NSSF APPLAUDS MISSISSIPPI GOVERNOR SIGNING SECOND AMENDMENT FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praises South Dakota’s Gov. Kristi Noem for signing an Executive Order prohibiting state agencies from entering into contracts with corporate banks that discriminate against the firearm industry.

Governor Noem’s order will prevent “woke” corporate banks with discriminatory policies against firearm industry members from collecting taxpayer dollars through South Dakota state contracts. Simply put, South Dakotans will choose to do business with those companies that do not discriminate based on an industry these corporate banks may not like or with which they disagree.

“Governor Noem’s Executive Order is a significant bulwark against the ‘woke’ discrimination that threatened firearm businesses in South Dakota,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “South Dakotan’s tax dollars will be protected from being used to fund gun control efforts by these corporate banks that benefit from state contracts while denying essential services to firearm-related business simply because they are politically-disfavored by Wall Street. Governor Noem’s order is clear. The Second Amendment isn’t for sale in South Dakota.”

Gov. Noem’s order will require corporate banks and financial service providers with $100 billion in total assets seeking contracts valued at $100,000 or greater to certify that they hold no discriminatory policies against firearm industry businesses. Contracts that are certified and later discovered to be out of compliance with the Executive Order will be subject to cancellation.

Applause.

Missouri officials refuse to work with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, saying all federal ‘so-called’ gun laws are unconstitutional

Missouri officials in one county have refused to work with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, claiming that the government agency is unconstitutional.

Six top elected officials in Camden County signed a letter to the ATF saying as much, according to the NPR affiliate KCUR 89.3.

“Under the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, Camden County was the first county in Missouri, and possibly in the country, to pass an ordinance prohibiting any county employee from assisting your unconstitutional agency in violating the rights of our citizens,” Ike Skelton, the county’s presiding commissioner, said in the letter.

The population of the county is roughly 43,700, according to the latest Census figures.

The officials cited the state’s Second Amendment Preservation Act as grounds to refuse to cooperate, KCUR reported. Last month, a federal judge struck down the 2021 law, which prohibited local police from enforcing federal gun laws, calling it “invalid, null, void, and of no effect.”

Two of Skelton’s colleagues — Jeff Green, a Camden County attorney, and Tony Helms, the county sheriff — and Kendra Hicks, the county treasurer, also signed the letter, KCUR reported.

Skelton, Helms, and Hicks did not immediately respond to Insider’s request for comment on Sunday.

Skelton told KCUR he and his fellow officials were in “lockstep with this thought process.”

“Any and all federal firearms laws, so-called laws, in my opinion, and many others’ opinion, are unconstitutional,” Skelton told KCUR.

The ATF was attempting to get zoning information to process applications for four individuals trying to open gun shops in the county, the outlet reported. John Ham, the public-information officer for the ATF’s Kansas City Field Division, told KCUR that the bureau is trying to help civilians open gun stores, not prevent them from doing so.

“We use that information to put people in business, not to take people out of business,” Ham told KCUR, adding that he had never seen a county refuse to provide such information, which is required to open new gun businesses.

Ham did not immediately respond to Insider’s request for comment.

In a comment to Insider, Erik Longnecker, the public-affairs deputy chief of the ATF, said: “ATF will continue to follow federal law when issuing licenses, regulating the firearms industry, and protecting our communities from violent gun crime.”

Arkansas House OKs bill allowing permitless concealed carry

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A permit would not be required to carry a concealed handgun in Arkansas under a bill lawmakers sent Thursday to Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, which supporters say is meant to clear up a decade-old disagreement about the state’s gun laws.

Gov. Sanders’ office said she plans to sign the measure approved by the majority-Republican House on a 81-11 vote.

“The governor strongly supports the Second Amendment,” spokeswoman Alexa Henning said in a statement. “This bill further clarifies that Arkansas is a constitutional carry state.”

