Ten potential Republican presidential candidates will speak at Bruce Rastetter’s Iowa Agriculture Summit today, and a few more may send videotaped remarks. But only one GOP contender was the focus of a long and flattering feature by the Des Moines Register’s chief political correspondent the day before the event.

When Jeb Bush hired longtime Iowa GOP consultant David Kochel, I figured friendly coverage in the Register would be coming to the former Florida governor. During last year’s U.S. Senate campaign, just about every line Joni Ernst’s backers wanted out there ended up in some Des Moines Register piece by Jennifer Jacobs. Still, Jacobs’ spread on Bush in Friday’s Des Moines Register shocked me. The message could hardly have been more perfectly tailored for Iowa Republicans if Bush’s spin doctors had written it themselves.

Many Iowa GOP activists are upset that dozens of House and Senate Republicans voted to increase the gasoline tax this week. WHO drive-time radio host Simon Conway has been bashing some legislators who voted for the gas tax hike. He’s also urging listeners to “ditch the GOP” by changing their party registration.

Such symbolic acts mean little to compared to what Eric Durbin did yesterday. Appearing on Conway’s Thursday afternoon broadcast, he announced that he will challenge nine-term incumbent GOP State Representative Clel Baudler in Iowa House district 20. Durbin narrowly lost the GOP primary in House district 26 last year, but he recently moved his family from Indianola to a farm in Baudler’s district. His campaign is on Facebook here; at this writing, the website still lists House district 26, which covers most of Warren County. I assume that will be changed soon. Durbin’s core issues hit many of the top priorities for conservatives.

House district 20 covers Guthrie and Adair counties, plus parts of Dallas and Cass counties. A detailed map is after the jump. According to the latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, House district 20 contains 4,629 active registered Democrats, 6,471 Republicans, and 7,490 no-party voters. Although Mitt Romney just barely carried this district in the 2012 presidential election, Baudler was re-elected by more than a 2,000 vote margin that year and last November. For those reasons, Baudler is probably at more risk from a primary challenger than from a Democrat in the next general election.

Among the longest-serving Iowa House Republicans, Baudler was first been elected in 1998. He has chaired the House Public Safety Committee since 2011. Although he’s a longtime member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, Baudler drew the ire of some Iowa gun rights activists by not advancing a gun bill during the 2012 legislative session. Nevertheless, he didn’t face a primary challenger either that year or in 2014. The Iowa Gun Owners group will likely get behind Durbin’s primary challenge. I wonder whether anti-tax groups like Iowans for Tax Relief and Americans for Prosperity will do much to punish the incumbents who went against them on the gas tax issue.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

Governor Terry Branstad’s office announced on Thursday that Brenna Bird (whose maiden name was Findley) is stepping down as the governor’s legal counsel “to pursue opportunities in the private sector.” Her LinkedIn profile hasn’t been updated yet, so it’s not clear whether Bird is returning to the Des Moines-based Whitaker Hagenow law firm. She joined that firm in 2010 after leaving Representative Steve King’s staff, but did not practice much law, since she was running for Iowa attorney general full-time.

Branstad named Bird as his legal counsel shortly after the 2010 election. She appears to have influenced several of the governor’s policy choices. At one time, Branstad had supported a mandate to purchase health insurance, but soon after being inaugurated in 2011, he joined a lawsuit to overturn the federal health care reform law (a key issue in Bird’s unsuccessful attorney general campaign). Branstad’s legal counsel also appears to have helped convince Branstad to change his position on banning lead shot for hunting mourning doves in Iowa. When the state legislature refused to overturn a rule mandating non-toxic ammunition, Bird worked several angles to overturn a rule adopted by the state Natural Resource Commission.

Bird’s work as legal counsel has also gotten the Branstad administration involved in some major litigation. In 2011, she participated in efforts to pressure Iowa’s Workers Compensation Commissioner to resign before the end of his fixed term. As a result, she and the governor, along with other former staffers, are co-defendants in a lawsuit filed by the former workers’ compensation commissioner.

In 2013, Bird was a key contact for Iowans seeking to ban the use of telemedicine for providing medical abortions in Planned Parenthood clinics. As the Iowa Board of Medicine considered a new rule containing verbatim wording from anti-abortion activists, the state Attorney General’s Office “cautioned the board against moving so quickly.” But as the governor’s counsel, Bird encouraged board members to adopt the telemedicine abortion ban immediately. Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit challenging that rule is pending with the Iowa Supreme Court.

Bird may be leaving the public sector for now, but I suspect Iowans will see her name on a ballot before too long. She reportedly considered running for Congress last year in Iowa’s third district and has served on the Republican Party of Iowa’s State Central Committee since last June. I could easily see Bird running for a Republican-leaning Iowa House or Senate seat if one were to open up in central Iowa. Alternatively, she and 2014 attorney general nominee Adam Gregg (now Iowa’s state public defender) are likely GOP candidates for attorney general in 2018.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. After the jump I’ve enclosed a press release on Bird’s departure from the governor’s staff, with background on Michael Bousselot, her successor as legal counsel.  

