Whenever a national politician seeks to establish that he is a champion of the "common man" and that he truly understands what the "average person" must endure to survive in today's world, he hops on his jet and hies himself to the Midwest. There, surrounded by bucolic images of corn and hogs and silos, he proclaims his worthiness as a human being since he can so identify with the "values of the Heartland."

This trend reaches epidemic levels every four years or so when the various heirs-apparent or long-shot contenders for the White House mob that first-primary-in-the-nation mecca -- that land of the Hawkeyes -- little Iowa. Despite its population of barely three million residents, this state has come to symbolize the stability and wholesomeness that many other states supposedly lack. With its tradition as a farming state, a people devoted to tilling the soil, in touch with the bounties of nature, operating as the nation's breadbasket, and free of the corrupting influences of "big city" life, Iowa exerts an influence all of proportion to its size. Hard work, honesty, blah-blah-blah.

As laughable as it is watching the political elite do the plaid-shirt-bib-overalls-and-straw-between-the-teeth schtick, it is far less amusing when some of the specifics are examined. Iowa high school students boast higher than average national educational scores, yes, but considering the functional level of many of those same students when they head off to college, one wonders in amazement how awful the rest of the country's kids must be in order for Iowa to outrank them.

Viewed alongside this state's love affair with farm subsidies whose levels grow faster than corn in July, and a senator, Tom Harkin, who ranks as one of the most liberal people in Congress, perhaps one should cast a jaundiced eye upon attempts to cast Iowa as a bastion of good ol' American values. Indeed, the reality of Iowa society goes a long way towards explaining how far we have fallen nationwide from a proper appreciation of rights and freedom.

A prime example of this fun house reflection of Iowa's true character -- the state did, after all, vote for Al Gore in the last presidential election -- is revealed in the prevalent attitudes towards self-defense rights evidenced in a major article in a Cedar Rapids newspaper and another story from the Cybercast News Service.

The latter recently offered an article by CNSNews.com staff writer Jim Burns regarding seven states that "do not have clauses in their constitutions allowing citizens the right to keep and bear arms." (Even here, in a story friendly to self-defense, we witness the insidious depths to which the statists' language has infiltrated our psyches: a valid constitution does not "allow" us the right of self-defense; it recognizes and guarantees our ability to exercise a right we already possess as human beings.) According to attorney David Kopel, diminutive Iowa ranks up there with such fountains of freedom as California, Massachusetts, and Maryland in restricting our Second Amendment rights. Indeed, the anti-self-defense "Open Society Institute" places Iowa ninth in the nation in "how far they go to restrict firearms."

After reading this story, I checked the Iowa constitution. Here's what I found regarding self-defense:

"Rights of persons. SECTION 1. All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights -- among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."

On the surface, this sounds pretty good. "Defending life and liberty." How else is an individual to do this without personal firearms? Knives? Rocks? Fists?

Of course, Iowa's constitution -- as does the U.S. Constitution -- also forbids "involuntary servitude." It even prohibits business subsidies. The actuality, though, diverges considerably from these fine sounding sentiments.

The title of an article in the 4-28-02, Cedar Rapids Gazette, "Authorized Arms," says it all. Anyone who believes that a license or permit to own and/or carry a firearm is a valid policy to implement and follow -- that one must be "authorized" by the State to defend oneself -- is afflicted with a faulty mindset. This article is riddled with fallacious thinking...and not just from the overtly anti-self-defense crowd.

Gun store owner Roger Howe is quoted as saying he refused to sell a gun to a woman who wanted "...to scare somebody." Howe said that "...you don't buy a gun to scare somebody."

So if you fear an abuser or a robber or a rapist, you're not supposed use a gun to "scare" them? Better, I guess, to use your handgun as a flower holder? While you discuss your conflict over tea and cookies, no doubt.

Of course, Howe thinks that only those "...physically prepared, mentally prepared and properly trained..." should be carrying a handgun. Guess that leaves out those 80 year-old grandmas most vulnerable to youthful predators.

Only 9 out of a 1000 Iowans have permits to carry a concealed outgun...and that's only after they complete a "qualification course." That's .009 or .9% of the populace. In my own county, Linn, our lovely sheriff, Don Zeller, has ensured that only 2.1 out of a 1000 people -- .21% -- can legally carry a weapon. Indeed, Iowa sheriffs are essentially the final arbiters of whether you will or will not be allowed to carry an effective means of self-defense. In Iowa county, for instance, 23.6 per 1000 population have carry permits, over ten times the level of Linn county.

"Equality before the law," anyone?

As a private citizen, an Iowan must justify why he thinks he should be permitted to carry a weapon. In very few counties does "self-defense" qualify as a valid reason. Indeed, when I inquired about applying for such a permit, I was told by a staff person in the sheriff's office that Zeller only approves those who carry large sums of money or who are security guards of some kind (and even then, they are only "authorized" to carry their weapons during performance of their job duties).

Consider this quote from the article:

"...Zeller won't say exactly what he looks for when reviewing a permit for an application (sic), but he knows when he sees it.

 

"'We don't tell what it is because people would just write that' in their application, he said. 'It's just whether they fit our criteria. They have to show a bona fide need." (Emphasis added.)

Ponder that statement. Taste its arrogance, savor its condescension.

Consider also this boxed statement offered by the Gazette:

"Beginning in May, The Gazette will routinely publish the names of persons issued permits..." in nine area counties.

They began this travesty of a policy, this gross violation of privacy by printing over two-and-a-half pages of names of permit holders.

"Enemies list," anyone?

The Gazette devoted a front page color photo and almost four-and-a-half pages of the lead section of the newspaper to this topic. Not once -- nowhere -- was there any mention -- let alone discussion -- of Vermont-style carry or any quotes from anyone who disagreed with the warped idea of requiring gun owners to obtain permits to exercise their right to self-defense.

Here is how I responded:

"Many people today proclaim their love of liberty and their willingness to defend our rights. Your extensive story in the 4-28-02 Gazette on "Authorized Arms," however, reveals a lack of understanding of both freedom and of rights that is shared by far too many people.

 

"An action that is ours by right is one that requires no one's permission to exercise.

 

"The U.S. Constitution -- including the Bill of Rights -- imposes limits on what the government is authorized to do. Adult citizens have the right to engage in whatever peaceful behavior they want -- even if that behavior is unwise -- as long as their actions do not physically harm or threaten to harm the life or property of another citizen. The Constitution -- and the government -- is supposed to defend our rights, not violate them.

 

"The U.S. is supposed to operate on the rule of law, not the rule of men. The latter occurs when the arbitrary decisions of one person or a small group of people with political power are imposed upon peaceful citizens. That situation is the opposite of liberty.

 

"Imagine if you had to get a permit and be forced to undergo training classes in order to buy or carry a book or newspaper; imagine if you had to get a license to attend the church of your choice; imagine if a sheriff could deny you those rights on a whim, based on rules he refuses to tell the citizens whose rights he supposedly has sworn to uphold and defend. Imagine if that sheriff gets to decide for you whether your reasons are "good enough," your "need" great enough to exercise your rights to free expression and religion.

 

"Imagine how you would feel and how you would react if such things happened to you as they have in other countries. Imagine if a newspaper published a list of who was granted a license to buy books or to attend church.

 

"Decorum prevents me from declaring just how strongly I feel about such unconstitutional and unsavory actions when applied to my right to defend myself."

Imagine my shock that anyone would consider Iowa a paragon of virtue, a paradigm for the rest of the nation. The Heartland may, indeed, be the embodiment of something. An exemplar of freedom, however, it is not.