Iowa Application For Permit To Carry Weapons: Fill & Download for Free

Although there are federal laws that are consistent across the country, state laws vary in requirements for the purchase of handguns from private parties. There are also exemptions for concealed carry permit holders in some states.Since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act became effective in 1994, federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) have been required to conduct background checks on potential firearms purchasers. The FBI created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which maintains records of criminal, mental health and civil orders as a result of the Brady Act. Based on the results of an NICS check, an individual may find that he or she is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. In addition, the Brady Act has a provision that specifies that concealed carry permit holders may bypass the federally required background check in some states. In these 25 states, the permit must be valid, have been issued within the last five years and have included an NICS background check. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) maintains a list of the state permits which qualify.States With Permits Which Qualify as Alternatives to Background ChecksPermit must be valid and have been issued within the last five years.Alaska: Concealed weapons permits marked NICS-ExemptArizonaArkansasCalifornia: Entertainment Firearms Permit onlyGeorgiaHawaii: Permits to acquire and licenses to carryIdahoIowa: Permits to acquire and permits to carry concealed weaponsKansasKentucky: Concealed Deadly Weapons License (CDW) and Judicial Special Status CDW issued on or after July 12, 2006Louisiana: Concealed handgun permits issued on or after March 9, 2015Michigan: Concealed Pistol Licenses and licenses to purchase a pistolMississippi: License to carry concealed pistol or revolver issued to individuals under Miss. Stat. Ann. § 45—9—101, not security guard permits issued under Miss. Stat. Ann. §97—37—7MontanaNebraska: Concealed handgun permits and handgun purchase certificatesNevadaNorth Carolina: Concealed handgun permits and permits to purchase a handgunNorth DakotaOhio: Concealed weapons permits issued on or after March 23, 2015South CarolinaSouth Dakota: Gold Card Concealed Pistol Permits and Enhanced Permits to Carry a Concealed Pistol issued on or after January 1, 2017TexasUtahWest VirginiaWyomingWhile a number of states have developed state laws requiring all handgun purchases be processed through an FFL, resulting in background checks being performed on buyers, some states have no such requirement. In those states, unlicensed, private sellers can complete a sale with no background check on the purchaser. A number of states require buyers to obtain some type of permit or certificate in order to purchase handguns.States With Purchase Permits RequiredCalifornia: All purchases must be made through an FFL, although holders of a California entertainment firearms permit are exempt from the requirement of a background checkConnecticut: Whether through an FFL or private party, either a Connecticut Pistol Permit (CTPP) or a Certificate of Eligibility for Pistol and Revolvers is requiredDistrict of Columbia: All purchases must be made through an FFLHawaii: Whether through an FFL dealer or a private transactionIllinois: Whether through an FFL dealer or a private transactionIowa: Whether through an FFL dealer or a private transaction, either a Permit to Acquire a pistol or revolver or a Permit to Carry Weapons is requiredMaryland: Whether through an FFL dealer or a private transactionMassachusetts: Whether through an FFL dealer or a private transactionMichigan: Although Concealed Pistol License (CPL) holders and those purchasing a pistol from an FFL dealer do not need a Purchase Permit to purchase a pistolMinnesota: Whether through an FFL dealer or a private transaction, a Minnesota Permit to Carry a Pistol or a Permit to Purchase/Transfer a Firearm is requiredNebraska: Whether through an FFL or a private transactionNew Jersey: Whether through an FFL or a private transactionNew York/NYC: Whether through an FFL or a private transactionNorth Carolina: Whether through an FFL dealer or a private transaction, either a North Carolina Concealed Carry Handgun permit or a handgun purchase permit is requiredRhode Island: Whether through an FFL dealer or a private transaction, a Purchase of a Pistol or Revolver Application is requiredExtended Waiting PeriodsFederal law limits background check processing to three business days. If an FFL is not notified that the sale is prohibited to an individual, the sale can be completed. There are a number of states that extend the time allowed for completion of a background check, some through the use of mandatory waiting periods. These states are:California: 30 daysColorado: 30 days under some circumstancesFlorida: Indefinitely until the background check is completePennsylvania: IndefinitelyTennessee: Up to 15 days in some casesUtah: Indefinitely until the background check is completeWashington: 10, 30 or 60 days in some cases

