• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Idaho: Governor Otter Signs Permitless Carry Legislation!

OC Freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
646
Location
ADA County, ID
Greg Pruett of the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance was on www.580kido.com (AM radio) this morning at 7:30 and clarified that if you are not a resident of Idaho you only need a concealed carry permit inside city limits if you carry concealed. It appears that there are no changes to concealed carry outside city limits for non residents and 18-20 year old

Remember, Idaho accepts any concealed license from any state or legal authority such as a court.

I haven't gone over the changes yet, but here's a link to the full text of the bill.


https://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2016/S1389.htm
 

BigDeeeeeeee

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
77
Location
Kootenai County, ID
...in NC those >18 may OC w/o a permit!!!
As can they in ID. Younger kids may OC long guns in ID with written permission from a parent (down to 14 IIRC).

None of this changed with the new law that I know of.

I have WA and ID permits and will keep them current for various reasons but if I jump out of the car to go for a walk around one of the city parks and don't feel the need to take my wallet I won't be criminalized. I don't see the down side, I don't get the negativity.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Absolutely, it is an equal protection violation! Litigation on this is sorely needed.
Not too soon I hope.

For entirely irrational reasons, limiting permit-free carry to a State's own citizens, while requiring non-residents to have a permit to carry seems to make passing these bills easier. Wyoming passed permit-free carry for their own citizens in 2011, I believe. Let us remember that laws are passed (or repealed) by human beings, prone to irrational fears. Politics is the art of the possible.

Ideally, after a couple of years, gun activists go back to the legislature and remove the limitation so that permit-free carry applies to everyone. And in the meantime, non-residents were not denied anything they didn't have previously.

Incrementalism. A little gain here, a little gain there, while not giving up anything in return, results in significant gains over time.

Premature litigation preventing limiting permit-free carry to a State's own citizens might make it more difficult to get permit-free carry passed in additional States. Rather than wasting money on that case, save the funds for areas where litigation is required to make gains we can't get any other way.

I believe nine States now have permit free carry to one extent or another. The higher that number gets the more likely the courts take notice of it as they decide future cases about the extent of what the 2nd amendment protects.

Charles
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
Not too soon I hope.

Premature litigation preventing limiting permit-free carry to a State's own citizens might make it more difficult to get permit-free carry passed in additional States.

Charles
Yes....but, consider that if the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was successfully used in forcing Idaho to allow permitless carry by non-residents then that same precedent could be cited to force New Jersey, California, Illinois, etc. to either honor non-resident permits or open up the issuance of their own permits to non-residents....see where I am going with that?
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,397
Location
here nc
Yes....but, consider that if the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was successfully used in forcing Idaho to allow permitless carry by non-residents then that same precedent could be cited to force New Jersey, California, Illinois, etc. to either honor non-resident permits or open up the issuance of their own permits to non-residents....see where I am going with that?
and if you take and eat Alice's cake and have a sip of her drink you can see the queen as well as the Cheshire Cat and ask for their assistance cuz you are going to need it.

ipse
.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Yes....but, consider that if the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was successfully used in forcing Idaho to allow permitless carry by non-residents then that same precedent could be cited to force New Jersey, California, Illinois, etc. to either honor non-resident permits or open up the issuance of their own permits to non-residents....see where I am going with that?
I see, but it is a bigger jump than you think.

Since NJ doesn't allow anyone to carry without a NJ permit, the situation is quite different than Wyoming or Idaho treating residents differently than non-residents when it comes to permit-free carry.

The most obvious direct application if this lawsuit were to win would be to force NJ to issue permits to non-residents on the same basis as they (generally don't) issue permits to their own residents.

And there is certain precedence for treating residents differently than non-residents. Utah, for example, provides lower property taxes on your primary residence than it does on any secondary or vacation property.

The best way to force NJ to respect our RKBA is a direct frontal attack: 2nd amendment incorporated via 14th amendment. Heller and McDonald. Congress could act to enforce this under its 14th amendment power similar to its exercise of power with the Restoration of Religious Freedom law. Whether this was done to force permit-free, constitutional carry, or recognition of permits issued nationwide is merely a matter of degrees. But it seems too many gun owners trust the courts more than they do the legislative branch, though I can't figure out why.

Charles
 

oldbanger

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
475
Location
beckofbeyond - Idaho
BigDeeeeeeee
Younger kids may OC long guns in ID with written permission from a parent (down to 14 IIRC).
18-3302E. POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BY A MINOR.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to possess or have in possession any weapon, as defined in section 18-3302A, Idaho Code, unless he:
(a) Has the written permission of his parent or guardian to possess the weapon; or
(b) Is accompanied by his parent or guardian while he has the weapon in his possession.
(2) Any minor under the age of twelve (12) years in possession of a weapon shall be accompanied by an adult.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
I see, but it is a bigger jump than you think.
The most obvious direct application if this lawsuit were to win would be to force NJ to issue permits to non-residents on the same basis as they (generally don't) issue permits to their own residents.
Charles
Yes, that would be the case.

I see, but it is a bigger jump than you think.
And there is certain precedence for treating residents differently than non-residents. Utah, for example, provides lower property taxes on your primary residence than it does on any secondary or vacation property.
Charles
Not sure about this example, if the rules apply the same to residents vs. non-residents then there is no equal protection violation. Are Utah resident property taxes likewise treated differently (i.e. lower) for the Utah resident's primary residence that it is for any of their (in-state) secondary and/or vacation properties?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Not sure about this example, if the rules apply the same to residents vs. non-residents then there is no equal protection violation. Are Utah resident property taxes likewise treated differently (i.e. lower) for the Utah resident's primary residence that it is for any of their (in-state) secondary and/or vacation properties?
The example is not perfect to be sure. Utah can claim that everyone is treated the same: there is a tax break on your primary residence, not on any secondary residence. But that means only Utah residents can get the break since the break is only available on your primary residence. Not your first residence in Utah, but only on your primary residence. If a home isn't your primary residence only because your primary residence is in another State, well then the only reason you don't get the break is because you are not a Utah resident.