Both gun rights and gun control advocates already widely considered Arkansas to be one of more than two dozen states that don’t require a concealed carry permit. That followed a 2013 change to the state’s gun laws that prompted differing interpretations on how it’s affected the state’s concealed carry requirements.

The bill was approved Thursday with no debate in the House, but opponents have questioned the impact the legislation would have on a 2017 law that allows concealed handguns in certain locations, including the state Capitol. That law allows guns in previously-barred locations if someone undergoes additional training and gets an “enhanced” permit.

“This is going to cause huge amounts of confusion with respect to the enhanced concealed carry,” Democratic Rep. Nicole Clowney told members of the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week, referring to the 2017 law.

But supporters of the bill said it wouldn’t have any impact on that part of the law and the enhanced carry requirements would still exist.

“I believe we need this bill to pass to provide that clarification out there so we don’t have citizens basically being harassed because there’s a misunderstanding of what you can or cannot do,” Republican Rep. Marcus Richmond, the bill’s co-sponsor, told the House before Thursday’s vote.

There are more than 190,000 active concealed handgun licenses in Arkansas, and about 30,000 of them are enhanced licenses, according to the state’s Department of Public Safety.

The bill heads to Sanders’ desk as Republicans in other states have been loosening gun laws, despite mass shootings in recent years, including the fatal shooting of three children and three adults at a Nashville, Tennessee, Christian school last month.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis this week signed a new law that will allow concealed handguns to be carried without a permit. That law takes effect in July.

When Sanders signs Arkansas’ legislation, it won’t take effect until 90 days after the Legislature adjourns its session, meaning the measure wouldn’t be enforced until this summer.

DeSantis signs permitless carry bill, law takes effect July 1st

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wasted little time signing HB 543 into law after the state legislature gave final approval to the permitless carry legislation last Thursday. On Monday morning DeSantis held a signing ceremony for the bill, putting pen to paper with a small group of Second Amendment supporters in attendance. With DeSantis’s approval, Florida is now the 26th state to adopt a permitless carry measure, and at least one more state is likely to follow suit in the coming weeks.

As of July 1st, Floridians who are eligible to receive a concealed carry license will be able to lawfully carry without acquiring a government-issued permission slip; a big step forward for Second Amendment activists, but not the end of the push to make Florida a true constitutional carry state.

Second Amendment advocates have criticized the bill for not going far enough, saying that without allowing people to openly carry guns in public, the bill isn’t a true “constitutional carry” measure as DeSantis guaranteed and as the Legislature has hailed.

… We think it’s a step in the right direction,” said Luis Valdes, the Florida director of Gun Owners of America. “Permitless concealed carry is a good thing. But it’s not the constitutional carry that we were promised.”

DeSantis has said he supports open carry, but legislative leaders remained firm on continuing Florida’s prohibition against open carry in nearly all circumstances.

House Speaker Paul Rennerpreviously said that he supports open carry but that there was concern among his caucus and in the Senate about it. Senate President Kathleen Passidomo has been more firm in opposition — saying that Florida sheriffs have told her they oppose open carry, and she trusts their judgment.

DeSantis has even suggested he’d be willing to call lawmakers back to Tallahassee for a special session that would include open carry legislation, but only if the legislature itself signals its support. Passidomo’s objections in particular appear to be a major hurdle for gun owners, given her role as the state Senate president and the influence she has within the GOP caucus.

Does she have more influence than DeSantis himself, however? I doubt that, and I’m curious what would happen if the governor decided to twist some arms or make it clear to lawmakers that he considers open carry a top priority for his administration.

Even without an open carry provision the permitless carry law as written represents a major improvement in Florida’s gun laws, as well as a tipping point for the constitutional carry movement overall. More than half the country now recognizes the right to bear arms without having to obtain a license beforehand, and Nebraska could soon become the 27th state to do so, with a constitutional carry bill now set for a third and final vote in the unicameral legislature. So far that vote hasn’t been scheduled, but lawmakers still have almost two months to go before the end of this year’s session, which should be plenty of time for the bill to be heard even with the Democratic minority trying to slow the legislative process to a crawl with filibusters on almost every bill brought to the floor of the Senate.