Exciting times for Iowa politics watchers: the state legislature’s 2015 session began in Des Moines today. A tentative schedule for this year’s work is available here (pdf). The last day lawmakers will receive per diem expenses is on May 1, but for the past four years of divided control between a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, the session has always gone into overtime–sometimes by a little and sometimes by a lot. Bleeding Heartland previously posted details on the each chamber’s majority and minority leadership teams, along with all chairs, vice chairs, and members of standing committees. Click here for who’s who in the Iowa House, and here for who’s who in the Iowa Senate.

Today legislative leaders from both parties pledged to work together. After the jump I’ve enclosed the full texts of opening day remarks. Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal called for making Iowa’s middle class the “focus of the 2015 session” by ensuring adequate education spending, fighting wage theft, and expanding worker training while keeping a balanced budget. He praised Governor Terry Branstad for agreeing to go back to setting K-12 school funding a year in advance, as is required by state law, but warned the governor not to make a partisan statement by proposing too little funding for education when he addresses the legislature tomorrow.

Echoing some of the priorities she named last year, Senate President Pam Jochum said building an economy that “works for everyone” means supporting families and especially children: “For too long, the well-being of children has been considered a woman’s issue.’ It is not just a ‘woman’s issue’. It is an American issue. It is an Iowan issue.” Jochum urged lawmakers to expand access to education from pre-K through college, make “quality, affordable childcare” more available across the state, and boost an initiative to “detect and help prevent mental health and developmental problems among young children.”

Iowa House Minority Leader Mark Smith said the top priorities for House Democrats are strengthening the middle class and re-vitalizing rural Iowa. In addition to expanding early childhood education and providing adequate funds for K-12 schools, Smith called for raising the minimum wage, though GOP leaders have shown no willingness to negotiate on that issue.

As has been true in recent years, top Iowa House and Senate Republicans focused on fiscal issues and mostly avoided social issues. Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen challenged his colleagues “to ensure that government do less and do it better” when “others bring forward their laundry list of funding opportunities, spending priorities, or flashy government programs.” He called for more tax cuts along the lines of a 2006 bipartisan agreement to eliminate the state tax on Social Security benefits. (Mike Owen of the Iowa Policy Project explained in a guest column for the Quad-City Times why that tax cut was passed “under false pretenses” and skewed Iowa’s tax code “further to the benefit of the wealthy.”) House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer emphasized the need to “craft a responsible budget.” She singled out the Medicaid program for criticism, claiming growth in Medicaid spending is “not sustainable” and will threaten lawmakers’ ability to invest in education, job training, infrastructure, and renewable energy. Iowa Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix called on senators to “work together to rein in spending, make cuts and reduce the size of government and lift up all Iowans in the process by reducing their tax burdens.”

None of the Republicans set a goal of undoing marriage equality, and only House Speaker Pro Tem Matt Windschitl made passing reference to other top priorities for social conservatives when he said, “Let us work together to make Iowa the best place to live, where taxes are low, jobs are abundant, education is top of the line, innocent life is protected and Second Amendment rights are fully embraced.”

Any comments about the legislative session are welcome in this thread. By the way, here’s some trivia you may not know about Speaker Paulsen.  

Former State Senator Staci Appel and David Young are holding their second debate, hosted by KCCI-TV and the Des Moines Register at Simpson College in Indianola. I’m live-blogging after the jump. KCCI will have the video up later on their website.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

When you don’t like a law on the books, you have a few options. You can work to change the law through the political system, such as by lobbying legislators, voting out incumbents, or running for the legislature yourself. You can challenge the law through the court system, building a case that the law was improperly enacted or violates constitutional rights. Or you can use civil disobedience to call attention to the unjust law.

A growing number of conservatives are embracing a fourth option: make it a crime to implement or enforce laws you don’t like. As Talking Points Memo first reported on Friday, State Senator Joni Ernst answered yes to the following question on the Campaign for Liberty’s 2012 questionnaire: “Will you support legislation to nullify ObamaCare and authorize state and local law enforcement to arrest federal officials attempting to implement the unconstitutional health care scheme known as ObamaCare?”

At the time Ernst filled out that survey, no one knew that Democrats would retain control of the Iowa Senate after the 2012 election. She could easily have found herself in the majority, voting for a bill to make it a crime to implement the 2010 health care reform law.

Nor was this an isolated position taken by Ernst. Today’s Sunday Des Moines Register features a front-page article by Jennifer Jacobs analyzing bills and resolutions co-sponsored by Ernst in the Iowa Senate and Representative Bruce Braley in the U.S. House. This nugget was buried in the middle:

Ernst has 12 gun-rights bills in her portfolio. They include “stand your ground” legislation that would allow Iowans to use reasonable force, including deadly force, if necessary to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury. Another bill would eliminate the requirement for a permit to carry a weapon. And another would criminalize enforcement of federal gun laws.

