Iowa | The Zelman Partisans

As the suit says, Monroe County is suing IFC and a county resident. Specifically, the suit is over a Chief Justice order barring firearms from court houses, and a state law that says if you do that, you must provide security. I jumped right into the filing because I really wondered how the heck the county was going to rationalize a claim against those defendants.

And… I don’t see a claim against them.

I need someone smarter than myself to explain this to me. The obvious unofficial backstory makes it clear that the county is maliciously targeting IFC and Thompson because they warned the county to comply with the law. But the only way the court filing addresses the official defendants is this.

STATEMENT OF THE IOWA FIREARMS COALATION (sic) AND MR. THOMPSON30. Monroe County, Iowa has been advised by the Iowa Firearms Coalition that if it continues to comply with a lawful Order of the Iowa Supreme Court, that it will impose this unfunded mandate upon Monroe County, Iowa or that Monroe County, Iowa will be liable for this unfunded mandate plus attorney fees and other costs allowed by HF 2502. Monroe County, Iowa denied Mr. Thompson’s request.

31. No personal judgement is sought against Mr. Thompson.

WTF? There’s no actionable claim. They only say that IFC warned them they should comply with the law. Thompson gets no mention beyond that he made an unspecified — in the filing — request. Neither IFC’s nor Thompson’s warning/request is included in the filing. So even this vague soeta-claim is unsupported.

Other than that, the whole thing is a claim against the state for an unfunded mandate imposed by HF 2502. But even that is bogus. There’s no mandated expenditure; all they have to do is not declare a gun-free zone. If they choose to do that, then they voluntarily accept the expense. It would like Joe Blow calling vehicle registration fees an unfunded mandate; it isn’t because no one has to pay it unless they choose to buy a car.

This reads like a case against the state, and some office intern accidentally listed the wrong defendants. And even then, the alleged unfunded mandate would have been imposed by the Chief Justice who issued the gun-free order. Including IFC and Thompson has no point — legally; unofficially, it looks like retaliation for protected speech — but to make them pay for the county’s suit against the state.

OK, smarter people; what have I missed?

Statement from IFC Chairman Michael Ware:

“You just stated what our attorneys did as well. We have no idea what has motivated this action, but we seek to correct the injustice.”

The case may be BS, but IFC still needs to defend itself. Good attorneys are not cheap. You can help support IFC HERE.

“Strict scrutiny” seems to the the latest bugaboo of the victim disarmers, especially in Iowa. It’s been showing up in my 2A firearms news feeds a lot in recent weeks.

And here is a somewhat typical example (and yet, atypical in an important way).

TUESDAY TOPIC: Proposed gun amendment would make Iowa less safe
Strict scrutiny is the most demanding legal standard applied in constitutional cases. It requires judges to assume that a challenged policy is unconstitutional until the state proves otherwise. This legislation provides no exceptions, not even for laws prohibiting gun possession by violent offenders or for criminal laws that enhance sentences for crimes when a firearm is used.

“It requires judges to assume that a challenged policy is unconstitutional”

Unless Iowa has judicial procedures which greatly differ from those of the rest of the country, that appears — to this legal layman — to be a significant… mischaracterization of the meaning of strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny does not require a judge to assume a law is unconstitutional until proven otherwise. In fact, no level of scrutiny — intermediate or rational basis review imposes such a requirement.

What strict scrutiny does require is that a judge begin by determining whether a challenged law infringes on a constitutional limit, and — if so — apply a three part test, each of which the law must pass.

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest, such protecting the public against a specific threat.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, to avoid unnecessary infringements.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. Banning an entire class of firearms to prevent crime, when that class is rarely used in crimes, is not the least restrictive.

Basically, need, targeted at the problem, and doesn’t hurt anyone else. Think about that. Do you really want laws that aren’t needed, don’t address the problem, and punish those who aren’t responsible?

Strict scrutiny allows unconstitutional infringements if a judge decides it’s “close enough for government work.”

And that’s strict scrutiny, applied comparatively rarely. Intermediate and rational basis review can allow laws that aren’t needed, don’t address the problem, and punish those who aren’t responsible, which is why people-controlling victim disarmers hate strict scrutiny. Bottaro appears to prefer Intermediate scrutiny, in which restrictions on rights are merely “related” to the supposed need.

Or so I hope. A great many victim disarmers would much prefer presenting a “hypothetical” need.

Personally, I’d prefer another level of scrutiny: Constitutional. The test would be simple.

Does it infringe, even slightly, on an enumerated constitutional provision? If it does, it fails; go get a constitutional amendment. Because… just for example, the Second Amendment does not read “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless there is compelling governmental interest to do so.”

If there is a compelling governmental interest which requires going against the Constitution, then there is a compelling governmental interest in presenting Congress and the States with a proposed constitutional amendment.

But I digress.

I said that example from Tim Bottaro is atypical of the “strict scrutiny” columns I’ve seen recently. That’s because the author blurb at the bottom of the column says that Bottaro is an attorney. Unlike the usual MDA/Brady-fed laymen who whine ignorantly about scrutiny, Bottaro should know better. In fact, Jackie Stellish, also writing from Sioux City, seems to have a better grasp of scrutiny than Bottaro. Or is more honest.

I wonder if an attorney so grossly misinforming the public is a matter into which the Iowa State Bar Association might wish to look.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)