It is that refusal to issue permits to qualified individuals that has Republicans looking for ways to improve the law. As it stands now, there are entire counties where residents have no ability to acquire a permit to carry because their sheriff denies all applications. This includes members of the armed forces and even retired police officers. The first step considered necessary by many is to change current language that says a sheriff “may” issue a permit to qualified individuals, to “shall” issue permits to them.

There are however, additional opportunities to improve upon the current system. Iowa does not currently share reciprocity with other states who allow their citizens to carry concealed firearms. This has resulted in limiting the mobility of Iowan’s right to carry even in states with similar laws. Republicans feel that we have an opportunity to become a participant of a cooperative system existing today between other states.

Under current law, permits are only valid for a year. Republicans look at lengthening the time a permit is valid as a way to save time and money for local law enforcement and permit holders. Another opportunity for reform exist within the current system for firearm safety training. Republicans feel that a wider array of opportunities for satisfying a safety training requirement should be provided.

Another point of contention under the current law is the ability of sheriffs to place restrictions on a permit. Again, this leads to inconsistencies across the state where your level of freedom to operate under the law of the state is determined more by where you live than your qualifications as an individual.

The current system has created inequity and injustice in areas of the state. Republicans will be working this session to advance legislation that strengthens the rights of qualified law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

In fact, this year the legislature ratcheted up restrictions on the purchase of pseudoephedrine by approving an electronic system to track purchases of the cold medicine. This will help prevent so called “smurfing” or driving from store to store to purchase small amounts of pseudoephedrine.

The results of recent efforts are clear. In 2004, law enforcement officials reported a high of 1,500 clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. By 2007, that number dropped to 178 laboratories, an 88% decrease in labs. But this progress is threatened by a new and easy manufacturing process.

Law enforcement officials are reporting seeing the first signs of what is known as the “shake & bake” method of manufacturing in the State. This new method of manufacturing methamphetamine does two things that make it very hard for law enforcement to find manufacturers.

Gone are the large and elaborate labs that required space and equipment. Instead, the drug can be made in something as simple and small as a 2-liter bottle. Additionally, the new process requires far smaller amounts of pseudoephedrine. This means that even the strictest regulations on pseudoephedrine are inadequate to counter the manufacture of methamphetamine.

While making methamphetamine has been reduced to simply shaking some ingredients in a 2-liter bottle, the danger presented by making meth has not been eliminated. Those making meth using the new method still risk both fires and explosions if not done just right. The “shake and bake” process also produces a toxic sludge that remains in the bottle afterwards. These toxic materials are likely to end up in areas like road ditches that present a real threat to both the public and the environment.

This new process is so easy, that it is prompting fears that many users will start to make the drug themselves. Such an easy and hard to track manufacturing process may present a real threat to recent success in combating the methamphetamine problem in our State. Expect this issue to be on the radar for public safety officials in the next year.

Each Saturday in June, the State Patrol will activate entire districts from the hours of 5:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. All uniformed officers, regardless of rank, will participate in the program. This will increase the active staff level on those evening anywhere from 40% to 50%.

The impetus for such an aggressive increase in enforcement is the State Patrol’s recognition that June is one of the deadliest months on Iowa highways and a large percentage of fatal accidents occur on Saturday nights.

According to the State Patrol, per mile driven, a driver in Iowa is three times more likely to be killed when driving at night..

“When you look critically at the data, it’s obvious that there’s a need for more night time enforcement,” commented Iowa State Patrol Colonel Patrick J. Hoye. “We intend to fill that need for more night time enforcement. The Iowa State Patrol will do everything we can to prevent death on Iowa roadways.”

The “Safe Saturdays” program will focus Troopers on excessive speed, seatbelt usage, and impaired driving. The State Patrol charged their District Commanders to review their statistics to identify areas with high rates of infractions and accidents. According to the State Patrol, they will then utilize “saturation patrols” in the identified areas to improve public safety.

The schedule and district information can be found on DPS’ site, here.

2009 End of Session Wrap-up

Bill Increases Regulation on Dog Breeders

This week, the Public Safety committee passed a bill that increases the regulations for dog breeders who are licensed through the USDA.