I knew Ernst was for just about everything on the gun activists’ wish list, but I hadn’t heard that she believes it should be a crime to enforce federal laws such as background checks. Either she doesn’t read things carefully before she signs them, or she truly believes enforcing some federal laws should become a state crime. But no worries, I’m sure she’ll have a perfectly rehearsed excuse for taking this ridiculous position in the unlikely event someone asks her about it at one of the two remaining IA-Sen debates (October 11 in the Quad Cities and October 16 in Sioux City).

UPDATE: Maybe Ernst should go back to the women’s shelter where she used to volunteer and explain to the women why their abusers should have unlimited freedom to carry guns, with no permit required.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

Late last week, a Virginia medical examiner determined that James Brady’s recent death was a homicide, stemming from John Hinckley’s attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981. I would be interested to hear from readers more familiar with the criminal justice system about precedent for charging someone with murder when more than three decades elapsed between the fatal wound and the victim’s death. The U.S. Attorney’s office had no comment other than to say that they are reviewing the coroner’s report. If prosecutors charge Hinckley with murder, they could get around double jeopardy questions, as Hinckley was never tried for murder before. But since his previous trial ended in a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, it seems that it would be quite difficult for prosecutors to convince a jury that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of killing Brady.

In one of the last decisions announced from the term that just ended, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled a few weeks ago in State v Lyle that mandatory sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional. You can read the majority ruling and two dissents here. The majority ruling built on but went far beyond a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated mandatory sentences of life without parole for convicted killers who were juveniles at the time of the crime. Writing for the 4-3 majority, Chief Justice Mark Cady extended reasoning from three Iowa Supreme Court decisions last year related to juvenile sentencing. Cady is not afraid to be ahead of the curve here. I expect that over the next decade, other courts will take into account the growing body of research on the adolescent brain, and this ruling will be viewed as a harbinger rather than an overreach. Justices David Wiggins, Daryl Hecht, and Brent Appel joined the majority.

In dissent, Justices Thomas Waterman and Bruce Zager argued that the court went too far in the current ruling as well as in the previous juvenile sentencing cases. They held that a seven-year mandatory minimum was not “cruel and unusual punishment” for a violent criminal who happened to be 17 years old at the time of the crime. Justice Edward Mansfield joined both dissents. It’s worth noting that the majority opinion didn’t say a juvenile couldn’t be sentenced to a long prison term–only that a judge must take into account individual circumstances and current knowledge of adolescent brain development when determining a sentence.

Side note: Governor Terry Branstad appeared not to understand this Iowa Supreme Court ruling, or perhaps he deliberately attempted to mislead the public about its implications. Speaking to reporters last month, the governor implied that juveniles who commit violent crimes will now have to be released at age 18. Not at all. The Iowa Supreme Court majority did not hold that juveniles could never be tried as adults, or that juveniles could not be sentenced to long prison terms. Judges simply can’t apply to juveniles mandatory formulas designed for adults who committed violent crimes.

Earlier this summer, I never managed to write a post about the idiot “open carry activists” who were hell-bent on walking into chain stores and restaurants heavily armed. Even the National Rifle Association characterized the movement as having “crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness”–though the NRA wimps soon apologized for offending Open Carry Texas. Thankfully, I haven’t encountered this phenomenon in Iowa, but if I see a person or group of people walking heavily armed into a store or restaurant, I will clear out immediately. There’s no way to tell whether someone carrying a semiautomatic weapon is an open carry activist or a psychopath about to go on a killing spree, and I wouldn’t hang around to find out. This philosophy professor had it exactly right when he pointed out that open carry enthusiasts are different from people who carry concealed weapons: “Those who conceal their guns are ready for trouble, but open-carry activists are looking for it. In general, I don’t trust anyone who is looking for trouble.”

Jim Brady never planned to be a gun control advocate. That task fell to him when a mentally ill person tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981. John Hinckley’s attack left Brady permanently disabled and unable to continue his career as a press secretary. However, he and his wife Sarah Brady remained in public life as the country’s most visible and dedicated advocates of gun control. More than twenty years after President Bill Clinton signed it into law, the Brady Handgun Control Act remains the most significant federal legislation designed to keep guns away from criminals, abusers, and some mentally ill people.

Like the 55 mph speed limit, which saved lives without allowing us to point to specific people who benefited, the Brady bill has surely prevented some gun deaths. We’ll never know who is walking around alive today because an unstable person was blocked from buying a gun. How well the Brady Bill works is a matter of debate. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reported earlier this year that the law had “blocked more than 2.1 million gun purchases” to felons, domestic abusers, or fugitives. I’ve posted excerpts from that report after the jump.

Other researchers have suggested that the Brady law had limited impact on gun violence overall. While the waiting period introduced in 1994 likely reduced gun suicides, gun homicides were less affected because the “unregulated secondary gun market” has remained “a gaping loophole” in the system of background checks. The National Rifle Association and other pro-gun advocates have repeatedly stymied Congressional efforts to close that loophole.

