Comments on: Ada Sheriff Applauds Gun Nullification Law

By: Rick

Rick — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 19:00:51 +0000

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

By: 3rdtimesacharm

3rdtimesacharm — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:20:38 +0000

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

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:55:15 +0000

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?

By: 3rdtimesacharm

3rdtimesacharm — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 05:13:29 +0000

@ 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.

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:01:48 +0000

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.

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:48:15 +0000

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

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 16:39:25 +0000

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

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 16:25:49 +0000

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.

By: Hank

Hank — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 01:22:28 +0000

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

By: Easterner

Easterner — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:51:28 +0000

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?