If you had an old conviction for, say…assault with intent to commit rape, you would be expected to mention that when you applied for a CCW permit. If you failed to disclose that ‘little technicality’ you would expect to lose your CCW permit and be prosecuted for perjury, and ultimately lose your gun rights all over again. Fair’s fair, right?Not according to Idaho State Representative Mark Patterson . . .
His CCW permit was revoked after he was caught lying in his applications, but he’s allowed to keep carrying because Idaho law allows virtually all elected officials to carry concealed firearms without a permit. This law doesn’t just include the governor and state legislators: it also covers school board members, dog catchers, and highway district commissioners . . .
This obnoxious law didn’t generate much controversy until Patterson’s case hit the news. Patterson is ineligible for a CCW permit because he pled guilty to ‘assault with intent to commit rape’ in Florida in 1974, but he lied about it on his applications in 2007 and 2012. When the police discovered the prior guilty plea they revoked his CCW permit. He’s considering appealing the revocation, but he can still carry anyway because he’s an elected official.
I’m calling bullshit on this whole sordid affair.
The smaller problem is this: Whatever the rules ought to be for people with truly ancient criminal convictions, lying on your CCW application is perjury and I can’t understand why he hasn’t been charged for it.
The bigger problem is that there shouldn’t be one rule for ‘the gummint’ and another, more restrictive rule for the rest of us. Patterson’s carry privilege is just as offensive as those of Dianne Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg. It’s simply tyrannical for elected representatives to vote themselves special privileges while placing more restrictions on the lives of ordinary citizens.
Which part of “With Liberty And Justice For All” did they miss?