Brady died yesterday at age 73. I appreciate how hard he worked, in a role no one would choose, to keep others from being killed or wounded by people who never should have been able to buy a gun.  

Yesterday I conducted a wetlands delineation for the Iowa DNR at Pleasant Valley Wildlife Area, along the South Raccoon between Adel and Redfield. Among the highlights: a good plant list that included a new sedge species, Carex oligocarpa; numerous butterflies, including Tiger and Black Swallowtails, American Lady, Spring Azure, Eastern Comma, and Red Admiral; experience with riparian soils; and overall a good day.

The most memorable part came in the last 15 minutes. Four 20-something year-olds noisily stopped about 450 feet away on the old canoe access road and began making sounds that could have been firecrackers. When the first clear rifle report came, I knew that this was no mere Independence Day warm-up. At least two bullets hit within 100 yards of me and a third whizzed overhead as I crouched behind a low dirt pile.

What’s on your mind this Memorial Day, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

I’ve posted Memorial Day-related links in past years at this site, but I learned only last year that Memorial Day became an official federal holiday only recently, in 1971. That’s surprising, given that the tradition of remembering American war dead on a special day in May goes back to the 1860s. The Iowa National Guard’s website includes brief histories of Iowa soldiers’ involvement in U.S. wars since the mid-19th century and a stunning photo of thousands of men standing in the shape of the Statue of Liberty.

The horrendous shooting rampage in Santa Barbara on Friday night has prompted a wave of new commentaries about mental health, violence against women, and gun violence generally. It’s so upsetting to know that the authorities couldn’t do a thing to disarm the perpetrator, even though his family had been trying to get him help and warned police weeks ago that he was posting YouTube videos about his murderous and misogynistic fantasies.

For many people, Memorial Day marks the unofficial beginning of summer, so I’m re-posting a link to a piece that’s worth re-reading every year: Drowning Doesn’t Look Like Drowning.  

State Senator Joni Ernst told the Washington Post last week, “I consider myself the front-runner” for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination. I agree, for reasons Bleeding Heartland discussed here–and that was before I knew Ernst had snagged one of the ultimate conservative establishment endorsements: from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In what must be a painful blow to Mark Jacobs, who has made business prowess a cornerstone of his Senate campaign, Chamber of Commerce National Political Director Rob Engstrom said in today’s press release,

“Joni understands that big government is an impediment to job creation, and that the best way to turn the economy around and create jobs is through pro-growth economic policies. The U.S Chamber is proud to stand with Joni and highlight her work removing regulatory barriers and encouraging competition in Iowa. In today’s economy, that’s the type of leadership we need in Washington.”

I don’t know what work they’re talking about–as a first-term state senator in the minority caucus, Ernst hasn’t been in a position to remove regulatory barriers or encourage competition. More likely, the Chamber of Commerce settled on Ernst as the most credible alternative to Jacobs.

Over at The Iowa Republican blog, Craig Robinson reviews recent tv ads and campaign spending in the IA-Sen primary. By June 3, Jacobs will have spent more than $1.4 million on broadcast and cable television, plus about $24,000 on radio spots. Based on ad time Ernst has reserved up to now, she will close out the primary race having spent just under $240,000 on broadcast and cable tv. She and her strategists must feel very confident; otherwise they would allocate more campaign funds ($427,201 cash on hand as of March 31) to paid media.

In their Washington Post piece about how Ernst’s debut tv ad “transformed Iowa’s U.S. Senate race,” Philip Rucker and Dan Balz quoted Jacobs supporters Nick Ryan and Doug Gross criticizing Ernst’s ads. Her media consultant Todd Harris shot back, “People should remember that Joni is a mom, a grandmother who has volunteered at a crisis hotline, and that part of her bio will be told.” Thanks for the preview of Ernst’s general election transformation: the pig castrating, Harley-riding, leather-wearing “farm girl” who’s going to “unload” on Obamacare will become a mom and grandmother who volunteered at a crisis hotline. I’m surprised anyone with experience comforting victims would use “Make ‘Em Squeal” as the main slogan on her t-shirts, bumper stickers and campaign bus. Many Americans instantly recognize that phrase from a rape scene in the movie “Deliverance.”

Any comments about the IA-Sen race are welcome in this thread.

P.S. – I think Balz and Rucker should have acknowledged the convenient timing of Ernst’s tiny ad buy for the “Squeal” spot. I find it hard to believe that a campaign endorsed by Mitt Romney didn’t get any advance warning from the Romney-connected outside groups America Rising and Priorities for Iowa, which dropped a bomb on Bruce Braley just as Ernst launched that attention-getting ad.

UPDATE: The National Rifle Association announced its endorsement of Ernst on May 13. The press release is after the jump.

