Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Open Carry, Concealed Carry, Constitutional Carry, and Campus Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    29

    Open Carry, Concealed Carry, Constitutional Carry, and Campus Carry

    Open Carry: Refers to the legal right to carry a holstered handgun or a long gun in a manner which is visible to those around the carrier. (Generally refers to the right to do so without a license.)

    Concealed Carry: Refers to the legal right to carry a handgun in a manner which conceals its presence from those around the carrier. (Generally refers to the right to do so only with a license.)

    Constitutional Carry: Refers to the legal right to carry a handgun in a manner which conceals its presence from those around the carrier without a requirement to obtain a license. Although this term is often used for cases in which a law allows unlicensed concealed carry, it is used properly only when referring to a Constitutionally-protected right to carry a concealed weapon without a license.

    Campus Carry: Refers to the legal right to carry a holstered handgun on the campuses of public colleges or universities. This concept may apply to open carry, concealed carry, Constitutional carry, or some combination of the three.


    Within the State of Idaho, Open Carry is protected by the State Constitution. Article 1, Section 11 reads as follows:

    "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent 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. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony."

    As you can see, the legislature is only permitted to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons. Therefore, they may not regulate the Open Carry of weapons. In order to enact true Constitutional Carry in Idaho, a Constitutional Amendment would be required. This amendment would strike "passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent" from the State Constitution. The result would be that the Idaho State Constitution. Article 1, Section 11 would read as follows:

    "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the 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. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony."

    It is unlikely that such a Constitutional Amendment will be passed. What is more likely is that the legislature would pass a law which would eliminate the current requirement to obtain a license in order to carry a concealed weapon while still retaining their Constitutional power to regulate the carry of concealed weapons.

    Currently Concealed Carry in the State of Idaho is regulated under Idaho Code Section 18-3302. The full statute can be found at http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/...ECT18-3302.htm. The short version of it is that in order to carry a concealed weapon you must obtain a license from the County Sheriff, you must be 21 years old, you must not be disqualified by a criminal record, you must "demonstrate familiarity with a firearm" and you must pay for the license. This law is actually quite permissive compared to many around the Nation.

    Some Notes about Concealed Carry in the State of Idaho:

    Idaho does not have a "duty to inform" law. This means that you are not legally required to inform a Police Officer who makes contact with you that you are carrying a concealed weapon. (It is generally a good idea to do so, however.)

    A Concealed Weapons Permit is not just for firearms. If you have a Concealed Weapons Permit in Idaho, you may also carry a concealed dirk, dirk knife, bowie knife, or dagger.

    Idaho does not recognize "no guns" signs as having force of law. Private businesses may ask you to leave if you ignore their "no guns" signs, and if you refuse, you could be arrested for trespassing. Unlike Texas or several other States, however, ignoring those signs is not itself a crime.

    Idaho does not prohibit carry in parks, churches, or at political gatherings. These prohibitions are common in many other States.



    Campus Carry in Idaho:

    Idaho also has Full State Preemption of firearm laws except for two exceptions which it grants in Idaho Code Section 18-3302J. The full statute can be found at http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/...CT18-3302J.htm. Those two exceptions are the department of fish and game and colleges and universities. The relevant sections of code are as follows:

    "This section shall not be construed to affect: The authority of the department of fish and game to make rules or regulations concerning the management of any wildlife of this state, as set forth in section 36-104, Idaho Code." and "The authority of the board of regents of the university of Idaho, the boards of trustees of the state colleges and universities, the board of professional-technical education and the boards of trustees of each of the community colleges established under chapter 21, title 33, Idaho Code, to regulate in matters relating to firearms."

    Here is the problem with that second section of code. In it the State purports to grant colleges and universities the right "to regulate in matters relating to firearms," however, the State itself does not have the right to "to regulate in matters relating to firearms." It only has the right to "govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person." Do you see the discrepancy here? The colleges and universities in the State of Idaho currently have a total ban on the carry of firearms on their campuses, and they claim that the right to have this ban is given to them by in Idaho Code Section 18-3302J.

