Previous Post
Next Post

Image courtesy Idaho State LegislatureIf 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His CCW permit was revoked after he was caught lying in his applications, but he’s allowed to keep carrying because Idaho law allows virtually all elected officials to carry concealed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?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I’ll go a step further and say that if you’re not in jail, you have a right to carry. The Constitution doesn’t distinguish rights between classes of citizens based on previous record, not does it delineate any difference between government workers of the public in regard to the bill of rights. Simply put EVERY citizen in the United States is protected by the Bill of Rights. If someone is released from jail after committing a crime, as a society we should be content that they are “rehabilitated” or they SHOULD STILL BE IN JAIL. The crux is, if we trust them in society but we don’t trust them with firearms, there is a missing piece to the logic…It is a slippery slope when “crimes” allow the government to forbid you to exercise your rights.

        • Ahh, a member of the “Escape from Manhattan” ideology. Very just, very just. So tell me this, Just In, how will you know which convicts have been rehabilitated and can be released, and those who should be locked in a cell never to see the light of day? I don’t know of any modern magic that can accurately make this assessment. Doesn’t your logic dictate, then, that since we really can’t tell the good from the bad with any kind of accuracy, we should lock them all up and throw away the key?

        • …If I may…..IMO…all of you are starting at the wrong point in order to begin this type of discussion… …whether the person went to jail or prison in this country….is often not a sign of their potential danger to society…I mean..look at all the stupid laws we have…over 4600 federal felonies alone…that are “selectively enforced” for the benefit of the rich and powerful…I read once that almost every American commits some type of “felony” on a weekly basis…though they may be unaware of their law-breaking …how many more years and $ are we going to waste trying to “punish” drug-users who’s personal consumption has caused no harm to anyone else? How many of the prisons are filled with non-violent offenders…who due to their incarceration and the corrupt system…come out of prison furious and bent on some type of revenge…or simply do not have the social skills to maintain their safety & security in modern society…especially after they have been convicted, served their time, socialized to a prison culture…and then released…? When you factor in the prison-for-profit scam in this country …you understand that all of the criminals are not the ones sitting behind the bars in jail..but are the people controlling the political, financial and business decision making in this country…they are the ones who should be convicted of treason for ruining these non-violent, libertarian oriented people’s lives…and then they should be hung….I’m certain that we can deal with the really violent criminals as needed…the true number of “criminals”… would be much lower if we were to look at social issues from a libertarian perspective…if the person is not bringing direct harm to another person or property… ….their behavior should not be the business of “The State”…period…and it certainly should never be considered “criminal”…!


          RJ O’Guillory
          Author –
          Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

      • I don’t think it’s possible to “accidentally” commit rape or armed robbery so as long as there is PROOF of the crime they should rot…..forever. What was done can not be undone and no valid excuse exists for those actions. Note, I did say PROOF and I do mean definitive proof. I am also ONLY talking about those specific crimes not the myriad of other crimes possible to grey up the subject.

    • Ideologically, I’m with you, but based on life experience, I’m a bit conflicted on this point. I was once production manager for a furniture manufacturing outfit, the owner of which – as an ex-con himself – believed in hiring fellow former felons. Some of those guys were pretty nice guys, some were downright scary. All were distinctly lacking in impulse control. Every one I’ve ever met who stacked time was changed by the experience, not always for the better. One thing their time in the can taught them was that allowing anyone to know the whole truth about them was giving ammunition to a potential adversary. To a man, the truth was not in them. Most of those guys probably should not own guns, and to their credit, most wanted nothing to do with them (or anything else likely to put them back inside).

      I’ll make an exception for a few people I’ve met who were truly innocent and unjustly convicted, and a couple of people I know fairly well who received absurdly long sentences for simple marijuana possession in the bad old days. Many of the came through the experience whole with no more than a bit of justifiable resentment of the system.

