Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Idaho's proposed changes to the law

  1. #1
    Regular Member jimd_21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Blackfoot, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    185

    Idaho's proposed changes to the law

    Here is the link to the proposed changes to the concealed weapons permit. I have sent numerous emails to call for removing the permit but apparently they have their own agenda......read the changes and post what you think.

    http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/leg...2011/S1126.pdf

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    96
    Am I correct in my reading that this would allow for some concealed carry in a courthouse except "secured" areas that have signs? Also would allow for concealed carry in jails/police buildings except in "secured" areas?

    I did a quick skim, so I'm trying to see.

    I like the part where it states that mere possession of a weapon doesn't infer that you are more "guilty" of any crime or there to commit any crime.

  3. #3
    Regular Member jimd_21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Blackfoot, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    185
    I think they need to remove the permit required part.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Actually, the bill does eliminate the requirement of a license to carry a concealed weapon [UPDATE/CORRECTION: for individuals who are 21 years of age or older].
    Last edited by JimMullinsWVCDL; 02-20-2011 at 06:48 PM.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    96
    It states you need a license if you're 21 but from what you're saying and when re-reading the bill, it doesn't say you have to have one if you're over 21?

    Is that right?

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Yes, and I updated my previous post: SB 1126 would eliminate the requirement of a license to carry a concealed weapon except for individuals under 21 years old (who would remain subject to the current law, including an age-specific "may issue" licensing process).

    For now, this seems to be a common restriction (Alaska and Arizona do not allow concealed carry by individuals under 21 years old). However, I do think that age-based gun laws that do not set the line of demarcation at 18 years of age are going to eventually be declared unconstitutional.

    We have a pair of bills pending in West Virginia (HB 3125 and SB 543) that do not (at least in their introduced forms--I do not know what other legislators might try to do through the amendment process) engage in similar discrimination against adults based on age.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  7. #7
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post
    Yes, and I updated my previous post: SB 1126 would eliminate the requirement of a license to carry a concealed weapon except for individuals under 21 years old
    I do not see how you can say that when the "new code" states :-

    (3) Licenses to carry concealed weapons.
    (a) The sheriff of a county, on behalf of the state of Idaho, shall, within ninety (90) days after the filing of an application by any person who is not disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under state or federal law, issue a license to the person to carry a weapon concealed on his person within this state...
    For licenses issued on or after July 1, 2006, a license shall be valid for five (5) years from the date of issue.

    That would make no sense if the person was between 18 and 21 years of age.

    The stricken sections :- (7) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, or on property in which the person has any ownership or leasehold interest, a person shall not carry a concealed weapon without a license to carry a concealed weapon. For the purposes of this section, a concealed weapon means any dirk, dirk knife, bowie knife, dagger, pistol, revolver or any other deadly or dangerous weapon.

    and :- (14) A person carrying a concealed weapon in violation of the provisions
    of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

    simply removes the penalty.

    the stricken section :- (9) While in any motor vehicle, inside the limits or confines of any city, a person shall not carry a concealed weapon on or about his person without a license to carry a concealed weapon. This shall not apply to any firearm located in plain view whether it is loaded or unloaded. A firearm may be concealed legally in a motor vehicle so long as the weapon is disassembled or unloaded.

    simply allows the carry of a weapon in a vehicle concealed or not without a CWL.
    Last edited by oldbanger; 02-20-2011 at 08:01 PM.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    The bill repeals the current language in subsections (7), (9), (12), and (14) of section 18-3302 (which constitute the current requirement of having a license to carry a concealed weapon in a city or in a vehicle) and consolidates and revises current section 18-3302C into the new subsection (2) of section 18-3302 with revisions.

    As a result of these changes, a person who is at least 21 years old would no longer need a license to carry a concealed weapon in Idaho and would be able to carry anywhere except the handful of places specified in the proposed new subsection (2) of section 18-3302 and section 18-3302D (school property).

