Asked to Disarm at IDFG Bowhunter Education Class - Refused

thebigsd said:

This is a completely unacceptable response. He doesn't even acknowledge your original requests or the poor conduct of the volunteer. Excellent response by the way. I also agree that it was a good idea to include your state rep, he may have a little more influence. You've got them on the run, don't give up!!

Click to expand...

Edit: I meant to quote his response, not yours. Sorry.

It just seems he was trying to find an out by saying it was a school, I bet he never even looked up the statute. I also take offense to him saying it is because of safety. If he was concerned for everyone’s safety he would make sure there was on-duty police on the site during the course or let law abiding citizens be armed in accordance to their rights under 2A. By saying it is for safety reasons he is pretty much calling the Ocher and dangerous criminal that must be stopped. I would take that as a personal attack on my character and ability to stay holstered unless someone decided to start shooting arrows at me and the class. This person doesn't seem to have a clue and he was rude and condescending.

In my forward to Rep. Hagedorn, I stated that I wanted to ask the bureaucrats at the IDFG what steps they are taking to prevent concealed weapon permit holders from carrying onto the property, because there is no signage and the fact that I was openly carrying was the only reason for the encounter. Like Doc said, if it were truly about safety, there would be a strip search to enter and at least one on-duty police officer at the ready at all times.

thebigsd said:

Edit: I meant to quote his response, not yours. Sorry.

Click to expand...

You can go back to your post #20, click the 'edit' button, highlight everything from MIB, & delete it.
Would shorten the read considerably, too, if people would trim the post they reply to to just the pertinent bits.

DocWalker said:

It just seems he was trying to find an out by saying it was a school, I bet he never even looked up the statute. I also take offense to him saying it is because of safety.

Click to expand...

He's obviously anti-carry, trying to throw anything at the situation he's ever heard that might possibly relate.

And while I can understand banning live ammo at a firearms class, because they'll probably be handled and there have been NDs in classes across the country (usually from LEOs ), anywhere else it doesn't make sense.
You want me to go out to my car, handle my pistol (even if it's just moving it from the holster to a case), then leave it there unguarded & hope it's not stolen??
No.

MKEgal said:

You can go back to your post #20, click the 'edit' button, highlight everything from MIB, & delete it.
Would shorten the read considerably, too, if people would trim the post they reply to to just the pertinent bits.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I typically edit posts when I have something to add. I downloaded the new version of Tapatalk and the interface is a bit different. I hit reply instead of edit so I messed that one up. Cmon now, I've been a member for awhile now. In regards to the second part, some folks get all sorts of offended when you cut down their posts so sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

I think there are two things to keep in mind when you converse with the F&W...

First: You cannot make the assumption anyone, let alone everyone, in F&W (state or Fed) is pro gun. There is a distinct posibility the only "pro-gun" bone in their body comes from the knowledge their salaries are paid by the fees we pay as firearms owners.

Second: It has been my observation that quite a few of the bow hunters I know distain firearms (and firearm hunters). They are what I would call "purists". If you are not hunting with a bow, you are just slaughtering the animals, not hunting them. This is especially true of one of my BILs (from NY), who even has an Antalope with a longbow. My Rem 700 is not "fair" to the game in his eyes. I actually like this particular BIL a lot, and he is an incredible bow hunter...but I do not like that particular attitude.

MKEgal said:

And while I can understand banning live ammo at a firearms class, because they'll probably be handled and there have been NDs in classes across the country (usually from LEOs ), anywhere else it doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

Under Idaho statute, that would be preempted.

ManInBlack said:

Under Idaho statute, that would be preempted.

Click to expand...

Interesting situation.

So, you're postulating that the RSO at Black's Creek cannot legally order you to unload and step away from your firearm (disarming you) while on the line and they are preparing to move downrange and setup/recover? No "cold lines" at publicly-owned ranges then?

Certainly, as a private citizen RK can order no loaded guns at one of his classes and a range like Parma can order no live weapons on the line.

So when [if ever] do facility safety rules trump the preemption law?

Interesting.

ecocks said:

Interesting situation.

So, you're postulating that the RSO at Black's Creek cannot legally order you to unload and step away from your firearm (disarming you) while on the line and they are preparing to move downrange and setup/recover? No "cold lines" at publicly-owned ranges then?

Certainly, as a private citizen RK can order no loaded guns at one of his classes and a range like Parma can order no live weapons on the line.

So when [if ever] do facility safety rules trump the preemption law?

Interesting.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I understand...who is RK?

Clearly, private business, groups, and individuals can set their own rules at facilities they own, but I just re-read the preemption statute, and it doesn't appear to contain any exceptions for public shooting ranges. It would seem to me that the legislature would actually have to pass a law to enable such regulation.

ManInBlack said:

I'm not sure if I understand...who is RK?

Clearly, private business, groups, and individuals can set their own rules at facilities they own, but I just re-read the preemption statute, and it doesn't appear to contain any exceptions for public shooting ranges. It would seem to me that the legislature would actually have to pass a law to enable such regulation.

Click to expand...

Sorry, RK is Robert Krone, RK Gunsmithing, in Nampa. It would apply to any individual conducting private lessons. Although since RK conducts his live fire classes at the Nourse Range in Canyon County, the preemption rule would apply for his lessons there. Of course, you would be voluntarily partaking of his rules in his class, even at a public location. He would need to refund your money if you refused to comply or else compromise his safety rules.

That is in contrast to a range like Black's Creek which is owned by our friends at IDFG. Preemption or safety rules? They order you (or might order you I should say) to place the gun down and step back while people move downrange for resets.