      As to the idea that miscreants should remain in prison unless we trust them to be totally rehabilitated, well, just how many prisons are you ready to build. It’s your tax dollars.

      • I tend to agree that once a sentence is served, people should regain the rights they lost during incarceration. I do, however, think that people who have demonstrated a willful and repetitive desire to piss in the communal water hole should face additional, life-long restrictions. It is not hard to segment between violent and non-violent offenses.

        The facts are fairly simple: there are more non-violent people in prison than violent ones ( I’m thinking people convicted of drug, property, or other offenses are good candidates for regaining their rights. For serial criminals convicted of violent offenses, not so much.

        I do understand the argument that if people are still a danger to society then they shouldn’t be released from prison. I get the desire, but actually being able to do this is not so easy. How would you tell? From prior history? Maybe… So the solution could be to simply have one sentence for all violent crimes – life without parole. Ok, but that will turn every robbery, every assault, every rape into a murder. Why? Because dead people make poor witnesses. This is one of those situations where unintended consequences will be profound.

    • The problem with this argument is that you can’t tell if someone is rehabilitated until they have been out and integrated back into society. I think that if someone is duly convicted of a violent crime they should be punished by serving time in prison and then losing their rights to keep and bear arms after their release. If they can keep their nose clean for a period of time (maybe 10 years but whatever demonstrates rehabilitation scientifically) then they could petition the court for their rights to be re-instated.

      It might be logically sound to suggest we shouldn’t release prisoners until we are sure they are fit citizens again. I don’t know how on earth that would work in the real world. It strikes me as a good argument but a bad idea.

      • So that means they lose all rights up on conviction correct? No free speech? No peaceable assembly? No petitioning their government? No religious activity? No protection against unreasonable search and seizure? Or is it just their right to arms that you want to deny them? Are you going to let them have sharp knives, scissors, baseball bats, etc.? For a supposedly firearms friedly site, their seem to be quite a few anti-freedom people here!

        • Meaningful participation in a discussion involves more than pointing a finger and metaphorically calling someone a dumbass. What is it you would propose? How would you support it?

        • What a dork, as posted in my article, I would deny a convicted violent offender their right to bear arms, firearms in particular. Maybe you have faith in the rehabilitative capacities of prison but I do not.

          “For a supposedly firearms friedly site, their seem to be quite a few anti-freedom people here!”

          One of the great things about TTAG is that anyone can post their thoughts. If you are looking for something a little less diverse, I’m sure you can find a board that enforces group think theaton.

        • “For a supposedly firearms friedly site, their seem to be quite a few anti-freedom people here!”

          The problem is that most gun owners are Republicans and as such, a great many of them believe that if you are arrested for any reason, you deserve it and should forever be a second class citizen.

        • Totenglock, I think that is a harsh assessment of Republicans. In PA we have had a Republican-majority legislature for most of the last thirty years. Yet we also have automatic time-delay restoration of gun rights for those who committed a felony-equivalent as a juvenile, and a procedure for restoration of gun rights for others. For a resident of PA with a felony or violent misdemeanor record the problematic restrictions derive from federal laws, which have generally flowed from the pen of Democrat-majority congresses. It is, at worst, a mix of people from both parties who fear the convicted felon.

          Why, I ask, are First Amendment rights not withdrawn from politicians who lie? “Three strikes and you’re out” might be a suitable program.

        • 505markf, I didn’t call anyone any names, unlike TT below. I was just trying to understand if all rights were lost or just the rights that someone arbitrarily chooses to deny. If a person has a single right, they have all rights. Rights are not granted by man.

          TT, I don’t have much faith in the rehabilitative capacities of prison. I do believe that if a person is to dangerous to posses a firearm then they should be locked away or have a chaperone. All free people have the right to self-defense. I’m all for diversity. I listen to all points of view. However, when I hear people trying to justify taking rights away from free people, I realize that person is a Tyrant and their views no longer matter.

