-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
we still need to fight for constitution carry....
- Thread starter Hiredgun30
- Start date
Anti-constitutional carry and Anti-campus-carry Senator in trouble
Yep, it's Canyon County's Senator John McGee.
Here's one of many links to the story - it's even gone to the British news websites, BTW:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/06/19/1695017/state-sen-john-mcgee-arrested.html
This esteemed Senator was among those who voted against the campus carry bills and was complicit in burying the proposed constitutional carry legislation.
I hate to see him in this light because I've known him for years and he is a nice guy who means well, but think he has started getting drunk on power as well as booze of late.
Canyon County residents, please pressure him to come around, if he doesn't resign, and vote the wishes of his constituents instead of what his cronies in the party tell him to do. If he resigns, or won't commit to vote as a REPRESENTATIVE of the people rather than as a party hack, then PLEASE vote in someone who will.
Yep, it's Canyon County's Senator John McGee.
Here's one of many links to the story - it's even gone to the British news websites, BTW:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/06/19/1695017/state-sen-john-mcgee-arrested.html
This esteemed Senator was among those who voted against the campus carry bills and was complicit in burying the proposed constitutional carry legislation.
I hate to see him in this light because I've known him for years and he is a nice guy who means well, but think he has started getting drunk on power as well as booze of late.
Canyon County residents, please pressure him to come around, if he doesn't resign, and vote the wishes of his constituents instead of what his cronies in the party tell him to do. If he resigns, or won't commit to vote as a REPRESENTATIVE of the people rather than as a party hack, then PLEASE vote in someone who will.
Superintendent Luna anti-CC/OC? Gov. Otter?
Listening to KBOI Nate Shelman show today 6/27, 5:30 p.m., Superintendent Luna was guest hosting.
He's a member of the State Board of Education, which sets educational policy for all public school entities - traditional public schools, charter schools, community colleges, and the universities (ALL the public ones).
Idaho law says the university presidents can decide whether students may/may not carry, open or concealed, on campus.
The State Board of Education is their boss - they can override the university presidents.
Luna waffled. He said his position on the issue was the same as the Governor's. (Did anyone ever get a commitment out of Otter on firearms issues? How are their NRA rankings? Just curious....) He said he had "questions."
Think we got good 2A representation and support from Luna and Otter? Doesn't sound that way....go to the website and listen to a podcast of Luna and decide for yourself.
I'm writing the NRA (don't send emails - spend the $0.45 and use an envelope and paper - they ignore emails, but handwritten letters get their attention because someone who writes a letter obviously feels strongly enough to flesh it out and mail it. Email is lazy.). I'm going to encourage a re-examination of Otter (the governor appoints all members of the state board of education except the Superintendent, who is automatically a member).
I'm also going to ask the NRA to re-evaluate any grade or support they may have for Luna.
I ask all 2A supporters to do the same, and to vote against both Otter and Luna, and anything they support, until they come forth, in writing, with absolute support for the 2A.
Listening to KBOI Nate Shelman show today 6/27, 5:30 p.m., Superintendent Luna was guest hosting.
He's a member of the State Board of Education, which sets educational policy for all public school entities - traditional public schools, charter schools, community colleges, and the universities (ALL the public ones).
Idaho law says the university presidents can decide whether students may/may not carry, open or concealed, on campus.
The State Board of Education is their boss - they can override the university presidents.
Luna waffled. He said his position on the issue was the same as the Governor's. (Did anyone ever get a commitment out of Otter on firearms issues? How are their NRA rankings? Just curious....) He said he had "questions."
Think we got good 2A representation and support from Luna and Otter? Doesn't sound that way....go to the website and listen to a podcast of Luna and decide for yourself.
I'm writing the NRA (don't send emails - spend the $0.45 and use an envelope and paper - they ignore emails, but handwritten letters get their attention because someone who writes a letter obviously feels strongly enough to flesh it out and mail it. Email is lazy.). I'm going to encourage a re-examination of Otter (the governor appoints all members of the state board of education except the Superintendent, who is automatically a member).
I'm also going to ask the NRA to re-evaluate any grade or support they may have for Luna.
I ask all 2A supporters to do the same, and to vote against both Otter and Luna, and anything they support, until they come forth, in writing, with absolute support for the 2A.
ColeMD17
Regular Member
Robin47
Regular Member
I agree,
Look at Arizona, its been a while now since they got Constitutional Carry, and I don't hear of anybody
shooting them self's in the foot lately, or anytime.
Its like driving a car, you do learn the knowledge, before you get the "permission card" ( License).
Constitutional carry in any state is what it used to be before the 1900's.
Nothing has changed, but the propaganda of some anti-gun people who really do have an agenda at hand.
Back in the free days, kids learned to shoot and handle guns from their parents, also went hunting and fishing ETC.
Good luck on your Constitutional Carry !
Robin47
Let me put this out there. You guys do realize we have constitutional carry, right? It's constitutional OPEN carry, but it's full-forced - No "opt out" crap like in half the other states.