HF 30 aims to allow state inspectors into federally licensed and regulated USDA dog breeding facilities. Currently, the state and federal government only inspect the facilities that they license. If there is a problem at a state licensed facility, IDALS is the department who would respond. If there is a problem at a federally licensed facility, the USDA handles it.

For both facilities, chapter 717B of the Iowa Code gives local law enforcement the authority to enter facilities in response to animal abuse and neglect.

The impetus for HF 30 is the claim that the USDA is not doing an adequate job inspecting their facilities which allows for bad actors to escape punishment. Claiming that the remedies available through local law enforcement and the Tom Vilsack run USDA are insufficient, the bill supporters seek to allow state enforcement.

If HF 30 becomes law, an interesting situation will be created. You will have federally licensed and regulated facilities now subject to inspection by the state. But what regulations are to be enforced on one of these facilities when a state inspector shows up?

A USDA facility who has agreed to adhere to USDA regulations in order to remain a compliant facility, will now have to make sure they are also complying with the state regulations they are not governed by. This is because when the state receives a complaint and decides to go into one of these federally regulated facilities, they will be critiquing the facility according to state regulations.

This is a situation that has confused members of both parties on the committee. Republicans on the committee offered an amendment that would clear this situation up. When responding to a complaint, the amendment calls for the state inspectors to judge the facility according to the federal regulations that they are governed by. The amendment was rejected along party lines.

Some have pointed to the unfairness that state inspectors be required to know both state and federal regulations. This unfairness is apparently not noteworthy when they attempt to impose this exact situation upon the businesses themselves. So it is unreasonable for the state to have to deal with this but perfectly reasonable to burden the business with it.

Additionally, concerns were raised about the complaint process by both IDALS and members of the committee. The bill provides that IDALS may respond to a complaint it receives in regards to the USDA regulated facilities. But recognizing the contentious nature of dog breeding, some raised concerns about facilities being harassed with baseless complaints.

Republicans responded by offering an amendment that helps protect against baseless complaints by requiring a complainant to file a sworn statement alleging facts which constitute a violation, together with any supporting documents. Again, this amendment was rejected according to a party line vote.

Finally, HF 30 is creating a new responsibility for IDALS without providing them with the funding to fulfill it. This is why since the very beginning, the department has been registered against this bill. A fiscal note provided to the subcommittee members estimates that 2 new fulltime employees will be required to implement the changes of HF 30. This comes at a time when IDALS faces a 10% cut for FY 2010.

House Joint Resolution 1 – HJR 1 establishes a Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation trust fund. The joint resolution credits the fund with an amount equal to the amount generated by a sales tax rate of three-eighths of 1 percent as may be imposed upon the retail sales price of tangible personal property and the furnishing of enumerated services sold in this state.

It passed the House 82-14 (bill information here)

This afternoon the House debating the following bills:

House File 45 – Suspension of Assistance During Commitment. HF 45 changes Iowa’s Medicaid law that would suspend a person’s Medicaid eligibility when they are placed in custody. Under current law, a person who is in custody of corrections or law enforcement has their Medicaid terminated as required by law. Once a person is released, it is difficult to re-establish eligibility for Medicaid and then these Iowans do not receive the mental health treatment they need.

By suspending their eligibility instead of terminating, these individuals will be able to receive the treatment and medications necessary for treatment (primarily for mental health issues) and then be less likely to re-offend. The suspension would only apply for the first 12 months of commitment. After 12 months, Medicaid eligibility would be terminated.

It passed the House 98-0 (bill information here)

House File 233/Senate File 9 – Sale of School Buildings. This bill erases 2008 legislation relating to the sale of school buildings. The 2008 bill inadvertently created a twelve month waiting period on the sale of school buildings pending the possibility of a voter petition.

The result of reverting back to 2008 law is that eligible electors may call for an election to determine whether the school district can sell, lease or otherwise dispose of a schoolhouse site.

It passed the House 96-0 (bill information here)

Senate File 108 – Members of the Public Safety Communications Interoperability Board. Currently the Public Safety Communications Interoperability Board includes two representatives from fire departments. SF 108 would require that the representatives from the fire departments consist of one representative who is a paid firefighter and one who is a volunteer firefighter.