Don't misunderstand, I agree with your interpretation. It sounds to me like they are unable to enforce a cold-rangeline due to the preemption law although you probably can still have a second holstered weapon other than the one you were firing. Perhaps you could even holster and be considered "cold" as well.

ecocks, I think the difference is a weapon that is in use, verse a weapon carried specifically for SD.

Think about this idea. You go to the range with the weapons you are going to shoot...and you have your normal self defence weapon holstered..and to shake the compairison a bit (may or may not work with Idaho law), Let's say that your holstered weapon is a clasp knife?

In WA, and ID (I think) there are exemptions to the rules when it comes to a handgun specifically carried for self defence. If actually carried for self defence, even at the range that day, it would not leave it's holster...correct? If it never leaves it's holster, it is no longer a safety issue. As soon as it leaves it's holster, it becomes a safety issue.

I would have just asked on simple question...." Excuse me sir, I paid for this class so if you could act like a professional and provide the service in which I have laid down my hard earned money, without displaying your ignorance about firearms, that would be great. Thanks so much...."
:banana::banana::banana::banana:

Savage206 said:

I would have just asked on simple question...." Excuse me sir, I paid for this class so if you could act like a professional and provide the service in which I have laid down my hard earned money, without displaying your ignorance about firearms, that would be great. Thanks so much...."
:banana::banana::banana::banana:

Click to expand...

Page and a half and finally someone gets it.

One week and no response...I don't know how long it takes to get an opinion from the AG, but I guess I'll wait another week before inquiring for an update and copying all of my legislators.

I just can't believe the IDFG is being so muleheaded about this...I wouldn't have expected this from the agency that deals most with Idaho outdoorsmen, many of whom (surprise, surprise) carry guns!

EDIT: Is it possible to file a Public Records Request for Attorney General's opinions issued to other departments/agencies? I didn't see a request form on their website.

Don't hold your breath

F&G has an in-house Deputy AG, who, though busy, could discuss the matter with them. (He is a good guy, BTW). However, because the issues you raise potentially have statewide implications, it may get kicked over to the central office of the AG to discuss whether something more than informal advice back to the agency is warranted. If so, it will take time.

The AG's website posts formal opinions (extensive research, analysis, and review by senior and ranking Deputy AG's - take a long time to get out) and guidance letters (less formal, less review) on its website. The AG only issues opinions and guidance letters to elected officials and agency heads, so don't expect a direct response from the AG's office.

Unless an AG has generated a document on the subject(s) you inquire about, a public records request won't do any good, and even if there is a written document, it may be withheld under the attorney-client privilege. It is through the original opinion-requestor's consent that the opinions are posted; likely, there are many that have not been shared, being kept privileged instead.

I'd just bide my time for now.

Oh, and in the future, contact state and local officials it in writing rather than via e-mail. Paper trails are king, and it's something tangible that remains as a reminder that there's an unanswered question out there.

Best wishes -

DCR

hermannr said:

ecocks, I think the difference is a weapon that is in use, verse a weapon carried specifically for SD.

Think about this idea. You go to the range with the weapons you are going to shoot...and you have your normal self defence weapon holstered..and to shake the compairison a bit (may or may not work with Idaho law), Let's say that your holstered weapon is a clasp knife?

In WA, and ID (I think) there are exemptions to the rules when it comes to a handgun specifically carried for self defence. If actually carried for self defence, even at the range that day, it would not leave it's holster...correct? If it never leaves it's holster, it is no longer a safety issue. As soon as it leaves it's holster, it becomes a safety issue.

Click to expand...

Due to the state Constitution there isn't an exemption for handguns carried openly under any circumstance.

Even in preemption, there isn't any exemptions except for the university thing and that only really applies to their students as the State Constitution trumps preemption law when it comes to open carry for ordinary folks.

Zhukov said:

Due to the state Constitution there isn't an exemption for handguns carried openly under any circumstance.

Even in preemption, there isn't any exemptions except for the university thing and that only really applies to their students as the State Constitution trumps preemption law when it comes to open carry for ordinary folks.

Click to expand...

There isn't an exemption for guns carried openly, period. Theoretically, one could have a loaded tactical rifle slung on his shoulder and be covered.

Zhukov and MIB - my point exactly.

The same gun I am firing downrange is no different. Mag inserted and stuffed in my belt, holstered or slung over my shoulder are all covered.

Received a response from Mr. Fritz. It appears they decided to follow the law...fancy that.

Mr. <my last name>,

According to our Deputy Attorney General you do have a legal right to openly carry a firearm in our classroom. Please be aware that we have the utmost concern for safety in our classrooms. There have been several accidental firearm discharges in the past, which is why we request that no live ammunition be brought into our classrooms.

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.


Ron Fritz
State Hunter Education Program Coordinator
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
600 S. Walnut St.
PO Box 25
Boise, ID 83707-0025
Phone: (208) 287-2884
Fax: (208) 334-2148
Email: ron.fritz@idfg.idaho.gov
Visit us at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov

Click to expand...

I responded with the following:

Mr. Fritz,
Thank you for your response and acknowledgement of Idaho state law. However, I do have two other concerns which have not yet been addressed: 1) Will you brief your volunteers on the lawful carrying of firearms so that a similar incident does not happen to another citizen, and 2) what, if anything, do you have to say about the inappropriate and immature comments made by Mr. Sisler to a citizen customer who paid $38 to take the course?

Thank you for your time,
<my name>

Click to expand...

ManInBlack said:

Received a response from Mr. Fritz. It appears they decided to follow the law...fancy that.



I responded with the following:

Click to expand...

Keep it up!!! Don't let him get away without answering you questions. You've got them on the run...lol