Idaho takes the next step
Constitutional Carry on the horizon.
Constitutional Carry Bill Heads To Idaho Governor
Constitutional Carry on the horizon.
Constitutional Carry Bill Heads To Idaho Governor
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
IDAHO CONCEALED CARRY ALLOWED
- Thread starter ladder13
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
The Idaho House and Senate have passed a bill to allow concealed
carry without a permit. It is on the Governor's desk waiting for
his decision. Idaho's Chief's of Police placed a full page ad in
yesterday's Idaho Statesman urging Governor to veto. I'm just
relaying the news. Not expressing any political opinion.
carry without a permit. It is on the Governor's desk waiting for
his decision. Idaho's Chief's of Police placed a full page ad in
yesterday's Idaho Statesman urging Governor to veto. I'm just
relaying the news. Not expressing any political opinion.
Cal44
Member
I'm sure this will be an unpopular position, but I agree with the Idaho Chiefs.
Allowing carry with no permitting or background check is taking things one step to far.
I'm in favor of requiring permits with background checks for CCW -- but with a shall issue concept like Idaho has now.
I don't consider a "shall issue" permitting process to be a violation of the constitution.
The 2A talks about a "well regulated" militia, and I consider training and background checks to fall under the "well regulated" concept.
There are few absolute rights. Your liberty and even your life can be taken away by the government for crimes committed.
BTW, I own property in Idaho and go there often. If it weren't for family ties to California, I'd move my primary residence there.
Allowing carry with no permitting or background check is taking things one step to far.
I'm in favor of requiring permits with background checks for CCW -- but with a shall issue concept like Idaho has now.
I don't consider a "shall issue" permitting process to be a violation of the constitution.
The 2A talks about a "well regulated" militia, and I consider training and background checks to fall under the "well regulated" concept.
There are few absolute rights. Your liberty and even your life can be taken away by the government for crimes committed.
BTW, I own property in Idaho and go there often. If it weren't for family ties to California, I'd move my primary residence there.
I 100% agree. Gun ownership requires responsibility. It is not a constitutional violation to fill out a form and get a background check done. Not hard. I don't want Johnny Badass or Frankie the felon walking around with a gun. Yes, there will always be people who violate the law, but that is not an excuse.
OP
Good for Idaho, the wave continues.
Kid44
Member
In Kansas we can carry concealed, or open without a permit and so far I don't think there have been any "wild west" shootouts on the streets. As mentioned in a post above gun ownership and carrying a gun does take a lot of responsibility, but there are a lot of irresponsible people carrying guns, with and without permits. If a person is irresponsible to begin with
a concealed carry permit won't change that.
a concealed carry permit won't change that.
OP
Criminals have been carrying concealed for 200 years without a permit, bout time the rest of society caught up. 
Mainsail
Member
Well regulated in this context has nothing to do with regulations (like rules and laws). It refers to practice and familiarity with your arms. It was not the intent of the founders to write into the constitution that the militia was to have many rules and laws, but to be practiced and ready.
DWalt
Member
"The 2A talks about a "well regulated" militia, and I consider training and background checks to fall under the "well regulated" concept."
In the constitutional context, "Well Regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with government regulation, but rather precision in shooting. Regulation implies being able to hit what you shoot at, achieved by becoming familiar with guns, owning guns, and practicing shooting. Sorry that you did not understand that.
In the constitutional context, "Well Regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with government regulation, but rather precision in shooting. Regulation implies being able to hit what you shoot at, achieved by becoming familiar with guns, owning guns, and practicing shooting. Sorry that you did not understand that.
Mainsail
Member
Do you seriously believe that a felon, who is forbidden by law to even be near a gun, will behave any different whether there are permits or constitution carry?
Yahoos will believe in weird religions, say ridiculous things, and some will even carry guns. They're called civil rights, and civil rights can be scary sometimes.
keith44spl
Member
Not to be political....
I wouldn't think there is a goodly amount of votes from
'Chiefs of Police' to sway a elected Governor....
These things general follow the larger populous of constituents.
I'd look for Governor C.L. 'Butch' Otter to sign it,
he may be looking for a third term.
.
Last edited:
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
I wish I were clairvoyant so I could see into the past and discern what the Founding Fathers were really thinking back in the 1700s. I could rewrite the history books; Americans would be astounded to read the true story behind this country's early years, I'll bet.
In the case of the 2nd Amendment, no clairvoyance is required, only a dictionary, contextual/supporting documents and honesty.
Targets Guy
US Veteran
I would think the Federalists papers talk to the 2nd amendment?
All "shall issue" does is create a revenue stream for somebody. Missouri has a constitutional carry bill winding its way through various committees, but it is unlikely the Governor will sign it if it even makes it through both chambers . . .
Last edited:
DevilDog72
US Veteran
I look for the day the Great State of Texas goes to Constitutional Carry. I can hardly wait.
"... shall not be infringed...."
"... shall not be infringed...."
Last edited:
keith44spl
Member
Ah, you do realize that criminals don't have any regard for
the laws related to firearms or the lawful carry of same...
Or any other statutes on the books for that matter.
Outlaws have been concealed carrying weapons and using
them to ply their trade since well before the invention of the firearm.
Such worry is for naught, in my book.
But, I do sometimes wonder if Cain concealed carried that jawbone he used to kill his brother Able?
.
No, it's not. 8 states have decided to obey the Constitution and get out of their citizens way to carry a concealed firearm. No problems.
It violates the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.
You misunderstand "well regulated". It refers to a well functioning militia, as in a "well regulated" clock functions well and keeps good time. It has nothing to do with rules and regulations.
But the 2nd amendment is 27 simple, crystal clear words. Any ambiguity is due to 240 of scholarly interpretation, usually brought about by someone trying to dismantle it.
In the end, Constitutional Carry is just not a problem. We've had it for 6 months now. Criminals carry anything they want and don't obey laws.
Last edited:
