Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Idaho AG memo on carry in workplace

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    27

    Idaho AG memo on carry in workplace

    Go here to read

    http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2...-generals.html

    It appears that most restrictions violate Idaho law.

    http://www.claytoncramer.com/Memo%20...un%20Rules.pdf

  2. #2
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    His opinion is we can open carry in a jail or courthouse there too.

    Wow.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    I am unable to locate it, but, I have seen a piece of legislation or some kind of order giving the Idaho supreme court justices sole discretion regarding courthouses and their security. If I remember correctly it was authority given to them and not able to be repealed. Thus, they can not allow carry of any kind within the doors of courthouses and annexes.

    What also irritates me is the Canyon County judge that declared the Motor Vehicle registration and licensing buildings as an annex of the courthouse because it used to be within the courthouse building.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    I located two documents, but, not the one I remember reading regarding giving them the authority over the legislature.

    These are the links to the statute quoted by the Administrative District Judge and the Administrative Order he signs.

    http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/...9SECT1-907.htm

    http://www.the3rdjudicialdistrict.com/admord_08_5.htm

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by carracer View Post
    I am unable to locate it, but, I have seen a piece of legislation or some kind of order giving the Idaho supreme court justices sole discretion regarding courthouses and their security..
    The following is purposed solely as informational for the Reader.
    The Reader is always encouraged to seek legal advice from a qualified legal professional (of which I'm not).

    Carracer, what eludes you is Idaho Constitution (ICon), ARTICLE V JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Section 13, which reads as follows (emphasis added):

    Section 13. POWER OF LEGISLATURE RESPECTING COURTS. The legislature shall have no power to deprive the judicial department of any power or jurisdiction which rightly pertains to it as a coordinate department of the government; but the legislature shall provide a proper system of appeals, and regulate by law, when necessary, the methods of proceeding in the exercise of their powers of all the courts below the Supreme Court, so far as the same may be done without conflict with this Constitution, provided, however, that the legislature can provide mandatory minimum sentences for any crimes, and any sentence imposed shall be not less than the mandatory minimum sentence so provided. Any mandatory minimum sentence so imposed shall not be reduced.

    The Idaho Supreme Court (ISC) has, IHMO, concluded they have power and/or jurisdiction to set policy banning carry of any kind in the ISC building or lower courts. I note this because I've yet to locate where in ICon it does expressly authorize the ISC power to deprive the right of a private citizen to that of defending life and/or securing safety within any buildings, court or otherwise.

    ICon Article 1, Section 1 and 11, expressly enumerates several inalienable rights to the people, including (but not limited to) that of "defending life," "securing safety," and "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". In short, ICon expressly recognizes the responsibility, as well as places the rights(s), onto the private citizen to tend to their personal safety, yet does not expressly authorize any branch of government the right or authority to do such nor deprive a private citizen of such.

    Imploring even the simplest of reasonable deduction, one can't help but conclude this AG Opinion also directly applies to the Department of Corrections' (IDOC) internal agency rule (which is only available to read/know of through a Pubic Writings request via Idaho Code 9-3nn]; they actually don't include this rule amongst all their other rules on their website; makes one wonder if this isn't done deliberately to hide their attempt at skirting state law and/or constitutional rights) which presently bans weapons of any kind, firearms included, within all IDOC buildings, including administrative buildings and district parole buildings where there are no inmates housed (that is, district parole offices are not a prison). That being, the IDOC agency rule banning lawful carry, other than in prisons, is also invalid.

    You did reference IC 1-907(l), which reads: appointing personnel when needed to attend to the courts, and assigning duties to these court attendants for the purpose of maintaining the security and efficiency of court facilities.

    Another AG Opinion from 2007, written/issued by Wasden himself to the then Moscow Chief of Police, speculated that it could be legally argued this statute pertains only to the administration of security personnel and not that of the expressed authorization of installing and using metal detectors. Wasden further speculated that, even if the aforementioned angle was argued, the ISC would most likely rule in favor of the District Court's Court Order banning weapons, in that the ISC would follow the same logic of coming to such a ruling as such the Colorado Supreme Court did in 1995 for Colorado's lower courts and firearms. However, what neither the above AG Opinion nor Wasden's 2007 AG Opinion incorporate into the Opinions is that of ICon Article I, Section 1's "Inalienable rights" of that of "defending life" and "securing safety".

