Quick Reference
Magazine Capacity Restrictions
Constitutional (Permitless) Carry Allowed
Red Flag Laws
Carry in Alcohol Establishments Allowed
Open Carry Allowed
No Weapons Signs Enforced by Law
NFA Weapons Allowed
Duty to Retreat
Duty to Inform Law Enforcement
"Universal" Background Checks Required
Table of Contents
State Law Summary
Constitution of the State of Idaho -
“The people shall have the right to bear arms."
Idaho's firearm law history reflects a gradual evolution toward more permissive gun rights, marked by significant legal cases and legislative changes. In 1990, the Idaho Legislature passed the "Idaho Firearm Freedom Act," asserting the state's authority to regulate firearms made and retained within its borders, a move later challenged in courts but emblematic of state-level resistance to federal gun regulations. The landmark case of State v. Hunsaker (1999) reinforced individual rights to carry firearms openly. In 2016, Idaho adopted constitutional carry, allowing individuals aged 18 and older to carry concealed firearms without a permit, which further expanded gun rights in the state. Additionally, Idaho has consistently upheld its commitment to the Second Amendment, with laws allowing for firearms in certain public places, including schools, showcasing a trend toward bolstering individual rights in firearm ownership and carry.
Permit Eligibility, Training and Application Process
Idaho's history of concealed carry has evolved significantly over the years, with key legislative milestones shaping its current framework. In 1990, Idaho passed its first concealed carry law, requiring a permit for carrying a concealed weapon. The law underwent several amendments, and in 2006, Idaho introduced "shall issue" permitting, mandating that authorities grant permits to applicants who met the legal requirements. A notable change occurred in 2014 when the state enacted a law allowing concealed carry without a permit for individuals aged 18 and older. This move further expanded gun rights in Idaho, reflecting a growing trend toward permissive concealed carry laws across the U.S.
Idaho License Eligibility
A license to carry concealed weapons shall not be issued to any person who:
- Is under twenty-one (21) years of age, except as otherwise provided in this section;
- Is formally charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year;
- Has been adjudicated guilty in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year;
- Is a fugitive from justice;
- Is an unlawful user of marijuana or any depressant, stimulant or narcotic drug, or any controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. section 802;
- Is currently suffering from or has been adjudicated as having suffered from any of the following conditions, based on substantial evidence: Lacking mental capacity;
- Mentally ill; Gravely disabled; An incapacitated person
- Has been discharged from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions;
- Has received a withheld judgment or suspended sentence for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year, unless the person has successfully completed probation;
- Has received a period of probation after having been adjudicated guilty of, or received a withheld judgment for, a misdemeanor offense that has as an element the intentional use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, unless the person has successfully completed probation;
- Is an alien illegally in the United States;
- Is a person who having been a citizen of the United States has renounced his or her citizenship;
- Is free on bond or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal or sentencing for a crime which would disqualify him from obtaining a concealed weapons license;
- Is subject to a protection order issued under chapter 63, title 39, Idaho Code, that restrains the person from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner of the person or child of the intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; or
- Is for any other reason ineligible to own, possess or receive a firearm under the provisions of Idaho or federal law.
Idaho Code § 18-3302 (11) (a-n)
Idaho CWL Training Requirements
The sheriff may require the applicant to demonstrate familiarity with a firearm and must accept any one (1) of the following as evidence of the applicant's familiarity with a firearm:
- Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the department of fish and game or a similar agency of another state;
- Completion of any national rifle association firearms safety or training course or any national rifle association hunter education course or any equivalent course;
- Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency, community college, college, university or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the national rifle association or the Idaho state police;
- Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or offered for any division or subdivision of a law enforcement agency or security enforcement agency;
- Evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or military service;
- A current license to carry concealed weapons pursuant to this section, unless the license has been revoked for cause;
- Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state-certified or national rifle association-certified firearms instructor; or
- Other training that the sheriff deems appropriate.
Idaho Code § 18-3302 (9)
Idaho ECWL Training Requirements
Applicants for an Enhanced CWL must complete a course which meets the following requirements:
- The course instructor is certified by the national rifle association, or by another nationally recognized organization that customarily certifies firearms instructors, as an instructor in personal protection with handguns, or the course instructor is certified by the Idaho peace officers standards and training council as a firearms instructor;
- The course is at least eight (8) hours in duration;
- The course is taught face to face and not by electronic or other means; and
- The course includes instruction in:
- Idaho law relating to firearms and the use of deadly force, provided that such instruction is delivered by either of the following whose name and credential must appear on the certificate:
- An active, senior or emeritus member of the Idaho state bar; or
- A law enforcement officer who possesses an intermediate or higher Idaho peace officers standards and training certificate;
- The basic concepts of the safe and responsible use of handguns;
- Self-defense principles; and
- Live fire training including the firing of at least ninety-eight (98) rounds by the student. An instructor must provide a copy of the syllabus and a written description of the course of fire used in a qualifying handgun course that includes the name of the individual instructing the legal portion of the course to the sheriff upon request.
