The U.S. Constitution guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, but is there even a slight role for government regulation or monitoring of gun possession? That is the question Iowa House Rep. Matt Windschitl and 36 other House Republicans want their colleagues to debate this session.

They want an amendment to the Iowa Constitution guaranteeing the right to bear arms because, as they assert, Iowa is one of six states where the right is not constitutionally protected. The remedy to the problem is House Joint Resolution 2005, which — according to Chris Rager, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association — would give Iowa the strongest gun rights in the country.

The bill as written may go too far. As written, it explicitly prohibits “mandatory licensing, registration or special taxation as a condition of the exercise of” Second Amendment rights in addition to placing any existing restrictions under the strictest kind of legal scrutiny. This language exists despite Windschitl’s assertion that “the intent is to protect Iowans’ Second Amendment right” rather than cause a controversy about gun control.

It is redundant to pass legislation guaranteeing the right to bear arms when it is already protected by the federal government and the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago, which extends the right to bear arms to all citizens in the states, render the Iowa bill unnecessary. The right to bear arms is already guaranteed by the federal government.

The amendment’s inappropriateness is especially true when Iowa has other issues to resolve. Issues of whether the gas tax should be raised to pay for road maintenance, property tax on commercial property, and Gov. Terry Branstad’s proposed education reforms are still before Iowa legislators.

Those issues have a stronger impact on the lives of Iowans than a potential amendment protecting gun rights, and constitutional amendments like this one distract from issues that closely affect Iowans, regardless of their political colors. Before we turn to new, superfluous, even luxurious debates, we should resolve the issues on the floor.

If the amendment is a serious one offered in good faith, legislators should also consider its effects. Eliminating qualifications on gun ownership may not be the best policy for Iowa. Safety courses ensure that carriers of guns have at least a minimum standard of know-how about using guns safely. Requiring background checks for some guns helps ensure that guns are in legally responsible hands.

If the Iowa General Assembly is actually interested in improving the lives of Iowans, its members should focus on the most pressing issues, not on redundantly protecting rights already articulated in the federal Constitution and case law.