        • Theaton – I get your point now. I do not think that it is necessarily tyrannical to take away someone’s rights, though. Consider someone convicted of murder and sentenced to prison or even to death, in some states. Yes, we are born with certain inalienable rights, but subsequent, willful action on the part of an individual can result in a temporary or even permanent restriction of those rights. Prison is not liberty and a death sentence certainly strips away the right to live. The problem is the grey area when offenders are released. There is no cure for rapists (having worked in that field some years ago). So is the solution to lock then away forever? The unintended consequence of that is turn rapists into murderers because the dead are poor witnesses. It is not so simple, not so black and white.

        • “TT, I don’t have much faith in the rehabilitative capacities of prison. I do believe that if a person is to dangerous to posses a firearm then they should be locked away or have a chaperone. All free people have the right to self-defense. I’m all for diversity. I listen to all points of view. However, when I hear people trying to justify taking rights away from free people, I realize that person is a Tyrant and their views no longer matter.”

          Just one more person that thinks they have an infallible capacity for knowing. Anyone that thinks that someone who doesn’t agree with them is either anti-freedom or a tyrant is a dork.

          How does your approach work in the real world? Do you keep people in prison until they pass some rehabilitation test? Provide a chaperon for them? Really, a chaperon? How much would that cost? How do you do that?

          If we had some way of knowing whether a person had been rehabilitated or no longer posed a threat, then the position of ‘We should incarcerate someone until they aren’t a threat’ might be a realistic position. Without the ability to determine if someone is a threat than this is a position that is good in an argument but impossible in the real world. I personally think that if someone with access to due process has been convicted of a violent crime, then part of their punishment is losing the right to bear arms.

          theaton, I am interest to hear you spell out how your approach would work. How do we keep felons in prison until we are reasonably sure they aren’t a danger to society again?

        • 505markf, the willful action of a person can result in the temporary revocation of rights. However, once the punishment for that action is up the state no longer has control over your rights, at least they shouldn’t. I just don’t understand the obsessive focus on firearms. Can a convicted murderer not get out of prison and muder again by other means, knife, club, etc.? Should we further restrict what personal property they may posses? Could they not steal someones identity with the use of technology? Sure they could but their first amendment rights are not infringed. More directly though, does you or me telling them they are prohibited from possesing firearms stop them from possessing firearms? Not in the least. All the prohibited person status does is let the justice system tack on more time. Should a murderer who uses a firearm really get an extra 10 years over the murderer who uses a bat or knife? I will admit that I have a hard time with grey area. I see things as right or wrong. I would rather err on the side of freedom and liberty.

        • TT, I don’t have an ifallible capacity for knowing. However, I do know that someone who want to infirnge the rights of others is a Tyrant.

          Freedom and liberty are hard. There is no magic solution to every problem. The Constitution of the United States is as close as anyone has come so far. Can I guarantee that a convicted murderer won’t kill again? Of course not but I also can’t guarantee that the next person you pass on the street won’t use you as his first murder. Should be implement pre-crime as in Minority Report? I also can’t guarantee that the convicted murderer that was just released won’t kill you with a tire iron. Should we not let the convicted murderer posses any personal property? Why the focus on firearms? The person that is going to harm you, new criminal or repeat offender, has already decided to violate the law. Do you really think telling them they can’t use a certain tool in the commission of their crime is going to stop them from using that tool? There is logic in a law that tells someone they can’t steal from you, assault you or murder you. Those things are an act against you and they infring up on your rights and the law is there to punish them for that violation. There is no logic in a law that tells someone that they can’t posses a bit of personal property. Owning that property does not infringe upon anyones rights. There is no logic in punishing someone for owning personal property.

          We already incarcerate far to many people. Maybe if we would focus on violent offenders, we could figure out how to rehabilitate them. Maybe we could figure out that they can’t be rehabiliated and we, as a society, determine that letting certain criminals out is not wise. I’ve read many cases where a guy growing weed for his own use got a much harsher sentence than a guy who comitted murder. This just indicates that our justice system is not about justice, it is about convicting as many people as possible. DA’s get promoted based on conviction rate, not the quality of justice. Our prison system is not about rehabiliation, it is about money. America’s prison system is a $37 billion dollar industry. But that is a topic for another day.