- Idaho law relating to firearms and the use of deadly force, provided that such instruction is delivered by either of the following whose name and credential must appear on the certificate:
Idaho Code § 18-3302K(4)(c)
Idaho Provisional CWL
The sheriff of a county shall issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to those individuals between the ages of eighteen (18) and twenty-one (21) years who, except for the age requirement contained in section 18-3302K(4), Idaho Code, would otherwise meet the requirements for issuance of a license under section 18-3302K, Idaho Code. Licenses issued to individuals between the ages of eighteen (18) and twenty-one (21) years under this subsection shall be easily distinguishable from licenses issued pursuant to subsection (7) of this section.
A license issued pursuant to this subsection after July 1, 2016, shall expire on the twenty-first birthday of the licensee. A licensee, upon attaining the age of twenty-one (21) years, shall be allowed to renew the license under the procedure contained in section 18-3302K(9), Idaho Code. Such renewal license shall be issued as an enhanced license pursuant to the provisions of section 18-3302K, Idaho Code.
Idaho Code § 18-3302 (20)
Idaho License Application Process
Applicants for a CWL or Enhanced CWL must do the following:
- Apply in person at the county sheriff’s office
- Provide proof of completion of the required training
- Submit fingerprints with the application
- Pay a $20 application fee (the sheriff may add additional fees necessary to cover the cost of processing fingerprints or necessary materials)
The sheriff’s office shall issue the CWL or Enhanced CWL within 90 days.
The license shall be valid for 5 years from the date of issuance.
The fee for renewal of the license shall be $15.
Idaho Code § 18-3302
Renewal Application Process
Every license that is not, as provided by law, suspended, revoked or disqualified in this state shall be renewable at any time during the ninety (90) day period before its expiration or within ninety (90) days after the expiration date. The sheriff must mail renewal notices ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date of the license. The sheriff shall require the licensee applying for renewal to complete an application. The sheriff must submit the application to the Idaho state police for a records check of state and national databases.
The Idaho state police must conduct the records check and return the results to the sheriff within thirty (30) days. The sheriff shall not issue a renewal before receiving the results of the records check and must deny a license if the applicant is disqualified under any of the criteria provided in this section. A renewal license shall be valid for a period of five (5) years. A license so renewed shall take effect on the expiration date of the prior license. A licensee renewing ninety-one (91) days to one hundred eighty (180) days after the expiration date of the license must pay a late renewal penalty of ten dollars ($10.00) in addition to the renewal fee unless waived by the sheriff, except that any licensee serving on active duty in the armed forces of the United States during the renewal period shall not be required to pay a late renewal penalty upon renewing ninety-one (91) days to one hundred eighty (180) days after the expiration date of the license. After one hundred eighty-one (181) days, the licensee must submit an initial application for a license and pay the fees prescribed in subsection (15) of this section. The renewal fee and any penalty shall be paid to the sheriff for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this chapter. Upon renewing a license under the provisions of this section, the sheriff must notify the Idaho state police within five (5) days on a form or in a manner prescribed by the Idaho state police.
Application Fees:
The fee for renewal of the license shall be fifteen dollars ($15.00), which the sheriff must retain for the purpose of performing the duties required in this section. The sheriff may collect the actual cost of any additional fees necessary to cover the processing costs lawfully required by any state or federal agency or department, and the actual cost of materials for the license lawfully required by any state agency or department, which costs must be paid to the state.
Where to Apply:
Applicants must apply in person at the county sheriff’s office. If the applicant chooses to, they may print out the application but not sign it until they go into the sheriff's office. The application can be printed out from this link:
PDFfiller - idaho concealed weapons application.pdf Press CTRL key while left clicking on the link.
What to Include with Application:
1. A completed application
2. $15 application fee
Idaho Code § 18-3302 (16-17)
Instructor Eligibility
The classroom portion must be taught by an Idaho Peace Officer with an intermediate certificate or higher or by a member of the Idaho State Bar. This instructor must be listed on the class certificate;
The instructor also must have received their firearms training by an NRA school, POST course or something equivalent. However, an NRA-certified instructor may contract with someone meeting those other credentials (Idaho Peace Officer with an intermediate certificate or higher or by a member of the Idaho State Bar) to teach the classroom portion of the course;
- Must be at least 21 years of age;
- Must pass a background check; and must
- Obtain liability insurance.
