Idaho’s Senate has passed Senate Bill 1389 and sent it on to Idaho’s House for consideration. According to its Statement of Purpose, “The purpose of this bill is to make consistent state law regarding concealed weapons carry. The bill provides for concealed carry consistency between counties and cities.”
OpenCdA hopes that this bill’s proponents and the Idaho Legislature have asked federal authorities such as the US Attorney for the District of Idaho and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) for their input on how Idaho’s proposed law change will interact with the federal law popularly known as the Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) codified at 18 USC §§ 921 and 922. Our concern is that in their haste and zeal, our legislators may not have fully explored the potential unintended consequences of SB 1389.
For example, a citizen holding a valid Idaho concealed weapons permit and carrying a concealed weapon can lawfully drive on a public street or walk on a public sidewalk within the 1000-foot school zone without violating the GFSZA. Under Idaho’s proposed no-permit-required state law, it appears that same person who did not have a valid Idaho CWP could be in violation of the GFSZA.
Here is the ATF’s response to an inquiry submitted in 2013 by a private organization in Oklahoma. (Oklahoma is in the Tenth Federal Judicial District whereas Idaho is in the Ninth.)
Here’s another question for consideration. Idaho Code § 18-3302(5) exempts certain persons from requirement to secure a license to carry concealed weapons. Those exempted include officials of a city, county or the state of Idaho and any publicly elected Idaho official. Are these exemptions recognized by the federal government or are these officials who have been exempted under state law thereby liable under the federal GFSZA?
All we’re suggesting is that the bill’s proponents and Idaho’s legislators need to be certain that their proposed relaxation of Idaho’s concealed weapons permit laws do not, in fact, increase our citizens’ criminal liability under federal law.
“All we’re suggesting is that the bill’s proponents and Idaho’s legislators need to be certain that their proposed relaxation of Idaho’s concealed weapons permit laws do not, in fact, increase our citizens’ criminal liability under federal law.”
What a novel idea!
Comment by Tributary — March 17, 2016 @ 12:52 pm
Tributary,
As I read the proposed law, both the standard and the enhanced CWPs will continue to be available. It seems to me that if an enhanced permit holder lets his existing permit expire or surrenders it in favor of what the proposed law will allow, his authority to carry concealed in another state based on his enhanced Idaho CWP will also go away.
Hopefully our astute legislators have looked at all the possible consequences of the new law and have made their constituents aware of them.
Comment by Bill — March 17, 2016 @ 1:09 pm
I have a basic disagreement with the current interpretation of the 2nd, which would challenge all of this, but the high court has spoken which makes my concerns moot. I do believe that the state legislators are giving in to the high financing and extremely vocal few and therefore are not really concerned with the potentially dangerous impact of this bill.
Already any one that feels the need to, can no hassle and more of a deterrent just carry open.
Of course I would really prefer to see our elected servants spend less time on bibles and gun and maybe a little more time on healthcare and good paying jobs, maybe they could lure in a gun and bible factory
Comment by Mike Teague — March 17, 2016 @ 3:54 pm
Mike,
I guess my hope is that when the Legislature is in session, conscious,and sober, it will “First do no harm.” It’s a bad idea to recklessly tinker with laws that are working, even if not perfectly.
Comment by Bill — March 17, 2016 @ 5:19 pm
Mike – The Bible is now just a “reference” book according to lawmakers, and a gun is what is always has been: A tool that multiples strength for those weak with the tongue.
Idaho – A reference book proponent, tool-friendly state, which for the most part (according to most scholastic stats) can’t read very well, including the directions and cautionary notes for their new .357 magnum.
Comment by Old Dog — March 17, 2016 @ 5:41 pm