    It seems abundantly clear to me, however, that Open Carry is legal on Idaho college campuses – just as it is in all other parts of the State – per the State Constitution. The way that the colleges enforce their gun ban, however, is not through the use of legal action, but by firing employees and expelling students who violate the total ban on the carry of firearms. It will likely take a Court decision – after some brave soul dares to defy the current ban on Open Carry – before the colleges and universities will be forced to recognize the existing right to Open Carry on their campuses.

    The ideal situation, of course, would be a Constitutional amendment abolishing the States' authority to "govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person" which would also gut the exceptions in Idaho Code Section 18-3302J, as the State can not delegate authority that it does not possess. Short of this unlikely miracle, however, a pair of laws allowing the unlicensed carry of concealed weapons and allowing Campus Carry would be most welcomed by the gun owners and liberty-lovers in the State of Idaho.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Thumbs up Nice Summary

    I'd add two things:

    1. Concealed carry provisions contemplate not only handguns, dirk/dirk knives, bowie knives and daggers (aren't they dirks?), but also any other deadly or dangerous weapon. The broad descriptor of deadly or dangerous weapon encompasses many things, to the detriment of anyone who carries one, and caution should be exercised.

    2. States have authority, people have rights. Just a distinction we need to make in the interest of correct terminology, so we don't think of the state having any rights over citizens.

    Nice job!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Pardon me from stepping in from all the way over here in Iowa but I would like to comment as I have taken it as a bit of a hobby to track the progress of constitutional carry.

    I'd like to add one definition to your list, "permitless carry". The difference between constitutional carry and permitless carry is that permitless carry is legislation protecting the right to carry a weapon on the person without a permit when constitutional protections are absent. Both describe the lack of authority by the state to regulate the carry of weapons it's just that one resides in the constitution and the other resides in legislation.

    This distinction is losing its difference since there is a growing awareness that the federal constitution also protects the right to carry a weapon without first getting permission from the government. We have the right to keep and bear arms, this right is inherent to life. That right is explicitly protected by the constitution of this federation, but there is a lack of willingness by many to assert the existence of this right and the protection the federal constitution provides. As many states in this union also have a provision in their state constitution recognizing and protecting our right to self defense the original meaning of "constitutional carry" primarily referred to state protections. As more people have become aware of what the Second Amendment means this term of "constitutional carry" is now evolving to take on a federal meaning.

    Also, one minor nit to pick.
    States have authority, people have rights.
    There are certain rights that a state does possess. One of those is the right of self defense. The state is a sovereign entity that has the right to defend itself. This can mean defense from foreign invaders and from dissent within. This right derives from the individual right of self defense. While I agree that rights are few for the states they are not nonexistent.

    I make this point only because we have seen in our history the federal government acting in ways that are in conflict with state rights. By claiming a state has no rights then we are allowing the federal government to threaten the sovereignty of those states.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    States' rights

    Not to further pick a nit, but it's still my position that states have power and authority, not rights. The term "States' Rights" is a misquote of the actual language of the Tenth Amendment, which contemplates that all powers - not rights - not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. The Bill of Rights only contemplates the rights of individuals, not governmental entities.

    But it isn't worth quibbling about, since we share views identically on the meat of the post.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    There are certain rights that a state does possess. One of those is the right of self defense. The state is a sovereign entity that has the right to defend itself. This can mean defense from foreign invaders and from dissent within. This right derives from the individual right of self defense. While I agree that rights are few for the states they are not nonexistent.

    I make this point only because we have seen in our history the federal government acting in ways that are in conflict with state rights. By claiming a state has no rights then we are allowing the federal government to threaten the sovereignty of those states.
    I respectfully disagree with this assessment. The state has no right of self-defense. Individuals may band together and act in concert with one another to defend their lives, homes and properties, and they may even do so under the name of the state. However, what is being exercised is simply the collection of individual rights of self-defense of each member.