It passed the House 96-2 (bill information here)

House File 260 – County, City and Memorial Hospitals. This bill is as a result of two years of work between the mentioned hospitals and the Iowa Hospital Association. The bill consolidates, reorganizes and updates provisions of four major public hospital Code chapters.

The study bill, HSB 110, contained provisions allowing “design build”, which short circuits competitive bidding. The design build provisions are NOT in this bill but were removed by amendment in the Local Government Committee.

It passed the House 97-0 (bill information here)

Senate File 82 – An Act adding four nonvoting members to the Iowa workforce development board

It passed the House 98-0 (bill information here)

House File 280 – An Act relating to the compensation of a guardian ad litem in certain criminal cases involving a child witness

It passed the House 95-0 (bill information here)

One of the most controversial provisions in the bill would require some Iowa juveniles as young as 14 years to be on the sex offender registry, with their photo, address and crime committed available for public inspection. But it would only be for certain serious sex crimes such as those involving force. Currently, Iowa judges have the option of waiving registry listing for any youth up to age 17 for any sex crime.

Some of the opponents of sex offender laws, like the ACLU, do not want the state to comply with the law. The problem with that is two-fold. First, if the state does not comply we will lose $450,000 of federal money for drug task forces and overtime for law enforcement officers. Second, non-compliance would send the signal to sex offenders that Iowa is a safe haven. Attracting sex offenders to the state is not a responsible way to increase the state’s population growth.

The federal law does not require Iowa to repeal its 2,000-foot rule, which is a political third rail. But it would provide lawmakers some cover if they want to do so. By current state law, there are 2,000-foot rings around some schools and child care centers where no sex offenders can live.

The proposed legislation would replace the residency restriction with “safe zones,” which would limit where sex offenders may be present or loiter. Offenders couldn’t step foot on the grounds of a school or child care center without prior written permission, and they couldn’t loiter within 300 feet.

Vote 1 on H-8453: House Journal Page 1179

Vote 2 on H-8490: House Journal Page 1296

Amendment H-8670 to Senate File 2700 by Tom Sands would have required the Department of Revenue to notify Iowans when it is learned that someone else is using their Social Security numbers. The amendment was voted down on the floor. Below is the vote tally to suspend the rules to consider amendment H-8670 (Link). Republicans are bolded:

The ayes were, 45:
Alons, Anderson, Baudler, Boal, Chambers, Clute, De Boef, Deyoe, Dolecheck, Drake, Forristall, Gayman, Gipp, Granzow, Grassley, Greiner, Heaton, Hoffman, Horbach, Huseman, Jacobs, Kaufmann, Lukan, May, Miller, L., Olson, S., Palmer, Paulsen, Pettengill, Raecker, Rants, Rasmussen, Rayhons, Sands, Schickel, Soderberg, Struyk, Tjepkes, Tymeson, Upmeyer, Van Fossen, Watts, Wiencek, Windschitl, Worthan

The nays were, 50:

Abdul-Samad, Bailey, Bell, Berry, Bukta, Cohoon, Dandekar, Davitt, Foege, Ford, Frevert, Gaskill, Heddens, Hunter, Jacoby, Jochum, Kelley, Kressig, Kuhn, Lensing, Lykam, Mascher, McCarthy, Mertz, Miller, H., Murphy, Spkr., Oldson, Olson, D., Olson, R., Olson, T., Petersen, Quirk, Reichert, Schueller, Shomshor, Smith, Staed, Swaim, Taylor, D., Taylor, T., Thomas, Wendt, Wenthe, Wessel-Kroeschell, Whitaker, Whitead, Winckler, Wise, Zirkelbach, Reasoner

Absent or not voting, 5: Arnold, Jacoby, Roberts, Tomenga, Van Engelenhoven

According to the representatives, there are five key areas in the plan to ensure Iowans are safe from criminals but also keep the taxpayers in mind.

“We feel that Iowans safety is of utmost importance and necessity,” said Rep. Lukan. “It would be irresponsible of the Legislature to raid the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund at a time when there are so many infrastructure needs, including new prison facilities. If the $90 million was left in the RIIF, all prison projects could be funded within three fiscal years.”

Full Press Release Here