Hell, even Arizona doesn't have constitutional carry. Someone can amend a law and BAM it's gone.
Constitutional is an Amendment to the state constitution. If we modified our state constitution to remove the exemption to regulate concealed carry, that would be the end of it.
What was in the legislature was ***NOT*** Constitutional Carry. It was Permit-less Concealed Carry. It also had all kinds of exemptions. That is not something we want.
I don't want Courthouses, Police Stations, Unsecured Areas to be off-limits. I can understand not in a jail purely because of the fundamental nature of a jail. I could understand not in a Courtroom specifically, but again, not the other areas of the Courthouse.
Right now we can Open Carry in Police Dept and all Government Buildings with exception to Courthouses. And even the Courthouse part is up for debate. It may need to be challenged in court. It doesn't mesh with state preemption and actually was ordered prior to it, if I understand correctly. The ban is an administrative order, not a law, for Open Carry.
Hell, even Arizona doesn't have constitutional carry. Someone can amend a law and BAM it's gone.
Constitutional is an Amendment to the state constitution. If we modified our state constitution to remove the exemption to regulate concealed carry, that would be the end of it.
What was in the legislature was ***NOT*** Constitutional Carry. It was Permit-less Concealed Carry. It also had all kinds of exemptions. That is not something we want.
I don't want Courthouses, Police Stations, Unsecured Areas to be off-limits. I can understand not in a jail purely because of the fundamental nature of a jail. I could understand not in a Courtroom specifically, but again, not the other areas of the Courthouse.
Right now we can Open Carry in Police Dept and all Government Buildings with exception to Courthouses. And even the Courthouse part is up for debate. It may need to be challenged in court. It doesn't mesh with state preemption and actually was ordered prior to it, if I understand correctly. The ban is an administrative order, not a law, for Open Carry.
IA_farmboy
Regular Member
I disagree. The law that repealed the requirement to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon only removed an unconstitutional law. The legislature can TRY to enact another law to require permits to carry weapons but there is now a precedent that people have the right to arms as spelled out in the state constitution.
That section of the Arizona Constitution does seem to allow the people in the state to carry a concealed weapon on their person without first obtaining permission from the state.
It appears that you are correct. The Idaho constitution does not provide protection against laws limiting concealed carry. Any legislation that removes the requirement to have a permit to conceal a weapon on the person would not be properly called "constitutional carry", it would take a constitutional amendment to properly achieve "constitutional carry" as most would understand it.
That works for me. We are trying something similar in Iowa. The Iowa constitution requires a vote by the legislature AND a popular vote to amend the constitution. If we can do that then Iowa would have constitutional carry. We got a shall-issue law just this year but the constitutional amendment is likely to be brought up again and again until it passes from now on.
I second that motion.
The difference between the Arizona constitution and the Idaho constitution is that ours specifically forbids the legislature from enacting specific laws.
Nothing in the Arizona one prevents "regulating" carry. Hence, permits and the like. Even SCOTUS stated allowing one and not the other would pass muster, so long as one is a valid way to exercise the right.
In the case of Idaho, the legislature cannot regulate open carry anyways. The state preemption law basically just keeps the dumb counties and cities in line from being able to enact laws that would require court orders to have removed.
We also have Brickey case law specifically stating it isn't the purview of the legislature to regulate Open Carry at all.
Two beasts to some degree, really.
Either way, I'm glad to see more and more states coming in line with the mentality of helping out the good guys.
Nothing in the Arizona one prevents "regulating" carry. Hence, permits and the like. Even SCOTUS stated allowing one and not the other would pass muster, so long as one is a valid way to exercise the right.
In the case of Idaho, the legislature cannot regulate open carry anyways. The state preemption law basically just keeps the dumb counties and cities in line from being able to enact laws that would require court orders to have removed.
We also have Brickey case law specifically stating it isn't the purview of the legislature to regulate Open Carry at all.
Two beasts to some degree, really.
Either way, I'm glad to see more and more states coming in line with the mentality of helping out the good guys.
You're right, accept it's the Idaho Constitution that prevents regulation of open carry. Check the preemption law and Article 1, Section 11. You'll see what I mean. I guess, technically, that means we have constitutional carry....
IA_farmboy
Regular Member
I guess that depends on how one understands the phrase "shall not be impaired" as it reads in the Arizona constitution. The people in that state now view permits to carry weapons as an "impairment" and because of that the state now has "constitutional carry" as a matter of law. I suspect any attempts to reinstate a permit requirement in the near future will be met with considerable resistance by both the people and the courts. As all things change with time this view may not hold forever.
