Idaho Houses Passes Bill Expanding Right to Carry, but Not Without Complaints

Earlier this week I wrote about an Idaho bill that would expand the right to carry in government buildings that share courtroom space with non-sensitive offices. The bill had passed out of a House committee, but the majority of committee members recommended it be substantially amended. I predicted that with the Idaho legislature now in overtime after missing their scheduled date of adjournment last week, HB 621 was probably going to be passed by for the remainder of the session, especially given the objections some Republicans had raised. 

To my surprise, the House actually approved HB 621 on Thursday. Even more surprising, several of the Republicans who voted in favor of the bill went on the record to say they were actually opposed to the bill. 

Rep. Brent Crane (R-Nampa) said he’s “upset” the bill doesn’t admit the true cost of implementation.

A fiscal analysis required to accompany the bill said, “While some local communities have expressed concerns regarding potential increased costs, the proposed language does not mandate any additional spending or requirements.”

But Crane said he didn’t want to jeopardize his rating with the National Rifle Association by voting against it.

“I’ve got a 100% voting record with the NRA. Don’t want any of you guys to screw up your voting record with the NRA. But this is wrong,” he said.

Crane wasn’t alone in citing the powerful firearm lobbying group as the reason for supporting the bill.

“I’m going to ask you to vote no on this bill,” said Rep. Rick Cheatum (R-Pocatello). “I’ll be voting yes because I can’t oppose the NRA, but I don’t like this bill at all.”

Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen, an Idaho Falls Republican, said she worries the measure will allow an armed person to wait outside a courtroom to “gun down” judges, court staff or attorneys.

“We’ll all be voting for this bill, but it should’ve been worked better and should’ve been worked with all the parties at the table,” Mickelsen said.

What a bunch of cowards. 

No one was twisting their arm or holding a gun to a dog’s head demanding these lawmakers vote for the bill. If they think the bill is a bad idea, then they should have voted “no,” taken the hit to their NRA rating, and made their case to their constituents about why they refused to support SB 621. 

Do I want pro-Second Amendment lawmakers in the majority of every statehouse? Of course, but these Republicans didn’t demonstrate their fealty to the Constitution here. They showed their fear of being labeled anti-gun.  

We see this same political cowardice on the left too, though most lawmakers aren’t dumb enough to come right out and say they don’t support a gun control bill but they’re voting for it because they can’t jeopardize their support from Everytown or Moms Demand Action. If they did say that, Second Amendment advocates would rightfully slam them for their lack of intestinal fortitude, wouldn’t we? 

On a pragmatic level, I’d rather have a statehouse full of people like Cheatum or Mickelsen who can be cowed into voting for a pro-2A bill than a bunch of out-and-proud gun control supporters. The ideal, though, would be legislative majorities who vote in favor of pro-2A bills for the right reasons instead of political expediency.  

So yes, while I’m glad that HB 621 cleared the Idaho House, I don’t have much respect for the lawmakers who voted “yes” when their hearts said “no.” 

As to the specific complaints about the legislation, while some counties may want to implement additional security measures, it’s true that none are mandated, so the “true” cost of implementation is an unknown figure at this point. 

Mickelsen’s objection is even more specious. If her concern is that someone with a gun will wait outside the “sensitive” part of these buildings in order to attack someone, is she equally concerned about the same potential for that kind of violence taking place in the parking lot of these buildings right now? We know that “gun-free zones” don’t stop those with evil intentions, and that’s true no matter what location we’re talking about. Even if a “sensitive” place does have additional security like armed guards and metal detectors, there’s nothing preventing a twisted individual from lurking beyond that security perimeter and waiting for their intended victim to emerge. 

I believe that HB 621 was worth supporting, and I’m not all that impressed with the arguments raised against it from Mickelsen and Crane. But I’m downright disgusted with the mewling objection from Rick Cheatum, who asked others to vote “no” but voted “yes” because he didn’t want the hit to his NRA rating. 

The Idaho primaries are coming up on May 19, and as it turns out, Cheatum has two opponents in the Republican primary for House District 28A. 

Mike Saville’s campaign website has this to say about the Second Amendment:  

I do NOT support Banning guns as it will create a Black Market for Bad Guys. I Do Not Think Children should worry about being murdered at School as my generation had no worries of that type. We were more worried about grades. Doing nothing is Not an option but rest assured, the Government will Not take your or my guns.

Good to know, but that still leaves a lot of room for gun control measures, doesn’t it? 

Cheatum’s other primary opponent is James Lamborn, who discusses the right to keep and bear arms more extensively on his campaign website. 

Our nation’s Constitution is etched in stone, and the Second Amendment is as vital today as it was in 1791. I will continue to fight to preserve this right for current and future generations. I am a bulwark in my commitment to defending the Second Amendment. This fundamental right, enshrined in our Constitution, guarantees that law-abiding Americans can keep and bear arms to protect themselves, their families, their businesses, and their communities. 

The Second Amendment is not just a provision for military, hunters or sport shooters: It is a cornerstone of our very liberty as Americans! It ensures that citizens have the means to safeguard their freedoms against any threat, foreign or domestic. I believe that an armed populace is a safe and civil populace, and essential to the preservation of a free state. 

I oppose any legislation that seeks to infringe upon this sacred right. Whether unnecessary restrictions on firearm ownership, burdensome regulations which penalize responsible gun owners, or ‘international treaties’ intended to undermine our national sovereignty. I will stand firmly against any effort to erode our Second Amendment protections or disarm our citizenry! And I do NOT give the benefit of the doubt to any public official who wishes to do so. Instead, I support measures which enhance our God-given right to self-protect, and will always fight to ensure that Americans can legally exercise their freedom without undue and ill-willed interference from anyone. 

I oppose unconstitutional executive actions and advocate the expulsion of any law (or lawgiver) which unjustly attempts to restrict gun ownership for good Americans. Nothing less than Constitutional Carry is acceptable in Idaho.

I know who my choice would be on May 19 if I lived in this district, and it wouldn’t be the guy who only voted for a pro-2A bill because he was concerned about what the NRA would say if he didn’t. If the option voting for that guy or a committed gun control advocate my calculation would be different, but thankfully the voters of HD 28A don’t face that situation when the head to the polls next month. 

Editor’s Note: President Trump and most Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes, and to call out those who are more concerned about their image than strengthening our 2A rights. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.