Idaho Goes Constitutional Carry
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 7 months ago
NBC:
Beginning July 1, Idaho residents age 21 or older will be allowed to carry a concealed firearm without a permit inside city limits.
Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter has signed Senate Bill 1389 into law. It will relax the state’s gun policy and remove permitting requirements for concealed carry. Prior to SB 1389, residents age 18 or older could carry concealed firearms without a permit outside of city limits. Open carry is already legal within city limits.
Beginning July 1, Idaho residents age 21 or older will be allowed to carry a concealed firearm without a permit inside city limits.
Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter has signed Senate Bill 1389 into law. It will relax the state’s gun policy and remove permitting requirements for concealed carry. Prior to SB 1389, residents age 18 or older could carry concealed firearms without a permit outside of city limits. Open carry is already legal within city limits.
“While S1389 is consistent with the U.S. Constitution, Idaho values and our commitment to upholding our constitutional protections from government overreach, I am concerned about its lack of any provision for education and training of individuals who choose to exercise the right to concealed carry,” the Republican lawmaker wrote.
“Such a safeguard would seem to be part of the Second Amendment’s ‘well-regulated’ standard. What’s more, the addition of a simple training requirement in this bill could have addressed the concerns of our valued law enforcement leaders and others who cherish both the shooting culture and the safety of shooters and non-shooters alike.”
Trying to play both ends against the middle, huh Governor? This is just rich. He admits that the new law is consistent with the provisions of the second amendment, but then essentially says that he doesn’t think the second amendment goes far enough because of the need for education and training.
Then he switches back and reverses his position, saying that a requirement to get training and education is consistent with the notion of “well regulated.”
“Well regulated” has nothing to do with governmental control via regulations, it has to do with accurate and effective fire control. Furthermore, I’ve warned about the dangers of seeing the second amendment as a political treatise on the foundation of liberty.
The governor is just frightened. He’ll be better once this has time to soak in and become the standard. It works in other constitutional carry states, and it’ll work in Idaho too.
On March 29, 2016 at 9:11 am, Fred said:
Thank you Overlord Otter for granting us our rights. (Butch Otter is a cool name though)
On March 29, 2016 at 11:01 am, Damocles said:
Welcome to the club Idaho, despite your Governor.
On March 29, 2016 at 6:08 pm, Louis Chapman said:
I would like to note that according to the “adept, in working order” meaning of “well regulated,” training would indeed seem to fall into that category. However, that’s not the qualifying clause of the amendment. If someone wants to be an effective militiaman, they should certainly seek training. But, it should not be required to exercise a fundamental right.
On March 30, 2016 at 2:00 pm, Publicola said:
I’ve often tried to explain to anti-gunners & fence sitters, with varying degrees of success, that in a frontier society hunting & defense against intruders or burglars (or raiders) was such a basic concept that no one would have even thought a central government of limited, enumerated powers would endanger that. Hence, the 2nd article in the bill or Rights was to ensure that folks could be armed sufficiently for more martial endeavors without having to worry about the new central government disarming them through neglect. (I also like to see them vapor lock when I explain the constitution empowers the feds to mandate purchase of one type of item – & it damn sure ain’t health insurance, but that’s another tale..)
The training idea has been & will continue to be used against us. In Colorado some of the loudest (or most quoted at least) voices against constitutional or even permitless carry have been NRA certified instructors that just so happen to teach a CCW class or two. Intentionally or not its become a trade protection issue (much like GCA of ’68) for them. & it conveniently gives anti-gunowners another argument to use against removing restrictions.
In theory I could get behind a training requirement, but only if it was general & had no bearing on enjoying the Right to own or carry. Say, have certain levels of training in arms at different levels of primary & secondary schooling (an Eddie Eagle type “don’t touch, tell an adult” program for the youngins, then as teens more in depth explanation of how firearms work & how to use them safely & effectively.) But I doubt anyone whining about “lack of training” in constitutional carry would get behind advanced drill & live fire instruction for 10th graders, or having a marksmanship qualification badge a requirement of a diploma, so it’s a strictly academic position on my part.
I’m always wary of folks who think that freedom requires a mandate of some sort – for someone else’s own good. I have a feeling that anyone in Idaho, or any other constitutional carry state, will still have instructors to choose from if they seek to further their education.
On March 30, 2016 at 2:10 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I guess I see the training issue a little differently. The citizens didn’t want to have federal rules for firearms because then they couldn’t do what they needed to do with firearms without running up against federal regulations, and that includes practicing with their firearms for purposes that may include militia, or may not. Militia is mentioned as one reason for prohibiting federal regulations, not the rai·son d’ê·tre for the amendment. All the founders had to do was find one reason to prevent federal interference. They never intended to write a thesis on the basis for liberty in the second amendment. There is no need to interpret it as such, and thus there is no need to connect training as a necessary pre-condition for firearms ownership. That whole pathway is tortured logic.
On March 30, 2016 at 3:07 pm, Fred said:
You lost me at secondary education. The responsibility for the education of oneself and family resides with the head of that family not at the feet of some unionized bureaucracy. Jimmy Carter’s Dept of Ed teaching firearms use? NO! Ask any 20 yr old where Sudan is or Lexington and Concord for that matter. NO!
On March 31, 2016 at 4:14 am, Publicola said:
Mr. Smith,
To clarify, I wasn’t saying firearms ownership should be dependent upon government mandated training. A separate training program that’s completely independent of anything else could be acceptable, but only so long as it was never a pre-requisite for owning or carrying.
Fred,
I’m not a fan of government run education on any level for reasons both principled & pragmatic. In fact I’d like to see the whole system scrapped. But bringing up a firearms training curriculum does a decent job of disproving the claim that objections to constitutional or permitless carry are strictly because of safety concerns. Plus it usually produces some humorous stuttering on said anti-gunowner politicians part.
Oh, & Lexington is in between Charlotte & Greensboro. Just follow 85 til you smell the best barbecue in existence (though Concord has some decent barbecue too, & is closer to Charlotte) :D