Constitutional Carry for Idaho

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Greg Pruett, from Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, presented the bill.

Constitutional Carry is House Bill 89. IFF Analysis of HB 89. HB 89 Text.
February 6, 2015

We are pleased to announce that Constitutional Carry has its own number. It will now be referred to as House Bill 89. The Idaho Freedom Foundation has done an analysis of our bill and given it a rating of +5 for its expansion of freedom. It is the highest bill to date for the 2015 session.

Please tell your legislators and sheriff to support House Bill 89 and please see the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s analysis of our bill below. Share this with all your family and friends.

Additionally, a pamphlet that explains Constitutional Carry can be found on top of the right hand sidebar under the heading Constitutional Carry. We have sent this pamphlet to all Idaho legislators. We encourage you to download it and share it, too.

https://www.idahosaa.org/

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2015/H0089.htm

Thank you Idaho Second Amendment Alliance for getting the ball rolling to restore our Second Amendment Rights!

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

House Bill H0089
2015 Freedom Index Score: (+5)
Analyst: Parrish Miller
Date of analysis: February 4, 2015

ANALYST'S NOTE: House Bill 089 strikes language from Section 18-3302, Idaho Code, which criminalizes the carrying of a concealed weapon by individuals who have not purchased a license to carry a concealed weapon. The bill legalizes concealed carry only for individuals who meet the qualifications necessary to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon under current law.
The bill maintains the current permitting structure in full, however, for the purpose of reciprocity with other states and for the additional activities which are allowed only to those who obtain Idaho's 'enhanced' carry permit (such as carrying on public university and college campuses.)
The bill also removes language which creates carve-outs for certain people—such as elected officials and other specified government employees—to legally carry a concealed weapon without first acquiring a permit.

Point No. 1 — Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?

ANALYSIS: House Bill 089 curtails the scope of government by allowing anyone who meets the qualifications necessary to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon under current law to carry a concealed weapon without applying for or paying for a permit. (+1)

Point No. 5 — Does it directly or indirectly create or increase any taxes, fees, or other assessments? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce any taxes, fees, or other assessments?

ANALYSIS: Under current law, carrying a concealed weapon requires paying a fee of at least $20 plus the cost of fingerprinting and materials. House Bill 089 retains the permitting structure for the purpose of reciprocity, but removes the obligation to pay the fee in order to legally carry a concealed weapon. (+1)

Point No. 9 — Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws which discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?

ANALYSIS: Under current law, there is a lengthy list of people who are not subject to the requirement to secure a license to carry a concealed weapon. This list includes "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"; "employees of the adjutant general and military division of the state where military membership is a condition of employment when on duty"; "criminal investigators of the attorney general's office, criminal investigators of a prosecuting attorney's office, prosecutors and their deputies"; "any person outside the limits of or confines of any city while engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, trapping or other lawful outdoor activity"; "any publicly elected Idaho official"; "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"; and "any person who has a valid permit from a state or local law enforcement agency or court authorizing him to carry a concealed weapon."
House Bill 089 strikes this language which applies the law differently to different people and applies this freedom equally to all individuals who meet the standards of eligibility currently in place to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon. (+1)

Point No. 10 — Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?

ANALYSIS: Under current law, it is a misdemeanor to carry a concealed weapon without a license to carry a concealed weapon even if the individual in question meets the standards of eligibility currently in place to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon. House Bill 089 removes this legal impediment by allowing that any person who meets these standards of eligibility may carry a concealed weapon without needing to obtain a license. (+1)

Point No. 11 — Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?

ANALYSIS: The "right to keep and bear arms" is a fundamental right recognized in the US Constitution. This right is similarly enshrined in the Idaho State Constitution. While some court decisions have allowed for restrictions on this right, there are many who believe that the words "shall not be infringed" actually mean what they say. House Bill 089 helps restore fundamental protections by removing an existing infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. (+1)

To read full text of bill please click on the link below.

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2015/H0089.pdf

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

In the house of representatives
house bill no. 89
by state affairs committee
8 an act
relating to concealed weapons; amending section 18-3302, idaho code, to pro-
vide that the sheriff shall issue a concealed weapons license for the
purpose of reciprocity, to remove a provision relating to dates when a
license was issued, to remove provisions relating to places where a per-
son shall not carry a concealed weapon without a license and to revise
provisions relating to persons who may carry a concealed weapon without
a license.

Not sure if you read the full text of the bill. Here is the PDF with the changes to existing law marked.

