Why don’t we just stick to the original Second Amendment?
House lawmakers in Iowa voted a bill to go the next step that would ultimately make exceptions during a crisis for guns that are normally illegal.
A divided three-member panel from the House Judiciary Committee approved the bill Thursday, and it now heads to the full committee. It needs approval there before a full House vote.
The bill would specify that neither the governor nor state officials can prohibit or curtail lawful gun possession during a public disorder or disaster emergency proclamation. Current law allows state officials to do so, though critics of the bill say such a situation would be rare. They called the bill unnecessary.
Rep. Matt Windschitl, a Missouri Valley Republican, said the bill protects Second Amendment rights. He has introduced several bills this session that focus on expanding gun rights.
I agree with the critics, it sounds completely unnecessary.
First off, our Second Amendment was originally created to maintain freedom with firearms. We shouldn’t need another bill that re-states this, or that only allows certain guns during a “crisis.”
Secondly, what constitutes a “crisis?” For the government to have to decide this is where the problems begin. Our right to bear arms was specifically designed to allow the people to own firearms not only for their own protection in every day situations but to protect the people from the government.
For the government to start regulating when and where the people can have firearms is a direct violation of the Second Amendment.
