Link to bill: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/S1004/

Summary of Legislation

The bill expands Idaho’s current Stand-Your-Ground law to include what is commonly called “Criminal Immunity.” Here are some critical things the bill does:

• Gives gun owners an option, before trial, to invoke “Stand-Your-Ground” within 14 days of being in jail. Rather than waiting until after a trial is over, the government is forced to bring real evidence to show a reason for holding a gun owner in jail.
• Gun owners who are found “Not Guilty” because of “Self-Defense” can be reimbursed court costs.

Link to bill: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/S1008/

Summary of Legislation

The bill will, according to its statement of purpose: “The legislation amends Chapter 33, Title 18, Idaho Code, to prohibit the administrations of public colleges and universities from placing limitations on the possession, carrying, or transporting of concealed weapons or ammunition on campus grounds.

• Public universities and colleges should have no say over the carrying of firearms on their campuses, including campus housing. The legislature never should have given them the power in the first place.

Link to bill: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/S1163/

Summary of Legislation

The bill requires cell phone manufacturers to automatically have pornography filters turned on when a phone is purchased for a minor. The bill also allows individuals to sue manufacturers for alleged violations of the law.

• This is another bill that does not directly relate to firearms but concerns gun owners for several reasons.
• First, the bill blames cell phone manufacturers for violations. This is the exact same thing that is happening to gun manufacturers in 2023. Multiple states have laws punishing firearms manufacturers or allow law suits as a result of someone misusing their product. SB 1163 will lay the groundwork for lawsuits to also come against firearm manufacturers. Precedent will be set in Idaho courts that the Idaho legislature is okay suing the manufacturers of products that are misused.
• The second problem is that the Idaho legislature was setting up a moral quandary by supporting the bill. If they are doing this bill to “protect the children,” then why wouldn’t they also vote for safe storage requirement for guns? Either they support that as well, or they are hypocrites for doing one and not the other.

Link to bill: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/S1173/

Summary of Legislation

The bill will, according to its statement of purpose: “The bill protects the right of a person to declare or show that they possess a firearm to reasonably defend and protect themselves or another against the unlawful use or attempted use of physical force including deadly force.

• The bill has several concerns for gun owners which could probably be amended and addressed.
• The first concern is the use of the word “immediate” in regard to when the threat is present. If a threat is “immediate,” then brandishing or displaying a firearm is likely not the best practice anyway. A prosecutor and jury is likely going to use that word in a way that will land gun owners in hot water. (UPDATE: The word “Immediate” was removed.)
• We are also trying to make sure that the current jury instructions aren’t weakened as a result of SB 1173. We don’t feel confident that this will expand or strengthen our current law, but we aren’t opposed to sitting down to figure out how to best tackle this issue.
• With the bill being introduced so late, we would prefer that gun owners have more time to digest this issue and make sure there aren’t any unintended consequences.

Link to bill: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/H0167/

Summary of Legislation

The bill would change Idaho’s signage laws and put thousands of gun owners in jeopardy. Additionally, the bill would target organizations like the ISAA and could potentially bankrupt us if it is determined that we encouraged someone to trespass because the fine for doing so is $100,000.

• The ISAA typically gets involved in bills where there is a direct relation to firearms. Some critics argued that HB 167 doesn’t contain the word gun, so why does the ISAA care? The issue is that some bills, while not intended to directly go after gun owners, can still impact us and we reserve the right to speak out on those issues as well.
• One of our primary concerns with this bill is that it will give signs the force of law in Idaho. Under current Idaho law, verbal notification must be given in order for a trespass to take place. HB 167 says that signs are sufficient notice themselves. This means that a store with a “No Guns or You are Trespassing” type sign, could simply call the cops on you without verbal notification. This would be a drastic change to Idaho law and place thousands of gun owners in jeopardy of violating a law unintentionally.
• The second issue the ISAA had with the bill is that it allows for a fine of $100,000 if an organization’s communication encouraged someone to do “critical infrastructure trespass.” The bill was very vague and there are many instances were we can see an anti-gun judge or prosecutor using the wording of the bill to target gun owners.

Link to bill: https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/H0190.pdf

Summary of Legislation

The bill will, according to its statement of purpose: “This legislation helps ensure that banks and credit unions, designated by the Idaho State Treasurer as depositories for public monies, do not boycott industries important to our state and the livelihood of our citizens.”

Link to bill: https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2023/legislation/H0295/

Summary of Legislation

The bill will, according to its statement of purpose, “prohibit credit card companies from assigning unique credit card codes to firearms retailers that sell weapons and ammunition in Idaho. The tracking of these codes will allow unprecedented surveillance of 2nd Amendment Activity by the sharing with the government.”

• The ISAA would typically not be supportive of a bill in which government tells a private company what they can and can’t do. However, the credit card companies have shown time and again that they work hand in hand with the government and therefore, they can’t really be considered private companies anymore.