South Carolina and Louisiana lawmakers are also considering constitutional carry bills, though the South Carolina measure has been stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee since late February and Louisiana legislators will have to find enough votes to override a veto by Gov. John Bel Edwards if there’s any chance of making the state the 28th to recognize the right to bear arms without a government-issued license.

Today, however, it’s Florida in the spotlight, and gun owners in the Sunshine State should be rightfully proud of the expansion to the state’s carry laws. I know the bill wasn’t perfect, and the fight for open carry in the state is going to be much more difficult than it needs to be given that 47 other states already allow for open carry in some form or fashion, but HB 543 is still a major improvement to the status quo… and the Second Amendment rights of Floridians.

GOP-controlled legislature completes override of governor veto of pistol permit bill

The Republican-controlled General Assembly accomplished Wednesday its first successful override of Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper veto since 2018.

The N.C. House voted 71-46 to override Cooper’s veto of Senate Bill 41, titled “Guarantee 2nd Amend Freedom and Protections.”

According to Cooper’s veto statement Friday, SB41 eliminates the current requirement that people have a valid permit from their local sheriff’s office before purchasing or acquiring a handgun.

Sheriffs will lose the authority to issue or deny these permits based on criminal background checks and determining the safety and character of applicants.

Gov. DeSantis Signs Universal School Choice Into Law: ‘Monumental Day in Florida History’

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, R., on Monday signed universal school choice into law, resulting in the Sunshine State becoming the 4th state to pass such a law.

Florida House Bill 1 expands available school choice options for all 1.3 million students in Florida by eliminating financial eligibility restrictions and the current enrollment cap.

DeSantis’s office claims the legislation will “further cement Florida’s position as the nation’s leader in school choice.”

Continue reading “”

Armed civilian who stopped Greenwood Mall shooter named Citizen of the Year

Elisjsha Dicken.jpg

GREENWOOD — The City of Greenwood took time this week to honor the man responsible for stopping the gunman inside the Greenwood Park Mall in July.

Greenwood Mayor Mark Myers chose Elisjsha Dicken as the 2022 recipient of the Citizen of the Year Award for the city.

In his nomination letter, Myers recounted what occurred on July 17 inside the mall and shared thanks for the fast action of Dicken.

“July 17th started off to be another beautiful day in Greenwood. Unfortunately, it became one of the darkest days in our history. A lone gunman entered the Food Court in the Greenwood Park Mall. As he emerged from the restroom he began firing a rifle, killing 3 people.

Hearing shots ring out, Elisjsha Dicken immediately identified the shooter, took cover behind a pillar, drew his weapon and fired at the shooter from 40 yards away. He was able to eliminate the threat. While doing this Elisjsha also was waving innocent civilians to safety. There were countless number of innocent lives saved that day due to his quick and selfless thinking. The City of Greenwood and the residents here owe a great debt of gratitude to Elisjsha.

Because of his heroic actions the City of Greenwood proudly honors Elisjsha Dicken as the 2022 Citizen of the Year.”

Following the mass shooting at the mall, Greenwood Police Chief said the following of Dicken.

“I will say his actions were nothing short of heroic. He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun,” Ison said. “(He) was very tactically sound as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him. He has no police training and no military background.”

MORE |‘No clear motive’: Greenwood police, FBI release new findings from July shooting at Greenwood Park Mall

Annually, the city recognizes a civilian, a firefighter, an officer and an EMT.

Wyoming Governor Gordon restores gun rights to non-violent felons

WYOMING — On March 17, Governor Gordon signed a bill giving back gun rights to non-violent felons five years after they complete their sentencing.

SF0120 allows “any person who has previously pleaded guilty to or been convicted of committing or attempting to commit a felony that is not a violent felony and has not been pardoned or has not had the person’s rights restored” to possess a firearm five years after completing their sentence, probation or parole.