I don’t see State Senator Brad Zaun winning the GOP nomination in Iowa’s third Congressional district. From the numbers I’ve seen, Republican donors and voters are looking elsewhere. But give credit where credit is due: Zaun made the most of his interview with Des Moines Register editors this week. GOP activists will eat up news that Zaun “sometimes carries a 9 mm handgun while working in the Senate chamber” or appearing at public events. Never mind that the rules are clear, and legislators are not exempt from the ban on carrying firearms or other dangerous weapons in the capitol complex. The GOP base will love Zaun’s explanation of why the rules shouldn’t apply to him: “I went through all the lawful procedures that were required of me [to carry a concealed weapon]. I am going to defend myself if someone attacks me, and I have a right to do that.”

Click here for other highlights from Zaun’s sit-down with Register staff. Explaining why he is “smarter and wiser” than during his 2010 Congressional bid, Zaun explained that he now supports government subsidies for the biofuels industry. I took issue with this whining, though:

On another note, Zaun said he doesn’t think it’s fair for news organizations to keep bringing up a 2001 West Des Moines police report that surfaced during the 2010 campaign. The police report detailed his conflict with a former girlfriend at a time when he was divorced. No charges were filed. Zaun has since remarried.

Zaun pointed out that the woman provided a statement to The Des Moines Register just days before the 2010 election in which she said she remained friends with Zaun and she planned to vote for him. “It is something that we have just both moved on from, and I think it is unfortunate that this keeps getting brought up,” he said.

No, what’s unfair is that the mayor of Urbandale was able to keep this incident covered up for so long, including during his first campaign for the Iowa Senate in 2004. When a person’s harassment of someone else becomes intense enough for police to be involved, that’s a red flag voters should know about. I’m glad Zaun and his onetime girlfriend have reconciled, but that “unfortunate” part of his record was newsworthy and should have been public knowledge way before he ran for Congress in 2010.

The more I see of the Republican race for U.S. Senate, the more I’m convinced that State Senator Joni Ernst will win the GOP nomination, barring some major gaffe or new revelation about her record.

Three reasons are after the jump.

Most gun-related bills failed to make it through in the Iowa legislature’s first “funnel” last week. The list of proposals that are dead for this year included efforts to restrict access to firearms (such as Senate File 2179 to close the gun show loophole) and several bills aimed at making guns more available: House File 384 to authorize possession of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns; House File 169/Senate File 251 to allow Iowans with permits to carry concealed weapons on school grounds; House File 172 to allow school employees to carry guns in school; and House File 2012 to allow children as young as 12 to possess handguns.

The trouble is, many incumbents don’t want to face the gun lobby’s wrath in an election year. Many lawmakers want to have something to brag about when pro-gun activists compile scorecards and endorsement lists. Such concerns prompted Iowa House and Senate leaders to revive and eventually pass a 2010 bill to make it easier for Iowans to carry concealed weapons.

I believe the same dynamic prompted Iowa House members to vote overwhelmingly yesterday to legalize firearm suppressors, better known as “silencers” popular for many decades among snipers and assassins.

This week marks the Iowa legislature’s first “funnel” deadline of the 2014 session. With the exception of appropriations bills, most legislation that has not cleared at least one committee in at least one chamber is dead for the year. Only occasionally do House or Senate leaders revive bills that didn’t get through the funnel.

Rod Boshart published a comprehensive list of bills that are still pending in either the Iowa House or Senate, as well as proposals that didn’t make it this year. Notably, the ideas Governor Terry Branstad outlined in his Condition of the State speech last month are still alive, as are the top priorities House and Senate leaders mentioned on the opening day of this year’s session.

Any comments about the legislature’s work is welcome in this thread. Reading Boshart’s lists, I felt a mixture of relief and disappointment. So many bad ideas died in the funnel, but so did a lot of proposals I would strongly support.

My dismay is probably nothing compared to what socially conservative Republicans are feeling. For the second year in a row, no bills aimed at “protecting” traditional marriage made it through the funnel. Every proposed anti-abortion bill died too, except for the ban on “telemedicine” abortions (which failed to move last year but passed the Iowa House last week). You would think that with a 53-47 Republican majority, the Iowa House would move more of these abortion bills through committee at least.

Every year I’m amazed by some of the bills Iowa House and Senate members introduce. An Iowa House Public Safety subcommittee provided the latest head-scratching example yesterday, when two Republicans and a Democrat unanimously advanced a bill to lower from fourteen to twelve the age at which Iowans can “possess a pistol or revolver or the ammunition therefor for any lawful purpose” while being supervised by a parent or guardian or an instructor authorized by a parent or guardian. Details are after the jump.  

Once upon a time, a few moderate Republicans served in the Iowa legislature. Sometimes they faced primary challenges from the right, because conservatives resented their positions on social issues and their willingness to compromise with statehouse Democrats.

Social moderates are long gone among Iowa House and Senate Republican ranks, but party leaders prefer not to talk about, let alone deliver on, some of the key priorities for hard-liners. That leads to occasional infighting between mainstream Republican lawmakers and those who want to rock the boat.

One of the proud non-compromisers, Tom Shaw, just announced plans to retire from the Iowa House. His comrade-in-arms Greg Heartsill will face at least one Republican primary challenger in Iowa House district 28.

