Iowa and Oregon voted in opposite directions on gun rights last Tuesday. Iowa voters added a Constitutional amendment strengthening the right to keep and bear arms in their state. Meanwhile, Oregon voters approved one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. These two measures further illustrate the growing divide between rural and urban Americans in the gun debate.
Iowa’s Constitutional Amendment
Iowa voters overwhelmingly adopted a new Constitutional amendment protecting Iowans’ right to keep and bear arms. Public Measure 1 adds to the protections provided by the US Constitution’s Second Amendment.
The new amendment’s approved language reads:
Article I of the Constitution of the State of Iowa is amended by adding the following new section: Right to keep and bear arms. Sec. 1A. 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.
Strict Scrutiny
The amendment’s last sentence is key to the amendment’s effectiveness. While Iowans, and all Americans, enjoy the right to keep and bear arms, courts have often employed “medium scrutiny” to firearms restrictions. Medium scrutiny allows judges to use a two-tiered approach to gun laws, balancing the perceived public interest with the Second Amendment’s language.
The result is a mishmash of gun laws across different states or even different counties and cities. The Supreme Court’s recent Bruen Decision addresses that inconsistency, though anti-gun politicians, judges, and activists are still looking for openings to infringe.
University of Iowa law professor Todd Pettys told KCRG-TV9 that “Strict scrutiny is a test that the courts have come up with to be the most demanding test when evaluating whether a Constitutional right has been violated. It’s a big deal. It kind of maximally restricts lawmakers and their ability to restrict guns in one way or another.”
Iowa Firearms Coalition President Dave Funk commented that “This is a historical day for freedom, civil rights, and the Hawkeye State. The right to self-defense and bear arms is here to stay in Iowa and we are grateful for the thousands of Iowans who took time out of their days to cast a vote in favor of liberty.” Interestingly, several Iowa sheriffs opposed the amendment.
The amendment passed with 66% voter approval and will take effect as soon as state officials certify the vote. Reports say that anti-gun activists who opposed the amendment vow to keep fighting for what they say are reasonable gun restrictions. Good luck with that.
Oregon Goes Big on Restrictions
Oregon’s Measure 114 was not as popular as Iowa’s amendment, but it garnered 51% approval, largely from the cities of Portland, Eugene, Salem, and Bend. It failed miserably in the rural areas, but the urban vote was decisively in favor.
Once it takes effect, Measure 114 will:
- Require permits issued by local law enforcement to buy a firearm.
- Require photo ID, fingerprints, safety training, criminal background check, and fee payment to apply for a permit. The applicant must pay for the training.
- Prohibit manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, possessing, using, or transferring ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds and make violations a class A misdemeanor.
The measure’s administrative costs are considerable. State and local costs are projected at $55 million for the first biennium and $50 million for each successive biennium. Those costs are only partly offset by an estimated annual fee revenue of $19.5 million. So, not only will permit holders have to pay for fees and training, but their taxes will also increase to support the administrative costs. Non-permit holders will see their taxes increase as well.
Inter-faith group Lift Every Voice crafted Measure 114 and worked to place it on the ballot. Reverend Mark Knutson, pastor of Portland’s Augustana Lutheran Church, was the most prominent chief petitioner. “We began this campaign to save lives with faith,” Knutson said.
Measure 114 drew massive financial support from anti-gun activists, raising $2.4 million against only $200,000 for its opponents. A single donor, Seattle philanthropist Connie Ballmer, contributed $750,000 to support the measure.
Questionable Constitutionality and a Possible Blueprint
Oregon Firearms Federation Director Kevin Starrett says Measure 114 violates the Second Amendment and promises to challenge it in court. Starrett says it will not reduce crime since it only targets law-abiding gun owners. He also called the measure “impossible to comply with.”
The measure has also been criticized by the Oregon Sportsmen’s Alliance, Oregon Firearms PAC, Oregon State Shooting Association, Oregon Hunters Association, the Portland Socialist Rifle Association, the National Rifle Association, and Oregon State Sheriff’s Association. Several individual sheriffs have also expressed their opposition.
The measure was supported by the usual array of gun control activist groups. The Giffords Group’s state policy director, Ari Freilich, claims the measure shows voters are ahead of lawmakers on gun safety. Of course, that depends on where those voters are, given the Iowa amendment. But Freilich rightly says that gun control activists across the country are watching this one closely. Expect more state and local level ballot initiatives moving forward.
Divided Opinions
The gun debate illustrates the larger political divide across the country. That gap seems to widen every day. Urban and rural values do not mesh on an ever-growing number of issues. That divide has led to efforts like the Greater Idaho Movement, where rural counties in Oregon and Northern California seek to break from their current states and join Idaho, which they feel better represents their values. Two more Oregon counties voted to join the Greater Idaho Movement on Tuesday.
People in certain Western Virginia and Western Maryland counties have kicked around the idea of joining West Virginia, Kentucky, or Tennessee in recent years, though they aren’t as organized or determined as the Greater Idaho Movement. The talk in Virginia was sparked by increased gun control driven by the Washington, DC suburbs and the city of Richmond.
State and Local Gun Initiatives
Gun activists on both sides are increasingly trying to further their agendas at the state and local levels. Initiatives are more easily pursued and grassroots efforts are more effective, as both the Iowa and Oregon examples show.
The main problem for gun control advocates is that the Second Amendment applies to the entire nation. Pro-gun rights advocates don’t have to worry about that. There’s little chance the Iowa amendment will be successfully challenged in court since it actually strengthens the Second Amendment and the Bruen guidelines.
Either way, it looks like gun policy initiatives will be more frequent at lower levels of government. We see that as a good thing, since the people will have greater access to the debate.
