Idaho becomes the 8th State for "Constitutional Carry"

[Al Norris]

I wasn't going to say anything about this, mostly because I didn't want to "jinx" anything.

Last year we had a bill before our legislatures that would have given us permitless concealed carry. The bill went into committee, never to be seen again.

This year, a slightly modified bill was introduced to the house, where the same thing happened. except....

Another similiar bill was introduced in the senate on March 7th, where it came out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation on March 14th. On the 16th, it passed 27-8. Went to the house and on March 18th was passed 54-15 with 1 absence. On March 22nd, it was sent to Governor Otter.

Late yesterday, Otter signed SB-1389. It will become law on July 1st.. The new law does several useful things:
​

• Codifies that the existing and long-standing concealed weapon license (CWL) exemption applicable “outside the limits or confines of any city” only protects the rights of law-abiding individuals.
• Exempts law-abiding Idahoans, who are twenty-one years of age or older, from having to obtain a CWL in order to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense within city limits.
• Provides a mechanism for well-trained, law-abiding individuals who are eighteen years of age or older to obtain a CWL.

This time around, we had the backing of the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and the Idaho Sheriff’s Association.

Like the Wyoming law, this applies to residents only. Non-residents will still need their own permit to carry concealed within incorporated city limits... Idaho recognizes all other State permits.

[tyme]

So if you vacation in Idaho, no constitutional carry for you. How do you even begin to determine residency without stopping [harassing] someone and checking their driver's license? This is either an unenforceable restriction on constitutional carry that nobody intends to follow through on, or it's a means to enable selective enforcement.

[TXAZ]

Sorry Al, but there is too much common sense in that statute for most other states to consider it.
And CONGRATULATIONS!

[Al Norris]

tyme, I have given up on calling permitless carry, "constitutional carry". Hence the quotes, btw.

I suppose all a traffic cop would have to do is to see your vehicle plates to know you aren't a resident. On the street? Most police in Idaho won't stop you for a fishing expedition. Although, if you have on winter gear and it's above 50 degrees outside... That might be a clue. LOL

Regardless, it is a step forward for us. Give our law a few years on the books, backed up by stats, and we may just change it again.

[Grizz12]

if they put that much effort into catching bad guys who have already committed crimes with guns, the crime rate would go down. Leave the law abiding alone

[JimPage]

Al: If Idaho recognizes all other state permits, what does a non resident with an out of state permit need to carry concealed within a city's limits? The description is confusing me.

[foolzrushn]

Yes, and will Idaho allow a resident from a state that also allows concealed carry without a license, to carry in Idaho?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

Like the Wyoming law, this applies to residents only. Non-residents will still need their own permit to carry concealed within incorporated city limits... Idaho recognizes all other State permits.

How do they reconcile that with constitutional protections for equal protection? How can they say that some people don't need a permit but others do?

I'm happy to see that Idaho has made some progress, but as long as residents of 49 other states aren't allowed the same freedom I would hardly call it "constitutional" carry.

[Seamaster]

Always wished they would make an exception for Vermonters.

[FrankenMauser]

How do they reconcile that with constitutional protections for equal protection? How can they say that some people don't need a permit but others do?

I'm happy to see that Idaho has made some progress, but as long as residents of 49 other states aren't allowed the same freedom I would hardly call it "constitutional" carry.

Have you checked in with any of the other "Constitutional Carry" states? For example... Wyoming?

It's the same deal: Residents only.
And, remember, it isn't "Constitutional Carry". It's "permitless carry."

Al: If Idaho recognizes all other state permits, what does a non resident with an out of state permit need to carry concealed within a city's limits? The description is confusing me.

Idaho has had some funky definitions and restrictions for carry in "populated areas" (it didn't actually say "city limits").
You had different laws covering the ambiguously defined "populated areas" and everything else. Even for residents, it wasn't always clear what the cutoff was (even for "car carry").
What this works out to now, if I understand it correctly, is that everyone 21+ that's not a prohibited-person, or 18+ with a permit, can carry in rural areas, but non-residents will need a permit to CC in 'populated areas'.

[JimPage]

Frankemauser: So Idaho doesn't recognize all other states' permits? I don't get this at all.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

And, remember, it isn't "Constitutional Carry". It's "permitless carry."

I agree, but the title of this thread is "Idaho becomes the 8th State for 'Constitutional Carry'."

[johnwilliamson062]

This time around, we had the backing of the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and the Idaho Sheriff’s Association.

How the heck did you guys pull that off? Probably the biggest hold-up in Ohio. For everything firearms related.