        • “TT, I don’t have an ifallible capacity for knowing. However, I do know that someone who want to infirnge the rights of others is a Tyrant.”

          Taking a position you don’t agree with does not make me or anyone else a tyrant. Ruling unrestrained by law or constitution does (at least according to wikipedia).

          You haven’t described how your position would work in the real world. Would you maintain a definite length sentence for criminals convicted of violent crimes and then restore their rights upon their release? Would you only release them from incarceration after they proved they were fit citizens? How does your approach work?

          This is the problem in my eyes with your position. It is logically consistent and can be useful in an argument. There is no way that I can see to implement that in the real world. If there is, please enlighten me, I’m not afraid to be wrong.

          I have no trouble restricting the rights of convicted felons. We already do that when we punish them. I am comfortable with restricting the RKBA rights of convicted violent felons. They have demonstrated that they are a danger. I don’t think it should be forever and I think their should be a due process approach to re-instating their rights after a period of good conduct. But if someone is going to go out and attack people, I think they are getting what they deserve when they lose the RKBA rights.

          I don’t think this should apply to convicted felon that were not violent and certainly not drug use offenses, they shouldn’t be in prison as far as I’m concerned. But if someone goes out and assaults someone, I don’t really have a lot of sympathy for them.

        • The problem is that most gun owners are Republicans and as such, a great many of them believe that if you are arrested for any reason, you deserve it and should forever be a second class citizen.

          I was a participant on Kim du Toit’s site back in the day. The politics there tended to be only slightly to the right of TTAG’s comment section… and there were an astonishing number of people there who were willing to support full restoration of rights once the sentence was served and restitution made.

          As near as I can tell, Republicans believe debts should be paid, but they also believe redemption is possible for all but the very worst.

        • theaton – now you’re going! Some good points in your arguments. TT has some as well. As I re-read the entire discussion, it is very clear that there is no easy solution. But damned if it doesn’t deserve to be talked about.

          It sort of boils down to a simple proposition: a right must not be abridged in advance of a misuse of that right but only if the right is misused, i.e., after the fact. So once a debt to society has been paid, rights restored, and then penalized again in the event the person violates the law again. That is challenging to me. It is certainly the most consistent way to define “freedom”, but damned if it doesn’t seem unsafe to me! This one really challenges me. It may be that is the cost of freedom. Hmm… I need the day to progress so I can cogitate over a beer, or two. Thanks everyone for the likely discussion!

    • You say that……….right up until they want to build a sex offender halfway house next to your kid’s school.

      Sometimes, whose rights are being infringed depends upon whose ox is being gored.

    • However, parolees should still be restricted.

      Of course, then, what follows is an increase in the # of sentences with lifetime parole, which is how felons of various degrees are currently treated.

    • You lose your constitutional rights the moment you do something criminal. Like rape, murder, drug dealing, etc. That is how it should be.

  2. “there shouldn’t be one rule for ‘the gummint’ and another, more restrictive rule for the rest of us.”

    The idea that rulers “rule” and subjects are “subject” is exactly the premise upon which all government is based. You don’t actually believe that rulers would make themselves subjects, right?

    • Government cannot control innocent men who have done nothing. Government can only control criminals who have broken the law. Therefore, government will continue to make laws such that anyone can be a criminal at anytime for the smallest of infractions for the sole purpose of being able to be controlled by the government.

      • Almost a direct Ayn Rand quote:

        “The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” – Atlas Shrugged

    • I live in Idaho, too, although the story about him getting his permit revoked by the Ada County Sheriff’s Office received limited coverage on a couple of our local news stations last week, though I live in eastern Idaho, which Boise basically ignores as if it were just another northern extension of Utah.

