Advertisement

Opinion: Iowa's amendment on guns would move state in dangerous direction

Like the great majority of Americans, Iowans overwhelmingly support common-sense safety regulations on firearms, favoring background checks, permits to carry and similar safety measures by margins of up to 80% or 90%.

Despite the clear will of its constituents, Iowa’s Republican-controlled, Brownell-funded Legislature has been changing our gun safety laws from common-sense to reckless to radical. Since 2017, it has decriminalized shooting someone when you have other options (the “Stand Your Ground” law), stripped the rights of local governments to protect their citizens by keeping guns out of emotionally charged places like courthouses, and, against the wishes of two-thirds of the state’s voters, taken away local sheriffs’ judgment and involvement in permitting via Iowa’s new permitless carry system.

Now, come November, that Legislature is asking Iowa’s voters to make it nearly impossible to reinstate any popular common-sense gun laws — or adopt any new ones. Unlike previous changes, this one requires an amendment to Iowa’s Constitution. Amendments lock in changes for years to come, requiring multiple legislative votes by different assemblies and, ultimately, a majority vote by the people of Iowa.

Our Legislature has twice passed an amendment to the Iowa Constitution that reads as follows: "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."

There is a lot to unpack there, and there are many lies being told about this proposal. The most important thing to know is that this amendment is much broader than the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

It removes important terms. It adds significant new ones, including specific legal language that could deprive future Iowans of the ability to set common-sense limits on gun ownership.

If Iowa were adopting the Second Amendment, it would say: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Iowa’s proposal has no mention of a militia, no mention of the security of the state. Instead, it refers to Iowa as a “sovereign” state, a term popular with secessionists and anti-government kooks.

The proposal also designates the right to keep and bear arms as a “fundamental” right. That word carries deep meaning in a legal context. It does not appear in the Second Amendment.

Fundamental rights include your ability to move between states and to have custody of your children. Whatever the gun industry might like you to think, taking your gun away from you should not be in the same legal category as taking your child away.

Most dramatically, the proposed amendment dictates to the courts of Iowa the type of legal test they should apply to any gun regulation that is challenged in court: strict scrutiny. No part of the U.S. Constitution dictates what legal test a court should use to evaluate its terms.

Strict scrutiny means that any limitation on “keeping and bearing arms” must fulfill a compelling state interest, and must be narrowly tailored to meet that compelling interest. It is extremely difficult for the government to meet this burden of proof.

Imagine trying to justify a law to the courts that works one way for Black people and another way for everyone else. That’s the level of scrutiny that gun laws would have to pass.

This is not the right test to use on sensible regulations of deadly items, be they cars, chemicals or guns.

This amendment is different from the Second Amendment in several key ways. So, when supporters of this amendment try to tell you that it is just “mirroring” the Second Amendment, ask yourself who benefits financially and why they’re lying to you — or who lied to them.

Then vote against this radical amendment and encourage your friends to do the same.

Kelcey Patrick-Ferree and Shannon Patrick live in Iowa City. And biannual time changes must be abolished.

This article originally appeared on Iowa City Press-Citizen: Opinion: Iowa's amendment on guns would move it in dangerous direction