Firearms advocates seek to add right to bear arms to Iowa Constitution

Iowa firearms advocates are hoping to enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in the state Constitution — a move they say is long overdue but which critics worry could weaken the state's ability to regulate guns in the future.

House Joint Resolution 13 was considered by a three-person subcommittee Thursday and seeks to add into the Iowa Constitution that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes the fundamental right of the people to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for all legitimate purposes," the bill reads. "Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny."

Because the legislation would amend the state Constitution, it must be approved by two consecutive general assemblies and then by Iowans in a statewide vote.

"This simple amendment will ensure that these basic rights are protected for our future generations and will not be affected by shifting, transitory political whims," said Richard Rogers, a lobbyist for the Iowa Firearms Coalition.

But others took issue with the language, particularly the phrase "strict scrutiny."

Strict scrutiny is one of three types of judicial review, and it is the most rigorous. Strict scrutiny requires the state to use the least restrictive means necessary to achieve a compelling government objective.

Tom Chapman, executive director of the Iowa Catholic Conference, said he worries that the language is "an invitation to legal action" for those looking to challenge existing state laws that regulate firearms.

"We’re concerned this amendment, if it becomes part of our Constitution, would make it very difficult to have any future regulation," he said.

Previously: Branstad signs gun legislation, advocates promise continued efforts

Rep. Matt Windschitl, R-Missouri Valley, sponsored the legislation and said the intent is not to circumvent any existing state laws or regulations.

"We acknowledge in this language that there are restrictions that are lawful and Constitutional, but that if the state, the general assembly, chose to put a new restriction on weapons or the right to keep and bear arms, it would be subject to that higher judicial review, strict scrutiny, where the government would have to show a compelling interest for the good of the people," he said. "So, again, I can’t predict the future. But our intent is not to overturn any of the regulations."

Forty-four other states include the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitutions, but only three use the "strict scrutiny" standard.

"It really is still a red flag for me that a vast minimum of states have this strict scrutiny language," said Rep. Liz Bennett, D-Cedar Rapids, who served on the subcommittee but voted against the bill.

Lawmakers attempted to pass a constitutional amendment in 2012 that would have protected the right to keep and bear arms. However, that bill was far more expansive and would have prohibited mandatory licensing, registration or special taxation of firearms.

Windschitl said he wanted to be clear: "That is not what is being proposed here today."

House Joint Resolution 13 advanced out of subcommittee on a vote of two to one and will go to a full committee of the House.