Better late than never with this weekend’s open thread and with links I had intended to post during National Suicide Prevention Week, which was September 8 through 14. If you are suicidal, click here for many free helplines. Please pass those numbers on to anyone you know who is motivated to end the pain by ending his or her life. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention has many resources available here.

Last night I watched part of Piers Morgan’s interview with Rick and Kay Warren, who lost a son to suicide earlier this year. I don’t care what you think of Warren’s politics or the Saddleback mega-church he founded. It’s impossible not to be moved hearing the Warrens talk about their son’s struggle and their devastating bereavement. They didn’t just rely on prayer to heal his mental illness; they sought professional help in many different forms. They also tried to prevent him from getting hold of the gun he used to take his own life.

I did not realize until recently that suicide has directly affected Representative Bruce Braley’s family. His niece Kayla ended her life nearly three years ago. I’ve enclosed his statement on National Suicide Prevention Week after the jump.

Suicide is a leading cause of death for young Iowans. Too many families who keep a gun at home for “protection” end up grieving for a teenager who died accidentally or deliberately because that gun was close to hand at the wrong time. Research has shown that “access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk” for adults as well as children, but the teenage brain is particularly impulsive and emotionally volatile. Please keep your firearms away from young people and anyone suffering from serious mental health problems.

The suicide rate among U.S. veterans has long been a national disgrace. Some of the helplines on this page are specifically aimed at veterans suffering from suicidal thoughts.

Des Moines-based blogger Ben Gran wrote a powerful post earlier this year about six people he has known who ended their own lives.

Polk County Republican Party co-chair Chad Brown has resigned his office and switched his voter registration to no-party, Kathie Obradovich reported for the Des Moines Register today. Click through to read his resignation letter to the Polk GOP Executive Committee, which is as damning as any focus group comments or “autopsy” I’ve seen. Brown pointed out that Republicans have lost ground in Polk County, not just in the city of Des Moines but even in the suburbs. He has concluded that “we are now headed in the wrong direction on several fronts” and that he would only be “enabling” to help “a dysfunctional Party that does not want to address its problems.”

In his resignation letter, Brown wrote that he finds it “increasingly difficult to defend issues and statements made by Party leaders and officials” at the national, state, and local levels. Speaking to Obradovich by phone, Brown cited Representative Steve King’s recent comments about undocumented immigrants, guns, and what he characterized as “war on science and common sense” with respect to climate change.

UPDATE: The Sunday Des Moines Register published a guest column by Brown on August 25. Excerpts are after the jump. He plans to switch his party registration to Democrat.

The scandal of State Senator Kent Sorenson demanding and apparently receiving money in exchange for endorsing Ron Paul for president has the potential to do a lot of collateral damage in Iowa Republican circles. Note the conspicuous silence of state party leaders this week–shocking on one level but less surprising when you consider that several Iowa GOP State Central Committee members worked closely with Paul’s campaign.

The Sorenson story is also a huge black eye for the Iowa Gun Owners group, which claims to be “Iowa’s only No Compromise gun rights organization.”

Bipartisan consensus allowed a group of President Barack Obama’s nominees to be confirmed easily this week, but a Republican filibuster nearly blocked the confirmation of one federal agency head. In addition, Senator Chuck Grassley again pushed back against claims that Republicans have dragged their feet on confirming federal judges during Obama’s presidency.

Details are after the jump.

A Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman of both second-degree murder and manslaughter today in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. The verdict doesn’t surprise me. No one witnessed the whole encounter that led Zimmerman to shoot an unarmed teenager. Although I did not watch the trial, I gather from commentaries and coverage at Talk Left and elsewhere that the defense turned several of the prosecution witnesses and produced their own witnesses supporting parts of Zimmerman’s story. They didn’t need to prove the self-defense narrative–only create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.

That said, I doubt any jury would have acquitted an African-American man of shooting an unarmed white teenager under the same circumstances.

Roberto Martinez, a former U.S. attorney in Florida’s Southern District, made the case for a manslaughter conviction in the Miami Herald. I recommend reading the whole piece, but I’ve posted an excerpt after the jump. Even those who believe the jury reached the right verdict from a narrow legal perspective should acknowledge that Zimmerman’s stupid and reckless behavior caused the death of an innocent child. This verdict does not vindicate the actions of vigilante wannabe cops.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

UPDATE: Why am I not surprised? State Senator Kent Sorenson (contender for creepiest Iowa lawmaker) celebrated the verdict as “a victory for 2nd Amendment rights around the nation.” Hat tip to Christian Ucles, who commented, “Really Kent? The death of a child is a victory for 2nd amendment rights. […] You make me sick. I can’t believe to think that you and I both went to the same church, an considered you a Brother in Christ. You value guns and the actions of gun owners over the lives of children not your own?” In the comment thread, Sorenson responded, “Your [sic] a political hack that [sic] doesn’t care about anything other then [sic] your parties [sic] talking points!”

