My favorite Idaho gun lobbyist, AlphaMike, and I have been discussing pushing this bill for a year or more now. The bill creates a two tier concealed carry structure in Idaho.
The existing concealed carry license is pretty easy. It’s shall issue but the local sheriff can require proof of training. To the best of my knowledge all sheriffs in the state require the training. The training standard isn’t hard to meet and doesn’t even require any live fire. It also, at the sheriff’s option, may be issued to someone between the ages of 18 and 21.
The new license has enhanced training requirements, may only be issued to people 21 and over, and has a mental health check requirement.
I had not been a big fan of it. Constitutional Carry has more my inclination but AlphaMike had me about 80% to 90% convinced to go his route. His reasoning was that it would benefit more people to have the enhanced requirement license in addition to the existing license. Getting Constitutional Carry would be tougher and wouldn’t help that many people because the existing license was relatively easy to get. With the enhanced license people would get better reciprocity than what we have now. The “lax” training, potential for people under 21 to have the license, and no mental health check were blocking agreements with other states.
It passed the house 68-0-2.
What is probably most interesting about the bill is reported here:
Backers also hope these new permits convince Idaho school officials to allow their holders to be armed on school grounds.
We have a slippery slope and we plan to use it.
I’m now 100% convinced AlphaMike was correct.
Until the first time a psychiatrist is held responsible for a person they signed off on shooting someone. After that happens, you won’t find a single doctor that will sign off on a CCW application.
I’m sure that someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but with most of these “mental health checks” it’s not that a shrink signs off as you being sane (they’d never do THAT), they just check the available medical / mental health records and see that you have not been committed, found insane, or had other such disqualifying psych events in your life.
Rolf is correct.
Just like what they already do over here in WA State, you’re allowing them any/all access to those records when you submit your CPL application. Even WA state’s “Alien Firearms License” for non-immigrant aliens does this too.
“8. Have you ever been confined in a mental-health facility for more than fourteen days for treatment,
or been committed as criminally insane?”
Who says you can’t have both? Arizona has Constitutional Carry, but still issues permits simply for the reciprocity.
When you arm teachers, who is going to pay when they miss? The LAPD did quite a number to a couple of newspaper delivery ladies — but they’ll be okay financially because the city will pay. Who is going to cover the costs of teachers’ missed shots?
The last stats I saw were that the police shot innocent people 11% of the time when they started shooting. Private citizens hit innocents 2% of the time.
Also in Washington if you miss while legally shooting at a bad guy you can’t be charged with a crime for hitting an innocent person. Not sure if there is protection against a civil suit.
Oh, Ubu, you and your False Flags! Tell me, who pays for the Insurance for the “School Resource Officers” that are already in about 1/3 rd of the Schools in the U.S. already? Who pays for the “Campus Police” on most of the Universities and Colleges in the U.S.? And how do you know that a Teacher will miss? Trust me, I don’t think that most School Districts will allow a Teacher to Carry in School w/o Firearms Training. Most of the news stories I’ve read say that they have to meet the State Minimum for CHPs, which matches the State Minimum for LEOs. Which Joe tested a few months back with some Non-Shooters, and they easily matched the LAPD Quals. AND he has PICTURES to Prove it!
Or do you think that Law Enforcement needs to be Disarmed because they might miss? Because if you think that Group “A” is perfectly Fine to have Firearms, yet Group “B” should be Banned, even though they are trained to the same standards, then that just shows that YOU are Prejudiced. I mean, it would be just like denying Firearms to Jewish Soldiers while German Soldiers could use them, all just because they were Jews.
One Final Thought: If you are so concerned with “Missed Shots in Schools,” then why bother sending in Cops to PS 123 in the first place? You could just put up a Perimeter and wait until the Bad Guy comes out when he runs out of Ammo.
Of course, that leads to “Incidents” like Columbine, Va. Tech, etc., but hey, what does that matter to you? You’re not caught behind the Walls in a Gun Free Zone, are you?
Guess you support the Idea that it’s Okay to allow Kindergartners to be Slaughtered by a Madman, just so long as “Guns are Kept out of Schools,” (until someone calls 911 and screams for a Cop with a GUN to get there NOW!).
So just like most Anti-Gunners, you support Murderers Slaughtering Innocent People just so long as your “Political Utopia” can come about.
No need to crank it up to 11. 8 or 9 would have been adequate.
“We have a slippery slope and we plan to use it.”
Made me smile. Winning is cool.
I’m missing something. What is the benefit of the enhanced license? What is my incentive to spend the extra time and money to earn?
Reciprocity. There are a lot of states that might recognize the “enhanced” ID permit that do not currently recognize the existing “minimal qualifications” permit. If you do not travel to other states, you gain nothing. If you do, then you may (depending on the states you travel to) suddenly have them recognize your newer permit, so you don’t have to get a (for example) FL or UT permit.
Pingback: Nevada doesn’t want me | The View From North Central Idaho