There is (in my experience) an expanding culture of irresponsibility among gun owners. I don't mean that they do stupid stuff with their guns. I mean, to varying degrees, they view their right to keep, carry, and use their firearms is absolute and without limit and, importantly, does not require a similar degree of responsibility. As the 2nd amendment is a legal right, I'm particularly describing this attitude towards legal responsibility.In the span of my adulthood I have seen a majority of states reverse their position on issuing CCW permits from may or won't issue (unless applicant shows a need) to must issue (regardless of need or even of ability). Some states have made it a right to do so without any permit at all.Personally, I think everyone should have the opportunity to carry a pistol if they choose to and are able to do so safely. But, too much, that's not what is happening. Where a class is required, it is usually a laughable 8hr program that nobody fails. In some pro gun states the class requirement is being gutted to just 4 hours. Iowa became famous in 2013 for issuing concealed weapon permits to the legally blind.Hunting accidents, even fatalities, are almost never considered criminal negligence. In fact, most of the accidental firearm fatalities I find are not prosecuted. Kid finds loaded unsecured gun and kills sibling, deemed a tragic accident, no charges. I can find you this story in the news headlines a dozen times a year or more. Man showing off his wild west quick draw skills accidentally shoots and kills his friends pregnant wife, tragic accident, no charges.A few states had such a problem with people getting caught by TSA bringing loaded guns onto airplanes in their carry on bags that they've passed a law making it no longer a crime!A quick search will bring up a dozen cases of people leaving loaded guns in public restrooms and in all but a few cases there were no legal reprocussions.It's frustrating. I love my second amendment. I own and build guns and have done so most of my adult life. We should be demanding higher standards of behavior. Higher standards of responsibility. It should not be easy to get a permit to carry something so dangerous. Something so dangerous should not be so cheap and easy to buy. Or to leave laying around without consequence.But that is exactly the current view among most gun rights advocates.

Firstly, thanks for the A2A.Secondly, apologies for taking such a time to get around to answering this question. The reason it took me so long is that this subject is very close to me; the contest between pre-dreadnought and ironclad warships. I’ve spent so many years studying the period from 1855 to 1905 in particular that these fine four-heavy-gun battleships occupy a very special place in my heart. The greatest pity is that I have yet to actually go and visit Mikasa, while my old friend did so last year, lucky guy. I wanted to make sure that I got this answer as right as I could, which took some time.So, to the question itself. USS Iowa of Spanish-American War fame, veteran of the Battle of Santiago de Cuba, versus Mikasa, flagship of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s combined fleet during the Russo-Japanese War, the legendary ship which led the line of battle at the famous Battle of Tsushima. Which would win in a duel?My initial thoughts were pretty much as follows:Mikasa is a solid, well-engineered design, proven in battle and with the best technology available in the first half of the 1900s. Her armour is advanced Krupp Cemented steel; her engines are almost as efficient as triple expansion machinery could be; her guns are one of the best 12″ patterns ever produced by British arsenals (only really bettered by the 45-calibre weapons of the early dreadnoughts, the less said about the over-powered 50-calibre the better); she possesses the most up-to-date gunnery direction equipment which the period has to offer, in the form of Barr & Stroud coincidence range-finders.Iowa was a more thickly-armoured ship by contrast, with a larger number of gun turrets (six), making her potentially better-protected, despite relying on the less efficient Harvey steel armour. Harvey was about 2x more resistant to shells than the equivalent thickness of iron armour, while KC was about 2.6x more resistant than iron. Iowa’s thickest belt armour was almost 20% more effective than Mikasa’s.Mikasa’s armour was much more extensive than the older American ship’s, with a belt extending to the bow and almost all the way to the stern. By way of contrast, Iowa’s belt was about 186 feet long, covering the centre of her 360 foot waterline but leaving her ends protected only by the curved internal deck (3 inches thick on the slopes and equivalent to a second-class cruiser’s protection) and the transverse armoured bulkheads at the ends of the belt. In addition, Mikasa had thicker and more extensive armour above her main belt amidships, whilst Iowa had more armour weight devoted to her secondary turrets instead.Iowa carried more heavy guns for her displacement, with four 12″ & eight 8″ on 11,000 tons, versus Mikasa’s four 12″ & fourteen 6″ on 15,000 tons. However, the American guns were of an older, 35-calibre pattern. This yielded a lower muzzle velocity than the heavy Japanese guns, with a shorter effective range and less impressive performance against armour.Mikasa was a good two knots faster than Iowa at full power (18 vs 16 knots as