Posted on 02/25/2005 1:38:29 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
Iowa Senators Introduce State Assault Weapons Ban
2/25/2005
Press Release
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence
4403 1st Ave SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
http://www.ipgv.org
State assault weapons ban would fill the void created when Congress failed to renew the federal assault weapons ban last September
Cedar Rapids, IA - Legislation has been introduced in the Iowa Senate that would prohibit the possession of military-style, semiautomatic assault weapons in Iowa. The bipartisan bill (Senate File 207) is co-sponsored by Senators Connolly (D-Dubuque), Dvorsky (D-Coralville), Lundby (R-Marion), and Tinsman (R-Davenport).
Lead sponsor of the bill Mike Connolly said, "Military-style, semiautomatic assault weapons pose an unreasonable risk of death and injury to all Americans, but the risk is greatest for the nation's law enforcement officers. A law enforcement officer is far more likely than a member of the general public to look down the barrel of an AK-47 whenever they serve a warrant, stop a suspicious vehicle on I-80, or respond to a domestic disturbance."
According to a report by the Violence Policy Center, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers (41 of 211) killed in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon. Furthermore, of the law enforcement officers killed by a rifle during this period, 75 percent (38 of 49) were killed with an assault rifle.
Considering that assault weapons are estimated to make up no more 1-2 percent of all guns in the general population, the VPC study clearly shows that assault weapons are used in a disproportionate number of cop killings.
Said John Johnson, executive director of IPGV, "America needs a strong and effective assault weapons ban. Because Congress has neglected its duty to help protect the nation's law enforcement officers from the threat of assault weapons, states should enact state assault weapons bans."
Johnson noted that last year, 95 Iowa police chiefs and 12 county sheriffs signed onto a statement calling on Congress to strengthen and renew the federal assault weapons ban. Nationwide, more than 2,000 police chiefs and sheriffs in 35 states signed the statement.
SF 207 would prohibit the possession of assault weapons by defining "semiautomatic assault weapon" as an offensive weapon in section 724.1 of the Iowa Code. Iowa law prohibits possession of offensive weapons (a class "D" felony) by anyone other than law enforcement and other authorized persons. Offensive weapons currently include the following: machine guns, short-barreled rifles or shotguns, any firearm that fires a projectile with a diameter greater than 0.60 inches, bombs, grenades, mines, and other non-explosive weapons.
Persons who lawfully possess assault weapons on the effective date of the law would be allowed to keep their weapons, provided that they obtain a "permit to possess assault weapons" from their county sheriff. The sheriff would be required to issue a permit to anyone who is not prohibited by federal or state law from possessing firearms. Alternatively, a person could remove the assault weapon from Iowa, render the assault weapon permanently inoperable, or take the assault weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction.
SF 207 is modeled after the 1999 California assault weapons ban, which has proven to be more effective than the expired federal ban.
Marion and Davenport are Dem areas these 2 must be for show only.
More effective at what? Violating the Constitutional rights of the law abiding and keeping guns out of their hands? Neither law has kept any guns out of criminal hands....because, by definition, criminals don't care about some stinking law.
How old are you? I don't know that I'd call the 1930s "recent". Even the 1986 ban on selling newly made machine guns to ordinary citizens isn't all that recent, even to a "fifty something" like me.
Exactly, I had to read this three time to figure it out
According to a report by the Violence Policy Center, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers (41 of 211) killed in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon. Furthermore, of the law enforcement officers killed by a rifle during this period, 75 percent (38 of 49) were killed with an assault rifle.
So 38 of 41 were assault 'rifles' that are already heavily reguated, select fire.
The other 14, were done with assault 'weapons' and 'sniper rifles'.
So by their own logic, [and BS phraseology] this preemption to confiscation would only effect THREE weapons that arent already regulated to death ?
Being as though 80% of duty deaths result from 'other' causes, how about we regulate the wreckless driving of cops hurrying back for shift change, or blowing through red lights on the way to meet the 'Mrs' for a box lunch ??? /sarc...sort of
Alternatively, we could start a new government fund to send them back to school to be accountants...since they apparently were blissfully unaware that they actually might encounter CRIMINALS in their chosen line of occupation.
;^)
I am in IA also. Just moved in. Is there a list of fellow IA FReepers? We need to stop these guys.
We have 99 counties here in Iowa. I am not sure what percent that is, you do the math.
If this ban is needed anywhere, it is Iowa. Visitors have teased me because 'a dog on the interstate' may well be the lead story on the 10:00 news...
They're our equivalent of Snowe and Collins.
God help us.
Why?
Visitors have teased me because 'a dog on the interstate' may well be the lead story on the 10:00 news.
Some days (and a lot of Sundays) are like that. Lately, some local stations will lead with a national or world story because nothing happening locally makes the grade.
A few days ago, the lead story was that the murder rate for 2004 in Cedar Rapids was down 100% from 2003 (zero vs. three or four). I can think of a lot worse things to have lead the 10:00 news.
Not needed in Iowa - and that is my point. It isn't needed (or legal) anywhere to ban these guns, but in Iowa? No way.
I am trying to say 'legal' instead of 'constitutional' these days. When I say something is unconstitutional, I get ignored. When I say it is illegal, then explain myself, they at least pay attention for a bit...
self-ping
The person you should come down on is John Johnson. He is the director of IPGV which is a gun ban group here in ceder rapids. The guy has been know to have a short fuse because he thought a person was giving him a bad deal when he used to work at the neuclear power plant. He had to be physically restrain because he wanted to go to blows with the person. He has written several assine articals in the local paper and I have had to try at least to shoot down his arguments. He persuaded these stupid legislators into copying the peoples republic of california assinine law. Two of these sponsers are women. I have sent the sponsers each a copy of the first million march which happened in europe during WWII. So far none has even responed. Go to his web site and get his telephone # and you can give him holly hell if you feel like and as a added bonus you go to iowa legislature (on google) and get the phone #'s of the so called elected leaders. As a veteran who has served in a war zone in defense of this country, I feel no woman has earned the right to tell me what I can own or not own. I don't care if she got elected to an office, I am the one who pays her salary.
Are people brain dead? How hard is it to understand that laws only affect people who obey laws?
No I do not think these people are stupid. I beleive it is an arrogant eliteism they have about themselves. They may have their colledge degrees and happen to get elected to a public office. Somehow they feel superior to the general public and think they know what is best for the people, and for others it is like a school girls game as to who is the boss. Some how they feel that they are ordained to rule over others. I have notice that women legislators seems to be the worst. What is sad is it dosen't seam to mater what party women are associated with, it is the same general attitude, only they know what is best for the people. You should see how some of them brissle up their hair when I tell them I am a veteran who serve in a war zone and they haven't earned the right to tell me what to do. The really bad part is they will do whatever it takes to get their agenda through even if they have to lie and cheat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.