Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Firearms Prohibited Sign at Res area.

  1. #1
    Regular Member bowb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    58

    Firearms Prohibited Sign at Res area.

    Was driving to Pocatello from Idaho Falls today and stopped at the rest area at mile marker 101 on I-15 and noticed a "Firearms Prohibited" sign. Wondering why the Idaho Department of Transportation thinks they have the authoritay to post such a sign I found http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/39/0350.pdf. Of interest is rule 200.05 where the discharging of firearms is prohibited. I think somebody need to learn some reading comprehension. Next time I drive through that rest area I'll get a picture. Probably me standing next to it with my firearm.

    Anyway, anyone have an idea who to contact to get this removed?

  2. #2
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by bowb View Post
    Was driving to Pocatello from Idaho Falls today and stopped at the rest area at mile marker 101 on I-15 and noticed a "Firearms Prohibited" sign. Wondering why the Idaho Department of Transportation thinks they have the authoritay to post such a sign I found http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/39/0350.pdf. Of interest is rule 200.05 where the discharging of firearms is prohibited. I think somebody need to learn some reading comprehension. Next time I drive through that rest area I'll get a picture. Probably me standing next to it with my firearm.

    Anyway, anyone have an idea who to contact to get this removed?
    You can contact IDT and if you get flack from IDT, back it up with a letter to the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) and see if they will get one of their lawyers to make official contact.

    You can point out the ID state Constitution. ID state supreme Court ruling "in re Brickley" (1902) http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html, then ID state law concerning restricted areas.
    Last edited by hermannr; 04-22-2013 at 02:17 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    22
    Do not let the 2nd Amendment Foundation get involved in this.

    SAF is against Open and Constitutional Carry, as demonstrated by opposing and/or not helping Charles Nichols with his CaliforniaRightToCarry.org lawsuit for Open Carry in the state of California.
    Further, they've filed several amicus curiae [(also amicus curić; plural amici curiae, literally "friend of the court") is someone who is not a party to a case who offers information that bears on the case but that has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court] in support of Conceal Carry cases presently at the Federal Appeals Court level, of which those CC cases are stating SCOTUS was wrong in their 2005 ruling that Open Carry is federally constitutional.

    Rather, leave this a state-based group pursuit with IdahoCarry.org and/or Idaho Second Amendment Alliance working with you to task it.

    I have worked directly with Idaho cities, counties,[school and other districts, and state departments in getting them to correct their "mistake[s]" of rules, ordinances, policies, laws, and the posting of "No Firearm" signage. I've also worked directly with Idaho Legislators to get firearm-focused state laws added, changed or repealed, including this current 2013 session.

    A picture of the signage would be very helpful. However, to protect your legal arse (unless you'd care to become case law...!), don't take a picture with you in it!

    The PDF you note which references Idaho Code § 40-312 DOES NOT give "expressly authorized" lawful authority to IDT, as such IC § 18-3302J(2) states they need, to prohbit firearms or even the discharge of such on "state property". However, don't go target practicing, either!

    Also, including the Idaho State Attorney General's Opinion of Dept. rules / policies on firearms, which qualifies both the violation of state law [IC §18-3302J(2)] and state unconstitutional aspect of infringing on the right to bear arms (Idaho Constitution Article 1, Section 11).

    What the AG's Opinion fails to include is that, per our Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, We the People have the right to that of "defending life" and that of "securing safety," which, in my book, "trumps" any law prohibiting carry, open or concealed, with or without a permit (but, again, unless you are rich to fight this out in the courts, do not to become case law in this area!). Here's a link which has a link to the Opinion ==> Idaho AG memo on carry in workplace
    ____________________
    Life is Precious.

    CarryTheTruth
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-07-2013 at 10:35 PM. Reason: rule 19

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Admin bodies only have the authority that the legislature has allowed them to have ... call them up and find out where in the statues that they believe that they have gotten this authority....

  5. #5
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    If it's not Indian property, they have no say in what goes on there.
    If it is their property (the "res area"), it's like being in a foreign country.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    If it's not Indian property, they have no say in what goes on there.
    If it is their property (the "res area"), it's like being in a foreign country.
    "Rest area", not "res".

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    44

    Re: Firearms Prohibited Sign at Res area.

    I drive by this rest area every day. I stopped and took this picture.

    Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	uploadfromtaptalk1366763069581.jpg 
Views:	172 
Size:	95.5 KB 
ID:	10298  

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    44

    Re: Firearms Prohibited Sign at Res area.

    I went inside the building and found the rules.

    The following acts are prohibited:
    Discharging firearms or fireworks.

    Section 40-312, idaho code and 39.03.50, rules governing safety rest areas.

    It appears to me they don't want firearms out on the trails. The rest area and parking they don't want firearms discharged.

    Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

  9. #9
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Interesting the "no Firearms" is an Idaho dept of transportation sign (If I understand the logo in your picture) but the other sign (no mineral removal) is BLM. Are the trails BLM? then the law is 18 USC 930 which is the same law that allows you to carry in a National Park if allowed by state law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member bowb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaBK View Post
    I drive by this rest area every day. I stopped and took this picture.

    Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
    Awesome. Now I don't have to make a trip to get the picture.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaBK View Post
    I went inside the building and found the rules.

    The following acts are prohibited:
    Discharging firearms or fireworks.

    Section 40-312, idaho code and 39.03.50, rules governing safety rest areas.

    It appears to me they don't want firearms out on the trails. The rest area and parking they don't want firearms discharged.
    VBK ~
    When qualifying either a statue or rule or other such gov't element, do provide a link to such; this makes it easier for all when reading to be able to reference cited and/or noted materials.