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2015/H0089.pdf

Not sure why you think it is not Constitutional Carry?

The only unresolved opportunity I see is that it does say only those that qualify under current law can carry concealed.

It is a step in the right direction no less.

Thanks for the input.

carry on.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Gun bill jammed

Opposition from law enforcement may be the reason HB89 has stalled in committee. "The rumors as of (Tuesday afternoon) are that HB89 won't go any further," said Vaughn Killeen, executive director of the Idaho Sheriff's Association.

Idahoans, please write or call your local sheriffs if you support HB89:http://www.idahosheriffs.org/index_htm_files/Meet the Sheriffs 2014b.pdf

The bill to eliminate the need for permits to carry concealed in Idaho may have stalled in committee this week, according to one of its proponents.

House Bill 89 was introduced to the House State Affairs Committee last week. If passed, the "constitutional carry" bill would eliminate the need for a concealed weapons permit in the state of Idaho, but it would also require county sheriffs to continue issuing enhanced concealed weapons permits to Idaho citizens who want to carry concealed weapons in other states that recognize Idaho's permits.

On Monday, Greg Pruett, president of the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, said he doesn't think the bill is going to get a hearing during this session.

"I've been told the House Republican leadership is going to kill the bill," Pruett said. "We are working to find out why they decided to kill it."

A spokesperson for House Speaker Scott Bedke, R-Oakley, said House leadership has not killed the bill, but it is being held in the State Affairs Committee.

"As I understand it, there are a couple of other bills coming through the process and the chairman wanted to let the process work," the spokesperson said.

While the House State Affairs committee voted to print the bill on Friday, Chairman Thomas Loertscher, R-Iona, has not scheduled it for a hearing.

"All I know is that we don't have it on the schedule," said Kasey Winder, secretary of the committee.

Winder said the chairman usually schedules a hearing the day before each committee meeting, but HB89 has yet to be scheduled.

Opposition from law enforcement may be the reason HB89 has stalled in committee.

"The rumors as of (Tuesday afternoon) are that HB89 won't go any further," said Vaughn Killeen, executive director of the Idaho Sheriff's Association.

Killeen said the ISA has been working with the National Rifle Association on another bill that would be in direct conflict with HB89.

"I cannot discuss the nature of the bill because it hasn't been introduced yet," Killeen said. "But I would anticipate something happening, if not by the end of this week, then certainly next week."

Kootenai County Sheriff Ben Wolfinger said he has not personally reviewed HB89, but from what he has heard, he does have some concerns.

"One thing that I would be concerned about is those people who are currently screened out for mental illness," Wolfinger said.

The Kootenai County Sheriff's Office processes roughly 250 concealed weapons permits a month. Wolfinger said about 2 percent of those are rejected during a criminal background check.

Most of the people who are rejected for criminal violations usually committed their crime years ago, Wolfinger said. Most of them are eligible to have their offenses expunged by the court and secure a permit anyway.

But, the sheriff said, the KCSO did recently deny a concealed weapons permit for a man who had to be placed in protective custody for mental health reasons two months ago.

For that reason, Wolfinger said, he opposes the bill.

"I am concerned about the lack of checks and balances," he said.

Regardless of the opposition, Pruett said the Second Amendment Alliance is committed to the constitutional carry legislation and if it is killed in committee, the alliance will bring another version next year.

"We have started a petition drive and we hope to gather 10,000 signatures," he said, adding the group is also holding a rally in Boise on Feb. 21.

from....http://www.cdapress.com/news/political/article_bc2d5013-4910-5860-a841-e8b23456dd06.html

 

[OC Freedom]

Thanks for the update, I noticed this morning at the Idaho legislature website that nothing has progressed since Feb. 6th.

I will start making my calls to each and everyone of these sheriffs listed in your link. This is Idaho dang it, this should have happened years ago.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

You are welcome. I was very disappointed when I read the news about the bill. I thought it would get passed without an issue since this is Idaho. Wow, what a rude awakening.

I wonder where these sheriffs are from that opposed the bill?

Kali me thinks......

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Concealed weapons bill to take next step forward

Concealed weapons bill to take next step forward

A new concealed weapons bill will be introduced in the Senate State Affairs Committee today, while the constitutional carry bill is still awaiting a hearing in the House.

Greg Pruett,president of the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, said his constitutional concealed carry bill may still have a chance for a hearing this session.

"There is a misconception that the two bills are competing," Pruett said. "The chairman (of the House committee) wants to make sure they are not competing before moving forward."