    Under this bill, concealed weapons licenses would still remain available on the same terms as current law for the purposes of carrying a concealed weapon by a person 18-20 years old, reciprocity with other states, qualifying for a CHL in Oregon (and soon a Utah permit, as the Utah Legislature has passed SB 36, requiring nonresidents who live in states that honor Utah permits to first obtain a home state permit before being able to obtain or renew a Utah permit), a federal firearm purchase background check exemption, and the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act's permit exception.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  9. #9
    Regular Member bowb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    58
    It took me a couple of reads to figure out what was going on. I have to agree with WVCDL. It does appears to remove the requirements for a license for those over 21. Now if only we could get exceptions to school grounds for those that have a license, I wouldn't have to leave my firearm in the car every time I need to go in my kids school. Somehow Utah got that part right.
    Last edited by bowb; 02-20-2011 at 09:43 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member jimd_21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Blackfoot, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    185
    According to this article they introduced the bill only to sit on it for a year????? Using it to soften the blow for campus carry bill. What a bunch of bull ****. We need to put pressure on these people to pass this bill now and not later. I am sending my emails....are you?


    http://www.fox12idaho.com/global/story.asp?s=14061688

    Republicans Want More Guns in Idaho


    Posted: Feb 18, 2011 10:17 PM MST
    Updated: Feb 18, 2011 10:17 PM MST


    BOISE, ID. --- What if thousands more Idahoans were packing heat... and you didn't even know it? Your neighbor, the mailman, almost everyone would able to carry a concealed weapon.

    A new state law being proposed is aimed at doing just that. It's called the Constitutional Carry Law, and if passed would allow everyone but felons and those declared mentally ill by the state to pack heat.

    "Basically any adult who hadn't lost that right could conceal-carry if they wanted to," said Senator Curt McKenzie, R-Nampa -- a major supporter of the bill.

    EXCERPT ... For more read the link above.

  11. #11
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    [QUOTE=WVCDL;1472282]...As a result of these changes, a person who is at least 21 years old would no longer need a license to carry a concealed weapon in Idaho.../QUOTE]

    then why is this still in the new bill ? we are going backwards.

    (16l) A person twenty-one (21) years of age or older issued a license to carry a concealed weapon is exempt from any requirement to undergo a records check at the time of purchase or transfer of a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

    http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/leg...2011/S1126.pdf

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    Poor journalism. The mailman won't be carrying anytime soon no matter what happens with the law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    96
    You can still choose to get a license for the FFL part.

    The FFL exemption part is an ATF/Federally recognized thing. If you have an Idaho (only certain states' permits meet the requirements) concealed weapons permit, you get to skip a lot of the bull and paperwork when buying a firearm because you have a permit recognized by the AFT as meeting the Brady Bill requirements.
    Last edited by Zhukov; 02-21-2011 at 04:26 PM.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbanger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post
    ...As a result of these changes, a person who is at least 21 years old would no longer need a license to carry a concealed weapon in Idaho...
    then why is this still in the new bill ? we are going backwards.

    (16l) A person twenty-one (21) years of age or older issued a license to carry a concealed weapon is exempt from any requirement to undergo a records check at the time of purchase or transfer of a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

    http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/leg...2011/S1126.pdf
    I am not sure why that particular paragraph is in the current law and would remain intact under this bill. The federal background check exemption hinges on the state's statutory licensing criteria (incorporation by reference of federal law, which Idaho does) and the background check procedures followed--not whether the state has enacted any affirmative statutory language such as this authorizing the exemption.

    Since federal law prevents FFLs from seeling any firearm other than a rifle or shotgun to a person 18-20 years of age, the only question here is whether an 18-20-year-old person who has an Idaho license could purchase a long gun without a background check. The BATFE says they can (no minimum age requirement attached to Idaho's permit exception). However, someone more familiar with this specific issue than I is free to post here.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  15. #15
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136

    Huh?

    It seems to me that this legislation is in conflict with our own state constitution. I'll present my case:

    It specifically states that "No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition."

