18 to be the new minimum handgun age in Iowa
May 14—Beginning July 1, Iowa joins 23 states allowing the purchase and carrying of handguns by individuals 18 and older, rather than the federal age of 21.
On April 18, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed HF 924 into law, changing the state's minimum age.
While both federal and Iowa law already allowed for the purchase of long guns like shotguns and rifles for 18 year olds, many states don't allow this for pistols and revolvers.
Ten states and the District of Columbia have minimum age gun laws stricter than the federal standard.
Proponents of lowering the handgun purchase age say it prevents discrimination.
"This aligns with recent federal court rulings affirming that young adults, aged 18 to 20 may not, as a class, be denied full access to their Second Amendment rights," reads a statement by the Iowa Firearms Coalition. "By proactively addressing this issue, Iowa lawmakers have helped ensure our state remains a leader in protecting these fundamental rights."
A lobbyist with the Iowa Firearms Coalition, Richard Rogers, said this change is long overdue.
"Iowa's young adults are being discriminated against unfairly as to their Second Amendment rights," he said. "They are legally and morally responsible for the care and safety of that family, and yet, we deny them the access to the most practical, portable tool for self-defense."
The law also allows those 18 years or older who are a parent, guardian or spouse of someone who is younger than 18 to directly supervise the younger individual in possessing a pistol, revolver or ammunition. The adult must "maintain a physical presence near the supervised person conducive to hands-on instruction, who maintains visual and verbal contact at all times with the supervised person and who is not intoxicated."
Since 2021, Iowans are allowed to both purchase and carry handguns without a permit to acquire or a permit to carry, subject to certain limitations.
The Iowa Department of Public Safety still recommends obtaining a permit as there are benefits, including allowing Iowans to carry in states with permit reciprocity while traveling.
Critics of the bill cite the dangers of gun violence in young adults.
"Laws imposing minimum age requirements for the possession and purchase of firearms are intended to decrease access to firearms by young people and, correspondingly, to decrease the number of suicides, homicides and unintentional shootings among that population," reads a statement by Giffords Law Center. "Given that young people are at elevated risk of engaging in violent behaviors against themselves or others, these laws have the potential to protect a particularly vulnerable group."
An FBI Supplementary Homicide Report shows 18-20 year olds comprise just 4% of the U.S. population but account for 17% of known gun homicide offenders.
Giffords also cites a 2024 study that found state laws raising the minimum legal age to purchase firearms to 21 were associated with a 12% decline in rates of firearm suicides among 18 to 20 year olds.
Other Firearms Bills
May 6, Reynolds signed Senate File 106 into law, allowing the carry of a loaded firearm while operating a snowmobile or ATV.
While the bill still prohibits discharging a weapon while operating the vehicle, it does allow for carrying if all other conduct is lawful. Non-ambulatory Iowans are allowed to shoot while on the vehicle as long as it is not moving.
"The NRA thanks Governor Reynolds, pro-gun lawmakers and all NRA members and Second Amendment advocates for their engagement on this critical legislation," the National Rifle Association said in a statement.
House File 791, an act regarding firearm safety instruction in school districts, passed the House committee on public safety last month in anticipation of a start date next year.
"By July 1, 2026, develop and distribute to all school districts an age-appropriate model program for firearm safety instruction for students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade," the text states.
The program for Iowans sixth grade and younger is to be based on the Eddie Eagle gun safety program developed by the NRA. For those in seventh through 12th grade, the program would be based on the NRA's hunter education course.
The bill will require public school districts to offer or make available an approved firearm safety instruction course to all students in seventh through 12th grade. They must also make the program available for students attending private schools in their district.
