If the Idaho Legislature passes Senate Bill 1056, Idaho could become a place of fear and intimidation.
The bill would end the state’s prohibition on the formation of private armed militias and would allow them to parade in public with firearms.
Last week, the Senate State Affairs Committee sent the bill to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. It has every chance of success.
Last year, the Idaho House overwhelmingly approved a similar bill. Gov. Brad Little then called the state’s prohibition on private militias that has been in place for nearly 100 years “needless and inconsistent with Idahoans’ rights to peaceably assemble and bear arms in public,” according to a spokesman for his office.
According to the nonpartisan Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center, all 50 states “prohibit private, unauthorized militias and military units from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities.”
Idaho should not be the first to make them legal.
If it does, it would be like lighting up the sky with a neon invitation for domestic terrorists, hate groups and wannabe tough guys to come here, form up, suit up, throw weapons over their shoulders and march whenever they wish to intimidate others.
If the state does so in the name of the Second Amendment “right” to bear arms, it will invite war on another, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and assembly.
Speech will not be free if it must be undertaken in front of people armed with loaded weapons.
Imagine the chilling effect—or worse—on public discussions or marches around divisive issues like abortion, minority rights, pornography, gun control and voting rights.
Before putting out the welcome mat for private armed militias, legislators and the governor should envision contentious hearings held in a Statehouse surrounded by an armed mob.
It would be far better to make Idaho a safe place for reasoned debate, not armed intimidation.
“Our View” represents the opinion of the newspaper editorial board, which is made up of members of its board of directors. Remarks may be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Post a comment as anonymous
Watch this discussion.
"the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages." In Re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, Idaho Supreme Court (1902)
.............baseball bats, chains, knives, crow bars, tire irons, machetes, pitchforks, spears, brass knuckles, sawed off shot guns.....Mace and Tasers. Enjoy the parade!
.................ball peen hammers [pirate]
.......hatchets and ax handles..... Land of the Free! Home of the Brave! [alien][alien][alien]
Eh, people could already do this, just not as a militia.
Why do we care about the whackjobs in private militias all of a sudden?
This valley is well armed, decently organized. That’s only improving. Cali types are just loud and ignorant.
So you are the insurrectionist. Thanks for the warning.
Serious question. Is there any scenario that you would use the guns you claim to own to protect yourself or your loved ones from the government if they overstepped the authority that we have given to them?
No. . I don't see the federal government as a threat. I do see the far right extremists as a threat, but thats not why I own gun either.
So if they started rounding up people like the Germans did you’d stand idly by. Got it.
978 charged and arrested for Jan 6
Exactly badger, turns out January 6 isn’t what your overloads told you it was.
What was it?
1. sightseeing and eco-tourism?
2.a Guns and Roses concert?
3. free wings at Col. Sanders?
4. another train wreck?
If you watch the footage that been released, it looks like option 1 more than anything else. At worst it was a "mostly peaceful protest." I don't endorse any of it, but it's clearly not what the media propagated.
Another Sunday walk in the park? Mellow like the month of May?
Sounds like your on the way to a long stay in a federal prison.
The US Supreme Court recently ruled that local firearm regulation must follow, not issues of public safety, but rather the historic precedence of the laws. (or something to that effect). My question is, is there not a historic precedent for restrictions of firearms in public? As in Dodge City, Whyatt Earp , checking in your pistol before you go to the bar and etc.?
States and cities can set gun regulations as long as they do not conflict with federal regulations, thus Chi-Rac / Illinois has stricter laws than surrounding States.
Yet more gun violence. Strange
Look at a map. The Indiana border is as far as the closest Starbucks
Read Jason Bride, then it's not so strange.
Badger we finally found something we can agree on, I’m all for a private business ability to make you check your pistol before you go to their bar.
Is it so different than checking in your assault rifle before you go to the parade?
Please describe an assault rifle.
Why? You know what I`m talking about.
Badgers, no, you don’t either
The US Supreme Court recently ruled that firearm regulations must follow ,not issues of public safety,
@RFV. . ." That’s because law-abiding citizens with loaded weapons pose no threat to them unless the legislature he is breaking the law (constitution) against the citizens." Then why do these" law-biding citizen" oppose back round checks and other measures that would keep gun of the hands of criminals, the Mexican cartels and crazy kid zealot, Rittenhouse?