    Idaho Code §40-312 does not "expressly authorize" the Department of Transportation to "regulate" (policy, rule, etc) the carrying of a firearm.

    The Idaho Department of Transportation "rule" regarding the discharge of firearms, that being found in their rules at this link (http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/39/0350.pdf) is actually 39.03.05.100.05, and was passed in 1990.

    This rule is preempted by Idaho Code §18-3302(J)(2), which was passed in 2008, thus making the rule moot/no longer enforceable.

    Of all that I read (statutes, etc.), I conclude that ITD can't even set a policy of the discharge of a firearm at rest-stops, though anyone discharging a firearm at a rest stop for other than defending of life would be a downright foolish thing to do.

    A request can (and should) be sent to the Department of Transportation Director and Deputy Director qualifying to them that they need to "update" their Rules by removing 39.03.50, Section 100.05. The request should state that they are no longer "expressly authorized by state statute" to have such a rule.

    Such a request is best sent by a person or persons directly affected by this now-mistaken rule, that being a person(s) who frequents the area, the rest stop in this case, wherein the sign gives mistaken information, that being the unauthorized posted "Firearms Prohibited". The specific qualifier is that, when Person #1 is lawfully carrying and Person #2 saw such, recalls the "Firearms Prohibited" sign, and then calls 911 to "report" a suspected "crime," resources (police, etc.) would be wrongfully dispatched to a lawful "event" when such resources could've been used for a true and potential life-threatening event. Include a picture of the sign, as well.

    Such a person writing this request is more than welcome to denote such a real-world instance wherein a person was lawfully carrying in a city park wherein there were >ahem< "mistakenly" posted "Firearms Prohibited" signs. Another person in the park dialed 911 to report what they thought was that of unlawful carry and 5 officers showed up. Less than 1,500 feet away a woman was being choked in the nearby Wal-mart parking lot. These events occurred in June, 2012, in a major Treasure Valley city. The next day, the signs were removed from the park, with exceeding evidence such was done with unbridled haste.
    ____________________
    Life is Precious.

    CarryTheTruth
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-07-2013 at 10:34 PM. Reason: minor edits; remove the part of how handsome I am...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    If it's not Indian property, they have no say in what goes on there.
    If it is their property (the "res area"), it's like being in a foreign country.

    This is incorrect. Indian reservations are NOT like foreign countries. All federal law applies on Indian reservations and state law is applicable as stated in Public Law 280.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Wait a sec - re:Tribal law

    Apologies for thread drift, but readers need clarification about carrying/possession/discharge on tribal lands. While federal law, and of course federal court jurisdiction, GENERALLY applies on tribal lands, it is NOT ALWAYS the case, and there often exists a body of tribal law that applies IN ADDITION TO federal law. PL 280 only transferred authority to 6 states to handle certain cases under certain circumstances involving specific individuals that previously had to be heard in federal court - it was far from a universal delegation of authority from federal jurisdiction to the states, the case law arising under it is varied and complex, and the decisions are often too fact-specific to draw general conclusions from.

    Further, many tribal lands were designated by specific treaties (most all of which predate statehood, and any state or territorial law in the West), the terms of which still control when it comes to questions regarding controlling law, and many tribes have their own tribal laws and tribal courts (with varying authority over Indians v. non-Indians - again, the case law is too complicated for here) that address firearms issues.

    Although not really applicable here with this rest stop, Idaho readers need to know they must familiarize themselves with any relevant tribal law if they intend to carry, or in case they inadvertently end up on tribal land when carrying. While it's not really an issue if they stay on I-15 ( or 86 or 84), the game changes if you get off, say at Fort Hall for gas or gambling or cheap smokes or to potty, or travel on other highways throughout the state that pass through Tribal lands, which is quite common in North Idaho. An innocent act perfectly legal elsewhere in the state could easily become a "federal case" or the functional equivalent of an "international incident."

    And now, back to the meat of the thread...
    Last edited by DCR; 04-30-2013 at 01:48 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member bowb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    58

    Signs gone

    Stopped by about an hour ago at the north bound rest stop and the signs appear to be missing. When I next go south I'll stop and verify that they are also missing.

  15. #15
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    This is incorrect. Indian reservations are NOT like foreign countries. All federal law applies on Indian reservations and state law is applicable as stated in Public Law 280.
    The easiest way to VIEW (this is not the "legal" way...just the easy way) Consider a reservation THEIR private property and treat it/them as it is such. If you act in this manner, you will never have a problem. Remember also, the state "right-of-way" for the US/state/county highway is just like any highway right-of-way through any other private property. As long as you are on that right-of-way, you are on public not private property.

    Again, this is not the actual "legal" version, it is just the practical simple version. I cross a reservation/tribal land every time I go to town...this attitude will keep you in the tribal good graces.

    If you want to carry on tribal land...ask permission, just like you would ask permission from any other not generally open to the public land owner.

  16. #16
    Regular Member bowb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    58

    Re: Firearms Prohibited Sign at Res area.

    Stopped by the southbound rest stop and all the signs have been removed.

    Sent from my HERO200 using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    44

    Re: Firearms Prohibited Sign at Res area.

    That's good. I wonder what prompted the removal? Someone from the Idaho Transportation Board must have been reading our posts. lol

    And I was just about ready to write a letter.

    I really appreciate CarryTheTruth's knowlege and efforts. Thanks CTT!



    Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaBK View Post
    I really appreciate CarryTheTruth's knowlege and efforts. Thanks CTT!
    Awe, shucks ... Yer welcome !

    ____________________
    Life is Precious.

    CarryTheTruth
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-07-2013 at 10:32 PM. Reason: rule 19

Posting Permissions

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