If passed House Bill 89 would allow legal Idaho gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit, and requires counties to maintain the enhanced concealed weapons permits for people who need them when they plan to travel to other states.

Pruett said the bill being considered in the Senate, which is sponsored by the National Rifle Association, is for the most part a house-keeping bill that just tightens up some language in the concealed weapons law, and only slightly overlaps with HB 89.

"The NRA representative for this area has confirmed that the bills do not conflict," Pruett said, explaining the NRA bill does change some of the exemption language in the existing law, and HB 89 eliminates the exemptions altogether.

The NRA bill will also clarify what concealed weapons permits allow and what they don't allow.

He doesn't see that as a conflict.

"If both bills pass, they will go to the codifiers," Pruett said, adding the codifiers will reconcile the two bills.

Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, said he learned this week that the bill is not dead in the House State Affairs Committee, on which he sits.

While Barbieri wasn't certain if the bill would get a hearing, he has been told that the bill was going through a vetting process.

"All I know for now is that it is not dead," he said.

Meanwhile, at the federal level, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced on Thursday the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would allow gun owners who have a concealed carry permit in their home state to bring their firearms in any other state with concealed carry laws.

"Our group is not a part of that process yet," Pruett said. "But it will be interesting to watch. The concept is really no different than a driver's license."

The Senate hearing will be streamed live over Idaho Public Television's webpage at: idahoptv.org/insession/leg.cfm.

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_6bd1c53f-4eff-5473-b201-ddf88ce153b7.html

 

[DCR]

Most of the people who are rejected for criminal violations usually committed their crime years ago, Wolfinger said. Most of them are eligible to have their offenses expunged by the court and secure a permit anyway.

The good sheriff is wrong, Wrong, WRONG!

Idaho does NOT have a process for expungement of prior criminal convictions. Every time legislation is presented, who do you think opposes it? LAW ENFORCEMENT!

Unless it is made part of the original Rule 11 Plea Agreement, and specifically included in the judge's Order of Conviction, felony offenses cannot be reduced to misdemeanors, dismissed after successful probation, or granted through a withheld judgment.

Misdemeanor convictions can only be stricken through withheld judgments granted after successful completion of probation, and only once in a lifetime unless the court finds compelling reasons to grant another one.

And which party affiliation are these sheriffs in the Idaho Sheriff's Association? One guess should be enough.......

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

The good sheriff is wrong, Wrong, WRONG!

Idaho does NOT have a process for expungement of prior criminal convictions. Every time legislation is presented, who do you think opposes it? LAW ENFORCEMENT!

Unless it is made part of the original Rule 11 Plea Agreement, and specifically included in the judge's Order of Conviction, felony offenses cannot be reduced to misdemeanors, dismissed after successful probation, or granted through a withheld judgment.

Misdemeanor convictions can only be stricken through withheld judgments granted after successful completion of probation, and only once in a lifetime unless the court finds compelling reasons to grant another one.

And which party affiliation are these sheriffs in the Idaho Sheriff's Association? One guess should be enough.......

Probably a scare tactic on his part to get folks worried about criminals still being able to get guns through loop holes.

The Sheriff's forget their oaths it would seem by opposing Constitutional Carry.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Concealed carry backers harassing family

Posted: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:00 am

Associated Press | 0 comments

BOISE (AP) - Families of members of the House State Affairs Committee are being harassed by backers of a proposed law to allow Idaho residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit, the committee's chairman says.

Republican Rep. Tom Loertscher, of Iona, said on the House floor Tuesday that his home phone number and the home phone numbers of other committee members are being published, and people are calling them.

"I stand here today to call out those individuals who are singling out members of this body, including yours truly, for an action for which they have absolutely no understanding," Loertscher said. "And the new low is, I suppose, that they are publishing mine and some other members of the body's home phone numbers, where we are not at this time, and harassing our family members."

The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance brought forward the proposed law, dubbed "Constitutional Carry," and is telling individuals to call lawmakers to urge a hearing be held on the bill.

"There are a lot of angry gun owners that want a hearing on House Bill 89," said Greg Pruett, the group's president.

Currently, Idaho residents who want to carry a concealed weapon need a permit. There are two types of permits available in Idaho, one of which requires training and is recognized as valid in some other states. The enhanced permit also allows holders to carry concealed weapons on college and university campuses, but with some restrictions.

