Governor Otter Signs SB 1389, Idaho Becomes Ninth Constitutional Carry State

Ammoland ^ | 26 March, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Governor C.L Butch Otter reluctantly signed SB 1389, the permitless “Constitutional carry” bill that was passed by the Idaho legislature.

His office sent the transmittal letter(pdf) to the President of the Senate the 25th of March, 2016.  Idaho becomes the eighth state to restore permitless or “Constitutional” carry.  Vermont never restricted concealed carry from those who were not felons or mentally defective.

Governor Otter stated that he signed the bill with some reluctance, because the bill did not have a training requirement for the carry of firearms.

There has never been a legal requirement for training in order to carry firearms, openly or concealed, in 99% of the State of Idaho for the last hundred years.

During that entire period, all state and local government officials could legally carry without a permit, and without any training requirement.

It is hard to understand why Governor Otter signed the bill while simultaneously complaining about it; but he did sign it.

The bill will go into effect on 1 July, 2016.  It will not change much.  Constitutional carry was already a fact in the vast majority of Idaho for most people.

But permitless, or “Constitutional” carry was never really about the legal impact.  It was, and is, all about symbolism.  Does the Constitution mean anything?  If it does, it is hard to see how a permit could be required for the exercise of a Constitutional right.

Do more guns cause more crime?  There does not appear to be any hard evidence to indicate that is so; and it is the entire premise that the modern basis for “gun control” or citizen disarmament, has been based on.

[marktwain]

Nine states with permitless, or "Constitutional" carry. That is more states than the remainder of those who give police chiefs or other officials a veto on the right to carry.

[donozark]

Missouri is in the process of trying to pas “Constitutional Carry.”

[MichaelCorleone]

This is great. Promising in fact.

But the Constitution already guarantees the “right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. Isn’t this a tacit admission that our Constitution is no longer taken seriously?

[loungitude]

And as mentioned in post 1, the people’s right has been given to police to take away.

[married21]

I’m just so disappointed that the governor is not a real otter.

Then again, I’m also bummed that Carmel, CA has nothing to do with candy.

[marktwain]

“But the Constitution already guarantees the “right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. Isn’t this a tacit admission that our Constitution is no longer taken seriously?”

It means that people are fighting to restore the Constitution, and are winning some fights.

The Constitution has not bee taken seriously for a hundred years. The whole purpose of “progressivism” has been to undermine the Constitution and eliminate the limits on the power of the government.

[umgud]

So, there are nine states whose citizens are safer and more trustworthy, different than those in the remaining states?

[marktwain]

Statistically, you can draw the line at any number, by listing say, murder statistics by state.

The fact is that the laws were all passed to keep minorities of one kind or another disarmed. They were never meant to be enforced against the majority.

Once they started being enforced against the majority, organized resistance against the laws built up, and has been bearing fruit for about 30 years.

I believe that we can achieve a majority of states with Constitutional carry. The more states that restore it, the easier it is to get in the remaining states.

Notice that four of the current nine were restored in the last two years!

[umgud]

I agree we are making progress. The doom & gloom predictions are becoming more obviously wrong and the people at large just aren’t buying that tired, worn out message any more.

[AlaskaErik]

Governor Otter stated that he signed the bill with some reluctance, because the bill did not have a training requirement for the carry of firearms.

He Otter know better than to be reluctant about signing the bill. But at least he did sign it.

[CodeToad]

Whoo-Hoo!!! Way to go Idaho!!!

[BlueNgold]

Can someone tell me if there is any language for ID with regards to residents and non-residents?

[marktwain]

Yes, SB 1389 restricts permitless carry to residents who are 21 or older.

However, due to extensive cases involving the 14th Amendment and “equal protection under the law” I doubt that prosecution of a non-resident would stand up in court.

[Starstruck]

Now these 9 states need to reciprocate amongst each other.

[BlueNgold]

Good info. Thanks.

[marktwain]

“Now these 9 states need to reciprocate amongst each other.”

They do not really have to do that. If it is not illegal to carry concealed, why would they need reciprocity?

Oklahoma is an interesting case. In Oklahoma, residents need a permit, but nonresidents that come from states with Constitutional carry do not.

[Starstruck]

They do not really have to do that. If it is not illegal to carry concealed, why would they need reciprocity?

My understanding is that some of the states restrict permitless carry to their own residents. But I could be wrong.

[marktwain]

Wyoming, and now Idaho, restrict permitless carry to their residents. However as stated in post 13, above:

“due to extensive cases involving the 14th Amendment and “equal protection under the law” I doubt that prosecution of a non-resident would stand up in court.”

[AF_Blue]

Don’t be too hard on yourself - the city in California isn’t spelled correctly.

Besides, there’s always Hershey, PA. Its ALL about the candy.

[Starstruck]

I regularly travel from Kansas to Texas. I find it interesting that, while Oklahoma requires their residents to get a conceal carry permit, they allow Kansas residents without one to carry in their state. All you need is a Kansas ID. Must be all about the money.