Gun Amendment Language Intentionally Confusing: Vote NO

[rurallib]

https://blogforiowa.com/2022/10/25/gun-amendment-language-intentionally-confusing-vote-no/

>
Gun safety is on the ballot in Iowa this year as voters consider a constitutional amendment. Iowans of course have the right to own a gun and we have the U.S. Constitution that guarantees this. But this amendment doesn’t do what it says it does. It’s funded by out of state special interests who put profits over people. And instead of protecting our rights, this confusing amendment will weaken our current laws, make us less safe and even put law enforcement in danger. This ballot measure will make it even harder for police and other law enforcement officers to enforce the law and do their job.

The language in the ballot is intentionally confusing. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our right to own a gun. But the “strict scrutiny” called for in this amendment actually means that the Iowa government has limited power to create or enforce commonsense laws that would reduce gun violence, like background checks on all gun sales, and keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

>

Only three other states have a similar version of this proposed amendment: Alabama, Louisiana, & Missouri. All three of these states rank in the top five for the highest rates of gun deaths in the US.

>

Make no mistake, the campaign for this amendment is funded by out-of-state
special interests, who want to flood our streets with weapons of war rather than support laws that protect our communities and save lives. The special interest groups behind this ballot measure only care about profits over people and are promoting their guns everywhere agenda, in schools, in grocery stores, and places of worship, just to increase their revenue.

This proposed amendment won’t make Iowa safer. Turn the ballot over and vote NO.
===================================================

Turn the ballot over and vote NO!

[sl8]

1. Sounds similar to Vermont's proposed abortion amendment.

It doesn't say "strict scrutiny" in those words, but that's what "compelling State interest achieved by
the least restrictive means" is.

"That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to
the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be
denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by
the least restrictive means."

[rurallib]

2. good grief that short paragraph is truly confusing

looks like a Herschel Walker word salad.

[sl8]

6. Maybe so, but it should make it very hard for any future jurist to suggest that anything ...

Maybe so, but it should make it very hard for any future jurist to suggest that anything less than strict scrutiny is warranted. I'll take that over prettier prose.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

3. Strict scrutiny would be preferable to what the Bruen decision have us

Though regardless of whether this passes or not, Bruen supersedes.

[rurallib]

4. refresh us a bit on Bruen please?

Was that the SCOTUS decision from New York last term?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

5. yea, the NY gun case

Thomas basically set the review standard for gun laws to be even worse the strict scrutiny. Its now "text, history, and tradition". No means testing at all. So any good effects of the law or compelling state interests, is ignored and not to be considered at all. The only thing that can be considered is whether the law is consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation. If the law doesn't have a historical analogue, then its not constitutional.

[progressoid]

7. Yep.

I'm kind of worried that people won't understand it and it will pass.

We all need to write letters to the editor about this.