The National Association for Gun Rights posted a picture online of Loertscher superimposed over the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The image also contained his phone number and urged people to call him because he's blocking the bill.

"I would hope the people of this state recognize that this is not the way to win friends and influence people," Loertscher said about the calls and emails.

Loertscher said he wants to make sure the law won't affect Idaho's agreements with other states to recognize Idaho's concealed carry permits.

"We're just holding off until we get some answers and figure out how the best way to approach it is," he said.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2015, 9:11 A.M. Sheriff Backs 'Constitutional Carry'

A northern Idaho sheriff says he supports allowing residents to carry concealed weapons without needing a permit. Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler told the Bonner County Daily Bee in a story on Sunday that the "Constitutional Carry" bill introduced by lawmakers last month aligns Idaho law with the true meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In eastern Idaho, Bannock County Sheriff Lorin Nielsen and Pocatello Police Chief Scott Marchand came out against the bill last month, saying it will make the jobs of law enforcement officers tougher/Associated Press. To read more: http://www.jrn.com/kivitv/news/N-Idaho-sheriff-backs-Constitutional-Carry-weapon-law-294670961.html

Please contact these LEO's respectfully and eloquently with a pro Constitutional Carry comment
Bannock County Sheriff Lorin Nielsen
tel:208-236-7123
sheriff@bannockcounty.us

Pocatello Police Chief Scott Marchand
208-234-6113
smarchand@pocatello.us

 

[DCR]

Republican Leadership Has Killed The Bill

Constitutional Carry is dead. The new bill Loertscher et al are promising this week completely guts the concept of constitutional carry, yet he and his Republican cronies are trumpeting it as the ideal alternative. WRONG!

They think Idahoans are stupid enough to believe that merely eliminating the provision exempting elected officials from needing a permit, and eliminating the "lawful outdoor activity" language in the subsection that allows permitless concealed carry outside city limits is effectively the same thing as constitutional carry. Tell me, how is not changing something we already could do anyway even remotely the same as eliminating the requirement to get a concealed weapons license to carry inside the city limits and on the highways of the state?

Don't be fooled, people! Your legislator is insulting your intelligence if he tries to tell you so, and should be soundly defeated in the next election, if not immediately recalled before then.

I suspect the city and county lobbying groups, and possibly mayoral groups, have quietly joined the Idaho Sheriffs Association, Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association and LEO lobbying groups in opposing constitutional carry because they all oppose the diminution of their authority to limit weapons within their jurisdictions and the elimination of a powerful law enforcement tool that has for decades eroded our civil rights and become an easy dodge around the Fourth Amendment ( and Article I, Section 17 of Idaho's Constitution), all in the name of "officer safety."

Please keep hammering away at your legislators to pass REAL constitutional carry rather than this meaningless pablum before washing their hands of it til next year and ending this 2015 session.

 

[MamaLiberty]

Seriously misnamed, in any case.

Constitutional - "...shall not be infringed."

Doesn't say a word about what, where or how a person is "armed." Nothing about "felons," or how much alcohol a restaurant serves. No exemptions there for churches, schools, etc. Not a peep about the age of those with authority from God to defend themselves, by whatever means necessary.

And absolutely no gurantee that some people might not abuse and misuse their right to "keep and bear arms." In fact, that's one of the reasons we carry, which is also proven to be a serious deterrant to those who would indulge in assault, rape and all sorts of theft - whether they are armed or not.

Last... not a scrap of evidence to show that people who truly want to harm others will ask permission to own or carry a tool. I've never seen anything to indicate that someone who is ready and willing to commit murder (or kill themselves) will forget about it because of a law restricting "legal" access to the tool! Why in the world should they care? The only good the laws against murder, rape, etc do is create a handle to deal with such things after the fact.

The only actual purpose of the CC "permit" law anywhere is to create ways to control and track people who do not generally have any intention of harming innocent people. Seems simple enough to understand. Do you think any politician is going to give up that kind of power without a fight? They'll just give the fake a nice coat of shiny paint and call it freedom.

So this kind of legislation falls far short of "constitutional carry" then, since it will remain restricted to the short list of those already approved, and it will remain "illegal" to carry into any place previously prohibited by the "permit" to start with. It would be a little more convenient for most who are used to such infringement, and willing to accept it, but it isn't actual freedom, or even "constitutional."

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

ISAA Responds to Misinformation on HB 89

For Immediate Release from:https://www.idahosaa.org/

Boise, Idaho, Wednesday, March 4, 2015 – Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, the premier organization defending Idaho gun owners’ Second Amendment rights, announced its support for House Bill 89.