If you think criminals and Mexican cartels are going to follow the law and take background checks to get their guns, there is no reasoning with you. And Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges.
RFV, I didn't type what I was trying convey correctly, I failed to include the word "out", that was actually the key word of that sentence. The sentence should have read. . . Then why do these" law-biding citizen" oppose back round checks and other measures that would keep guns OUT of the hands of criminals, the Mexican cartels and crazy kid zealot, Rittenhouse? Sorry. Regarding Rittenhouse, the facts are a minor crossed state line with an automatic weapon an killed 2 people. That you equate an acquittal as evidence of murders not being committed, is typical of you.
So answer the question, why don't law abiding citizens support my above comment? Answer. . .most law abiding citizens do,by a large percentage, only the NRA, gun manufacturing industry, insurrectionist and simple minded buffoons.
You forgot to mention your elected congressional officials who talk a good talk, but even when in a majority failed to pass meaningful gun laws. Like so many other issues they want to play the blame game rather than actually solve the problem. I guess you can add your congressional official to your list of simple minded buffoons.
Miles, again, how do you think background checks will keep guns OUT of the hands of criminals. They are criminals, meaning they don’t obey the law. They don’t buy guns legally and background checks will do nothing about that.
On Rittenhouse, three men attacked him, a jury found that he acted in self defense and acquitted him of all charges. You are allowed to defend yourself with or without a gun. You can have your opinion but it means nothing when it was decided in a court of law. That you try to use him as an example of why law abiding citizens shouldn’t have guns is typical of you.
On background checks, there is already a federal background check requirement. Most Law abiding citizens don’t trust the government with the power to restrict their constitutional rights because the government constantly oversteps their power. There are many politicians, especially in the current federal government that would like to take a constitutionally protected right away by any means possible. So people are resistant to giving the government any more power that can and will be abused. Your problem is with the second amendment, and people having opinions about that doesn’t change a thing. Until that amendment is changed by congress, the government doesn’t have the power to restrict against it. Your politicians can change that but there aren’t enough people who think like you to make that happen. Until that happens, which it won’t, we will continue to exercise our rights legally.
And back to the first point, we don’t want to give government any more power over a constitutional right, especially because it does nothing to solve the problem, which is criminals intent to use anything illegally to commit their crimes.
Yeah, OJ walked out of a courtroom and into the sunshine too.
" Most Law abiding citizens don’t trust the government with the power to restrict their constitutional rights because the government constantly oversteps their power." Again you don't know what your talking about and keep making delusional comments, illustrating your personal bias. It appears your actually referring to insurrectionist in waiting, which are not law abiding citizens by definition as over throwing the government is not a "law abiding" citizens.
It's pointless to converse with you far right fascist, who are paranoid about everything. Main steam Americans aren't riddled with your paranoia , I'm waiting for you to spew your delusions about contrails emitting chemical to control your pea brain. Really your a bunch of loser idiots, unfortunately with guns.
Your answer to school shooting is to change the door knob, next you'll want to arm the children. The gun industry/NRA loves you.
We get it miles, you are only only repeating what your masters have told you. I’ve never mentioned insurrection or changing doorknobs but if you feel better by making those claims, I’m fine with it. We will keep our guns legally because you fail to make a coherent argument. I’m glad people like you don’t want to own guns.
@RFV. . . "I’m glad people like you don’t want to own guns." But we do own guns.
Miles, why do you own guns?
Why do you own guns miles?
Background checks and stricter control over who gets sold firearms aren't going to stop gun violence associated with organized crime. They've figured out how to get blow from South America here. I think they've figured out straw purchases. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just being intentionally obtuse.
What they can help with is stopping the mentally unwell people who commit random mass shootings. Mentally unwell individuals who don't have criminal connections are going to struggle to find people who will sell to them. Selling guns isn't like selling drugs and people keep that kind of business very close to their chest.
As long as current gun laws stay the same, those kinds of Columbine-esque shootings will continue to happen. Mental health and hardening are just distractions. We're the only country that worries about this issue and it's because firearms are so easily accessible.
If you want to stop gun violence associated with criminal activity, you'd need to go full on Australia and do a complete overhaul of our gun laws coupled with a confiscation program. And that's not going to happen.
Fact: Rittenhouse did not cross a Stateline with an automatic weapon.
