Iowa House rejects considering (stupid republican) gun proposal

[jpak]

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/04/12/iowa-house-rejects-considering-gun-proposal/

Law-abiding Iowans could carry weapons in public without permission from a sheriff, without background checks and without training requirements under a proposal that failed this afternoon when House Democrats and most Republicans rejected a request from one lawmaker to consider the idea.

“I’d like to let the members know here that criminals, they don’t have to get a background check. They don’t have to purchase permits and they’re not restricted by our restrictions,” said Rep. Tom Shaw, R-(edit: moran) Laurens who made the proposal and said he is following through with a promise he made to his constituents.

The proposal is similar to House Study Bill 219, a bill often known as the “Alaska Carry” bill, after the first state that passed the measure. The bill in Iowa has not passed through the typical committee process and its prospects for passage this year are not good.

Shaw unsuccessfully asked his peers to suspend rules to consider attaching his proposal to Senate File 456. That request failed in a 91 to six vote.

<more>

[lawodevolution]

1. It'll be back next year and next year and next year until it passes

We are using you tactics now. How do you like it?

[jpak]

2. We = the GOP?

:shrug:

[NewMoonTherian]

3. Gun rights are a bipartisan issue. n/t

[sharesunited]

5. So is not having bullets enter your hide.

[PavePusher]

12. So don't point guns at yourself.

No-one here is going to shoot you unless you physically attack them. And I don't think you have it in you, so you're safe here.

[lawodevolution]

4. You trying to convert people here to the GOP?

[Logical]

6. I have no problem with states needing a background check and issuing a license as long....

as it is a fair process and not based on some sheriffs opinion of the person.

I think licenses and fingerprints are a good thing.

[PavePusher]

13. We should have the same requirements for voting.

Or speaking. Or refusing to be slaves. Or denying searches.

I know you are on our side, but I have to disagree with you on this point.

[Logical]

15. Carry a gun is more responsibility. Should require more of a check. You...

have to register your car, pets, etc.

It is not that unreasonable. Many states CCW require it and it has been successful!

[PavePusher]

17. Registration has nothing to do with crime or responsibility.

It is about taxes (revenue) and government control. And it is unreasonable.

[Logical]

18. Ok, we can disagree on this! I am not scared of the government like many here n-t

[PavePusher]

19. I am not scared of the government per se...

But there is no legitimate purpose to expand government without a good reason. And this ain't it.

[Logical]

20. Resonable gun controls are OK with me. n-t

[PavePusher]

21. We're going to have to disagree on "reasonable".

I see no overwhelming reason why the .gov needs to know what weaponry I own (quite the opposite, actually) unless I perform criminal actions.

[Logical]

23. Yes, I doubt we agree on much. n-t

[PavePusher]

22. How is it "more responsibility"?

Many people have died due to the irresponsible exercise of other Civil Rights.

[Hoyt]

7. Good. It's time folks started thinking about society and not folks who need a gun down their pants.

[rl6214]

10. I don't know too many people that stick guns down their pants

I guess you only see that in the gangbangers, the ones that don't follow the law anyway. Is that the group you are behind? You sure do seem to want to make sure law abiding citizens can't protect themselves against those predators with those guns down their pants.

[Hoyt]

14. Figure of speech. Can you describe the potential predators that you fear?

[rl6214]

16. I have no predators

I have no fear.

[EC]

8. I'm not sure I'm reading this right.

First he says "law-abiding Iowans" then he says, “I’d like to let the members know here that criminals, they don’t have to get a background check. They don’t have to purchase permits and they’re not restricted by our restrictions,” said Rep. Tom Shaw, R-(edit: moran) Laurens who made the proposal and said he is following through with a promise he made to his constituents.

So is he advertising for more criminal types to come to Iowa to shop, or is that his reasoning of why the law abiding people need the same lack of restrictions?

[RSillsbee]

9. He's pointing out that criminals don't obey gun laws

and the law abiding don't need them

[rl6214]

11. I think he's saying that the playing field needs to be leveled

with those criminals that don't worry about breaking the law.