BREAKING: Idaho Becomes Ninth Constitutional Carry State


“The movement to enact “constitutional carry” of weapons has added another notch to the growing list of states that do not require a permit for individuals to carry concealed weapons.” With Idaho Governor Butch Otter letting Senate Bill 1389 sit on his desk, it becomes law today without his signature. “The most pertinent part of the new legislation — Section 1, Subsection 4(f)  — provides that a person is entitled to carry a concealed weapon without a permit if the individual: a) is over 21 years of age; b) is an Idaho resident; and c) is not covered by  a number of restrictions specifically spelled out relative to criminal history and mental status.” Which state will be next to join the club?


  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Idaho is looking better and better for retirement.
    Congratulations to all my neighbors to the east.

    1. avatar Tim says:

      Idaho is a great place to retire. We love it here!

      1. avatar Nam62 says:

        We moved to Idaho in Nov. 2004 from The Late Great State of Kalif. And thank our selves every day we got out of that hell hold! Love the Gun Laws in the State of Idaho………

    2. avatar Msgt Ric Martin says:

      AMEN brother i feel the same way!

    3. avatar IdahoPete says:

      Yup. I escaped the People’s Republic of California in 2004 when I retired, and have never regretted moving to Idaho. When I drove across the Snake River from Oregon into Idaho (I lived in NE Calif), I was singing “free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, free at last”). No waiting periods, no “have to go through a dealer every time you transfer a gun”, and the Idaho Legislature is 80% Republican, so they can completely ignore the whining of the Dems.

      The recent Idaho primary/caucus elections had a turnout of 222,200 Republican voters Mar 8) and 23,500 Democrat voters (Mar 22). The Dems can’t even get 11% of the Republicans. Total Democrat voters registered in Idaho are about 18%, with Republicans at 83%. and we tend to kick any RINOS out of office fairly quickly. If you are a leftist, you will not be happy in Idaho. And we intend to keep it that way.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        From what I know about Idaho it seems nice, but isn’t it cold there? Ack. I want to move someplace warmer, not colder.

  2. avatar MyPrettyAr15 says:

    Damn I am envious said the person stuck in Massachusetts of all places.

    1. avatar Alex says:

      shouts out from california…

    2. avatar FUAC says:

      and NY…

    3. avatar Dave says:

      and NJ 🙁

    4. avatar Btroll says:

      And MD

    5. avatar William says:

      And WV… Oh wait!

    6. avatar B says:

      Texas here. So freaking ashamed of our state and legislature, got beat by Puerto Rico, Idaho, and WV to Constitutional Carry. Embarrassing how hard we had to fight for licensed open carry, and we couldn’t even affirm there was a 4th amendment to the Constitution.

  3. avatar Xd40 says:

    The time is here at last one day we will all have the right. That once was ours and is still ours. They are just keeping it from us. But what is giving can be taken very easily

  4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    It’s only valid for Idaho residents, so not really constitutional carry.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Why do states do that? That really irks me. I was all excited and then I read that Constitutional Carry in Idaho only applies to Idaho residents.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Because it’s what can get passed, I figure. There are probably people who are on board for permitless carry for state residents who have some sort of hangup about opening it up to everyone. So you get the votes for the in state version, but not the broader version.

      2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Because of this:

        When a cop picks up a guy carrying a gun, and they’re a resident of that state, the state will have faster, readier access to their criminal records than for an out-of-state person. It makes it easier for them to enforce the law against the possession of guns on a prohibited person to use this limitation.

        This is how the LEO’s are brought on board the CC agenda. Otherwise, they’re in a position of “oh, we stopped a guy for running a stoplight, he was carrying, seemed shady, but the information from other states of claimed residence didn’t come back in time, so we just let a felon-in-possession walk.”

        That doesn’t look good.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          DG, that doesn’t make sense to me. NICS checks all states, and I suspect any cops could get records from any state as well. I suspect they just don’t trust foreigners. Still, a step in the right direction, right?

        2. avatar LongPurple says:

          What I make of that, is the 14th Amendment injunction “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, has been made subordinate to the “convenience of local law enforcement”.
          It seems to be a combination of hoplophobia and xenophobia.

          At least it’s a step in the right direction. Which state will be # 10?

