Idaho joins the list of states that open the door to gun confiscation orders.

FoghornLeghorn · February 23, 2019, 01:02 PM

I provided a link for the details. Click the link. Read. The. Specifics.

You'll see that this bill has passed the Idaho senate and is going to the house. That's why the article's authors referenced "opening the door..."

Idaho residents need to harass their representatives to defeat it. What's at stake?

Otherwise known as "red flag" laws. These "laws" are particularly onerous because neither arrest nor conviction are necessary for confiscation. There's no advance warning. The police simply show up and take the guns.

It's noteworthy that this is Idaho. Idaho is populated by solid conservative gun owners, and they're especially surprised.

It's interesting that of the politicians who voted in favor of this are of the persuasion that we generally associate with staunch 2A defenders. That's got to be disconcerting to their constituents.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/02/ida...#axzz5gMXomeRi

FrankenMauser · February 23, 2019, 01:20 PM

Idaho has more liberals than you may think. -Especially in Boise, Pocatello (due to ISU), and Cd'A (Coeur d'Alene).

I'll have to take a closer look at this later, to see who voted and how.

JERRYS. · February 23, 2019, 03:36 PM

Idaho has been lost to the California (?) transplants. It survives on past reputation only. if you don't believe me, look at the legislation just passed.

luger fan · February 23, 2019, 04:51 PM

CHILL! It DIDNT PASS. This is just another 'scare post.'

FoghornLeghorn · February 23, 2019, 05:47 PM

The article is stated in the link which was published on 2/19/19. If you had clicked the link you could have seen 1) the title is Ammoland's title and 2) the opening paragraph said, "The Idaho State Senate stunned the citizens of Idaho yesterday by opening the possibility of Idaho implementing Gun Confiscation Orders, better known as 'Red Flag' laws."

It hasn't passed, yet. But the door has been opened. That's the crux of the article.

"We anticipate our chances of killing this dangerous amendment is much better in the Idaho House."

Residents of Idaho need to actively resist this amendment as it hasn't been defeated yet.

heyjoe · February 23, 2019, 06:24 PM

that is a poorly written original post, you might want to rewrite it...i also had the impression it had passed.

Al Norris · February 24, 2019, 02:00 PM

Balderdash!

Shall we look at what Greg Pruett (the author of the article) has to say?

His first, and main point:

The alleged victim has the right to “reasonable protection” from the accused. That means there is NO conviction.

So victims are now alleged to be a victim? In our system of justice, I thought it was the accused who was alleged to have committed a crime... regardless, some crime has been thought to be committed and someone was arrested and charged with a criminal action.

The actual language says:

To reasonable protection from the accused and those acting on behalf of the accused throughout the criminal justice process.

So this isn't just an act by an alleged victim with an ex parte judicial action. There was a real crime committed. Someone was arrested and charged with that crime. In many/most cases, there is a victim of the crime.

This is a proposed amendment to our constitution. So even if it passes both houses, it still must pass voter approval. There is nothing in this amendment that cannot already be done, under current Idaho Law.

Edited to add link to the bill text: https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-con...ion/SJR101.pdf

February 23, 2019, 01:02 PM	#1
FoghornLeghorn Senior Member Join Date: September 2, 2011 Posts: 961	Idaho joins the list of states that open the door to gun confiscation orders. I provided a link for the details. Click the link. Read. The. Specifics. You'll see that this bill has passed the Idaho senate and is going to the house. That's why the article's authors referenced "opening the door..." Idaho residents need to harass their representatives to defeat it. What's at stake? Otherwise known as "red flag" laws. These "laws" are particularly onerous because neither arrest nor conviction are necessary for confiscation. There's no advance warning. The police simply show up and take the guns. It's noteworthy that this is Idaho. Idaho is populated by solid conservative gun owners, and they're especially surprised. It's interesting that of the politicians who voted in favor of this are of the persuasion that we generally associate with staunch 2A defenders. That's got to be disconcerting to their constituents. https://www.ammoland.com/2019/02/ida...#axzz5gMXomeRi Last edited by FoghornLeghorn; February 23, 2019 at 08:27 PM.

February 23, 2019, 01:20 PM	#2
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,424	Idaho has more liberals than you may think. -Especially in Boise, Pocatello (due to ISU), and Cd'A (Coeur d'Alene). I'll have to take a closer look at this later, to see who voted and how. __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

February 24, 2019, 02:00 PM	#7
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Balderdash! Shall we look at what Greg Pruett (the author of the article) has to say? His first, and main point: The alleged victim has the right to “reasonable protection” from the accused. That means there is NO conviction. So victims are now alleged to be a victim? In our system of justice, I thought it was the accused who was alleged to have committed a crime... regardless, some crime has been thought to be committed and someone was arrested and charged with a criminal action. The actual language says: To reasonable protection from the accused and those acting on behalf of the accused throughout the criminal justice process. So this isn't just an act by an alleged victim with an ex parte judicial action. There was a real crime committed. Someone was arrested and charged with that crime. In many/most cases, there is a victim of the crime. This is a proposed amendment to our constitution. So even if it passes both houses, it still must pass voter approval. There is nothing in this amendment that cannot already be done, under current Idaho Law. Edited to add link to the bill text: https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-con...ion/SJR101.pdf Last edited by Al Norris; February 24, 2019 at 02:03 PM. Reason: Added Link

February 23, 2019, 03:36 PM	#3
JERRYS. Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2013 Location: Alabama Posts: 2,968	Idaho has been lost to the California (?) transplants. It survives on past reputation only. if you don't believe me, look at the legislation just passed.

February 23, 2019, 04:51 PM	#4
luger fan Senior Member Join Date: March 10, 2018 Posts: 150	CHILL! It DIDNT PASS. This is just another 'scare post.'

February 23, 2019, 05:47 PM	#5
FoghornLeghorn Senior Member Join Date: September 2, 2011 Posts: 961	The article is stated in the link which was published on 2/19/19. If you had clicked the link you could have seen 1) the title is Ammoland's title and 2) the opening paragraph said, "The Idaho State Senate stunned the citizens of Idaho yesterday by opening the possibility of Idaho implementing Gun Confiscation Orders, better known as 'Red Flag' laws." It hasn't passed, yet. But the door has been opened. That's the crux of the article. "We anticipate our chances of killing this dangerous amendment is much better in the Idaho House." Residents of Idaho need to actively resist this amendment as it hasn't been defeated yet.

February 23, 2019, 06:24 PM	#6
heyjoe Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2007 Posts: 438	that is a poorly written original post, you might want to rewrite it...i also had the impression it had passed.