Some scholars already consider Idaho a de facto Constitutional carry state. For concealed carry, the Gem State only requires a firearms license within city limits. That said, Second Amendment supporters find it strange that the Idaho legislature has difficulty eliminating the “city limits” exception. In 2015, Constitutional carry got bogged down in intra-Republican fighting. This year, the original bill contained language that would strip 18-20 year old residents of open carry rights they have had since Idaho became a state in 1890 . . .
Legislators said that the open carry language was an oversight. Proponents of Constitutional carry, particularly the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance (ISAA), have strong grassroots support to remove the provision. They’ve held demonstrations at the Capitol, rallying some 1000 supporters. The lobbying has had an effect.
Legislators have introduced a new bill, SB 1389, that has a good chance of passage. It’s a compromise in a number of ways, but essentially restores Constitutional carry to Idaho. As with the recently passed Constitutional Carry legislation in West Virginia, the bill makes provisions for special concealed carry permits to 18-20 year old residents. Those permits can be renewed. They become ordinary Idaho concealed carry permits when the resident turns 21.
The bill only removes the concealed carry restrictions for Idaho residents. Non-residents will still need a permit. Idaho recognizes permits from all other states, except Vermont, which does not issue a permit. (Vermont has always had Constitutional carry.) Here’s some of the specific wording of the bill. From SB 1389(pdf):
(d) Outside the limits of or confines of any city, if the person is over
eighteen (18) years of age and is not otherwise disqualified from being
issued a license under subsection (11) of this section.
(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to restrict or pro-
hibit the carrying or possession of:
(a) Any deadly weapon located in plain view;
(b) Any lawfully possessed shotgun or rifle;
(c) A firearm that is not loaded and is concealed in a motor vehicle;
(d) A firearm that is not loaded and is secured in a case; and
(e) A firearm that is disassembled or permanently altered such that it
is not readily operable; and
(f) A concealed handgun by a person who is:
(i) Over twenty-one (21) years of age;
(ii) A resident of Idaho; and
(iii) Is not disqualified from being issued a license under sub-
section (11) of this section.
(5) The requirement to secure a license to carry concealed weapons un-
der this section shall not apply to the following persons:
(a) Officials of a city, county or the state of Idaho;
(b) Any publicly elected Idaho official;
It’s interesting that Idaho law does not require any elected official — or any non-elected official of any city, county, or the state of Idaho — to have a permit. This might explain why legislators have been a bit hesitant to pass a Constitutional carry bill: they’re already exempt from the permit process.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
And the march goes on.
True constitutional carry means no “papers or permits” if you are a law abiding citizen you should be able to carry open or concealed…period. But it’s a start.
It is permitless for those over 21. It’s just the young-uns who need a permit.
” For concealed carry, the Gem State only requires a firearms license within city limits.” A firearms license. The framers (of the Constitution) didnt say anything about a license.
“True constitutional carry means … you should be able to carry open or concealed …period.”
Fixed that for you.
If you are free on the streets, you should be able to carry, period. Note: I would entertain the idea of felons on parole not being able to carry. Otherwise, if you are not in prison, you should be able to carry. If you are a convicted felon and too dangerous to carry, then you should still be in prison.
>>This might explain why legislators have been a bit hesitant to pass a Constitutional carry bill: they’re already exempt from the permit process.
This is why if it ever comes down to USA V2.0 we need an “amendment” that no one can be exempt from ANY law. No more “Some people are more equal than others.” Or “LEO carve-outs.”
I think it’s in the 14th amendment, or the case could be made for it,
equal protection and all that.
So cops would be guilty of kidnapping anytime they arrested someone? Or does every citizen have arrest powers?
Yes, another state that will treat out-of-staters worse, like Wyoming. This is bad. Once passed, no one will lobby for the removal of the out of state restriction, after all, out of staters don’t get to vote for Idaho state offices. So there will be virtually NO prospect for further improvement. After this, it’s done, it’s a dead end.
It’s important to keep advancing gun rights, but it’s also important to not do so in a way to preclude further progress.
States rights buddy. Out of staters are a big problem in the west. What we really need is to set up border checkpoints arround Idaho, MT and Wyoming to keep the left coasters out.
Oh, lordy, can you imagine? “Sorry sir, we don’t allow people from New York. You can turn around using this space here, do not attempt illegal entry or you will be shot. Have a nice day.”
States Rights do not trump individual rights, and they never have. Just because some Autocrats on the West Coast strip Americans of their natural rights does not make it anymore justifiable for bordering states to do it. Some Californian’s, Washingtonian’s and Oregonian’s want to live in a free state but moving is time consuming and expensive. Some people would like to visit a free state and feel free instead of having the same restrictions they do at home. I am trying to escape the Third World of the Left Coast, but I have been saving for 4 years to afford it. You don’t know any thing about anyone from their geographical location.
