Constitution

Ada Sheriff Applauds Gun Nullification Law

Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney told the GUARDIAN he endorsed a law signed Thursday by Gov. Butch Otter that would make it a crime for Idaho coppers or officials to follow ANY edicts from Washington regarding guns and ammo.
Finger on the trigger of a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber snub nose revolver.
Raney said, “Last year I and many other law enforcement leaders opposed HB 219 because it would have interfered with our ability to work cooperatively in certain drug, racketeering and other criminal investigations.”

He went on to say, “This year, SB1332 has been rewritten to address those concerns and ensure that we continue to have the ability to arrest violent criminals and keep guns out of their hands. I support our 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms and this legislation sends a message to the White House and Congress that we plan to defend that right. Therefore, I commend the good work of the intelligent and reasonable legislators who worked to find the right wording that is truly in the best interests of Idaho citizens.”

S1332 passed the house by a vote of 68-0 and the senate by a vote of 34-0. Alaska and Kansas have also passed similar laws. Who would have ever thought Alaska, Kansas, and Idaho would be considered “elite?”

Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America, cheered the governor’s action. “By signing this nullification bill into law, Idaho has joined an elite class of states that are telling the feds to ‘get lost’ — especially when it comes to unconstitutional gun control infringements”

Ban Enforcement Act, will:

“protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”
The legislation continued:

any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state…
S1332 also includes an emergency provision meaning it takes effect immediately upon signature.

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. How will this work when the feds want to arrest someone here in Idaho and use the interstate commerce to prosecute them? Does this preclude ACSO/BPD or ISP from calling the feds and detaining the individual when they find someone with a gun the “they” can’t arrest?

  2. What’s the model and vintage of that snb-nose.

  3. Did Chief Masterson get to comment to the Committee on this one?
    Ha!

  4. Rod in SE Boise
    Mar 27, 2014, 6:44 pm

    Based on the tiny amount of information provided, this law is clearly unconstitutional.

  5. Grumpy ole guy
    Mar 27, 2014, 7:27 pm

    And how many of Idaho taxpayer dollars will be spent in the courts defending this law, only to see it struck down as unconstitutional?

  6. So the bill passes without a single “no” vote and Sheriff Raney wants to jump in and take some credit…and weigh in with his support?? Boy he really knows when and where to go out on a limb. :-) Takes a big man to do that.

  7. Rod & GoG, I’m curious what your opinion is on which part of the Constitution the law may violate.

    Please see the Printz case. jus saying, maybe. Oh, and the Tenth Amendment…Of course, read the Second, first. Well, maybe the First too, but the Second, before all the others.. :-)
    Who’s on Third?
    You might also consider the vote was unanimous in both Senate & House… So who do you think is going to challenge the law?

    Zippo, try S&W Model 10- 38spcl. ?

    EDITOR NOTE–That is the left handed model!

  8. Chief Mike Masterson
    Mar 28, 2014, 7:10 am

    For easterner and others, Sen Davis reached out to LE on this one and asked for input from FOP, Sheriffs and Idaho Chiefs. We provided our concerns and they were addressed early in the process of drafting language.

    I’ve heard a few comments that the “supremacy clause” might trump s1332 if it were to ever be enforced. That’s a very small probability as Idaho LE is in complete agreement we don’t enforce executive orders or federal law. Many differing legal views out there.

    Also, Sheriff Raney was asked to comment on the bill by the BG. I don’t see his comments as jumping in to take credit but more of his responsiveness and openness he has shown to taking questions on tough subjects.

  9. Chief, if “we provided our concerns” and “we don’t enforce executive orders or federal law” are put together, then one can conclude LEO did not have any concerns about this bill, right?
    Since it passed unanimously, apparently no legislator had a concern either.

    I wonder if that would hold true if an Exec ordered BATF to seize weapons from a # of people, for medical reasons for example, and BATF needed LEO assistance…

    Supremacy clause seems to apply to laws of Congress rather than executive orders- but lots of legal views out there. Rod? GoG?

  10. Chief – taking on tough questions? That was the point. It is not “tough” for the sheriff to support something that has no opposition.

  11. Rod in SE Boise
    Mar 29, 2014, 10:25 am

    Easterner – I’m not a lawyer (and I’m sure their opinions on this would be all over the place) but the North won the Civil War and IMO “States Rights” are kaput. The states should only be concerned about filling potholes in the roads.

  12. Are Rod and GOG lawyers? I am not sure how a law upholding the Idaho constitution is un-constitutional, can someone explain please?

  13. Rod in SE Boise
    Mar 31, 2014, 11:48 am

    State law cannot (or should not) conflict with federal law or the US Constitution.

  14. I agree with you Rod that it (should not). My specific question is this and I am not a lawyer so I may be way off base here. I work with a number of people who have Domestic Violence (DV) convictions on their record. My understanding of this and the ID constitution is that they still have their gun rights but, federal laws says no way. Since federal supersedes state where are they? The sheriff and the chief have eluded to their unwillingness to take weapons from anyone not in violation of the ID constitution which Misdemeanor DV does not apply.

    Are the sheriff and the chief going to take these weapons, or are they going to call the feds and hold the individuals until they (the feds) arrest them, or are they going to follow the ID constitution. Kind of a sticky wicket,or maybe not.

    Could someone please answer without the diatribe which I am sure this simple question will generate.

  15. 3rdtimesacharm
    Apr 4, 2014, 11:13 pm

    @ rick and his question about DV and gun rights.
    If a person has a felony, or a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction on their record, they may not posses or own a firearm. This does not include black powder weapons.
    However, if a person has been arrested for misdemeanor dv, but is convicted of a lesser charge, i.e. simple battery, and has no violent related arrests involving the victim in five years, the convicted person may own and posses firearms, according to the batfe regulations.

  16. Thank you, but, this does not answer my concern. Since the Id constitution says gun rights are only lost by felons how will local LE handle a situation on a person with a DV owning a gun. My understanding is that local LE is not required to enforce federal law, IE cal, Or, Wa, and Colo marijuana laws.

    Would a simple battery not be considered a violent arrest?

  17. 3rdtimesacharm
    Apr 6, 2014, 12:20 pm

    simple battery is the unwanted touching of another person. it doesn’t have to be violent, just unwanted. can you imagine how clogged the courts would be after a friday night at a local watering hole? LOL

  18. I can imagine how clogged the courts are already with useless cases….still doesn’t answer my question.

Enter your email address:

Categories