SECOND UPDATE: Iowa House Democrat Ako Abdul-Samad reacted to the verdict here.

THIRD UPDATE: Comments from President Barack Obama and Representative Steve King are after the jump. King really goes out of his way to stir up the pot sometimes.

During 2011 and 2012, the Iowa Senate was our state’s firewall against the social conservative agenda. The Republican-controlled Iowa House passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, sweeping limits on abortion rights (twice), a “stand your ground” bill and a constitutional amendment that would invalidate virtually all restrictions on guns. All of those bills died in the Democratic-controlled state Senate.

Social issues have never been a priority for Iowa House leaders. They blocked a floor vote on a “personhood” bill in 2011 and steered clear of extremist crusades like impeaching Iowa Supreme Court justices and replacing gun permit laws with “constitutional carry.” Still, I expected House Republicans to cover the usual bases during this year’s legislative session.

Instead, almost every high-profile bill on so-called family values failed to win House committee approval and therefore died in the legislature’s first funnel deadline last Friday. That includes some mainstream conservative efforts as well as freak show bills like ending no-fault divorce or barring county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Most amazing to me, House Republicans no longer have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman.  

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

The Des Moines Register continues to release bits and pieces from the latest Iowa poll conducted by Selzer & Co. After the jump I’ve posted some of the more important findings, other than the IA-Sen numbers, which I discussed in this post. Like the Iowa .Gif-t Shop blog, I found it bizarre that the Register asked respondents whether they’d be “thrilled,” “mildly happy,” or “don’t really care” about the prospect of certain national retailers opening an Iowa store.

President Barack Obama delivers another State of the Union address tonight, and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida is set to give the Republican response. I will miss most of the president’s speech but plan to watch the replay later and will update this post with highlights. Meanwhile, feel free to comment on any topics raised during the speeches in this thread.

UPDATE: Highlights from the speeches and reaction from the Iowans in Congress are after the jump.

I find it depressing that when I came home to catch up on the news, the blogosphere and twitterverse were obsessing over Rubio taking a drink of water during his remarks. So sue him, he’s not the most camera-savvy politician in Washington (yet). Who cares?

Paul Singer and Gregory Korte published an interesting feature in USA Today about which members of Congress are gun owners.  

Today President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden revealed a list of proposals designed to reduce gun violence. The full transcript from the press conference is here. It’s embarrassing that we needed a presidential order to allow the Centers for Disease Control to study this issue.

After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from the president’s remarks and a statement from Representative Steve King (R, IA-04). I also included some comments from Iowa legislators about possible state legislation related to guns or gun violence. I will update this post as needed with more comments on these issues. UPDATE: Added Senator Tom Harkin’s comments.

SECOND UPDATE: Added comments from Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02).

Politicians and commentators continue to react to recent comments by National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. He broke the NRA’s weeklong silence following the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting with a December 21 speech (falsely billed as a “press conference”) and an appearance on NBC’s “Meet The Press” two days later.

LaPierre rejected any new restrictions on guns or ammunition and blamed a wide range of cultural influences for mass shootings. He suggested that Congress should respond by funding armed security officers in every school in the country.

This thread is for any comments about the root causes of violence or policies that could prevent future gun-related tragedies. I’ve enclosed lots of relevant links and analysis after the jump.

The horrific mass killing at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown, Connecticut has dominated news coverage since Friday, and almost everyone I know has been talking about the tragedy. But only a few Iowa politicians have publicly discussed the events or possible ways to prevent similar crimes.

Remarks by Senator Tom Harkin, Representative Dave Loebsack, State Senator Rob Hogg, and Governor Terry Branstad are after the jump. I’m disappointed but not surprised that the governor is not open to any new restrictions on assault weapons or large ammunition clips. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who like Branstad has an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, today called for moving “beyond rhetoric” on gun control. His comments are also below.

I’ve sought comment from other members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation and will update this post if I hear back from any of them. UPDATE: Added Representative Bruce Braley’s comments below.

SECOND UPDATE: Added Senator Chuck Grassley’s comments during a December 17 radio interview.

LATER UPDATE: Added comments from Iowa Department of Education Director Jason Glass.

Details are sketchy, but at least one gunman opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut this morning, reportedly killing more than 20 people. As of noon central time, the latest reports indicate that 18 children may have been murdered along with nine adults, including the killer.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at a briefing, “today is not the day” to discuss gun control legislation. Of course it isn’t. Tomorrow won’t be the right time either, and neither will next week or next month or next year. Democratic Party officials are no longer willing to advocate for gun control in public, and the Republican Party might as well be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association. Americans just have to accept that dangerously unstable or mentally ill people will be able to acquire almost any kind of weapons and ammunition, and from time to time will slaughter innocent people.

I can’t imagine what those children and the victims’ families are going through in Connecticut, and I’m too upset to look up more links about this tragedy. Feel free to share your own reasoned comments or enraged rants in this thread.