      Patterson didn’t think he should’ve reported the “assault with intent to rape” guilty plea because he received a withheld judgement in the case 40 years ago, and technically wasn’t “convicted.”

      From the Magic Valley News, the 1990 “exemption” law is put into perspective:

      “Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he’s not ready to do away with the elected-official exemption, citing concerns that public officials can be considered higher profile targets.

      “I think it’s something that we need to have a further look-see at,” Luker said.

      “Idaho’s elected-official exemption applies to any elected official in the state, from school board members and highway district commissioners to the governor.

      “It also exempts a slew of others, with many of the additional exemptions added in amendments since 1990. Those include peace officers; jail guards; military employees; criminal investigators for the attorney general or county prosecutors; city or county officials; retired peace officers; people legally hunting, fishing or trapping outside a city; and on-duty officers of express companies.”

      • “Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he’s not ready to do away with the elected-official exemption, citing concerns that public officials can be considered higher profile targets.”

        Should they be “considered higher profile targets” simply because of their job, or is it really about what they’re doing at their job that make them “higher profile” targets? If what you’re doing is pissing-off the people who elected you; to the point that they might think about shooting you, then maybe you should stop what you’re doing?

  3. I think I will come down hard on this one. If he is a proven liar and he is in government he should be run out of town on a rail.

    I know the world runs on white lies, but dammit, I tell the truth because I do not want to remember two versions of an event. I expect no less from the people who are running things.

    As far as his permit goes, you are asked no less than three times if you have ever been a threat to anyone else, which should preclude you from having a firearm.

    There is good reason for those questions.

  4. More to the story. I’m from Idaho and have been following the story for while. Mark patterson is one of the biggest 2nd Amendment allies we have in Idaho. The sheriff That removed his license is the only dirtbag anti-2A sheriff in the whole state. Like I said, there’s more to the rape story that he plead guilty to 40 years ago
    As for the main focus of the article, I have no problem with it because our legislators take care of us here

  5. “assault with intent to commit rape”

    While a crime like that might disqualify you for a CCW, it totally qualifies you to become a politician.

    Actually, I’m pretty sure it’s a requirement!

  6. Just to let people know too. The info is out there because of another politician/leo who opposed Patterson’s recent bill on making it a crime for leo’s to enforce new federal gun control.

    So….duesh and a turd sandwhich.

  7. Chris –

    I’m 38 – this guys hardly looks older than me. His kids are young too? Is he really in his 50’s? Or is there something else going on.


    • Yes, you can open carry in Idaho, but if you’re going to conceal carry, they want you to have a permit.

      We now have two classifications of CC permits, one that allows you to conceal carry in Idaho just by paying a fee for a permit and undergoing a background check. The other is an enhanced permit, which has reciprocity with approximately 40 other states, and requires that you take a six-hour training course in addition to the background check and fee.

    • Idaho is actually a smei-constitutional carry state. If you are not within city limits there is no need for a permit to ccw. Once in side city limits then you need a permit. Open carry is allowed everywhere.

      The current exemption for politicians is a bit ridiculous, but I think there is some work happening in the next legislative session to get full constitutional carry on the books so that would become a moot point.

      Honestly though, I’ve never met so many people in one place that have their permits anyways. I moved to Idaho earlier this year and it seems like everyone I meet,from the little old ladies at church, to homeschool moms, and of course all the hunters, has gotten their permits, many of them getting the Utah permit too. It’s refreshing to see so many people exercising the right.

      Even if we had CC though I still would have gotten mine, just to be able to skip the background checks when I buy.

  8. He’s an attempted rapist and a liar, which makes him just like most other politicians except that they get the rape part done time after time.

    • Maybe not Ralph. Don’t believe everything that the MSM tells you:

      “An incredible story is developing in Idaho. It is a story of corruption, back room deals, huge amounts of taxpayer money hidden away from public view, a 41-year-old rape case just coming to light, and the character assassination of a State Representative who has attempted to break federal control over local law enforcement.