[FrankenMauser]

I agree, but the title of this thread is "Idaho becomes the 8th State for 'Constitutional Carry'."

Al used a commonly (but often incorrectly) -applied term, in quotation marks, to get the point across.

Frankemauser: So Idaho doesn't recognize all other states' permits? I don't get this at all.

Idaho recognizes all other state permits.
They don't recognize permitless carry for non-residents (within city limits).

Gary Slider, I'm sure, will be posting an update at the beginning of April that will outline the changes and he should have the details up on his website soon (handgunlaw.us). It's usually pretty easy to understand in his format.

[Al Norris]

Let me make this perfectly clear. Idaho specifically recognizes ALL other issued permits:

18-3302(5) The requirement to secure a license to carry concealed weapons under this section shall not apply to the following persons:

(g) Any person who has physical possession of his valid license or permit authorizing him to carry concealed weapons from another state; and

(h) Any person who has physical possession of a valid license or permit from a local law enforcement agency or court of the United States authorizing him to carry concealed weapons.

Subsection (h) was added to clarify that any license/permit was accepted because some states don't issue, they are issued by local police or courts.

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

Al used a commonly (but often incorrectly) -applied term, in quotation marks, to get the point across.

Thank you FrankenMauser. I have gotten so tired of stating permitless carry, only to be shouted down by certain 2A purists, that it is "Constitutional Carry"... it isn't. There is no such animal. So what happens? I use the miss-applied but seemingly common term and in quotes, and some of you still gripe.

Now, let's get down to brass tacks, of the Idaho law. It used to be, that Title 18 Chapter 3302 section 1 gave the legislative authority as it regards concealed weapons. The courts and law enforcement, in general, misconstrued that intent. When the legislature changed the law to provide for total state preemption as to the regulation of weapons, the legislature changed the wording of that section. It now reads:

18-3302(1) concealed weapons. (1) The legislature hereby finds that the people of Idaho have reserved for themselves the right to keep and bear arms while granting the legislature the authority to regulate the carrying of weapons concealed. The provisions of this chapter regulating the carrying of weapons must be strictly construed so as to give maximum scope to the rights retained by the people.

It is now a straight forward read, most especially the part I highlighted above. With that in mind, here is what the new changes say, point by point as I stated in the OP.

A couple of years ago, the legislature changed some ambiguous wording on what constitutes a prohibited concealed carry place. It used to include cities, towns, villages, mining camps and railroad camps. That was changed to only include "within the confines of any city" (a permit was then required). When the current law goes into effect it will read:

18-3302(3) No person shall carry concealed weapons on or about his person without a license to carry concealed weapons, except:

(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.

In simple terms, if you are 18 or older and are not a prohibited person, you may carry concealed without a permit, as long as you are outside city limits. You will still need a permit to carry within a city, except...

The second point I made in the OP goes to a change in section (4). it added a subsection (f). When in effect the law will read:

18-3302(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to restrict or prohibit the carrying or possession of:

(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 subsection (11) of this section.

In simple terms, if you are at least 21 years of age, a resident of Idaho and you are not a prohibited person, you can carry within city limits without a permit.

To clarify, Subsection (11) lists all of the reasons you can not have a concealed weapons permit. Suffice it to say that in lieu of listing all of that, there is a "catch-all" subsection. 18-3302(11)(n) says that if you are ineligible to own, possess or receive a firearm under state or federal provisions, you can't get a permit. Now, on to point 3, as listed in the OP.

18-3302(20) was changed to read that a permit shall issue to persons between 18 and 21 years of age, provided that these individuals would otherwise meet the requirements of 18-3302K. That Idaho Code section contains the requirements of our new "Enhanced" permit. So that if you can qualify under the enhanced permitting system, and you are between 18 and 21, you will be issued a concealed weapons permit. That permit will expire on your 21st birthday.

It goes further. When you reach 21, you will need to renew your permit. But because you had qualify, as if you were getting an enhanced permit, your renewal will be for the Enhanced Permit and will be issued for 5 years.

There you have it. A complete breakdown of the changes under Idaho law.

* * * * * * * * *

Now for an opinion:

There are going to be 2 caveats here. First, a lot of states do not and/or will not recognize a permit for anyone under 21 years of age. You folks will have to research that, before you decide to travel outside of Idaho and want to carry concealed. Second, there will be states that will not accept the Idaho permit (regular or enhanced) and will use the reason being that we issue to under 21. Again, research before you leave our state.