And you don’t know anything about ours. There is a clear and simple path to citizenship for left coast refugees seeking a better life in the free states but that doesn’t mean we should just give away our hard earned rights to tourists.
God gave the right to carry to those “tourists.” Cheering for a gaggle of apparatchiks to empower themselves to decide who can, and cannot, exercise their rights without being hauled off to jail or shot, is unbecoming.
I realize Idaho is freer than contemporary California, but that’s really not much of a hurdle to pass. In Jefferson’s America, do you honestly think someone in what was to become Idaho, would have the power to prevent someone visiting from what was to become California, from bringing his arms with him? That’s the America to aspire to, the Shining City on the Hill. Not some “us vs them” silliness working only to divert attention from graft, and entrench political hucksters of any party, in any capital.
I don’t think ‘America” exists as a country any more. We’ve balkanized, mostly out of self defense from predatory states. California in particular is dangerous. With if just 1-2% of its loyalist population moved to western states like Idaho, Montana or Wyoming, it would be enough effortless throw every election. Just look at what has happened to the other neighboring states. Its like those old maps that showed countries falling one after another to communism, except this time its actually happening and its on this continent. If we don’t make a stand the entire west will fall. If Californians want to enjoy the west then let them convert and become one of us rather than the other way around.
You say, “If Californians want to enjoy the west then let them convert and become one of us rather than the other way around.” while advocating the disarmament of Californians in Idaho. If one wants to visit Idaho and participate in the Rights that Idahoans hold so dearly, why would you deny them? How better to integrate than to participate? Or do you only want the Californians that don’t carry firearms to move to Idaho; because that is what I see happening.
You also state “…in the free states but that doesn’t mean we should just give away our hard earned rights to tourists.” but these tourists have every right to be just as free as you are. It does not matter if someone is born in Communist China they have a natural, God-given Right to bear arms. But following your logic anyone from a location that deprives that right, also deserves that treatment in Idaho. How does restricting visitors rights make you any freer? The way I see it is: if you want true patriots to live and visit Idaho, then Idaho should avail itself to those who wish to live patriotically visitors and migrants alike.
P.S. I was unfortunately not able to respond directly to your comment, for reasons unknown to me.
Could someone please explain what we mean by ‘constitutional carry’? I tend to think of it in an absolute sense, but these TTAG story headlines touting ‘constitutional carry’ always seem to still have many restrictions. I guess I’m not understanding the concept correctly?
I guess your not.
The Constitution (2A) allows no government interference at all on an individual’s ability to carry a loaded firearm anywhere that individual pleases. None. There is nothing else to say.
True Constitutional carry means absolutely no infringements whatsoever, just like the Second Amend says in plain and simple English.
The problem is, government infringements have been so egregious and so long standing that we feel like we have “Constitutional carry” when a local government finally removes the licensing requirement … even though they still have many restrictions. Thus people refer to the removal of a licensing requirement as Constitutional carry … which is technically incorrect in the strictest sense of the term.
Gawd! I left Idaho years ago. Way too tinfoil hat for me. Rawles and his Great American Redoubt just dirtied up the place with deliberately undereducated loonies that think the boogie man is behind every pine tree. They turn on each other as easily as the alphabet men.
The moment I hit post, this comes over the wire.
Nothing like being right.
I notice that 4.b. does not restrict concealing a rifle or shotgun, regardless of age. Register that 1911 as an SBR and an 18 year old can carry it concealed, because it’s a “rifle”.
Or just carry a Tavor (or other bullpup) under your heavy Idaho winter coat.
Of course its much harder and more expensive to register an SBR than just get a CC permit so I’m not sure what the point would be. If an 18 Y/O wants to carry he can just open carry like a real man.
What is the reasoning, I wonder, behind requiring out of state residents to have a permit if everyone in state does not need one?
Well, its about not trusting out of staters obviously. The Idaho border is just a few miles from the city of Spokane, a crime infested hellhole, they probably don’t want gangbangers crossing the border without being able to prosecute them for illegal concealed weapons.
Let freedom ring!
How does constitutional carry affect the ability to carry on or around schools? In some states you may carry concealed at schools if you have a concealed handgun license, since the federal law allows that if the particular state allows it. No license, I assume is a no go at a school even in a state with constitutional carry?
Sigh… another constitutional carry fail.
It’s only “constitutional carry” if the constitution is enough to carry.
What they think they’ll accomplish by banning visitors…
It’s not going to help advance the cause…
“I got mine, so f*** off!” is what bills like this say.
I understand that there is a lot of court precedence on this issue. States may not differentiate between residents and non-residents on matters of law.
I do not think Wyoming’s law has been challenged, but I am pretty sure that a challenge would succeed. The courts have repeatedly ruled that under the “equal protection clause” states cannot treat residents and non-residents differently under criminal law.
Perhaps the lawyers on the forum can chime in on this.