    2. avatar Missouri Mule says:

      Since this only applies to Idaho residents, is there a 14th Amendment equal protection problem here? I am not sure I would take it to SCOTUS right now but it certainly warrants investigation in Idaho state court. Any ideas?

      1. avatar TW says:

        I would think it would be more of a privileges and immunities issue than equal protection.

        1. avatar LongPurple says:

          I see both involved; U S citizens who are citizens of Idaho are treated differently under the law, than other U S citizens who live in other states.

    3. avatar John smith says:

      DEAR Danny your state constitution should read .the same rights privilages &immunity.s as those in this state as in othere…. i am not sure of your state. So i cant find it for you. But its worth checking into.

    4. avatar IdahoPete says:

      However, Idaho recognizes the carry permits of every other state, whether or not they have reciprocal recognition of Idaho’s permit.

  5. avatar Don says:

    hmm, latest news is the governor actually signed it. Well done. Now if we can spread this around to Oregon… would make me happier. I don’t mind paying for the permission slip but why do I feel like it puts a target on my back if the government decides I’m a dissident? And when did dissidents become illegal in ‘Merica?

  6. avatar Excedrine says:

    I keep hoping it’s going to be North Carolina, but I’m not holding my breath being that our fucking Sheriff’s Association won’t even allow the repeal of the Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit. The money-grubbing bastards.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Yeah, if you need a permission slip to just buy the gun in the first place, they’re certainly not going to let you carry it around for free…

  7. avatar Jared says:

    Idaho is NOT constitution carry. It’s “zip code” carry like Wyoming.

    It’s a net positive but it’s not constitution carry.

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      At least Wyoming allows anyone to open carry.

      1. avatar Jared says:

        Same for Idaho.

        Wyoming has open carry, but the 10th jerk-it court of appeals dismissed a lawsuit against a highway patrol cop who stopped a motorcyclist at gun point for open carrying.

        So Wyoming isn’t open carry friendly if police can legally harass you for it.

        1. avatar Hi Power Toter says:

          I’ve open carried a bit in Wyoming, and never had a problem. But it’s definitely not as OC-friendly as Colorado, 2013 anti-gun laws notwithstanding.

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Depends very much on the location in Wyoming. No problem in open and rural areas. Cities? A growing problem with liberal crap of all kinds. Luckily, we only have three actual cities in the whole state. Come visit me in Weston County. I’ll introduce you to the sheriff and we can talk guns for hours. 🙂

          Remember that there are zero “laws” or statues in Wyoming on open carry. All “federal law” applies, of course, but no local entity can make up their own laws or ordinances to prohibit either OC or CC. All of the old restrictions on CC are still in place, just no “permit” required for WY residents.

          NOT “constitutional carry” by any means, but better than it was.

  8. avatar Anonymous says:

    Nice. On a roll here.

    But yeah – gun ownership is on the decline, and people want more gun control. Haha.

  9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    How does 4(f) not violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment?

    1. avatar Jared says:

      That’s why it’s zip code carry and not constitution carry.

    2. avatar Chief Master says:

      It does. I can’t get a concealed carry permit here in IL because I’m not an IL resident. The Second Amendment Foundation already has a lawsuit in the works (I’m not a party) on 14A grounds.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      Because everyone is equal, they just need to be a resident of the state- in the same way one must be a resident of the United States for some things.

      That’s bollocks but I’m sure it’s the idea.

  10. avatar Cole says:

    And somehow the gov’t still thinks they are allowed to deny the rights of 18, 19, and 20 year olds. I am glad they did this but how come they still throw that unconstitutional anti-young woman and anti-young man clause in there.

    1. avatar Nate in the land of townships says:

      I’m 19 in may… The best I can figure is that 21 has been the age of adulthood. 18 as a voting age came about because people could be drafted but couldn’t vote yet. Only makes sense to allow us to own small arms too, right? The militia is everyone between 17-45…

      1. avatar David says:

        Well there’s a bit of misinformation here, but it’s a common mistake.

        It’s not illegal for an 18,19, or 20 year old to own a handgun. That’s the mistake. Though it is against the law for them to purchase one.

        They can be gifted one perfectly legally.

        Don’t feel bad though. There are many “gun nuts” that make the exact same error even though they claim to be experts on gun matters.

