The Iowa Democratic Party and State Senator Staci Appel must be pretty scared about their prospects for keeping their seat. As bad as Congressman Leonard Boswell’s ad attacking Brad Zaun was, that looked like powder puff football compared to the mailer that is being sent to homes throughout Iowa Senate District 37. See exhibit A below, this is the fourth mailing that went out in the district:
I’m flabbergasted. Kent Sorenson is the dangerous choice? Dangerous? Let’s might as well say he’s complicit in any domestic assault or murder that takes place in Iowa. That is so much easier to do than to actually have a debate on this issue. The primary problem with Senate File 2357 is that is presumes guilt. A person has a no contact order filed against them, and now they have to surrender their weapons. Due process anybody? This could be done without any violent act ever being committed. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a great smear ad. In a nutshell this is what this law does:
- Allow virtually anyone who knows you to apply to the court for a no-contact order – even if no physical contact has ever occurred between the two of you. As condition of this no-contact order you would be required to hand over all of your firearms and ammunition.
- Not require that you even be present at the court hearing. This bill does not even ensure that you have the right to even have legal counsel present or a chance to confront your accusers in a court of law.
- Allow an anti-gun court to decide who is qualified to take possession of your firearms should they decide to take them from you.
- Allow this same court to decide that no one is qualified to take your guns and order the sheriff’s department to seize them, and make you pay the sheriff for the right to lose your guns! Yeah, you get to pay the government $50 per gun that they seize from you!
- Declare you a felon, and unable to ever own guns again, if you fail to turn over so much as a single .22 cartridge.
They said he voted to “allow convicted domestic violence abusers to purchase and own guns.” No, he voted against somebody’s 2nd Amendment rights being taken away without due process.
The Democrats characterization of House File 596 would be laughable if it weren’t so untruthful. The only reference I see regarding carrying a weapon to a school is in the section related college/university security (anyone remember Virginia Tech?). The only other place I can see where they could possibly twist this bill allowing “kindergarten teachers to carry concealed weapons into school or weapons in bar would be where subsection 3 regarding carrying concealed weapons wouldn’t apply – “A person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon in the person’s own dwelling or place of business, or on land owned or possessed by the person.”
Regarding weapons on school grounds, the 2009 Iowa Code 724.4B makes this illegal, and the House File that was submitted did not seek to amend that section of the Iowa Code. The Democrats are simply lying about this bill, in fact as I understand HF 596 would further restrict the exceptions made for carry weapons to school. Regarding carrying weapons into a bar, this addresses those who are employed not those who patrons to the establishment. That doesn’t seem very radical to me, you?
This dirty game we’ll see up to election day so gird your loins. When somebody can’t campaign on the issues, the only thing left to do is for them to attack their opponent. I think the electorate in Senate District 37 will see past that.
Update: Here’s another mailer, this time lying about HF 596.