So for those folks not making use of Utah schools because they don't live in that vacation property, thanks for supporting our public schools with property tax. :)

Again, not a perfect example. But some precedence of treating residents differently than non-residents.

For a perfect example or two of treating residents different than non-residents, consider the difference a State charges for resident vs non-resident tuition at taxpayer supported colleges, or for hunting licenses, or even for carry permits.

Maybe a State says that it gives residents lower prices because their general taxes support the colleges, or wildlife management, or even running the permit system.

And maybe a State says that doesn't require a permit for residents to carry because the State's in-house criminal background check allows the State to more easily identify prohibited persons who are residents than it can do with non-residents.

Maybe a court over-turns on equal protection, maybe it doesn't. I'm just not sure it is so clear cut; and I'm not sure that getting it overturned is in the best interest of RKBA anyway...at least not for a while.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I disagree with the quoted author's attitude.

He might just as well complain that when Idaho chooses to recognize a permit issued by another State that Idaho is "setting up visitors for failure" because the federal GFSZ law doesn't grant an exemption for permits issued by States other than where the school zone is located.

As gun owners we have to be aware of all laws covering our conduct, State, federal, and local where State law allows local ordinances.

The State can do what it can do to respect our rights. It might eventually provide some protections from the feds. But for now, the Idaho State law on permit free carry is good law as far as it goes.

Charles
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
I disagree with the quoted author's attitude.

He might just as well complain that when Idaho chooses to recognize a permit issued by another State that Idaho is "setting up visitors for failure" because the federal GFSZ law doesn't grant an exemption for permits issued by States other than where the school zone is located.

As gun owners we have to be aware of all laws covering our conduct, State, federal, and local where State law allows local ordinances.

The State can do what it can do to respect our rights. It might eventually provide some protections from the feds. But for now, the Idaho State law on permit free carry is good law as far as it goes.

Charles
I would disagree .. the state cannot regulate any right. If so, its not a right at all.
 

Midwest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
305
Location
Boone County, KY
The Gun Free School Zone needs to be repealed.

Or make it so people who live in states that allow concealed or open carry without a permit to pass through the zone with immunity.

And if it can't, it needs to be modified at least to allow those with carry permits from ANY state for the exemption.

Has anyone been prosecuted for the GFSZ for just passing through a school zone in a car?

Has anyone been prosecuted for just walking inside the zone at 990 feet of the 1000 ft zone while carrying?

(I'm not talking drug dealers or criminals getting prosecuted. I'm talking about a law abiding person who drives or walks within the zone and gets stopped or pulled over for some reason).


1000 gun free school zone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

Looks like the convictions involved the sale or possession of drugs.

As more and more states pass permitless (or is it permit-less) carry like Idaho did. The GFSZ needs to be repealed or at least modified. Ron Paul introduced HR 2613 in 2011 to repeal the GFSZ, but it died in committee.
.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,189
Location
White Oak Plantation
Any fed cop who arrests a LAC, any fed prosecutor that prosecutes a LAC under the GFSZ should be arrested immediately by local cops and charged with all sorts of felonious acts. When the feds are forced to defend their minions due to their unlawful acts in any particular state then the GFSZ act and other nitwit anti-liberty fed laws will be repealed post haste.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I would disagree .. the state cannot regulate any right. If so, its not a right at all.
Should you ever actually get caught acting on your crazed delusions, you can share your theories with the judge...while the rest of us hope that internet access is limited in the big house.

But please stop with posts that might encourage the uninitiated to violate laws that carry significant penalties.

Whether a given law is constitutional or just is a fine discussion. But to suggest the government "cannot" do something is very different.
 

BigDeeeeeeee

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
77
Location
Kootenai County, ID
BigDeeeeeeee

18-3302E. POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BY A MINOR.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to possess or have in possession any weapon, as defined in section 18-3302A, Idaho Code, unless he:
(a) Has the written permission of his parent or guardian to possess the weapon; or
(b) Is accompanied by his parent or guardian while he has the weapon in his possession.
(2) Any minor under the age of twelve (12) years in possession of a weapon shall be accompanied by an adult.
Thanks, down to 12, I couldn't remember. My point was that this is a pretty free state and this new law simply made us more free. I just don't see the down side.
 

DCR

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
162
Location
, ,
Don't Sweat the Gun Free School Zones Act

Unless you're stopped by a federal officer...of which there is a dearth in Idaho (thank God...!) you can't be cited or hemmed up.

Local law enforcement does not have the authority (jurisdiction) to enforce federal law, so there's no worry from any of them. Sure, if you fail the attitude test and p*ss off a local/state LEO, they MIGHT refer the case up to a fed...but their job, career, and frankly, personal and professional lives, would not be worth a plugged nickel after that because word would get out and they'd be ineffective from that point forward, to the point they'd be dismissed from their position by their locally-elected bosses (if deputy sheriffs) or appointed bosses (if city police or state) to avoid the hassle and liability they'd pose to the office. And (rightfully) hassled by their neighbors and gun community for the rest of their festering careers.

This bill is imperfect, sure, but it completely eliminates the ambiguity of what is "concealed" by doing away with any distinction between OC and CC, which is the best fix possible.

And it takes one more "freebie" arrest and search (incident to arrest) by law enforcement which has come to be abused in their silly war on drugs. It's high time gun law stops being dictated by drug law.

Pax....

DCR
 
Top