    Regarding the above AG's Opinion on OC/CC carry on elementary and secondary school properties, they did not mention (not sure if it was by choice or of an oversight) these two statutes:

    In regards to OC on school property, see Idaho Code (IC) 18-3302D(1)(a) emphasis added:
    It shall be unlawful and is a misdemeanor for any person to possess a firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon while on the property of a school or in those portions of any building, stadium or other structure on school grounds which, at the time of the violation, were being used for an activity sponsored by or through a school in this state or while riding school provided transportation.

    A layman's conclusion could be that during, say a Sunday in the summer when no school is in session, a person could lawfully open carry.

    Second, IC 18-3302D(4)(f) does grant that "a person or an employee of the school or school district who is authorized to carry a firearm with the permission of the board of trustees of the school district or the governing board". In short, any person can be granted permission.
    Curious: Why does a private citizen need permission do that which is already enumerated in ICon as "inalienable rights" of that of "defending life" and/or "securing safety"?

    That was a hint, so keep reading/following on where this is going!

    Also look at IC 18-3302D(4)(c), which also "authorizes" the carry of a firearm: A person or persons complying with the provisions of section 19-202A, Idaho Code;

    IC 19-202A reads: 19-202A. LEGAL JEOPARDY IN CASES OF SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF OTHER THREATENED PARTIES. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself or his family by reasonable means necessary, or when coming to the aid of another whom he reasonably believes to be in imminent danger of or the victim of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, murder or other heinous crime.

    OK, so let's see if we can get this straight:
    - We *can't* carry a firearm (or other weapon) on school property when "an activity sponsored by or through the school" is going on.
    - HOWEVER, if someone threatens a persons life, or someone is getting robbed, raped, or other heinous crime is occurring, we *can* carry a firearm?

    Please, Dear Judge, Police Officer, and/or Legislator, how are we supposed to know when a robbery, rape, or other heinous crime is occurring? (a parody on this is below).

    FURTHER, ICon Article I Section 1 expressly declares a private citizen's inalienable right of that of "defending life" and of "securing safety" and, coupled with Article I, Section 11, a private citizen's "right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Pardon me, Evil Person, I see you are beginning to embark on a violent rampage of murderous terror ... oh, what was that? Oh, I'm sorry ... rape, you say? Oh, OK. Embark on the heinous act of raping this young junior high student. If I may, I needs be request of you these several items, as follows:
    (oh, side bar: please forgive me in that I seemed to have totally spaced off making an appointment with you to synchronize that of my carrying a firearm while you embark upon this terror and violence you so purpose to commit. None-the-less, on to the list at hand, shall we?)
    1) Please go ahead and "freeze-frame" right there, as I don't have my firearm with me. I need to run home and grab it; I'll be back in about 45 minutes or so
    2) And, while I'm out, can I get you anything? A soda? Some gum? A pizza, perhaps?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Again, none of the above is legal advise, but purposed only as informational for the Reader.

    Of my personal convictions and morals (and, of course, keeping in step with OpenCarry.org posting rules), I do not advocate that of violating any laws.

    However, I do 100% advocate that of a private citizen exercising their expressly enumerated inalienable rights within both the Idaho and federal Constitutions toward that of defending their life and securing their safety.

    ____________________
    Life is Precious.
    CarryTheTruth
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-07-2013 at 10:45 PM. Reason: rule 19

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Thank you! I believe that was it!

  7. #7
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Do not forget the Idaho Supreme Court ruling in "in re Brickley" http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html This is in the appeal that is going on now about possession on UI property

  8. #8
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by carracer View Post
    What also irritates me is the Canyon County judge that declared the Motor Vehicle registration and licensing buildings as an annex of the courthouse because it used to be within the courthouse building.
    Does that mean the reverse is true? If any part of a building used by a court was once used for prostitution, does that mean the judges are running a house of ill repute?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Does that mean the reverse is true? If any part of a building used by a court was once used for prostitution, does that mean the judges are running a house of ill repute?
    Hmmm.... I seem to remember the Internal Revenue Service taking over the "Mustang Ranch" in Nevada for back taxes owed. They ran it for about 6 months(?) and it went bankrupt. Proving that our government can't even run a business selling whisky and ... without failure! (Nice story that has some truths and some unknowns.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •