It’s no secret to TTAG readers that municipal officials in many cities—both large and small—are prone to concocting their own anti-gun schemes to infringe upon the rights of gun owners when visiting those cities. That’s why many states have passed preemption laws making it illegal for municipalities to pass firearms ordinances more restrictive than state law.
Iowa has long had such an law on the books. And now legislators in the Hawkeye State have passed, and the governor has signed, a measure putting teeth to Iowa’s preemption law.
On May 1, Gov. Kim Reynolds signed House File 2556, providing an enforcement mechanism for the state’s preemption law.
Iowa’s existing preemption law prohibited local jurisdictions from passing any ordinance, motion, resolution, policy, or amendment that is inconsistent with or stricter than state law. The newly signed law provides an enforcement mechanism—read as, financial penalty—to help ensure that cities comply with the law.
According to the new laws’ text: “A court shall assess against the political subdivision of the state damages in the amount of not more than five hundred dollars and not less than one hundred dollars per day after providing written notice to the political subdivision of the state of the violation, not to exceed five thousand dollars.”
The penalty is increased for those who know passing such a law is a violate of the code but do so anyway.
“However, if the political subdivision of the state knowingly participated in such a violation, damages shall be assessed against the political subdivision of the state in the amount of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars and not less than one thousand dollars per day after providing written notice to the political subdivision of the state of the violation, not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars,” the law states. “These damages shall be paid by the political subdivision of the state directly to the adversely affected person.”
HF 2556 also includes a provision allowing the state to assess damages in excess of the amounts listed in the language. The measure had passed the state House by an 84-to-11 vote and the Senate by a vote of 40 to 5.
Most states have preemption laws on the books to help protect citizens’ Second Amendment rights by preventing a patchwork of regulations that make it nearly impossible to know what the law is as they move throughout a state. The new Iowa law will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2025.
The source for these schemes aimed at the law abiding is the megaphone Gun Control zealots who assume they own the moral high ground and the majority of America sides with them. Well they may be correct when it comes to Gun Control History illiterates but they are dead wrong about ever owning the moral high ground…
Didya even read the article Deb, or did you just go straight to the ol’ diatribe ?
aq you ignorant little man…What part of “It’s no secret to TTAG readers that municipal officials in many cities—both large and small—are prone to concocting their own anti-gun schemes to infringe upon the rights of gun owners when visiting those cities” don’t you understand?
You need a propeller cap that sez…Don’t-Slap Poop-Splatters.
So straight to the diatribe?
noid…Pull your thumb out of your mouth you snot nosed crybaby. I’ve never seen you two no-counts taking a stand against Gun Control much less ever defining it…When it comes Protecting the 2A you two wimps couldn’t fight your way out of a wet paper bag. Pay close attention: If you insist on responding to me with your usual diatribe then I will make coleslaw out of you in front of your pals…take that to the bank little man.
I think you have a mental condition little man
Good news from IA, however, the financial penalty needs to be assessed against the government officials that passed the law, and not the political subdivision. No sovereign immunity for government officials that violate civil rights, including not paying attorney’s fees, nor allowing for insurance reimbursements, or payment by third parties. Then lock them up.
The days of asymmetric risk need to end.
Concur. Violation of a person’s civil rights needs to hit the offending politicians in the wallet. And the fine should be far, far higher. I’m thinking $100k per day, with no upper limit, for anyone that voted “Yes” to restricting a citizen’s rights under the Constitution. The offender could forego the fine if they agreed to prison time (max security prison), with no time off for good behavior, at the rate of one year in prison for every day of the violation.
I’ve said the same thing for years. Until scoff-law politicians pay personally for their abuse of office, they’ll continue to waste taxpayer funds defending lawsuits against their plainly illegal acts. In addition, they should pay the legal expenses of any party who successfully challenges their actions in court.
Be aware, though, that lefties will abuse any provision in law designed to thwart their lawlessness. Consider current Trump prosecutions where Democrats file frivolous charges and hope in jurisdictions where they expect a biased jury pool to convict regardless of the facts in the case. New York effectively passed an unconstitutional bill of attainder to “legitimize” their hush money case, on which the statute of limitations had long expired. Democrats extended it for the sole purpose of persecuting Trump.
The long-term solutions are a) to dramatically shrink the size, scope and cost of government at all levels and b) to prosecute, convict and imprison the criminal leaders of the Democratic Party.
I don’t call them democRats for nothing…
https://youtube.com/shorts/vit9cRcd78g?feature=shared
The Soros thinktank that hands free antigun laws to cities is going to fund lawsuits against the state. This is not the end.
Good move, IA. Home rule is home tyranny…
We’re not saying you can’t have guns, you just can’t have guns in town.
Great analysis of “sensitive areas”! Interesting that since Tombstone was in the Arizona TERRITORY it was directly subject to the 2nd Amendment.
Is their any way that residents of those offending political subdivisiions can sue the perpetrators of the illegal scheme in their personal capacities? Sovereign immunity is such a bad idea unless you are a politician or bureaucrat infringing on a cirizens civil rights. Negation of sovereign immunity should be automatic whenever a civil rights case is adjudicated against the government. Let them pay for their own trangressions.
Nope…Qualified Immunity protects them.