UPDATE: Shooter Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults, including his mother, before apparently killing himself. A lot of details and links are on this page at the Mother Jones site.

Conservatives are quick to say crimes like these aren’t about guns. Not holding my breath waiting for them to increase funding for mental health services.

After Australia reformed its gun laws in 1996, gun-related homicides and suicides began to decline more sharply, even as the overall homicide rate continued to drop. There have not been any mass shootings in Australia since that time.

At least 28 eagles died from lead poisoning in Iowa between September 1, 2011 and April 15, 2012, according to data collected by the non-profit Saving Our Avian Resources. The real figure could be significantly higher, and even this statistic casts doubt on claims that hunting with lead ammunition does no harm to wildlife.

The Iowa legislature’s second “funnel” deadline passed on Friday, which means that most non-appropriations bills are dead unless they have been approved in one chamber and in at least one committee in the other chamber. It’s time to catch up on the most significant bills being debated in the Iowa House and Senate.

How many more tragedies need to happen before elected officials have the guts to close the gun show loophole? The latest high-profile beneficiary of this loophole was the mentally ill attacker in the recent shootings near the Pentagon.

Law enforcement officials say [John Patrick] Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell’s purchase.

Republican politicians fall all over themselves trying to prove how loyal they are to the National Rifle Association. Some are against any kind of background checks for people who want to carry firearms in public. Too many Democrats are afraid to stand up to this NRA-approved extremism. Meanwhile, a Republican pollster’s recent survey of gun owners shows that they understand the need for reasonable limits:

Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements.

Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies.

Fortunately, it looks as if a proposal to make it easier for Iowans to carry concealed weapons is unlikely to advance during this year’s legislative session. That bill’s main advocate is Iowa House Republican Clel Baudler. He serves on the NRA’s board and doesn’t even support steps to remove guns from domestic abusers. (Last fall, Baudler suggested that murder victim Tereseann Lynch Moore might not have been killed by her estranged husband if she had been carrying her own gun.) Not that Baudler is an isolated case; a disturbing number of Iowa Republican legislators opposed a recent bill to get guns out of the hands of convicted domestic abusers and people subject to a restraining order.

CORRECTION: I spoke too soon above. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy have idiotically revived the NRA’s pet bill, which “would give Iowa one of the loosest gun-permit laws in the country.” Bad for public safety, bad politics. No one who wants to increase the number of Iowans carrying concealed weapons is going to vote for Democrats.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

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.

For generations, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean there is a right to keep and bear arms in the context of a “well-regulated” militia.

Today in a 5-4 ruling, Republican-appointed Supreme Court judges finally gave the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates what they’ve been seeking for decades: an opinion that says the Second Amendment implies an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In the process, they invalidated a Washington, DC statute banning handguns and requiring trigger-locks on other guns.

There’s a lot of legal commentary on this ruling at the SCOTUSblog and at The Volokh Conspiracy blog.

Here are some other posts on the ruling:

Jeralyn at Talk Left (an attorney)

Adam B at Daily Kos (also an attorney)

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate (this includes an observation that Justice Scalia, who wrote today’s ruling, recently dissented to a court ruling on the rights of Guantanamo detainees by saying it “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”)

The Des Moines Register reports, “A Des Moines pizza delivery driver who was suspended after he shot an alleged armed robber said today that he has been fired.”

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

They are giving him two months’ severance pay (minimum wage only, not making up for tips he would have earned) and, at his request, paying for counseling.

State Senator Brad Zaun (Republican of Urbandale) says he is following through on his threat to boycott the pizza chain:

“I think what he did was the right thing,” Sen. Brad Zaun, a Republican from Urbandale, said earlier this month. “If was in a situation to protect my family, protect myself, to continue being a father, I would’ve done the same thing.”

[…]

“I think it’s the wrong decision by Pizza Hut and I will not be buying any more Pizza Hut products,” he said. “You tell me any Iowan that was in his situation, that had a gun put to his head, how they would’ve reacted differently.”

I feel sorry for this guy. He violated company policy against carrying guns, but his fears for his safety were founded, as he was held up at gunpoint during a shift. Statistically, the gun you carry is unlikely to be used in self-defense, but in his case it sounds like it was.

At the same time, I understand why Pizza Hut is letting him go. If they make an exception for him and some other delivery driver who carries a gun uses it in an unlawful way (for instance, gets road rage and shoots at some car that cut him off), Pizza Hut would face a major liability lawsuit.

My dad, who was an attorney, used to say, “Tough cases make bad law.” In this case, I think that means that the Pizza Hut rules should reflect what’s most safe for the public most of the time, and not this exceptional situation.

Still, I can’t help but feel that this guy did not deserve to be fired. I hope he gets another, better, job offer soon, and I hope counseling will help him deal with this traumatic experience.

I could probably count the number of times I’ve eaten at Pizza Hut in the last ten years on one hand, so I can’t say this episode will affect my likelihood of going there again.

How about you? Are you less likely to order from Pizza Hut now?