Iowa Voters Add Right to Keep and Bear Arms to Iowa Constitution

After this, only five states (California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York) won't have such a provision in their state constitutions.

The Des Moines Register reports that the state constitutional amendment is winning 66%-34% with about 87% of the vote counted. The text will read,

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.

For lists of the current and past state constitutional provisions as of 2006 (a few have been added or changed since), both by state and by date, see here.

Comments

[Caphon]

Awesome news! Good job Iowa!!

[Frank Drackman]

Apparently, they don’t have dictionaries in Iowa.
Infringe (v): act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on, restrict.

Frank

[apedad]

Iowa disagrees with you since they included this, “Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

They are allowing infringement – as long as it passes strict scrutiny.

[Brett Bellmore]

The courts flatly refuse to interpret rights as simply outright prohibiting anything, the best you can do is declare that the court invented exceptions have to be subject to strict scrutiny. Because, count on it, the courts WILL invent exceptions, no matter how clearly you write it.

[Sarcastr0]

Huh. There’s a lot of courts. Federal, and state. Throughout a decent amount of US history.

Almost as though they may collectively know something you don’t about implementability of rights in the real world.

[Brett Bellmore]

Almost as though they’re all being staffed by the same legal community, who happen to agree on some things, and don’t mean to let written constitutions get in their way.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the practitioners of this field may know something about how to make it work that you don’t.

You idealism bona fides are pure, albeit at the cost of having any pragmatism at all.

Which in the end makes you one of those with a serious demeanor, but with an inability to meaningfully participate in social debate.

[Sarcastr0]

Insisting that the ‘legal community’ is largely a monolithic enemy of rights and has been for the past 150 years is some impressively hubristic extremism.

If the story you come up with is one where the judiciary is culturally your enemy, you may be kinda out there…

[Brett Bellmore]

It’s actually more like since the New Deal for most of this, you realize.

But, really, you don’t think the Slaughterhouse Court was an enemy of rights?

[Sarcastr0]

Not if you’re talking about the Second Amendment it’s not.

Oh, I can find individual cases that are real bad for rights. But that’s not you – you’re including the Supreme Court throughout it’s history, the lower federal courts, and just about every state court system.

Such a view reminds me of nothing more than talking to a Critical Theorist.

[apedad]

I agree BB – and that’s because there are no ABSOLUTE rights.

[Noorondoor]

Unless, of course, a gay man wants to “marry” another man or a woman wants to kill her unborn baby. Then rights have to be absolute, because “freedom” or something…

[shawn_dude]

Do you think about “marry[ing]” a gay man often? (did you put “marry” in quotes because it’s euphemism for sex?) Do you think denying a civil right for one couple, based entirely on the sex of the partners, where they are similarly situated to other couples who are allowed to get married, is a reasonable restriction of their civil rights?

[Steve Griffin]

Look Shawn, if two guys want to get married all one of them has to do is identify as female and the issue is solved. No “gay marriage” is necessary.

[Frank Drackman]

and violating the Constitution, which is why the law should be ignored.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like the amendment was written by John Roberts or maybe Brett Kavanaugh.

[John F. Carr]

About ¾ of Americans live in states with this dangerous radical new right people were ranting at last spring.

Edit: But that might be overcounting a bit because Massachusetts’ right to keep and bear arms has been held not to create any meaningful individual right.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe they can amend it to add a “Simon says” clause. Massachusetts does have citizen ballot initiatives, after all. You’d have to get started right now to get such an amendment on the ballot in 2024.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Good point. Massachusetts must settle for eds and meds (and the related strong economy and high standard of living). Iowa can enjoy its corn stalks and clingers (and everything that accompanies that, including plenty of guns).

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, right, Worcester’s a veritable paradise compared to Des Moines.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(includes territories; total 52)

College degree
Iowa 39

Advanced degree
Iowa 45

Bright flight (being on the wrong end of bright flight, that is) seems destined to continue to shape Iowa. More advanced states should be grateful for the smart, ambitious young people who depart Iowa at high school graduation, never to return.

Carry on, Iowans (and other clingers).

[Jacob Grimes]

Why strict scrutiny when that is no longer the standard? What good will a restriction satisfying this be when it fails under Bruen?

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember, the initiative constitutional amendment process in Mass. takes a couple years, minimum; This was drafted BEFORE Bruen, when the prevailing standard of review the courts applied was a pseudo-intermediate scrutiny that actually was rational basis in practice.

As such, explicitly demanding strict scrutiny in the state courts was a big step forward.

And with a lot of the federal judiciary expected to drag their heels on upholding Bruen, having the state courts ordered to use strict scrutiny will have some real teeth.

[Jacob Grimes]

Good point, thanks.

[Rossami]

It might become unnecessary under Bruen but maybe not. Regardless, this takes away any and all arguments that attempted to infringe based on their state laws. It removes the need to argue over incorporation.

[Caphon]

And Oregon votes to severely restrict gun possession, coming in behind NY and CA as one of the most draconian. Yay, Iowa, but total loss in OR, at least until the courts step in.

[Brett Bellmore]

At last report (3 minutes ago!) Prop 114 was ahead by 0.3% with only 77% of the vote counted.

It went down in flaming ruins everywhere but 7 counties, and all of the lead and then some comes from Portland.

But, yeah, if it does pass it’s going to be enjoined so fast heads will spin.

[Brett Bellmore]

Correction, 0.7% Still, point is, not a done deal yet.

An interesting twist is that the polling on it seems to have been actually accurate; Most of the time the polls dramatically over-state ballot box support for this sort of thing.

I wonder what made the difference? Opponents of gun control coming out of hiding because of the Bruen ruling?

[shawn_dude]

“Changes the procedure to purchase a firearm, including requiring a permit, background check, and safety training for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm. This measure also prohibits the manufacture or sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds.”

This “severely restrict[s] gun possession?” How to you get that from this? It’s roughly the same as getting a driver’s license.

This is a gun safety measure. Sounds like a great idea.

[Rossami]

Would you tolerate even one of those restrictions if applied to the right to vote? If not, why are they tolerable for an enumerated right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Measure 114

The requirements for the permit would not be unreasonable if gun ownership was a privilege, they’re quite unreasonable as requirements to exercise an explicit civil liberty.

Additional provisions are,

1) Gun registration.
2) ALL sales and gifts are routed through the permitted purchase system.
3) Unlike the Brady system, if they can’t/don’t finish the background check, the purchase is canceled. So, they can shut down all legal purchases just by going on vacation.
4) Basically shuts down sales at gun shows by allowing approvals to take longer than the show lasts. And in order to buy at a gun show you have to obtain the permit beforehand.
5) Now it gets ugly, and in utter defiance of Bruen: Normal capacity (More than 10 rounds) magazines are illegal. Existing ones can be grandfathered in under odious conditions.