The cost is to be paid by the school district using money from state school foundation aid received into the school's general fund. "No additional state funding shall be necessary for the full implementation of this act," the bill states.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline
A privately owned company is proposing a pipeline across five states. While some of the state governments appear to be on board, the project is facing backlash from a large and formidable population: property owners. The pipeline, known as Summit Carbon Solutions, would span 2,500 miles and transport carbon dioxide (CO2) captured at 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to a permanent underground storage site in North Dakota. Construction of the $9 billion pipeline is expected to begin this year, with operations kicking off in 2026. In June 2024, the project received regulatory approval from the Iowa Utilities Commission, despite landowner protests. Julie Glade and her husband, Paul, are Iowans who oppose the project because of its use of eminent domain. Their property aligns with the proposed route, and in 2022 the couple was visited by a land agent. "The guy who came to our door wanted us to sit down and sign it without reading it," Glade tells Reason. "They swooped in and tried to contact as many people as possible right away before the people knew what the consequences were. It's very unethical." Several other landowners in the state share the Glades' worries. During a hearing conducted by the Iowa Utility Commission, landowner Joan Gaul testified against the pipeline, which she said would cross a large portion of her farmland. Gaul said Summit Carbon Solutions mailed two easements, which would give the pipeline a legal right to her land, to her without notice. "This letter came telling us about taking our land using eminent domain. It was a difficult pill to swallow," she said. Gaul said she didn't accept the easements and has indicated that she will continue to fight the project. The Glades visit the Iowa Capitol nearly every week to voice their opposition to the pipeline. They are joined by what the couple calls a diverse coalition united by their concern for the basic constitutional right to land ownership. "We have MAGA Republicans and we have lefties. We put our differences aside and we work together," she says. The Glades' efforts could soon pay off. In May the state Senate passed House File 639, which would prevent CO2 pipelines from using eminent domain unless the company proves the pipeline meets the definition of public use. The bill would also prevent CO2 pipelines from operating longer than 25 years. The bill is awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who is reportedly weighing opinions from pipeline supporters and detractors. If passed, the bill would represent a significant win for the rights of Iowa property owners. It would also be the latest setback for the Summit Carbon Solutions project. After the company launched a blitz of eminent domain lawsuits in South Dakota, Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law in March preventing carbon dioxide pipelines from receiving eminent domain permission in the state. The post Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline appeared first on
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Firearm death rate for children increased most in N.H., declined most in R.I. since 2010, study finds
Advertisement The most gun-friendly states were passing more liberalizing legislation, while the stricter states adopted more restrictions, according to Faust. The study looked at 49 states with sufficient data, excluding Hawaii because of inadequate data due to small numbers. Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up Given those changes, Faust said, he and other researchers, including collaborators at Yale School of Medicine, wanted to study the impact of a state's legislative approach on outcomes in different states. 'The question was: Is this a national problem? Is it a state level problem? And if so, is it about the laws?' said Faust. The study divided states into three groups based on an analysis of their gun laws: most permissive, permissive, and strict. Their finding was that the most-permissive states had the biggest increases in mortality, while permissive states had somewhat big increases, and strict states saw no increase. New Hampshire was classified in the most permissive category. Here, the rate started out relatively low compared to other states, the study found, but has doubled since the Supreme Court ruling. Advertisement Nationally, firearms are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents. But outcomes from one state to another varied widely, according to the study. 'I was horrified for some people, but reassured for others,' Faust said. 'You can have a Second Amendment, but have reasonable safety policies that make it so people can exercise their rights without having any untoward effect on the safety of our communities.' Nationally, the study found only four states in which there was a statistically significant decline in childhood firearm mortality after McDonald v Chicago: California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island. All of them fell into the strict firearms law group. Among them, Rhode Island was the state with the biggest decrease. 'It's a really important study that shows, one, that permissive firearm laws are associated with greater pediatric firearm death,' said Kelly Drane, research director at Giffords Law Center, a nonprofit that promotes gun violence prevention. 'It shows the benefit of states taking action to protect children.' And, she said, the study highlights how different outcomes are in different states, and how that relates to the strength of their gun laws. 'You can really see how children in some states are much safer, much less likely to die from gun violence than children in other states,' said Drane. But another independent expert, Dr. Cedric Dark, said it's difficult to establish causality, and there are indications in the study that other factors are likely at play beyond the policy changes after 2010. He pointed to a national increase in homicide deaths around 2020. Advertisement 'I think there's something else going on too, especially in that COVID era,' said Dark, who practices emergency medicine and teaches at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas. In 2024, Dark, who is also a gun owner, published a book on gun violence, 'Under The Gun: An ER Doctor's Cure for America's Gun Epidemic.' In his research for the book, Dark said, he found specific policies that are known to save lives, including universal background checks, child access prevention laws, domestic violence restraining orders, and bans on large capacity magazines. 