Two new Idaho laws

wet · February 25, 2013, 08:52 PM

Two new laws perposed in Idaho would make it a misdeeanor punishable by jail and a $1000 fine for law enforcement or government employees to help the fedral government confiscate newley-banned firearms or ammunition, or to help with restrictions or registration of guns. A second bill bans any restrictions on guns made in Idaho that do not leave the state.
(I love this state)

**Tom Servo** · February 25, 2013, 09:04 PM

Do you have numbers for the bills in question? The state legislature site shows bills to issue enhanced carry licenses, reduce the power of cities to override state law on the matter, and one to exempt suppressors made within the state borders from federal meddling.

According to the NY Times, there's not much chance of gun control getting passed there.

idahoJoe · February 25, 2013, 09:44 PM

One law I would like to see is the ability to carry on school campuses

I am not sure It is illegal but according to my college professor it was forbidden.

Lucky for me I never had to use my whistle

wet · February 25, 2013, 10:48 PM

I couldn't find the bill # but both the idaho statesman, (idahoststesman.com) or (ktvb.com) are running the story.

tynman · February 25, 2013, 10:56 PM

WOW I think I have to look into moving there when I retire!!!
Nice if its true.

ScottRiqui · February 25, 2013, 10:59 PM

Quote:

and one to exempt suppressors made within the state borders from federal meddling.

Has that tactic worked anywhere yet? I can see the rationale behind it (eliminating the "interstate" aspect of the suppressor manufacturing and sales in order to keep the feds from using the Interstate Commerce Clause to claim authority), but as far as I know, no court has actually validated the argument.

Al Norris · February 25, 2013, 11:30 PM

Scott? I don't think we will see a Federal Court agree with any of these State "Firearms Freedom Acts." They are all protest and no real teeth. And that's what this suppressor bill is.

The only way this would ever play to our side (10th Amendment), would be if the vast majority of the States passed similar laws. That just might cause the SCOTUS to actually revisit Wickard. Only by overturning that case, can the Commerce Clause be cabined.

esqappellate · February 26, 2013, 10:11 AM

The State can't nullify a federal law as federal law is supreme under the Constitution. However, the federal government may not require the cooperation of state officials in enforcing federal law. So, if the state law simply said "we won't cooperate, do it yourself" that would be perfectly within the state's perogative. See, e.g., Printz, 521 U.S., at 933, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (striking down federal legislation compelling state law enforcement officers to perform federally mandated background checks on handgun purchasers); New York, 505 U.S at 174–175, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (invalidating provisions of an Act that would compel a State to either take title to nuclear waste or enact particular state waste regulations). It has also led us to scrutinize Spending Clause legislation to ensure that Congress is not using financial inducements to exert a “power akin to undue influence.” Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590, 57 S.Ct. 883, 81 L.Ed. 1279 (1937).

February 25, 2013, 08:52 PM	#1
wet Member Join Date: October 2, 2011 Location: ID. Posts: 89	Two new Idaho laws Two new laws perposed in Idaho would make it a misdeeanor punishable by jail and a $1000 fine for law enforcement or government employees to help the fedral government confiscate newley-banned firearms or ammunition, or to help with restrictions or registration of guns. A second bill bans any restrictions on guns made in Idaho that do not leave the state. (I love this state)

February 25, 2013, 09:04 PM	#2
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	Do you have numbers for the bills in question? The state legislature site shows bills to issue enhanced carry licenses, reduce the power of cities to override state law on the matter, and one to exempt suppressors made within the state borders from federal meddling. According to the NY Times, there's not much chance of gun control getting passed there. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

February 25, 2013, 09:44 PM	#3
idahoJoe Member Join Date: February 2, 2013 Posts: 20	One law I would like to see is the ability to carry on school campuses I am not sure It is illegal but according to my college professor it was forbidden. Lucky for me I never had to use my whistle

February 25, 2013, 10:48 PM	#4
wet Member Join Date: October 2, 2011 Location: ID. Posts: 89	I couldn't find the bill # but both the idaho statesman, (idahoststesman.com) or (ktvb.com) are running the story.

February 25, 2013, 10:56 PM	#5
tynman Senior Member Join Date: December 22, 2012 Location: NJ Posts: 361	WOW I think I have to look into moving there when I retire!!! Nice if its true.

February 25, 2013, 11:30 PM	#7
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Scott? I don't think we will see a Federal Court agree with any of these State "Firearms Freedom Acts." They are all protest and no real teeth. And that's what this suppressor bill is. The only way this would ever play to our side (10th Amendment), would be if the vast majority of the States passed similar laws. That just might cause the SCOTUS to actually revisit Wickard. Only by overturning that case, can the Commerce Clause be cabined.

February 26, 2013, 10:11 AM	#8
esqappellate Member Join Date: October 16, 2012 Posts: 69	The State can't nullify a federal law as federal law is supreme under the Constitution. However, the federal government may not require the cooperation of state officials in enforcing federal law. So, if the state law simply said "we won't cooperate, do it yourself" that would be perfectly within the state's perogative. See, e.g., Printz, 521 U.S., at 933, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (striking down federal legislation compelling state law enforcement officers to perform federally mandated background checks on handgun purchasers); New York, 505 U.S at 174–175, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (invalidating provisions of an Act that would compel a State to either take title to nuclear waste or enact particular state waste regulations). It has also led us to scrutinize Spending Clause legislation to ensure that Congress is not using financial inducements to exert a “power akin to undue influence.” Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590, 57 S.Ct. 883, 81 L.Ed. 1279 (1937).