AP Photo/Alan Diaz

The state of Iowa doesn’t have an amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms at the state level.

In theory, they shouldn’t need one. The Second Amendment should do that all on its own. However, with the Second constantly under attack by anti-gun Democrats in the House, it’s probably a good idea for states to have some protections.

Now, Iowa is one step closer to fixing this oversight.

Iowa’s Republican-controlled legislature voted Wednesday to approve a resolution to amend the state constitution to declare that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The amendment requires any gun restrictions must be subject to “strict scrutiny,” the highest standard of judicial review.

Critics warned that would mean gun safety laws are more likely to be challenged and possibly overturned in court.

I’m pretty sure that’s a feature, not a bug.

The truth is, gun laws need to be subject to strict scrutiny. They’re an infringement on the civil liberties of the individual. This isn’t something that should ever be taken lightly. Our Founding Fathers believed our rights were sacred, the natural gift from God that all men had.

While they could be uneven in the application of that belief, it doesn’t change what they enshrined in the Constitution.

There’s a reason states create these amendments.

A person’s right to keep and bear arms is important. It’s a key factor in fighting crime, allowing individuals to have the means to fight back against armed attackers, burglars, or other threats. It’s vital to protect Iowa’s hunting heritage, something that’s coming under attack more and more. It’s a key part of the American way of life.

If gun control gets overturned, I’m not going to even bother shrugging and saying, “Oh well.”

These are standards that should be in place throughout the nation, at the federal and state level. Every gun control law should fall under strict scrutiny.

Why do anti-gunners oppose this? Because they know gun control will fall apart if the judicial branch does as instructed. They know their pet laws won’t hold up because, deep down, they know they’re infringing on our civil rights. They know it, but they don’t want anyone else to know it. They won’t admit it, but why else oppose a constitutional amendment that’s already in place at the federal level?

They don’t want judges looking to carefully at these laws because they know they’re unconstitutional.

That should tell you a lot.

I’m glad to see Iowa take this step. I hope any other state lacking a Second Amendment analog will rectify that very, very soon. Maybe by doing so, they’ll send a signal to certain parties in Washington that gun control isn’t the winning issue in 2020 they want to think it is. Iowa has made their voices loud and clear on that count. It’s time for others to do the same.

Of course, that leaves the question of whether anyone will bother to listen or not.