Largest pro-Second Amendment bill in Iowa history

[Flightmare]

http://wqad.com/2017/06/30/largest-pro- ... ve-july-1/

Division 7 – Preemption/Suing Local Government – effective July 1
A political subdivision (city, county or township) shall not enact an ordinance banning the lawful possession of weapons (aka gun free zone). If a political subdivision preempts state law and bans the law possession of weapons a citizen may sue that subdivision for being adversely affected. Citizens can sue their local city for breaking Iowa weapons law by enacting gun free zones.

This could come in handy if it were in Texas.

[OneGun]

[Soccerdad1995]

It would be even better if a citizen could also personally sue every government official and employee who was involved in the decision to either create or enforce a "gun free" zone. Someone who follows illegal orders should be held fully responsible for their actions, just like the person issuing the illegal orders.

[apostate]

Agreed. Imagine if federal civil rights lawsuits had to be brought by the US AG and the actual victims don't get a dime in the rare case the AG sues. That's essentially what we have with the "fines for signs" smoke and mirrors. Since the Texas legislature did nothing to correct the flaws this session, I think they were by design, and they never intended to punish violation of civil rights under color of law.

[parabelum]

Very good!

[E.Marquez]

Someone who follows illegal orders should be held fully responsible for their actions, just like the person issuing the illegal orders.

In theory i agree, and in cases where malice is proven Id agree.. But your idea as stated means every person must now be an educated, experienced lawyer with experience in the specific area of this law, so they can actually KNOW the law as it applies to the various permutations of it.

If the company owner says "hey don't forget after Thursday, we are not allowing guns in the building" I don't expect every employee to go home, research relevant case law, the actual law covering this situation, contact a lawyer to get an opinion on if such action is legal or not and then confront their employer before next Thursday.. do you?

Now if the employee has been shown a judges ruling specific to the conditions and circumstances they are in or local law enforcement has stopped by and advised "You cant do that, this law XYZ, says they can have that gun here regardless of what the boss said" or if some other person of apparent authority who is reasonable accepted to commonly have an "educated" opinion advised that employee the gun prohibition was illegal, then sure Id say the burden shifts to the employee to confirm or deny what they are doing (enforcing) is righteous.

[apostate]

Someone who follows illegal orders should be held fully responsible for their actions, just like the person issuing the illegal orders.

In theory i agree, and in cases where malice is proven Id agree.. But your idea as stated means every person must now be an educated, experienced lawyer with experience in the specific area of this law, so they can actually KNOW the law as it applies to the various permutations of it.

Fundamentally, how is that different than expecting managers to be experts on sexual harassment laws, not to mention discriminatory hiring and firing?

[RossA]

Tell that to the police.
"Officer, I didn't know it was illegal to speed through a school zone."
Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse?

[ninjabread]

Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse?

When you work for the government.

[E.Marquez]

Someone who follows illegal orders should be held fully responsible for their actions, just like the person issuing the illegal orders.

In theory i agree, and in cases where malice is proven Id agree.. But your idea as stated means every person must now be an educated, experienced lawyer with experience in the specific area of this law, so they can actually KNOW the law as it applies to the various permutations of it.

Fundamentally, how is that different than expecting managers to be experts on sexual harassment laws, not to mention discriminatory hiring and firing?

Tell that to the police.
"Officer, I didn't know it was illegal to speed through a school zone."
Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse?

Ahh, sure no problem, every employee in every store that might have need to tell a customer they can not bring a weapon into the store because thats is what the boss said, they should be an expert in the law as it applies to weapons carried in public..
Ok fair enough.
So as you set the bar at that level.

So do either of you drive a vehicle on public streets?
Are you willing to state you are experts in every law as it applies to driving a vehicle on a public street, after all ignorance of the law is no excuse..Right?

I can only assume you both are experts and know every law and permutation of the law as it applies to operating a vehicle,,since I assume you operate a vehicle on a public road...

So I can ask you a Texas law based question about vehicle operation and you will KNOW the answer, correctly, completely and immediately without assistance.. YEs? as you suggest a dollar General store clerk, a McDonald clerk, the sales guy at the local car dealership should be fully informed on with reference to "It would be even better if a citizen could also personally sue every government official and employee who was involved in the decision to either create or enforce a "gun free" zone. Someone who follows illegal orders should be held fully responsible for their actions, just like the person issuing the illegal orders."

Or do you think its reasonable that we can not all be experts in every law on the book we might encounter on a daily basis, and while it makes for a funny INTERNET Meme " Ignorance of the law is no excuse" reality is something much different.
My point is, I agree, if you are responsible to set policy.. you are responsible to reasonable know the policy is lawful.

But down the food chain, other then obvious common known and understood laws..its unrealistic for every person to know every law as it applies to carrying a weapon in public... even if your told to enforce it.