According to the bill, violent felony includes murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, strangulation of a household member, aircraft hijacking, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault and arson.

The bill also restores voting rights to those convicted of non-violent felonies. The law will go into effect on July 1.

Wyoming is one of the top two states dependent on the gun industry, along with Idaho, and has no laws preventing the open-carrying of firearms .

NSSF WELCOMES U.S. HOUSE RANGE ACCESS ACT INTRODUCTION

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, welcomed the introduction of H.R. 1614, the Range Access Act, in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation, re-introduced by U.S. Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah), would increase and improve outdoor recreation opportunities across the nation while improving infrastructure and driving economic growth in rural communities.

“NSSF commends Congressman Moore for introducing this vitally important legislation to increase access for the public to practice marksmanship at safe recreational shooting ranges,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This legislation, that would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to have at least one qualifying recreational shooting range in each National Forest and BLM district, is crucial to ensuring safe public recreational shooting. Congressman Moore’s bill would also benefit conservation by reducing litter at non-dedicated ranges on federal public lands while also generating additional Pittman-Robertson revenue.”

The immediate benefit of this legislation is providing public access to safe recreational shooting ranges, especially in rural areas. Background checks for firearm sales saw a record of 21 million in 2020 and another 18.5 million in 2021 and 16.4 million in 2022. Those gun owners, many of whom are first-timers, are in need of safe and modern ranges to practice marksmanship skills.

This legislation has the added benefit of supporting wildlife conservation and improving recreational shooting access. Recreational shooting is tied to approximately 85 percent of the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes currently being paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers, making it a major driving contributor to wildlife conservation. Since the Pittman-Robertson excise tax was enacted in 1937, firearm and ammunition makers have paid $25.38 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars for conservation and construction and improvement of public recreational shooting ranges.

Federal Court Issues Flawed Decision Striking Down Missouri Gun Sanctuary Law
The ruling has significant shortcomings and may be overruled on appeal. The Biden Administration’s position in this litigation is wrong for much the same reasons as the Trump Administration was wrong to target immigration sanctuaries.

On Tuesday, federal district court Judge Brian Wimes issued an important ruling striking down Missouri’s Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA). SAPA is a “gun sanctuary” law that restricts state and law-enforcement cooperation with efforts to enforce federal gun control laws.

Gun sanctuary laws enacted by red states are in large part modeled on immigration sanctuary laws enacted by numerous blue states and localities, in order to limit state cooperation with enforcement of federal immigration laws. During the Trump Administration, the federal government lost numerous lawsuits challenging the legality of immigration sanctuaries (I went over those cases in detail in a Texas Law Review article, and a piece for the Washington Post). Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and several red states have decided to imitate the blue states’ success. Courts—including both liberal and conservative judges—were right to rule in favor of immigration sanctuaries, and Judge Wimes should have applied the same principles in the gun context, as well.

Judge Wimes correctly recognizes that “Missouri cannot be compelled to assist in the enforcement of federal regulations within the state.” Longstanding Supreme Court precedent holds that the federal government cannot “commandeer” state officials to help enforce federal law. That precedent played a key role in the Trump Administration’s defeats in various immigration sanctuary cases, most notably in the California “sanctuary state” case, which is closely analogous to the Missouri gun litigation. Judge Wimes could have saved himself a lot of time and effort by simply applying the same logic here.

Instead, the court concludes that SAPA violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (which mandates that constitutionally authorized federal law is supreme over state law) because the Missouri law goes beyond merely refusing to help the feds and actually “regulate[s] federal law enforcement” and  “interfere[s] with its operations.” But, in reality, SAPA does no such thing. Its provisions merely impose constraints on state and local officials. To the extent that may not be true, Judge Wimes should have struck down applications of the law to federal officials, while leaving intact the constraints it imposes on state ones.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
On the last day of the Constitutional Conventional, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman outside Independence Hall what kind of government had been framed by the Philadelphia Convention. His response—“A republic, if you can keep it”—summed up perfectly the challenge given to every generation of Americans since the founding era.