I would argue that the Arizona constitution DOES specifically forbid the legislature from enacting a law to require a permit to carry a concealed firearm. I believe that this was the intent of the authors (but I could be mistaken) and that is how it is now interpreted. The problem lies in that at some point in history the interpretation of "impaired" was viewed differently. The people believed at that time that there was no "impairment" to the right to arms just so long as the weapon is visible. It seems that a large number of people in Arizona agree with me that a requirement to open carry OR have a permit to carry concealed is now an impairment of a right specifically protected under the state constitution. That lead to the change in law so that the law no longer conflicted with the current interpretation of the Arizona constitution.
Likewise.
IA_farmboy
Regular Member
I doubt it. I have this suspicion that there was at least one legislator that voted for the law change so as to avoid a lengthy, and expensive, court case over the definition of "impairment". I suspect that at least one legislator had a suspicion that if there was a court case that the fight to uphold the law would be futile and the law would be invalidated any way.
I don't need a court opinion to uphold my own opinion as to the definition of "constitutional carry" in Arizona. The people have spoken. The term "constitutional carry" started in Arizona based on the popular opinion that the state constitution does in fact protect the right of Arizona residents and visitors to carry concealed weapons. What has happened is that many people have taken that term and applied it federally. Now that the courts have ruled that the Second Amendment does in fact restrict the authority of state and local governments to ban the possession of handguns it now seems appropriate to use the term "constitutional carry" throughout the federation.
A state may not have a specific protection of the right to carry a concealed firearm but the writing is on the wall that the federal constitution protects that right. We just need a few more court cases and/or federal laws to make that clear to some of the states that feel otherwise.
Silver's & My State Representative DeMordaunt is a Jackhole!
Recall that earlier in this thread I'd criticized my Rep. DeMordaunt for thinking he's above the wishes of his constituents. Then I posted part of an interview that highlighted his arrogance.
Here's more - a letter to the editor in today's (8/10) Idaho Statesman from another constituent (don't know her) regarding how DeMordaunt blew her off and thinks he's above the will of the people:
This is constituent service?
After reading Robert A. Wagner’s July 25 letter to the editor regarding the short shrift his elected representative gave his opinion, I wanted to share my experience with my own elected official.
Rep. Reed DeMordaunt finally answered his office phone after a week of leaving messages and sending emails. I expressed my opinion on education, gave my reasons and asked him how he intended to vote. When I asked him how he could justify ignoring the majority will of his constituents, he told me that he wasn’t so sure that the majority opposed these bills. I asked him what the general numbers had been for and against, and he told me that he hadn’t thought it necessary to keep track so he couldn’t give me even a general idea.
I expressed dismay that his office wasn’t keeping track of constituent opinions on one of the most contentious issues in recent memory. I ended up receiving a paternalistic lecture on how the running of his office was none of my business, how he knew that much good would come from these reform efforts and that as a parent, I would thank him for his yes vote at some later point.
Thanks for nothing, Reed.
SHEILAH KENNEDY, Eagle
Read more: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/08/10/1755369/letters-to-the-editor.html#ixzz1UdIKa4Dm
Hope other readers in the district vote against this guy next time. Just because he's "pro-business," got an "R" by his name and is a member of a popular church in the district does not mean he's right for the job and will vote correctly on RKBA and OC/CC issues.
Hope other readers don't blindly vote for the "R" in their elections - this is what we get when we do - governance from the state Central Committee rather than representing the will of constituents.
Peace -
Recall that earlier in this thread I'd criticized my Rep. DeMordaunt for thinking he's above the wishes of his constituents. Then I posted part of an interview that highlighted his arrogance.
Here's more - a letter to the editor in today's (8/10) Idaho Statesman from another constituent (don't know her) regarding how DeMordaunt blew her off and thinks he's above the will of the people:
This is constituent service?
After reading Robert A. Wagner’s July 25 letter to the editor regarding the short shrift his elected representative gave his opinion, I wanted to share my experience with my own elected official.
Rep. Reed DeMordaunt finally answered his office phone after a week of leaving messages and sending emails. I expressed my opinion on education, gave my reasons and asked him how he intended to vote. When I asked him how he could justify ignoring the majority will of his constituents, he told me that he wasn’t so sure that the majority opposed these bills. I asked him what the general numbers had been for and against, and he told me that he hadn’t thought it necessary to keep track so he couldn’t give me even a general idea.
I expressed dismay that his office wasn’t keeping track of constituent opinions on one of the most contentious issues in recent memory. I ended up receiving a paternalistic lecture on how the running of his office was none of my business, how he knew that much good would come from these reform efforts and that as a parent, I would thank him for his yes vote at some later point.
Thanks for nothing, Reed.
SHEILAH KENNEDY, Eagle
Read more: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/08/10/1755369/letters-to-the-editor.html#ixzz1UdIKa4Dm
Hope other readers in the district vote against this guy next time. Just because he's "pro-business," got an "R" by his name and is a member of a popular church in the district does not mean he's right for the job and will vote correctly on RKBA and OC/CC issues.
Hope other readers don't blindly vote for the "R" in their elections - this is what we get when we do - governance from the state Central Committee rather than representing the will of constituents.
Peace -