    Heck, you can read it yourself! Article 1 Section 11 of the Idaho state constitution is here: http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/ids...ArtISect11.htm

    Article 1 Section 11 only allows for "the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm."

    That's:
    carrying of weapons concealed,
    minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm,
    penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon and,
    punishing the use of a firearm.

    Am I the only one that thinks our preemption law is unconstitutional on a state level? Open carry should be legal everywhere and it IS according to the Idaho state constitution.

    I don't know how much more clear this can be. I think this new law is going to invite lawsuits like the one at U of I.
    Last edited by clarkebar; 03-01-2011 at 12:19 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    96
    The law is specifically only related to concealed carry? I don't see what the major issue is?

    Also, the state constitution also allows for laws regarding carry and discharge, if I recall.

    There's also old court cases with precedence that dictates other limitations and what's allowed, by the way.

    Which part of the law do you think is unconstitutional?
    Last edited by Zhukov; 02-28-2011 at 06:06 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
    The law is specifically only related to concealed carry? I don't see what the major issue is?

    Also, the state constitution also allows for laws regarding carry and discharge, if I recall.

    There's also old court cases with precedence that dictates other limitations and what's allowed, by the way.

    Which part of the law do you think is unconstitutional?
    I'm not sure how much more clear I can be with my post... Can you provide links to the court cases?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    96
    http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html

    [Cite as In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 70 P. 609, 101 Am. St. Rep. 215, 1 Ann. Cas. 55 (1902).]
    In re BRICKEY.

    (Supreme Court of Idaho. Nov. 15, 1902.)

    BEARING ARMS--CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS.

    1. The act of the territorial legislature approved February 4, 1889, which prohibits private persons from carrying deadly weapons within the limits or confines of any city, town, or village in Idaho, contravenes the provisions of the second amendment to the federal constitution and the provisions of section 11, art. 1, of the constitution of Idaho, and is void.

    2. While it is undoubtedly within the power of the legislature to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not possess the power to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the right to do so is guarantied to the citizen both by our federal and state constitutions.

    (Syllabus by the Court.)


    I was specifically just trying to see which parts of the Preemption law you disagreed with. While I agree that the state has extremely limited authority to claim anything, I was just looking for very specific parts of it that you would cite.

    You did not quote the parts of the law you disagreed with, unless you believe the whole thing is invalid.
    Last edited by Zhukov; 03-01-2011 at 01:01 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
    http://www.guncite.com/court/state/70p609.html

    [Cite as In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 70 P. 609, 101 Am. St. Rep. 215, 1 Ann. Cas. 55 (1902).]
    In re BRICKEY.

    (Supreme Court of Idaho. Nov. 15, 1902.)

    BEARING ARMS--CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS.

    1. The act of the territorial legislature approved February 4, 1889, which prohibits private persons from carrying deadly weapons within the limits or confines of any city, town, or village in Idaho, contravenes the provisions of the second amendment to the federal constitution and the provisions of section 11, art. 1, of the constitution of Idaho, and is void.

    2. While it is undoubtedly within the power of the legislature to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not possess the power to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the right to do so is guarantied to the citizen both by our federal and state constitutions.

    (Syllabus by the Court.)


    I was specifically just trying to see which parts of the Preemption law you disagreed with. While I agree that the state has extremely limited authority to claim anything, I was just looking for very specific parts of it that you would cite.

    You did not quote the parts of the law you disagreed with, unless you believe the whole thing is invalid.
    Okay, now I understand. The part I disagree with is the licensing of concealed carry. I think that the way our state constitution is written prohibits the licensing of concealed carry, you can see that in my post. The proposed changes don't require a license for anyone older than 21 but from ages 18-21 it does, that's the part I think is unconstitutional.

    On a related note, the very last part of the law, which grants power to the universities in Idaho to regulate in matters concerning firearms, is another part of the law which looks unconstitutional because it allows schools to make rules which could get students who carry expelled.

Posting Permissions

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