[RossA]

Someone who follows illegal orders should be held fully responsible for their actions, just like the person issuing the illegal orders.

In theory i agree, and in cases where malice is proven Id agree.. But your idea as stated means every person must now be an educated, experienced lawyer with experience in the specific area of this law, so they can actually KNOW the law as it applies to the various permutations of it.

Fundamentally, how is that different than expecting managers to be experts on sexual harassment laws, not to mention discriminatory hiring and firing?

Tell that to the police.
"Officer, I didn't know it was illegal to speed through a school zone."
Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse?

Ahh, sure no problem, every employee in every store that might have need to tell a customer they can not bring a weapon into the store because thats is what the boss said, they should be an expert in the law as it applies to weapons carried in public..
Ok fair enough.
So as you set the bar at that level.

So do either of you drive a vehicle on public streets?
Are you willing to state you are experts in every law as it applies to driving a vehicle on a public street, after all ignorance of the law is no excuse..Right?

I can only assume you both are experts and know every law and permutation of the law as it applies to operating a vehicle,,since I assume you operate a vehicle on a public road...

So I can ask you a Texas law based question about vehicle operation and you will KNOW the answer, correctly, completely and immediately without assistance.. YEs? as you suggest a dollar General store clerk, a McDonald clerk, the sales guy at the local car dealership should be fully informed on with reference to "It would be even better if a citizen could also personally sue every government official and employee who was involved in the decision to either create or enforce a "gun free" zone. Someone who follows illegal orders should be held fully responsible for their actions, just like the person issuing the illegal orders."

Or do you think its reasonable that we can not all be experts in every law on the book we might encounter on a daily basis, and while it makes for a funny INTERNET Meme " Ignorance of the law is no excuse" reality is something much different.
My point is, I agree, if you are responsible to set policy.. you are responsible to reasonable know the policy is lawful.

But down the food chain, other then obvious common known and understood laws..its unrealistic for every person to know every law as it applies to carrying a weapon in public... even if your told to enforce it.

There you go, twisting what others have said. I NEVER said that I am an expert at every nuance of the law. To even suggest so is blatant dishonesty. I DID say that whether I am an expert or not, I will still be held to the standard of knowing the law. That is not my choice, it is how the law works, whether we like it or not.

[Scott Farkus]

Someone who follows illegal orders should be held fully responsible for their actions, just like the person issuing the illegal orders.

In theory i agree, and in cases where malice is proven Id agree.. But your idea as stated means every person must now be an educated, experienced lawyer with experience in the specific area of this law, so they can actually KNOW the law as it applies to the various permutations of it.

If the company owner says "hey don't forget after Thursday, we are not allowing guns in the building" I don't expect every employee to go home, research relevant case law, the actual law covering this situation, contact a lawyer to get an opinion on if such action is legal or not and then confront their employer before next Thursday.. do you?

Now if the employee has been shown a judges ruling specific to the conditions and circumstances they are in or local law enforcement has stopped by and advised "You cant do that, this law XYZ, says they can have that gun here regardless of what the boss said" or if some other person of apparent authority who is reasonable accepted to commonly have an "educated" opinion advised that employee the gun prohibition was illegal, then sure Id say the burden shifts to the employee to confirm or deny what they are doing (enforcing) is righteous.

Am I missing something, or aren't we talking here specifically about governmental entities denying citizens their right to carry? This post seems to imply that private property owners could be held responsible as well. Maybe Iowa law is different, I don't know.

In any event, as has been noted, there are any number of things that businesses are expected to comply with under penalty of law. While I'm not sure about holding private businesses accountable for this one, I absolutely would like to see each and very government employee involved in any decision to illegally restrict carry on government property face some kind of action, with the most severe penalties reserved for those who established the illegal policy.

I am extremely disappointed the Legislature failed to address this in the most recent session.

[Soccerdad1995]

I am merely stating that everyone should be held responsible for things they do which are illegal.

I am not an expert on every law related to the operation of a motor vehicle. Yet, I will be held liable for the consequences if I violate any law while driving. Should I be able to plead ignorance and claim that I didn't know it was a problem to drive in the left lane, or to not get over when I see a police car on the side of the road with it's lights flashing? My answer is no.

I should also be held accountable if I am working as the manager of a convenience store and I decide to strip search a suspected shoplifter, or I decide, as a manager to ignore an employees claims of sexual harassment.

For the bulk of the population, we are all used to being held accountable for any unlawful behavior, even if it is a bit unreasonable to assume that we would be experts in every single law on the books. But for some reason, we have decided that our employees who work for government agencies are incapable of being held to this same standard. I think that my government employees are just as capable as the employees that I supervise for my private employer. And they should be held to the same standard.