Tragically, it now seems clear that we did not keep what the founders gave us. But that’s on us, not them.

The Laissez-Faire Constitution.

In 1787, America’s founding fathers created the world’s first laissez-faire constitution or what I call a constitution of liberty.

The idea of a laissez-faire constitution may strike you as odd. We typically associate the term “laissez-faire” with economics, and, more specifically, with capitalism.

What, then, do I mean by these terms? What is a laissez-faire constitution or a constitution of liberty? And what’s the relationship between a laissez-faire constitution and laissez-faire capitalism?

To answer these questions, let us define our terms. Laissez-faire translated from its most common eighteenth-century French usage literally means “let it be,” “let it go,” or “leave it alone.” In the Anglo-American world, the phrase is more commonly translated as “hands off.”

But ask yourself this question: whose hands are we talking about, and who are they to be kept off? In other words, who is to let things alone, and who is to be left alone?

The answer to the first question is government, and the answer to the second is the individuals who compose civil society. Laissez-faire, then, means that government is to keep its hands off the people and leave them free to pursue their material and spiritual values.

This means that laissez-faire capitalism should be viewed less as an economic system and more as a political system. We should speak less about laissez-faire capitalism and more about laissez-faire government, although the two are clearly related. In fact, laissez-faire capitalism rightly understood means laissez-faire government.

The sole purpose of laissez-faire government is to protect the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness of all citizens. A laissez-faire government is one that maintains a framework of laws that prohibits predatory force and fraud and refrains from intervening in the operation of markets, which means it must not regulate or subsidize market processes (e.g., division of labor, prices, competition, and profit).

Laissez-faire capitalism is properly seen, then, as a political system that separates economy and State, where property is privately owned, contracts are upheld as inviolable, and individuals are free to produce, trade, and compete. As a result, individuals must be left free from government coercion to create, acquire, possess, use, trade, and dispose of their property, and they must be free to form contracts for the exchange of ideas, goods, and services.

laissez-faire government does not and will not direct private enterprise toward ends desired by government officials. Instead, a properly constructed government for a free society provides a minimal structure of rights-protecting laws, the purpose of which is to expand spheres of individual freedom and action. James Wilson made the point this way in his Lectures on Law:

By some politicians, society has been considered as only the scaffolding of government; very improperly, in my judgment. In the just order of things, government is the scaffolding of society: and if society could be built and kept entire without government, the scaffolding might be thrown down, without the least inconvenience or cause of regret.

Government rightly understood, then, exists for the sake of civil society and not the other way ‘round. A laissez-faire government is one that provides the scaffolding necessary to keep civil society civil.

Continue reading “”

Missouri: Committee Hearing Public Transit Self-Defense

On Wednesday, the House Emerging Issues Committee will hear House Bill 282, to ensure law-abiding citizens may carry firearms for self-defense on public transit. Please click here to file witness forms to support HB 282. 

In addition, please contact committee members and ask them to SUPPORT HB 282.

House Bill 282 removes the prohibition on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in vehicles. In addition, it allows law-abiding citizens to transport unloaded or non-functioning firearms on buses. This repeals an arbitrary “gun-free zone” that does nothing to hinder criminals while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless, and it ensures that citizens with varying commutes throughout their day, and of various economic means, are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves.

Again, please file witness forms and contact committee members and ask them to SUPPORT HB 282.

These ‘drag queen’ shows performed in front of kids is starting to get the backlash they deserve.

Tennessee Bans Pornographic Performances by “Male or Female Impersonators” Where Minors Can See Them

The newly enacted statute provides:

… “Adult cabaret entertainment” … [m]eans adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors, as that term is defined in § 39-17-901, and that feature topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators, or similar entertainers; …

“Entertainer” means a person who provides: (A) Entertainment within an adult-oriented establishment, … or (B) A performance of actual or simulated specified sexual activities, including removal of articles of clothing or appearing unclothed, [both] regardless of whether a fee is charged or accepted for the performance …;

It is an offense for a person to perform adult cabaret entertainment:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret entertainment could be viewed by a person who is not an adult ….