Since only 5 more states have agreed to honor the enhanced permit, I personally could give a care that these 5 will more than likely no longer honor the Idaho permit. I think our legislature has figured this out, since so few of these other states have agreed to honor us, regardless of the fact that our enhanced permit meets or exceeds their own permitting process, they (our legislature) are simply giving them (the rest of the US) the finger.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by jw062

How the heck did you guys pull that off? Probably the biggest hold-up in Ohio. For everything firearms related.

My guess would be that they did it by not having Cleveland, Columbus Youngstown, Toledo and Dayton within their state.

[johnwilliamson062]

You forgot Cincinnati. Is there a process to remove them?

[ballardw]

This time around, we had the backing of the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and the Idaho Sheriff’s Association.

But it was over the objection of several of the larger town's Police Chiefs.

[Don P]

How do they reconcile that with constitutional protections for equal protection? How can they say that some people don't need a permit but others do?

That is why I do not like to use the phrase "Constitutional Carry". I'll ask our scholars, where in the federal or state constitutions does it state/mention the carrying of firearms concealed or in the open????

[BarryLee]

I'll ask our scholars, where in the federal or state constitutions does it state/mention the carrying of firearms concealed or in the open????

Well, I'm by no means a scholar, but doesn't the Second Amendment say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

Doesn't bear arms mean to carry?

[johnwilliamson062]

conceal carry has not been clearly defined as a right as far as I can tell. What exactly "bear arms" includes is not defined. Conceal carry is considered a "privilege". Like driving. There is no federal guarantee any state will acknowledge a drivers license. That is established by a number of agreements between the various states.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

conceal carry has not been clearly defined as a right as far as I can tell. What exactly "bear arms" includes is not defined. Conceal carry is considered a "privilege". Like driving. There is no federal guarantee any state will acknowledge a drivers license. That is established by a number of agreements between the various states.

Driving is not a good comparison, because there is no guaratnteed constitutional right to drive.

The 2A (and the constitutions of many of the states) guarantees (supposedly) a right to "bear" (which means or should mean "carry") arms. It doesn't say whether that's concealed or open, it just says carry. The supreme courts of several states (including, IIRC, Ohio and Idaho) have ruled that the legislatures may regulate the mode of carry but may not prohibit carry. So, if a state's legislature doesn't like concealed carry, they can ban concealed carry but then they have to allow open carry. This was how Ohio finally got a concealed carry law -- the Ohio court had ruled that open carry could not be banned because the legislature had prohibited concealed carry. People didn't like seeing a lot of open carriers, so the legislature enacted concealed carry laws.

But ... conversely, it could go to other way. In the early days of the U.S., open carry was considered normal and concealed carry was considered "sneaky" and ungentlemanly. It's entirely possible that a state could go to a scheme under which concealed carry is legal everywhere but open carry is entirely prohibited. As long as we can carry one way or the other, it seems the courts will be happy.

Personally, I still don't think regulating or prohibiting one mode of carry while allowing another is really faithful to "shall not be infringed," but I'm not a judge and they typically don't consult me, so my opinion doesn't count.

[Don P]

Well, I'm by no means a scholar, but doesn't the Second Amendment say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

Doesn't bear arms mean to carry

I don't think so and it does not state carry anywhere.
I look at the Amendments to the Constitution as the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Just my take

conceal carry has not been clearly defined as a right as far as I can tell. What exactly "bear arms" includes is not defined.

I concur.
Now how about the good old west, towns that did not allow the carrying of firearms??
I only disagree with the term Constitutional carry because no where in the Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution does it mention the carrying of a open or concealed firearm. Dangerous ground in my opinion
A link to the article about West Virginia and constitutional carry,http://patriotpost.us/posts/41194

[johnwilliamson062]

no where in the Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution does it mention the carrying of a open or concealed firearm.

"bear" does more or less mean carry. As Aguila pointed out it just doesn't mean 'however you want, whenever you want, wherever you want.'
The Ohio decision was pre-incorporation of 2A and based on the Ohio constitution, as I understand it.

Driving is not a good comparison, because there is no guaratnteed constitutional right to drive.

I don't think there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to concealed carry, so I think it does make a good comparison. Sort of like you have a constitutional right to assembly, and that right to assembly protects your right to travel to that assembly, but it does not protect your right to do so in a car if you don't have a drivers license.. I don't see SCOTUS shooting down a ban on CC if open carry is an option. I could see a stronger than normal anti-gun legal argument for arguing the right to carry a loaded firearm is limited to maneuvers of the militia if called upon or something only slightly less restrictive.Not flawless, but much stronger than the normal "only muzzle loaders" "only in organized state militia" type arguments that have been struck down.

I might be wrong, but I don't see the "may issue" areas being struck down in the courts.