Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

True Constitutional Carry Means No Permit Required

Currently you have to be a resident of the state of Idaho or a current member of the armed forces to carry concealed without a permit.

True Constitutional Carry Means No Permit Required

True Constitutional Carry
Means No Permit Required

by Rep. Christy Zito

Idaho: What a blessing to live in a state that honors the Constitution of the United States and the spirit of our Founding Fathers. Idaho citizens, likely more than any other state, take our Second Amendment rights seriously and ardently work to defend, maintain and improve Second Amendment rights within our border. I am proud to live here and so proud of the gun owners in our state for being politically active and taking a stand whenever and wherever to ensure our great state will maintain that leadership role in defending the Constitution.

Gun owners and supporters of the constitution regularly make their voices heard, being active in the political process, contacting their representatives, visiting their capital, writing letters and sending written petitions. This is truly how representative government is supposed to work, this is a republic at its finest driving solutions from the bottom up.

There has been a lot of recent talk about “Red Flag” laws in our state and our nation. While the vast majority of us seek to protect those perceived as most vulnerable using common sense, some misguided individuals driven by emotions seek to attempt to circumvent the Constitution and provide some perceived security at the expense of much freedom.

As a nation, we must be very cautious to not let those qualities overshadow the guarantees of freedom afforded us by our Creator. Americans are to be commended for the value we place on individual freedom. Defending and preserving our basic freedoms is the ultimate form of compassion.

This legislative session I will represent gun owners by introducing a bill to expand our constitutional carry rights. Currently you have to be a resident of the state of Idaho or a current member of the armed forces to carry concealed without a permit. If you are a non- resident, you must possess a concealed carry permit issued by your state of residence and it must have reciprocity with Idaho. It is our goal with this proposed legislation to remove the confusion of who needs to be permitted and make our state even more in compliance with the Constitution.

The proposed legislation makes it legal for any resident of the United States, 18 and older, who are law-abiding and legal to possess a gun, to legally carry concealed anywhere in the Great State of Idaho!

Below is an illustration of the current law and the proposed legislation. Thank you again for working to keep our state a leader in this and many other issues. It is a privilege to serve the citizens.

The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews

8 Comments on True Constitutional Carry Means No Permit Required

  1. My “Weapons” at our various actions have been pots and skillets, but it seems that I’ve missed something about the need for these CCWs….as everybody knows, the very people we should be armed against – outlaws – will conceal their weapons, while good responsible citizens would not dream of using a gun in a crime – wether concealed or openly carried…We could make a strong case for FEAR among criminals – fear that he’ll get ventilated by some pistol packin’ granny if he tries to rob a store. Enlarge this fear deterrent to a town or district – that, for example, Podunk is noted for a near 1/1 ratio of citizens and guns, and even the dumbest thug will go elsewhere….There is one benefit of CCWs – a benefit that is to power hungry officials and the political machine, namely being able to grant a CCW as a special perk for the wealthy and “Connected”…and to campaign donors..Despite all the citizen disarmament laws of Nazi Germany, guns were freely available – to the politically reliable.Yes, anyone who falsely yells “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre should be punished … but these laws against being armed are like making all the theatre goers wear muzzles..

  2. I agree with Congresswoman Zito. The Constitution for the united States of America is the written word and will of the American people. The Original Intent mocks every governing body today, for devolving from the purity of the words chosen to draft that Constitution and its Bill of Rights. No State or County or Local/Municipal government should have a single law on the books regarding bearable arms, concealed or otherwise, in the possession of any citizen who is not a felon. The Second Amendment is every American’s “License/Permit”, and shall not be infringed. Period.
    I am thankful to see in recent years more legislators who are sensitive to the erosions of our Founders’ original intent and are working hard to protect that intent as a guarantor for all of our freedoms and Liberty.
    Salute!

  3. As each state entered the union, the Bill of Rights was on the table. Therefore the Bill of Rights is before and superior to subsequent laws, ordinances, regulations and licensing schemes. The Bill of Rights presents a limit on State Legislative powers.
    Thus, all restrictive arms laws are null and void.

  4. It’s a shame that it requires legislation like this in order for us to exercise a natural right that already has constitutional protection at both the state and federal level.

  5. Police take an oath to uphold the constitution and the 1st day they are active they break that oath by arresting or ticketing someone for a victimless crime.

  6. So I ask you, WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE 2ND A, & TOLERATING THEIR TREASON? Are we Free Men or NOT? Why are we slaves to our servants? I offer you a presentation of what & how we should be protecting our Constitution. SheriffHoyle.com

  7. “I offer you a presentation of what & how we should be protecting our Constitution.” http://sheriffhoyle.com/

    Whatever happened to protecting innocent people from guilty people? I checked out the webpage and found a video, but no presentation of what and how “we” should be protecting anything. The video starts out with revisionist history, telling a fictional story of how American somehow started with that Constitution in 1787.

    That is worst than a half-truth, it is aiding, abetting, lending support to criminals. If there is a way to return to rule of law, which includes many fundamental rights, such as the fundamental right to protect the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, then present, please, the means to that end.

    If the idea is to “protect” a document written by criminals, signed by criminals, and criminally enforced by criminals, then that idea is already well demonstrated.

    George Mason Speech Virginia RATifying Convention
    June 04, 1788
    “M. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.”

Comments are closed.