    In a constitutional federal republic, which is what we were promised but are light-years away from, both the states and the federal government have specifically enumerated powers, which are not to be exceeded. Anything that is not specifically enumerated is prohibited to both parties.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post


    There are certain rights that a state does possess.
    I see what you are saying, but I'll further pick some nit in that only individuals exist. Words like "society" and "state" have no meaning. There are only individuals who must morally remain sovereign until they actually violate another person's life or property. Some individuals in Idaho have threatened to kill other individuals should they exercise their right to carry concealed without permission. This is criminal aggression that must stop.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I see what you are saying, but I'll further pick some nit in that only individuals exist. Words like "society" and "state" have no meaning. There are only individuals who must morally remain sovereign until they actually violate another person's life or property. Some individuals in Idaho have threatened to kill other individuals should they exercise their right to carry concealed without permission. This is criminal aggression that must stop.
    +1

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    But it isn't worth quibbling about, since we share views identically on the meat of the post.
    I agree. Let's not take this thread off topic.

    What I really wanted to do is point out that even though a state constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms the citizens of the state can achieve the same ends through legislation. It would not be properly called "constitutional carry" since the right is not recognized in the state constitution but would rather be more properly called "permitless carry".

    Amending the constitution is typically a lengthy process, especially compared to the already lengthy legislative process. If one wishes to get the results of constitutional carry more quickly the legislative process can be used to reach those ends. The amending of the constitution to protect the right of self defense should not be abandoned if permitless carry is enacted in law. This is because a law that is enacted easily can be repealed just as easily. The amending of the constitution is more difficult, which also makes it equally difficult to have it removed.

    Good luck on whatever path you choose.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    What I really wanted to do is point out that even though a state constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms the citizens of the state can achieve the same ends through legislation. It would not be properly called "constitutional carry" since the right is not recognized in the state constitution but would rather be more properly called "permitless carry".
    However, it is "constitutional carry" recognized by the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    While we're nitpicking words, "state" means a "unit of government", not "a subdivision of a nation". When liberty advocates use the term "the state", they're referring to government at large, not Idaho or Iowa.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    However, it is "constitutional carry" recognized by the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
    I agree. However, this interpretation is a very recent development and not supported by judicial precedent. The original intent has been lost over the years. There are still many that view "permitless carry" as the more appropriate term when state constitutions lack this explicit protection. I do agree that the Second Amendment to the federal constitution protects the right to carry a concealed firearm, or any other weapon, but this is not an opinion shared by the federal courts.

    Until the courts rule that the Second Amendment applies to all as it was originally intended then there will still be the distinction between "constitutional carry" and "permitless carry". Another way to put it is that once the original intent of the Second Amendment is the law of the land the term "constitutional carry" will lose it's meaning. There will be nothing else besides "constitutional carry" so therefore there would be no need to make the distinction to any other condition, excepting a historical one. I hope and pray I will live to see that day.

    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    While we're nitpicking words, "state" means a "unit of government", not "a subdivision of a nation". When liberty advocates use the term "the state", they're referring to government at large, not Idaho or Iowa.
    Yeah, this can lead to much confusion if the context does not make it clear what level of government is being referenced. I do not share your belief that "liberty advocates" always include all levels of government when referencing "the state". I believe that the context is important.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    73
    .
    Last edited by Keith Cromm; 05-24-2012 at 12:09 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    FWIW - I don't think this infringes on our rights any more than any other requirement in any other state regarding CC or OC licensing. I would be interested if our laws allow a felon to be elected to office though. THEN I would be pissed.

    I think these parts are interesting......

    (a) Officials of a county, city, state of Idaho, the United States, peace officers, guards of any jail, court appointed attendants or any officer of any express company on duty;

    So government employees, US Senators and Representatives can carry without permits then.

    (b) Employees of the adjutant general and military division of the state where military membership is a condition of employment when on duty;

    So, any employees of the NG who had to be in the military to hold their position are automatically authorized for CC.

    (d) Any person outside the limits of or confines of any city while engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, trapping or other lawful outdoor activity;

    So, just hiking around lets you CC.

    (f) Retired peace officers or detention deputies with at least ten (10) years of service with the state or a political subdivision as a peace officer or detention deputy and who have been certified by the peace officer standards and training council;

    Superseded by subsequent Federal law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    73
    .
    Last edited by Keith Cromm; 05-24-2012 at 12:09 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    Keith, we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Let's talk about it over coffee or beers sometime.

Posting Permissions

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