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          It’s not illegal for an 18,19, or 20 year old to own a handgun. Though it is against the law for them to purchase one.

          That is incorrect, at least for most states probably. Some may require a buyer to be 21, but I think most states it is 18. You are just restricted to purchasing from a private party, not an FFL.

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          “You are just restricted to purchasing from a private party, not an FFL.”

          Now that’s really silly, and unenforceable to boot.

          What in the world is rational about arbitrary age limits? People below a certain (and highly variable) chronological age are in no danger, don’t ever need to defend themselves? Such nonsense.

          The natural authority (right) to self defense does not start at any particular age. Any person, of any age, who can’t be trusted with the tools to defend themselves can’t be trusted anywhere without a guardian or keeper.

        3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Not sure what you mean by unenforceable. FFLs are forbidden to sell a handgun to anyone under 21 by federal law. Long guns are okay.

        4. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Any rules against private sales are basically unenforceable. The prohibitionists keep trying, of course, but private sales of all sorts of things take place under the most draconian of police states. Always have, and always will.

          [Edit – I see I misread the original post I responded to. Yes, private sales are the answer. Should be the answer for ANY sale, of anything.]

  11. avatar MrFahrenheit says:

    I hope Colorado goes CC soon. And it might!

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Except Denver, Golden, Colorado Springs…, of course. 🙂

  12. avatar Martin Gomez says:

    Good news. Part of me wonders if the states aren’t seeing the writing on the wall from the Democrats’ demographic warfare against America and trying to set precedents while they can. If no one can stop the president or his successor from using the treasonous Terrible Migration to disposess Americans, then a new dark age of crime, violence, racism, and tyranny will truly be upon us.

  13. avatar Wrightl3 says:

    Oh no, now all of our potatoes will be soaked with blood. Sarc/

  14. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Congratulations, Idaho!

  15. avatar Abram G says:

    Congratulations to the PotG in Idaho! As some have noted, it’s not “pure” Constitutional Carry, but it’s a larger step than we’ve made in Ohio. Any step in the right direction is worth celebrating in my book!

  16. avatar GuyFromV says:

    Holy #$((&$%^…I’m not far from the the ID border, so I’m vicariously excited.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      If you don’t live IN Idaho, it doesn’t apply to you.

      Reading comprehension.

      1. avatar GuyFromV says:

        : experienced or felt by watching, hearing about, or reading about someone else rather than by doing something yourself.

        Word comprehension.

        1. avatar dlj95118 says:

          …nicely done!

        2. avatar LongPurple says:


  17. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    Once again I must point out that this not Constitutional Carry. It is permitless carry enacted by legislation. What legislature giveth they can taketh away. It would only be Constitutional Carry it It were placed in the state constitution.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      It is constitutional carry if the state has nothing at all to do with it, like Vermont. It is in the U.S. constitution.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        So anyone can carry in Idaho without a license like they do in Vermont? No, they can’t.

        It’s not the same. As little kids learn today, one of these things is not like the others.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yes, they can. Any law which says they cannot is unconstitutional, and I think will be recognized as such within a few years.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          I guess someone would have to challenge it. So far no one has challenged Wyoming that I know of. I hope you are right, Larry.

      2. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

        That’s wrong. It is Constitutional Carry if and only if it is out of the hands of the legislature. A future Idado legislature can pass a law reinstating carry by permit only or band concealed carry all together.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Which would again, still, violate the US constitution. Idaho legislature has the power, but not the authority. Doesn’t help much if you’re in jail, but sooner or later some individual or group will go looking for that arrest and take the state to federal court. There are more immediate needs being addressed now, but it will come.

        2. avatar Chris says:

          Like Wisconsin, for example. Open carry is in our state constitution.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          I don’t see anything here about open carry:

          Looks like a stock RKBA provision, such as can be found in constitutions of most states. Verbiage like that has never been taken to mean that licensing is prohibited by courts, so legislature could easily enact such a scheme – as they do for concealed carry.

          Also, I’m pretty sure that “constitutional carry” is supposed to refer to the situation when both concealed and open carry does not require a license.

  18. avatar Idahograybeard says:

    We’ve all seen our rights critically violated a drop at a time over the decades. This is one drop reversing that trend. Not an end, a beginning.