      The story begins in the last Idaho legislative session during 2013 when State Representative Mark Patterson put a simple four-paragraph bill before the legislature. House Bill 219 blocks Idaho sheriffs and police from participating in firearms seizures by federal agents. The text of the bill is simple: if Idaho law enforcement assist federal agents in seizing lawfully owned firearms from residents of Idaho, those sheriffs and police will be guilty of a misdemeanor crime, resulting in a small fine and jail time.

      Patterson says the bill was drafted at the request of law enforcement officers who wanted protection against any Federal order for firearm confiscation. In fact, 40 of the 44 sheriffs in the state of Idaho put their support behind the bill, as did the NRA, Larry Pratt’s Gun Owners of America, and the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police. However, the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association (ISA) did not support the bill. Again, 40 of the state’s 44 sheriffs supported the bill. Among those who did not was Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney, who happens to be the President of the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association…”

      Read the rest here, do some more research, and then decide:

      • It seems like Patterson got what’s called (in some jurisdictions) a “conditional discharge.” What that means is that if the accused keeps his nose clean for the required period of probation, his conviction is discharged and he’s free and clear.

        A conditional discharge usually does not show up on a person’s criminal record — it’s a discharge. But if I understand it correctly, the permit application asked about convictions AND conditional discharges after arrest. Patterson could have answered “no” to a conviction, but had to answer “yes” to the discharge after arrest question. He might not have been denied if he answered fully and correctly, but he chose a different path.

        The bottom line is that Patterson took a plea and later lied about it for his own convenience, which is a typical politician stunt. Then the Sheriff dug up the dirt on Patterson to advance the his own agenda, which is also a typical politician stunt.

        Bottom line — don’t get into a spitting contest with a cobra.

  9. There is SO MUCH MORE to this story than what you are reporting here:

    He took on gun confiscation by federal agents in his state and pushed for a bill to prevent cooperation by local law enforcement and guess what happened…this surfaced. Read the article above.

    He ended up being proven innocent of this charge after two years on probation which technically nullified this charge…so in that case should he still have had to report it? What if you were convicted of murder and did time but then years later DNA proved your innocence? Should you have to list that previous conviction which was proven false and thrown out?

    This guy was actually trying to do a solid by the gun community and became a target of lawfare as a result.

    • this is what i’ve been trying to say. The Ada county sheriff is a dirtbag who would have no problems “just following orders” with unconstitutional laws. He and the other (few) gun grabbers in Idaho have done a good job smearing a 2A ally and getting people to cry about Idaho’s exemption to lawmakers and people outside of city limits. Maybe TTAG can do an article on the Ada county sheriff. We need some help getting him replaced because crap stories like this are taking up the headlines

      • Joe, I was pretty shocked to see all the TTAGers jump on the lynch him band wagon without knowing more of this story. Hopefully it will get the REAL attention that it deserves and rather than tar and feathering one of their own they’ll take an objective look at it.

    • I know you guys out there in Idaho want to wrap this guy in an American flag and serve him with apple pie, but the fact remains he was twice accused of rape.

      These sorts of situations “don’t just happen”, and even a vindictive sheriff is really just airing previously unknown information about Mr. Patterson.

      At what point would you become uncomfortable with Mr. Patterson? would it take an additional rape accusation? Perhaps some pedophilia charges?

      I’m sure many of us have managed to go our whole lives without being accused of crimes like this once. Mr. Patterson managed to do it twice in 5 years.

      • It might take a conviction. I still find it obscene that US journalists report a person’s arrest record. Convictions? Fine, report them as you like. If there is not a vast gulf between arrest and a conviction in terms of its social meaning, you absolutely have a police state in which administrative guidance or individual dislike can ruin a life. The right to a jury trial is meaningless if it does not lead to actual effective exoneration.

