UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court issues split rulings on firearms rights

by Rox Laird | March 13, 2025

The Iowa Supreme Court handed down two rulings Feb. 21 addressing firearms rights under state and federal law. The court reached different conclusions in the two cases, restoring an individual’s firearms rights in one case while affirming the removal of the right in the other. Neither case directly addressed the constitutionality of firearms restrictions under Iowa’s equivalent of the Second Amendment in the Iowa Constitution as amended in 2022.

In the first of the two cases, State v. Kieffer, Ezekiel Kieffer appealed his conviction by a Black Hawk County jury for domestic abuse assault and the district court’s sentence that, among other things, prohibited him from possessing firearms under Iowa Code Chapter 724. Kieffer argued the firearms prohibition is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 1A of the Iowa Constitution.

The Iowa Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Dana Oxley, affirmed his domestic abuse convictions and the application of the firearms prohibition as part of his sentence, which the Court concluded did not violate Kieffer’s Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.

A federal statute makes it a crime for any person who has been convicted of domestic violence to possess any firearm or ammunition, and the U.S. Supreme Court last year rejected a challenge to that law under the Second Amendment.

Because Kieffer was convicted of domestic abuse assault, Oxley wrote, “we have little trouble concluding that the firearm prohibition included in Kieffer’s no-contact order does not offend the Second Amendment under the current landscape of federal jurisprudence.”

Kieffer also argued the firearms prohibition violates Article I, section 1A of the Iowa Constitution, which says: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and adds that “Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” [See On Brief’s analysis of the Court’s Sept. 12, 2024, decision in In the Interest of N.S., the first to address the 2022 constitutional amendment.]

The Court disagreed with Kieffer’s argument, in part because the issue was not ripe for consideration in this case. If Kieffer were to have violated the district court’s order by possessing a firearm, he could be charged with violating state law, and if he were to seek a permit to carry a firearm, Iowa law would prohibit him from obtaining one, Oxley wrote. “As the State points out, Kieffer has not been charged with illegally possessing a firearm, has not attempted to obtain a permit to carry, and has not sought to lift the firearm restrictions under Iowa Code section 724.27. So challenges to those state statutes are not ripe.”

Finally, because the order prohibiting Kieffer from possessing firearms is based on both federal and state law, “the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that the Iowa Constitution has nothing to say about a firearm prohibition imposed by federal law,” Oxley wrote.

In a second Feb. 21 decision, In the Interest of N.F., the Court affirmed the Monona County District Court’s restoration of the firearms rights of N.F., identified in the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion as “Nathan.” The unanimous decision was written by Justice David May.

Nathan had been disqualified from possessing firearms when he was involuntarily committed at the age of 14. After his release, and when he reached the age of 22, the district court restored Nathan’s firearms rights, finding that he would “not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest,” as provided in Iowa Code section 724.31(4).

The State appealed.

As an initial matter, the Court addressed Nathan’s argument that while a petitioner seeking restoration of his firearms rights under 724.31 may appeal an adverse ruling, the State has no right to appeal if a district court grants restoration. The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed, citing Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.103(1), which states in part that “All final orders and judgments of the district court involving the merits or materially affecting the final decision of the case may be appealed to the supreme court.”

As for the merits of the case, Justice May noted that Nathan’s troubles as a teenager were “situational and temporary,” and he quoted from the district court ruling, which said Nathan’s appointed guardians “appear to have provided the stability [Nathan] needed, helped him get grounded, and got him on the right path at a difficult time in his life.”

Justice May added: “Nathan has continued on the right path. He finished high school. He completed a college degree. He lacks any Iowa criminal history. Nathan lives with a roommate and holds a full-time job. His candor and respectfulness earned the district court’s praise during the January 2024 hearing. All of this supports the court’s decision to grant relief.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court