Idaho Constitutional Carry Bill Introduced

[Member 3687]

balaperdida

Concealed carry licenses for firearms in Idaho are forbidden by its Constitution in Article I, Section 11: No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. The important word here is "possession". Existing law, including the imposition of the so-called "enhanced" license to carry in universities, creates the absurd notion that a person loses possession of a firearm the moment it is concealed.

How they have gotten away with it is the fact that Idaho is also open carry and has been from day one from everything I can find. So they have not stopped possession in any way, just the way you carry.

If I read and understand the old reasoning behind it is that an honest man has nothing to hide a dishonest man does.

But unless you been playing politics long in Idaho most folks do not know it has not always been easy to get a permit in Idaho as about 20 plus years ago you had to go to each and every county to get a permit and it was only good in that county. Then they went to a contingent county system then state wide. At that time I had a permit in Washington to carry there and just opened carried in Idaho no problem.

I feel it will pass but southern Idaho is starting to become very blue politically with the influx of folks from California and other blue states with HP and other computer systems located down there.

So we are still in control for the moment but we cannot stop fighting as being silent will make them think you approve.

Existing law, including the imposition of the so-called "enhanced" license to carry in universities, creates the absurd notion that a person loses possession of a firearm the moment it is concealed.


A business or privet home still has the right to deny carrying of a firearm even in Idaho but most do not.

Universities have that right to stop firearms if they are privately owned and privately paid for but most are not they get some funding from the state and federal government so this how they can force them to alloy permit carry, sort of a compromise we give them an enhanced permit requiring training and you allow them on campus.

We could also say we will cut your funding if you do not allow canceled carry and then the antis could have a hay day in the media. It's better to Compromise for now then change it later sort of baby steps.

 

[Liberty97045]

I just had a recruiter call and screening interview for a position in Nampa. It is looking better and better.

 

[balaperdida]

DSAPT9: Thank you for your analysis. Clarifying comments follow:

The whole point is that licensure for possession of a firearm is forbidden by the Idaho Constitution.

Licensure means "to issue a license". In Idaho, it is named a "Concealed Weapon License" (CWL). "Weapon" is defined in a list of potentially lethal items, but does not include, for example: garden forks, hammers, or nail guns.

Firearms are a subset of "weapons". As noted above, firearms are given unique consideration among weapons when licensure is involved.

Possession is defined in a standard jury instruction ICJI 421: A person has possession of something if the person knows of its presence and has physical control of it, or has the power and intention to control it. ICJI 421 also contains the comment: There is no need to attempt to distinguish further between actual and constructive possession and sole and joint possession.

ICJI 421 seems to be very clear. How can a person not possess a firearm when that person's physical control of it is so intimate such that the firearm is concealed? BTW, the comment renders licensure for a loaded firearm concealed in a vehicle unconstitutional. It really matters not whether a CWL is easy or difficult to obtain. Imposing a CWL by law for a firearm is unconstitutional. This does not mean that other restrictions of concealed carry on one's person cannot be imposed, nor does it mean that a framework could not be enacted for obtaining a CWL voluntarily to allow compliance with federal law, as in GFSZA, or for reciprocity with other States.

I should have written "State universities", instead of just "universities". Private businesses, including private universities, pose a different problem. This gets into the question of how much of a "right" is the right to self-defense. If the right to self-defense carries as much weight as, for example, the "rights" demanded by the LGBTs, then prohibition of guns in private businesses would also be illegal or unconstitutional.

I am already retired in Idaho, therefore I have no further comment on that particular diverting of this thread.

 

[Member 3687]

Article 1 section 11 of the Idaho Constitution

Section 11. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. 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.


Like I said open carry is fine but concealed can be governed.

 

[FortRock]

I too, plan to take my tax revenue with me to another state (Idaho/Montana) when I retire... just like them 1st teir PERS schmucks did after they manipulated the system and scored them 120%+ golden parachutes on the tax payers' dime.

we're headed to either Libby or Deer Lodge

 

[balaperdida]

<snip>

Like I said open carry is fine but concealed can be governed.

No argument here. Concealed can be governed, but licensing is prohibited because a concealed firearm is still in possession of the bearer.

 

[mjbskwim]

I believe the concealed carry is for the cities and not the rest of the state.

 

[Member 3687]

That is true but that just changed not to long ago and was intended in the start for hunters and sportsman to carry in the woods but has expanded. There are still some questions on that so be careful.
That is why the push for constitutional carry.

 

[Stomper]

I know it's appalling that they have to "pass a law" for something that is already spelled out in the Constitution, but in my eyes if that's what it takes to shut down any "creative interpretation" of said Constitution, then that's what it takes and praise God someone has the juice in this world to get it done.