designed), without the reliance on forced draught technology which plagued British designs of the early 1890s. This is not a huge advantage on paper (12.5%) in a fleet engagement, but at ranges of four miles and less this could have some significance in a duel. Note that Iowa could actually make 17 knots with forced draught, but this would not be maintained for long periods since it would damage the boilers!After considering all of these factors and mulling over a lot of permutations, I arrived at the conclusion that, although Mikasa seemed to me to have a slight advantage, the differences were not significant enough for me to simply name one ship as the likely winner. These sorts of pronouncements are invariably arbitrary and, at their very worst, take a fractional difference and turn it into 100% superiority. I decided that there was only one way to satisfactorily resolve the quandary. I would subject the hypothetical scenario to a kriegspiel.As it happens, I have written a set of rules to simulate late 19th-century and turn-of-the-century naval combat. It works on a time scale of one complete turn = six minutes and a ground scale of 10cm = 1 nautical mile. The rules are intended for use with squadron to fleet-sized forces, so required a couple of minor adjustments to represent the lack of command difficulties in managing a force consisting of a single ship rather than several. Those changes made, I next needed a playing surface (a table) and two markers to represent each of the ships. The last issue was a niggle, as I had no models of either ship. I did, however, have some very old balsa wood ‘toy’ battleships which I could hastily convert to suit the purpose.An old toy of HMS Swiftsure becomes a makeshift Mikasa.And a hurriedly chopped-up Brennus with parts of Liberte becomes the stand-in for USS Iowa. Not good, but at least the number of turrets is right!I decided that fighting the duel once would not provide a very fair basis for a conclusion as to which ship would likely have the upper hand in battle, so I played the fight three times. The first and second fights were straight, even-chances affairs with the same effective aimed gunnery range for both ships.The third fight was a more realistic affair, with a longer ‘battle range’ granted to Mikasa to take into account her more advanced gunnery control arrangement (50 cm compared to Iowa’s 40 cm) and a slight penalty to fire-fighting damage control rolls on Iowa, simulating the shimose-filled shells fired by Mikasa’s secondary guns.I will not provide a blow-by-blow account of each battle, as it would take far too long! However, here follows a brief summary of each engagement.Fight #1:Both ships started 5 nm apart, with Mikasa opening fire at long range, while Iowa steamed at full speed towards her, closing the range to 4 nm, at which she too opened fire. Over the course of a half-hour long action, the two ships steamed on steadily converging courses but with the faster Japanese ship drawing ahead.At 2 nm, Mikasa was in position to cross Iowa’s ‘T’ and was hitting the American repeatedly, piercing her armour and pouring small-calibre explosive shells into her superstructure. Iowa, her forward starboard 8″ turret out of action, turned hard to starboard to try and open her port firing arcs, flooding and ablaze. But Mikasa smartly reversed her course at full speed, placing herself directly across Iowa’s bow once more:At a range of 1.5 nautical miles, Mikasa raked Iowa’s bow with three 12″ armour-piercing shells, seven 6″ high explosive shells and five 12-pounder shells. Listing heavily, Iowa slowed, rolled over and blew up.A clear win for Mikasa. During the course of the action, the Japanese captain had displayed the greater foresight & initiative (a matter of complete chance in the game mechanics) and the Japanese gunners had displayed by far the best aim. Iowa was struck by a total of :Thirteen 12″ shells.Twenty 6″ shells.Twelve 12-pounder (3″) shells.Mikasa was struck by a total of:Five 12″ shells.Five 8″ shells.Several of the US shells struck at long range and either failed to penetrate heavy armour or struck non-vital areas.Fight #2:For this battle, some of the element of initiative was removed from the simulation’s mechanics. This made for a more sterile test of the two ships’ fighting capabilities, but did not entirely remove the element of chance, which I feel is an essential part of any test of this type.The two ships started the battle at a distance of 3.5 nm, converging at 120 degrees. Almost immediately, Iowa scored a rapid series of hits with her main and secondary guns, piercing the belt armour. Mikasa’s captain ordered full speed and tried to close the range so that her secondary and tertiary batteries could be brought into action. But the American was quick to spot the Japanese plan and, steering four points to port, brought Iowa’s broadside to bear on Mikasa’s port bow. The Japanese battleship was hammered at close range, with hits on her waterline, forward turret, medium and light gun batteries, causing flooding and starting a huge fire!For the next twenty minutes, Mikasa had to steer away from Iowa, trying to bring her extensive fires under control. The American ship tried twice to torpedo her opponent, both ships manoeuvred hard at short range