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

F

FoghornLeghorn

New member
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/id...-orders-with-sjr101-vote-video/#axzz5gMXomeRi
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
that is a poorly written original post, you might want to rewrite it...i also had the impression it had passed.
 
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-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2019/legislation/SJR101.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top