    Congratulations to Governor Otter for finally standing up for the rights of Idahoans. Now do something about the Muslim refugees you’re letting the Feds drop into our state.

    1. avatar Martin Gomez says:

      I wish that were true, but with 1 million legal immigrants and close to 1 million illegal immigrants flooding the country each year, America as we know it is gone. Demographics is destiny, as they say. The Dems know if they want to take away everyone’s guns and every other right, they can leave the floodgates open until they have the majority they need.

      The two Dem candidates are enemies of individual rights. Kasich is on the line between socialism and individualism. The only way to stop the bleeding is to elect Trump or Cruz.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        Ah Martin… The Dems and Repubs are simply two wings on the biggest bird of prey. All politicians have a wonderful plan for your life and property… And they will continue to steal, lie and murder as long as people continue to believe that there is some legitimate authority for politicians to continue controlling their lives. Just why do you want any politician to own your life and property?

        There is no political solution. Each person must become a self owner, governing themselves in voluntary association/cooperation with like minded people.

        Reject the false controllers, the false “rulers.” Govern your own life and defend it in every area. Not no rules… no rulers and no slaves.

        1. avatar GuyFromV says:

          You listen to Mama, now, y’hear?

          (edit: No rulers except those we choose for ourselves, of course…

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          The problem is, Guy, that the “rulers” you choose don’t leave the rest of us alone to govern ourselves. I don’t want ANY rulers, but I don’t have any choice.

          It’s like this “will of the people” thing. What IS that “will?” Everyone has their own ideas, needs and wants, so no “majority” vote can fulfill that. And no politician can ever actually “represent” more than a few who agree completely with him/her.

          There are only individuals. All groups and polities are made up of individuals. When the various polities and groups are content to rule themselves and leave everyone else alone to do the same, then we can approach liberty AND justice.

        3. avatar GuyFromV says:

          This is a reply to your unrepliable reply I wanted to reply to (lol):

          You’re talking about rulers from “The State”(spooky music), not any freely chosen ruler.

        4. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Guy… you can choose any ruler you want, of course. You simply can’t choose for me. And no part of the population can legitimately choose for me either. I freely choose not to have ANY ruler except myself.

          I live by the law of non-aggression. I want no part in forcing others to do anything, any more than I want to be forced to do things.

  19. avatar 4Rescue says:

    So awesome, now I just hope Oregon wakes up and follows suit… Dam transplant hipsters and yuppies are ruining this State, esp. the NW corner.

    The Simple fact is that Oregon has had it’s share and THEN some of mass-shootings… and guess what, there weren’t any reported numbers (or ANY really) people carrying and look what happened… so in a way we’ve already TRIED IT “their way” and it’s failed 100% of the time… How many lives could have been saved here in the last 2 or so decades if more folks had been carrying concealed and trained how to use those weapons??? We’ll never know, but we certainly know how many have been lost when there WEREN’T any.

  20. avatar Jimmyjames says:

    Wow! Nine states that allow what the constitution “guarantees”. States rights indeed.

    1. avatar Martin Gomez says:

      Yep. Then the Dems import millions of immigrants/refauxgees, and the new alien majority decides it needs some “common sense” restrictions on gun ownership based on the dystopian criminal hellhole Idaho became.

      If mass immigration isn’t halted now and the vagrants expelled, the historical America, the Bill of Rights, and many lives are gone in 20 years.

  21. avatar chartrand says:

    Is there any place in the State that an open carry is NOT allowed?

  22. avatar david chartrand says:

    Is there any place in the State that an open carry gun is NOT allowed?

    1. avatar Paul says:

      Court houses, elementary schools, past the airport security checkpoint, etc.

      1. avatar John smith says:

        The areas mentioned are private property schools court houses beaches parks.ect the only way to change it is via local gov ordinance that allows it .if they dont force them out at election time

  23. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Congrats, Idaho.

    It’s not perfect, but it is better than a forced mustache ride by DiFi.

  24. avatar Mudshark says:

    Some immigrates may be more pro gun and pro constitution than you think.

  25. avatar Mercutio says:

    Hawai’i will be the 51st state to enact it…. right after Upper Botswana joins the Union…

  26. avatar Mark Horning says:

    Item (b) is clearly in violation of the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.

    Regardless, it is a major step forward.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email