“News reports of what HB89 does and does not do are being published throughout the state that clearly misstate the facts behind the bill,” said Greg Pruett, President of the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance. “HB89 serves to decriminalize the Second Amendment in Idaho. States that have enacted Constitutional Carry have seen crime rates stay flat or decrease. HB89 isn’t about criminals since criminals ignore the law. HB89 is about protecting Idaho citizens.”

State Affairs Committee Chairman Loertscher and House Speaker Bedke have prevented HB89 from getting a hearing. Mr. Loertscher has referred HB89 to a secret committee with no published membership and no lawful authority in the legislature. This secret committee does not hold hearings and is unaccountable to the public. The reason for burying HB89 in this secret committee is unclear. Initially Mr. Loertscher stated he wanted to make sure this bill didn’t compete with a senate gun bill, which it does not. More recently, sources reported the secret committee assignment is due to a fear the State of Washington will cancel reciprocity for Idaho’s Enhanced Permit, similar to what happened with Washington-Alaska reciprocity when Alaska enacted Constitutional Carry in 2003.

The ISAA reached out to Alaska authorities to find the truth. According to the Alaska Department of Public Safety, the State of Washington has never recognized a concealed carry permit from Alaska. Alaska authorities stated “we have paper records back as far as September of 2000. In all of those years the state of Washington has not recognized or reciprocated with the Alaska ACHP.” The lack of reciprocity has nothing to do with Constitutional Carry that Alaska instituted in 2003. Further, HB89 does not change Idaho’s concealed weapons permits and the Enhanced Permit will require the same training it does today. The Washington-Idaho excuse is either fear-mongering or ignorance, and Mr. Loertscher should be ashamed either way. Regardless, the NRA and Idaho legislators continue to use Washington- Idaho reciprocity as an excuse to hold HB89 in the secret committee.

HB89 does not change when or where someone might carry a gun in Idaho. It is currently legal to carry a gun openly. However, current regulations make it a crime to wear a jacket that covers the gun. HB89 simply protects law-abiding gun owners from senseless restrictions that criminals ignore anyway.

Politics in the Idaho Capitol are now reminiscent of Congress. Mr. Loertscher’s recent tantrum on the House floor bemoaning his constituents attempts to make their position clear on this important bill are but one failing of the Idaho political scene. Conspicuously missing from Mr. Loertscher’s complaint that his constituents were calling him at home is the fact that he, himself, published his home phone number in both the legislative directory and his own campaign page.

The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance urges citizens to contact their state legislators and make their voices heard on HB89. State Affairs Committee Chairman Loertscher may be reached at 208.332 1183 or tloertscher@house.idaho.gov and House Speaker Bedke at 208.332.1183 or sbedke@house.idaho.gov.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Call to Action Idahoans

From:https://www.idahosaa.org/2015/02/26/sample-emails-for-speaker-chairman-and-your-reps/

Here is a couple sample emails you can send. The first is for Speaker Bedke and Chairman Loertscher and the second email is for your own Representatives:

Dear Speaker Bedke and Chairman Loertscher

I agree with Gun Owners of America that HB 89 is one of the most important bills in the Idaho legislature right now.

But from what I’m hearing, there are no plans on your part to move this legislation. Why is that?

The concept of “constitutional carry” is simple: An individual’s ability to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights shouldn’t depend on a “permit” from the government.

I don’t need a government license to write a book. So why should I have to get the government’s okay in order to carry a firearm to protect myself and my family?

I would ask you to make sure HB 89 comes up for a committee vote and then is send to the full House.

Please let me know what you intend to do.

Sincerely,

——————————————————————————-

Here is the email you can use for your own representatives:

Dear (Put Their Name Here)

I agree with Gun Owners of America that HB 89 is one of the most important bills in the Idaho legislature right now.

But from what I’m hearing, there are no plans by Speaker Bedke and Chairman Loertscher to move this legislation. Why is that?

The concept of “constitutional carry” is simple: An individual’s ability to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights shouldn’t depend on a “permit” from the government.

I don’t need a government license to write a book. So why should I have to get the government’s okay in order to carry a firearm to protect myself and my family?

I would ask you to make sure HB 89 comes up for a committee vote and then is send to the full House. Even though you may not be on the committee, I am encouraging you to ask them to put HB 89 up for a full hearing immediately.

Please let me know what you intend to do.

Sincerely,