“Idaho should not be the first to make them legal.” This take by the IME is laughable. If your melatonin is of a certain hue (BLM or NFAC an armed black militia), or you align with the Democrats (Antifa) you are allowed to gather and riot as long as it is mostly peaceful per CNN, setting fires and looting is optional.
“If it does, it would be like lighting up the sky with a neon invitation for domestic terrorists, hate groups and wannabe tough guys…” I recommend you look up wannabe tough guys like the NFAC. I can’t print what the acronym stands for or I couldn’t post here.
This has to do with the First Amendment, throwing in the Second Amendment is just gaslighting.
But isn't that you, a grown up Rittenhouse itching to shoot somebody?
Well, unless you ask Reagan.
I think armed militias are allowed as long as they are well regulated.
Always surprising that these extreme leftists think they will last very long in idaho..
What exactly are you inferring? It’s not extreme to oppose being accidentally shot by some yahoo parading around with a gun stuffed in their underwear.
What are you inferring? Who DOESNT oppose being accidentally shot by some yahoo parading around with a gun stuffed in their underwear?
Why make it legal?
It’s not legal to accidentally shoot someone. And no one wants it legal.
Please let us know when that has happened here, SV transplant.
There was a sad and tragic accident around 1970 involving two brothers out Warm Springs. The point is that more unregulated guns allowed in the general population means a higher probability for an accidental shooting, all under the guise of free speech. This proposition is about freedom to be a jerk, and to make others uncomfortable and fearful.
SV, your reasoning is an accident from 50 years ago?
And it has nothing to do with free speech, that has its own amendment.
Geez Tucker! I’ll type this more slowly so you have a chance to understand. More unregulated guns are proportional to more accidents. I don’t want to be shot because you’re a jerk with insecurities (aka small junk) who feels compelled to parade around with lethal weapons to prove your manhood.
SV Karen, we get it, your fear is based on an example of an accident that happened in private 50 years ago. Not going to sway anyone.
“we get it”…YOU don’t get it. I’d be surprised if anyone would associates with a dullard like you. Why don’t you have a checker at the market read my comments to you out loud, and make sure they ask you follow up questions to be sure YOU get it. More unregulated guns = more accidental shootings.
Farrightforthevalley I’ll fix it for you …
Men are the perpetrators of mass murders by gun, but other men don’t want to deal with that they just want more guns for all rather than work on the underlying reasons why so many of their sons are growing up to commit mass murder.
A group of men with the same cult mindset together in public all carrying guns is not a well regulated militia.
SV Native, your constant condescension is ridiculous and immature. Who do you think cares what you think when you pepper everything with grade school level comments like "small junk" and "checker at the grocery store". I know insulting everyone who disagrees with you is part of the liberal playbook, but maybe everyone wouldn't be disgusted by you if you had a mature conversation once in a while and just made a point without being childish. Give it a try.
AB:” SV transplant.”. My, such a delicate flower. I find the modern republicans to be disgusting, and I certainly don’t care to be lectured by some Cretin who thinks more guns everywhere is a good idea. If you don’t like my discourse, I’ll be happy to send you a map to wherever you came from.
Native, Idaho is against your politics and rejects opinions like yours. You are welcome to assimilate or self select out.
Um, no. I chose to stay and fight fascism, because I am a real American.
Ooh, those mean liberal, banning book, corrupting free speak, supporting insurrectionist, the list is long right. Wrong, that's what right wing rubes are doing. Maybe if you got your head out of T Carlsons rear, you might come across as a semi- intelligent person.
Idaho; you can parade with your weapon locked and loaded (but not in mascara).
Badger, you are clearly too smart for us. No one has any idea what you are talking about.
Our Republican legislature seems more intimidated by a parade of people in drag than a parade of people with loaded weapons, Capiche?
The liberals and their obsession with normalizing this mental illness is amazing.
That’s because law-abiding citizens with loaded weapons pose no threat to them unless the legislature he is breaking the law (constitution) against the citizens.
Truth Alex. Mental illness is the cause of all mass murder but they don’t want to deal with that, they just want the guns.
Badger is probably way to smart for you. How would you like your paranoia severed up, with ketchup and a side of fry's .
Now the IME is worried about free speech after 3 years of trying to silence free and open debate about COVID. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
…and your bounds know nothing.
Native, do You think IME are advocates advocates for all free speech or just the speech they agree with?
Welcome to the discussion.