    • He ended up being proven innocent of this charge after two years on probation which technically nullified this charge…so in that case should he still have had to report it?

      He didn’t have his permit pulled for being a rapist. It was pulled for lying on the application. I have no idea why he did that, since if all the facts are as he claims, he could have answered truthfully and there’s no way he would have been denied in the first place.

      He tried to cover up a sordid episode in his past and it caught up to him. The fact that he’s done good things for us doesn’t absolve him of anything.

  10. I get the point of the situation but at the end of the day, it’s moot. Anyone in his situation could get a permit from any other state and carry under that in Idaho. He could get a permit from Arizona where they mostly mirror federal prohibitions on obtaining a license.

    Not to mention he could legally re apply for an Idaho license and he would get one (at least on appeal).

    If they really want to stick it to this guy, they could let him know that his CCWless status doesn’t exempt him from the federal gun free schools act.

  11. I thought that conviction of violent felonies resulted in a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms under the Lautenberg Amendment. So whether or not local law allows him to carry, doesn’t federal law prevent him from having a gun in the first place?

    • The conviction was discharged. If it’s discharged, it’s gone from his criminal record. He could not be denied or his permit pulled for a prior violent crime since he does not have one on his record. His permit was pulled for lying on the application.

      Had he disclosed everything up front, he probably would have obtained his permit anyway. But the “cover-up” is always treated worse than the initial “crime.”

    • I have a problem with the statements regarding accusations- Andrew – anyone can accuse at any time. Yes sometimes it is wiser to plead out than fight and sometimes you are too scared and listen to advice from counsel that later you wish you handn’t. He was later exonerated and therefore he should NEVER have to report that it happened. This goes for the worst anti 2A or most Pro 2A. I’ll share my circumstance I was accused of something and the police said they had to arrest me because they were called. They had no evidence at all that I did what she said I did NOTHING. She told them that she called them so they would make me leave even though it was my house. When she realized that they were going to arrest me not just make me go spend the night somewhere else she told them I did not hit her but they said since they came out I was going to jail. The police officer who arrested me asked for an emergency protection order even though my wife did not ask for one and they asked her if I had any guns in the house she said my P90 was in the closet. She said it was never brandished nor did I ever threaten her or any one with it ever and she did not feel threatened by it being in the house but they took it any way. The DA investigated found no evidence of a crime NEVER filed any charges against me- I never went to court pled etc. NO charges were filed. The police lifted the protection order gave me my gun back. I had to pay to have the ARREST expunged from my record and I was told it never happened and I did not ever need to list it ever did. Now the bullshit. Since then when I try to buy a gun I get rejected by the federal system. I have called the # given to me and they refuse to tell me why. I have to pay money to get finger printed and fill out forms and beg to know why my constitutional guaranteed rights were taken away without any fucking due process. So do I need to say on any form I was arrested for but not convicted, hell no that arrest should not be there there protective order should be gone but apparently not. So due to an accusation I have to skirt the law to purchase any firearms I wish to have. Is that wrong – no as I could buy what I wanted before this and after expungement i should be able to and since I already spent money on the sysytem to get things expunged I will not spend any more to fight for my @a rights.I have no reason to believe there is anything on my record to legaly keep me from buying a gun and if asked on a private sale I say no. In a state with no backround check on private sales this is what I have to do but do not ever tell me taht because you are accused rights should be withheld and if convicted then cleared all rights get reinstated and the original conviction should never be acknowledged even if asked outright because it should not be asked about in the first place.

      • Neo, yours is the perfect example of why this guy should be given the benefit of the doubt. So many of the “law & order” types were so quick to throw this guy under the bus.

    • Good question! I know some will say that the law is the law and he must obey the law which he failed to do by not answering the question…having to ask for a permit to carry just proves that RKBA has been relegated to the status of privilege rather than a right in most places.

  12. All elected officials should be required to apply and be held to the same standards as the common people to get a permit (and I support background checks prior to issuing a permit).


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here