry Law) and permit them in the Iowa State Capitol and all public buildings. Plus, if you are not a felon or a few other limited categories, the local sheriff is obligated to issue you a permit to carry a handgun.
[ … ]
Now Congress can make no law abridging freedom of speech. But there is an exception when the speech presents what is termed “a clear and present danger.” The old example is you cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
My question is this: Shouldn’t there be some limitation on the Second Amendment?
The danger is not just a foreign terrorist but an ordinary American citizen, a taxpayer, someone who feels strongly they have been wronged and the only solution in their tormented mind is an act of maximum violence.
I do not feel it necessary to learn again the lessons of the incidents in Maquoketa or Mount Pleasant.
Change the law.
Hey Dave, I’m right there with you concerning the issue of people shooting in the most unexpected places and the most unexpected times. But there are problems with your analysis.
The issue of open carry has nothing whatsoever to do with your commentary. The things you address are also applicable to concealed carry, because there is no practical difference between open and concealed except that in one case you can see the weapon if you happen to notice. So I think this entire argument is completely fabricated and fake. I don’t think your problem is with open carry.
But the unexpected shootings can occur anywhere, on the street corner, in a restaurant, at a gas station, or in the work place. And see, there is nothing that makes you different from us even though you would like to think there is. You’re not more special than we are, and the House and Senate chambers aren’t anything special to us.
In fact, let’s drive this point a little further. What if you are so unspecial to us and given the nanny state, brooding hen, control freak governance you want to have over everyone at their expense and on their hard earned tax dollars, we consider your work loathsome and disgusting? Grok that, Dave?
What if we don’t want you to have special protections or be able to grant yourselves special security compared to everyone else? What if we want you to live with the very same laws you create for other people, meaning that if people cannot conceal carry because of you, then you don’t get to either, and you don’t get your very own security?
And what if the open carry law you advocate effects everyone, including you, and LEOs, and you don’t get any extra, additional or special security? What if we just don’t care enough about what you do to grant you security on our tax dollars?
I know I’ve given you a lot to think about, Dave. Please feel free to post a comment and tell us what you think.
On May 30, 2017 at 2:07 pm, Heywood J said:
When they start taping people’s mouths shut before they walk into a theater because they MIGHT shout “fire” then you can talk to me about trampling my gun RIGHTS before I abuse them. Until then, go pound sand. Your argument is crap.
On May 30, 2017 at 5:59 pm, Fred said:
Used to be that if somebody yelled fire in a theater and there was no fire they would get a bloody nose, solved. Now everybody is a sissy. You DO have the right to yell fire, and suffer the consequences. Societal shunning and a couple of missing teeth are a valuable lesson. The right hasn’t been removed, the consequences have.
On June 1, 2017 at 4:19 pm, Dave Jones said:
Iowa made NO changes to open carrying during the last legislative session. There was also nothing in HF517 that was called “the Open Carry Law”. This guy is just ranting nonsensical anti-gun nonsense.