Bill Description: Senate Bill 1374 would clarify that the lawful carry of a firearm cannot be suspended on public property that is leased to a private entity unless the property is being used for a private, invitation-only event or an event that charges admission.

Rating: +1

NOTE: Senate Bill 1374 is related to Senate Bill 1310, which was introduced earlier in this session. 

NOTE: The Senate Amendment to Senate Bill 1374 limits the applicability of the bill even more, allowing additional infringements of our fundamental rights. The analysis has been updated accordingly, but the rating has not changed.

Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?

Idaho law generally prohibits public (government) entities from restricting the right of the people to lawfully possess and carry firearms, although exceptions exist for schools, jails, and courthouses. 

The June 2023 decision of the Idaho Supreme Court in Herndon v. Sandpoint created a significant loophole in this protection, allowing a non-government entity that leases or rents public property to declare that property a "gun-free zone" and use government resources to enforce this prohibition. 

NOTE: This decision was fundamentally flawed because it is both legally and logically impossible to delegate authority one does not possess. Government doesn't have the authority to prohibit the lawful carry of a firearm in a public park; therefore, it cannot grant that authority to a third party who is using the park. 

Senate Bill 1310 would amend Section 18-3302, Idaho Code, to close this loophole under some (but not all) circumstances. It would amend subsection (25), which currently says, "Nothing in subsection (3) or (4) of this section shall be construed to limit the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity." 

NOTE: The changes made by the Senate Amendment to Senate Bill 1374 are reflected in the strike-throughs and underlines in the analysis.

Senate Bill 1310 would leave this language in place and add the following provisions:

"The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any property owned by the state of Idaho or its political subdivisions that is normally and habitually open to the public. Such limitation on the application of this subsection shall supersede all case law interpreting this subsection through July 1, 2024. Herndon v. City of Sandpoint, 531 P.3d 1125 (Idaho 2023).

"Such limitation on the application of this subsection shall apply whether such property is leased, rented, licensed, loaned, permitted, or occupied, whether for consideration or not. 

"Any restriction on the carrying of concealed weapons pursuant to this subsection may only be invoked for public property owned by the state or its political subdivisions when the use of such property is for a private event by invitation only, or for a commercial event that charges admission, or for any other event with restricted access whether admission is charged or not. For any such private event, or commercial event, or other event, it must appear to a reasonable person that the general public does not have unrestricted access to the designated public property, or any subset of such property, that is normally and habitually open to the public. 

"Nothing in this subsection relieves any political subdivision of the state of Idaho of its duties to convey or manage public property in accordance with Idaho law. 

"Nothing in this subsection alters or amends the provisions of section 18-3302C or 18-3309, Idaho Code."

While this bill takes steps to partially correct the miscarriage of justice committed by the court, it falls short of fully correcting the error. 

The first problem is that this protection of the right to keep and bear arms would only apply to "property owned by the state of Idaho or its political subdivisions" that is "normally and habitually open to the public." This language suggests that such restrictions in a government office building could still be allowed. 

The second problem is the exception for "a private event by invitation only, or for a commercial event that charges admission, or for any other event with restricted access whether admission is charged or not."

The law should explicitly prohibit any restrictions or limitations whatsoever on the right of the people to lawfully possess and carry firearms on all government property, even if it is leased or rented by a private entity or person. This should hold regardless of the event’s purpose or whether it is open to the public.

This bill does take some steps to partially correct the miscarriage of justice committed by the court, but it falls disappointingly short of fully correcting the error. 

(+1)