in a turning stern chase and heavy damage accumulated on both battleships. Finally, Mikasa launched torpedoes to try and drive the American off a little, which was successful. With heavy flooding of her own, Iowa stood off and carried on firing at Mikasa as the Japanese battleship, refusing to sink, retired under the cover of her own heavy stern fire.This was, in the end, a hard-fought draw.Iowa was hit by a total of:Five 12″ shells.Thirteen 6″ shells.Eleven 3″ shells.Mikasa was hit by a total of:Six 12″ shells.Thirteen 8″ shells.Four 4″ shells.Twelve 6-pounder (57mm) shells.One 14″ torpedo (did not explode).This was a very close fight indeed. Both ships matched each other in terms of damage inflicted on their opponent. Early on, an American victory seemed possible, even likely! The key to Iowa’s sterling performance was her devastatingly accurate close-range fire in the opening exchanges, which wore down the ability of Mikasa to deal serious damage in return. A number of Japanese tactical errors helped the American battleship considerably. As the fight drew on, both ships began to suffer heavily from the effect of large numbers of hits, seeing their fighting power and buoyancy seriously reduced.Fight #3:Having demonstrated what would occur when a ‘level playing field’ was introduced, I now put each ship to the ultimate test: what would happen when each ship’s captain attempted to fight to his own ship’s strengths?For this fight, I decided to implement the range-finder advantage for Mikasa, granting her an effective battle range (where more accurate aiming is possible) of five nautical miles (50 cm) to the Iowa’s four nautical miles (40 cm). This is justified by the Barr & Stroud stereoscopic rangefinder’s performance compared to the early 1890s gun-laying telescopes fitted to the older ship. Actually, I am being slightly over-generous to both systems, in partially allowing for the real-world results of six-plus mile gunnery accuracy in 1904–5 compared to that era’s R/F on-paper effective range of four nm. It’s a bit of a moot point but I’ve tried my best to hit the middle ground whilst differentiating between successive technical levels of efficiency. (If I wished to be truly awful about it, I could limit the US ship to a three-nm firing range and allow the Japanese ship a chance of hitting at eight, but that would hardly be fun).Additionally, Mikasa gained the benefit of the shimose-filled high explosive shells for her secondary 6″ gun battery. These historically caused serious fires on Russian battleships, and so the potential of fires to propagate aboard Iowa would be slightly increased. In my refights of the Battle of the Yalu using these rules, this modest limitation had caused as many problems to wood-adorned Chinese warships as armour-piercing fire had.Both ships started the battle at a distance of 5 nm, broadside-on to each other.Mikasa scored her first hit early - a single 12″ shell - while Iowa returned fire at long range, missing, before steering to close the range at forced draught. Mikasa steered slightly to try and keep the range open. This would become a pattern during the engagement.During the course of half an hour’s fighting, the American ship succeeded in bringing the range down to about 3.5 nm. However, although her 8″ guns succeeded in finding the range to Mikasa, her heavy 12″ guns had yet to do so, whilst the Japanese 12″ fire was steadily straddling and hitting Iowa. The American 8″ hits were failing to pierce armour and were having a limited effect on non-vital areas. Heavy Japanese hits were causing some penetration of Iowa’s partially-armoured hull and the American ship was taking on moderate volumes of water.At 4 nm, Japanese 6″ guns had come into play, although the American’s armour absorbed many hits and the crew were - surprisingly - able to put out any individual fires very rapidly! In return, Iowa put a pair of 12″ shells through Mikasa’s 12-pounder battery and boat deck, but she was starting to lose speed from the multiple hits on her waterline.Coming about, in order to present her full broadside of four 12″ & four 8″ guns, Iowa hit Mikasa with an almost complete salvo, holing her waterline belt and destroying multiple secondary & tertiary gun positions. The return fire from Mikasa proved every bit as accurate, with two successive salvoes on target striking low on the hull; 6″ shells exploded harmlessly on impact with the thick armour belt but the 12″ shells penetrated deep into the hull of Iowa, reducing the American battleship to a crawl.Over the next twenty minutes, Mikasa steamed out to 5 nautical miles, continuing to bombard the American battleship with her four heavy guns. During this exchange, a handful of US 8″ rounds found their mark but either struck armour which they couldn’t penetrate or caused minimal damage up on deck and started a couple of small fires which were soon controlled by the Japanese crew. The Japanese scored a couple of hits on Iowa’s turrets, but at oblique angles which also failed to penetrate fully.After an hour of battle, the Japanese captain had full tactical control of the action and could have closed in to unleash his secondaries if he’d wished, but with all of Iowa’s turret guns still in action and the American ship riding low in the water (with a noticeable list), he could afford to just stay at range and shell her until she sank.I’d like to say that’s what happened, but by now it was a long way past my bed time, so I decided to call it a night there. The matter had been decided; Iowa could no longer dictate the outcome and had shipped over 80% of the volume of water required to sink her. So, I had the Japanese captain fire a salute to honour a gallant and implacable foe, and leave the Iowa to lick her wounds. In a rough sea, she would probably founder.Result: Japanese tactical victory, with a gentleman’s handshake.Mikasa was hit by a total of:Four 12″ shells.Eight 8″ shells.USS Iowa was hit by a total of:Eighteen 12″ shells (many at long range, deflected by armour).Fourteen 6″ shells.This long-range battle had shown two things very clearly:The ability of the old USS Iowa’s heavy armour to withstand even heavy-calibre hits.The inability of her older, lower-velocity guns to inflict serious damage on a more modern battleship at longer ranges.These tests were interesting and enlightening. Although not real life (as no experiment can be), they demonstrated the advances which had occurred in the field of battleship design and armaments during the relatively short period of pre-dreadnought battleship development. Lighter, stronger armour had permitted the application of armour over a wider area of the hull, enhancing survivability, while the range & power of guns had increased more significantly than, perhaps, most people today realise. I think it is assumed by many that pre-dreadnoughts were all pretty much the same in terms of their technology. Not so!As for the final assessment of the Mikasa vs the USS Iowa BB-4, I think it is fair to say the following:The old Iowa was the prototype sea-going battleship of the USA’s ‘New’ Navy and it shows. Derived from the ‘coastal’ battleships of the Indiana class, she was somewhat small by European standards of the mid-1890s and also over-gunned for her displacement. This did not make her a bad battleship by any means, but a lot was attempted, which meant little room for improvement.For example, had the designers foregone the retention of the four very heavy secondary twin 8″ gun turrets and instead armed her with ten unprotected 6″ quick-firers, they might have saved enough weight for a more powerful main battery than the 12″/35-calibre guns with which she was fitted. Perhaps they could even have retained the 13″ weapon of the previous class. As it was, once so armed, there was no way that she could be rearmed with more powerful weapons later on. Most of her weight increase over the preceding class went into enlarging her hull dimensions so that she had the stability required to build her forecastle deck to the appropriate height.The 8″ battery, impressive on paper, had little utility against battleships with the increasingly long ranges encountered in battle during the 1900s. It might even be noted that, during the Battle of Santiago de Cuba in 1898, the US battleships’ 8″ guns hit the Spanish armoured cruisers many times yet, on inspection of the grounded wreck of the Infanta Maria Teresa class cruiser Vizcaya (which was beached, abandoned and then blew up due to uncontrolled fires on board), not one documented penetration of the main armour belt was recorded amongst the myriad hits. These were not very effective anti-armour weapons at anything but point-blank range, even when new. Later US pre-dreadnoughts, from the Maine class on, were significantly more powerful battleships with a better-balanced armament.The Mikasa was the result of a long line of pre-dreadnought battleship development and incorporated all of the lessons learned from previous classes. The consequence of this was that she had, as a design, relatively few shortcomings for her day and quite outclassed ships designed in the early 1890s. This was demonstrated very clearly at Tsushima, where the older Russian battleships - once the modern Borodino class ships had been destroyed - offered very little resistance to Japanese gunfire despite their crews’ best efforts. The torpedo attacks aside, had the two battle lines clashed again the next day there would have been an enormously lop-sided destruction wrought upon the remaining Russians.That’s not to say that Mikasa was a perfect battleship, by any means. She had an armour belt which was thinner and had less power of resistance than that fitted to contemporary American (or even a few French) designs. She carried much of her large secondary battery too low on the sides of the hull for such a broad ship, making even a gentle roll in a moderate swell create problems with wetness. And finally - most criminally of all - she retained the absolutely baffling longitudinal bulkhead which caused the loss of so many British pre-dreadnoughts to flooding on one beam when they were mined or torpedoed during World War One.Overall though, the Mikasa was a better battleship than the USS Iowa of 1897. It seems fair to assume, from my test results of two wins and a draw in favour of Mikasa, that she would have had the advantage in battle, had the two ships ever fought in real life. I am not given to making pronouncements as to which ship would win, but I will say that I feel Mikasa to have been the more likely winner.