To understand this, one has to read § 39-17-901, which provides:

“Harmful to minors” means that quality of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence or sadomasochistic abuse when the matter or performance:

  1. Would be found by the average person applying contemporary community standards to appeal predominantly to the prurient, shameful or morbid interests of minors;
  2. Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
  3. Taken as whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific values for minors ….

“Prurient interest” means a shameful or morbid interest in sex;

And it’s also important to know that the Supreme Court has held that, even as to “harmful to minors” material (also known as “obscene as to minors”), “to be obscene ‘such expression must be, in some significant way, erotic.'”

This therefore means that the bill doesn’t ban drag shows generally, or even drag shows that can be seen by minors. Rather, it just bans drag shows that could be viewed by minors (or are on public property) that depict “nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence or sadomasochistic abuse” that are “in some significant way, erotic,” appeal to minors’ interest in sex, and otherwise satisfy the three-prong.

Bans on distributing “harmful to minors” material to minors have been upheld (see Ginsberg v. N.Y. (1968), which used the then-existing definition, but which has been understood to justify the more modern definition used by the Tennessee statute). Likewise, courts have generally upheld restrictions on displaying such materials where minors can see them. So the law may well be consistent with the First Amendment, but precisely because it narrowly focuses on essentially pornographic material (in the sense of requiring depiction of nudity or sex in an erotic way that appeals to minors’ interest in sex). Drag shows that lack such material remain protected by the First Amendment, and aren’t covered by the law (though of course there might be worry that some prosecutors will overfocus on the “male or female impersonator” portion of the law and won’t pay enough attention to the other requirements).

At the same time, there are three possible twists. First, the law applies to “public property” even where minors aren’t present (e.g., if someone rents space from a government entity and puts on a show while making sure that minors aren’t admitted). This might still be upheld as a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restriction on speech on government property that isn’t a traditional public forum. But it’s a bit complicated.

Second, one could argue that specifically targeting “male or female impersonators” makes the law an impermissibly content-based classification even within the First Amendment exception for “harmful to minors” speech that’s displayed to minors. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (holding that such content-based restrictions even within an unprotected category of speech are presumptively unconstitutional).

Third, to the extent that the ban on “male or female impersonator[s]” necessarily discriminates based on sex—a woman dressed as a woman isn’t a female impersonator, but a man dressed precisely the same way is one—it might violate the Equal Protection Clause, which the Supreme Court has generally held presumptively forbids sex classifications.

Note, though, that even if the statute is struck down on the second or third grounds, the same conduct (except perhaps pornographic shows in spaces rented from the government where minors are excluded) could be banned by a general prohibition on “harmful to minors” performances where minors are present, and might indeed already be banned by Tennessee law that regulates sexually themed performances (though I’m not positive about that).

Iowa, Ohio, Weigh In-State Ban on Federal Gun Control Enforcement

Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, and other red states are weighing in-state bans on the enforcement of federal gun controls deemed infringements on gun rights.

Montana has such a ban and on February 10, Breitbart News reported that Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) told the ATF their AR pistol stabilizer brace rule cannot be enforced in Montana.

Missouri also has such a ban, as does Nebraska and Arizona.

The Wall Street Journal noted that Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, and other red states are now weighing bans on federal gun control enforcement.

Iowa state Rep. Jeff Shipley (R) is pushing the ban in his state and the push is supported by Carroll County Attorney John Werden.

Werden said, “I don’t see this as a liberal or conservative issue. I see it as a states’ rights issue.”

The Des Moines Register observed that Iowans voted to adopt a constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022, and the amendment exceeds the gun rights’ protections contained in the Second Amendment.

The amendment says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”