'The main point for me is: What are those policies that states that are least restrictive versus most restrictive have implemented?' he said. Since 2010, New Hampshire has enacted several liberalizing gun laws. In 2011, the 'What we've seen in states that have passed these laws is that homicides increased drastically after Stand Your Ground laws passed, presumably because people are choosing to stand their ground rather than retreat from conflicts as they would have been required to before,' said Drane. Then, in 2017, the state Advertisement The state's gun laws earned it an 'D-' from Giffords Law Center in its But it New Hampshire's baseline rate from 1999 to 2010 was actually quite low compared to other states, at 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people. But from 2010 to 2023, it nearly doubled, up to 0.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Drane said New Hampshire is likely benefiting from its neighbors with stricter gun laws like Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut, which act as a buffer. In contrast, Rhode Island's mortality rate, with its strict gun laws, declined from 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people down to 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people. Massachusetts, classified as a strict state, has a relatively low rate of childhood firearm deaths, and that didn't change significantly in the years after 2010, although it may have diminished slightly. Its rate went from 0.7 deaths per 100,000 to 0.6 deaths per 100,000, although the change wasn't statistically significant. The study classified Vermont as a permissive state, and its rates rose from 1.1 deaths per 100,000 to 1.8 deaths per 100,000, but the change was not statistically significant. Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Maryland Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession in some non-felony cases
(Photo by U.S. Customs and Border Protection) The Maryland Supreme Court upheld a state law banning gun possession by people who have been sentenced to two years or more in prison, calling it comparable to a ban on gun possession by felons, whether the underlying crime was a felony or not. Despite a string of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have greatly strengthened gun rights, the high court has not suggested that the Second Amendment 'prohibits the enactment of laws banning the possession of guns by categories of persons thought by a legislature to present a special danger of misuse,' the Maryland court said Friday. Maryland's law is such a law, said the opinion by Maryland Chief Judge Matthew Fader. 'Based on our conclusion that § 5-133(b)(2) [the challenged law] is the equivalent of a prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons, and the United States Supreme Court's repeated references to such prohibitions as presumptively constitutional, we conclude that it satisfies Second Amendment scrutiny and is facially constitutional,' Fader wrote. But in a lengthy dissent, Justice Jonathan Biran said that the U.S. Supreme Court rulings rely on historical context, and that the majority could not point to any previous law that 'disarmed a citizen who violated a legal norm of society but was not viewed as a threat to public safety.' 'The logical conclusion of the Majority's historical analysis is that the General Assembly may make infractions such as jaywalking or exceeding the posted speed limit the basis for permanent firearms disqualification by increasing the maximum penalty for those offenses to imprisonment for more than one year,' Biran wrote in a 65-page dissent, 22 pages of which were a history of British and U.S. gun laws. The law was challenged by Robert L. Fooks, who was charged in Wicomico County in 2021 with allegedly stealing firearms from relatives to sell at pawn shops. Included in the 14-count indictment were two gun possession charges based on Fooks' 2017 conviction for 'constructive criminal contempt,' for which he received a sentence of 4 years and 6 months. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The 2017 conviction was for 'willful failure to pay child support,' according to court records. The ruling said constructive criminal contempt is a common law offense that is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor and does not some with a minimum or maximum sentence. Fooks pleaded guilty in 2021 to the gun charges and agreed to pay restitution to a relative, in exchange for the other charges being dropped. But he retained his right to challenge the gun conviction on Second Amendment grounds. Fooks claimed on appeal that his conviction runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that say the burden is on the state to prove the need for gun restrictions, not on the individual to protect gun rights. Banning gun possession for the conviction of a nonviolent crime is not the same as banning someone convicted of a violent crime or a felony, he argued. The Appellate Court of Maryland disagreed, upholding the law affirming Fooks' convictions. The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed, saying there is 'no magic to … the word 'felony,'' but that courts must look to the intent of lawmakers who decided which crimes should merit a ban on gun possession. 'The common thread among felon dispossession statutes is thus not any magic afforded to the use of the word 'felony' but a general intent to prohibit the possession of firearms by individuals who have committed offenses the respective legislative body has deemed serious enough to be eligible for a significant term of imprisonment,' Fader wrote. In major Second Amendment rulings over the last 16 years, 'Justices constituting a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States have identified laws like § 5-133(b)(2) as presumptively lawful,' Fader wrote, and Maryland should, too. 'The General Assembly, like the United States Congress and other state legislatures around the country, has concluded that individuals convicted of serious criminal offenses should not be permitted to possess firearms, regardless of whether the particular offenses they previously committed are themselves violent,' he wrote. Biran said the majority opinion was 'well written and its conclusions may be proven to be correct after the Supreme Court decides a case like this one,' but he disagreed. The recent history of U.S. Supreme Court cases have taken the permanent disqualification of a person from gun ownership because of a nonviolent criminal conviction 'off the table,' he wrote. 'When the State seeks to prosecute a person for possessing a firearm based on a prior conviction, the State meets its burden … if it shows that the predicate conviction was for an offense that is violent in nature,' Biran wrote in dissent. 'Mr. Fooks's predicate conviction is for constructive criminal contempt. That offense is not violent in nature,' he wrote. 'It follows that, as applied to Mr. Fooks, PS § 5-133(b)(2) violates the Second Amendment.'