Idaho Admin Code Title IDAPA 11.11.01
Instructor Application Process
There is no application process; however, an issuing Sheriff or their designee can require a copy of the instructor's training and course curriculum before they accept the training that an instructor has provided.
Instructors must show up in person at their local county sheriff’s office to show them a copy of their training and course curriculum.
It is recommended that the instructor call the local sheriff in their county because some sheriff’s offices take appointments only.
Also, the instructor must submit fingerprints along with a copy of their instructor’s training and course curriculum (fingerprints are provided by the local sheriff’s office) and pay a $20 background check fee (the sheriff may add additional fees necessary to cover the cost of processing fingerprints and necessary materials).
The 8-hour E-CWL Course is specific to Idaho law as part of the course dealing with the use of deadly force and must be taught by an Idaho licensed attorney or a certified Idaho peace officer. Instructor’s students are also required to shoot 98 rounds on a firearms range.Application Fees$0 application fee, but $20 for fingerprints/background check fee payable to the local sheriff’s office for initial Firearm Instructor application.
What to Include with Application:
1. A copy the instructor's training and course curriculum
2. Fingerprints (they will be taken at the sheriff’s office)
3. The $20 background check fee (for the fingerprints)
4. A firearms training certificate (if required by their county sheriff’s office)
Permitless Carry Law
The terms “constitutional carry” and “permitless carry” refer to states that have laws allowing individuals to carry a loaded firearm in public without requiring a license or permit.
Idaho Permitless Carry
First in 2016, and then expanded in 2020, the Idaho legislature passed a permitless concealed carry law. A person does not have to have a concealed weapons license to carry or be in possession of a deadly weapon or firearm in the following circumstances:
- Any deadly weapon located in plain view;
- Any lawfully possessed shotgun or rifle;
- Any deadly weapon concealed in a motor vehicle;
- A firearm that is not loaded and is secured in a case;
- A firearm that is disassembled or permanently altered such that it is not readily operable; and
- Any deadly weapon concealed by a person who:
- Is over eighteen (18) years of age;
- Is a citizen of the United States or a current member of the armed forces of the United States; and
- Is not disqualified from being issued a license under paragraphs (b) through (n) of subsection (11) of this section.
Idaho Code § 18-3302
Reciprocity Agreements
Reciprocity refers to an agreement between states to recognize, or honor, a concealed firearm permit issued by another state.
When you are in another state, you are subject to that state’s laws. Even if a state recognizes your carry permit or allows for permitless carry, the state may have additional restrictions on certain types of firearms, magazines, or ammunition. Take time to learn the law!

State Preemption Laws
State firearm preemption laws are statutes that prevent local governments from enacting or enforcing their own gun regulations that are more restrictive than state law. These laws ensure that firearm regulations remain consistent across the state, preventing a patchwork of different rules in various cities or counties.
Idaho Preemption Law
Idaho has a preemption law, which means only the state may enact firearm regulations.
- The legislature finds that uniform laws regulating firearms are necessary to protect the individual citizen's right to bear arms guaranteed by amendment 2 of the United States Constitution and section 11, article I of the constitution of the state of Idaho. It is the legislature's intent to wholly occupy the field of firearms regulation within this state.
- Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city, agency, board or any other political subdivision of this state may adopt or enforce any law, rule, regulation, or ordinance which regulates in any manner the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, transportation, carrying or storage of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition.
Idaho Code § 18-3302J
Purchase/Transfer Laws
When buying or selling a firearm, both federal and state laws must be followed. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5), a private party may sell a firearm to a resident of the same state if two conditions are met: (1) the seller and buyer must be residents of the same state, and (2) the seller must not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the buyer is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law, as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Additionally, a private seller may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any state for temporary lawful sporting use, provided they meet the same condition of not knowing or having reason to believe the borrower is prohibited under federal law.
In addition to federal law, state laws governing firearm sales must also be followed, as states may impose additional restrictions such as background checks, waiting periods, or bans on specific types of firearms.
Idaho Private-Party Transfers
In Idaho, a private party may sell or give a firearm to anyone who resides in Idaho so long as they are of legal age and not otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm.
It shall be unlawful to directly or indirectly sell to any minor under the age of eighteen (18) years any weapon without the written consent of the parent or guardian of the minor. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not in excess of six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. As used in this section, "weapon" shall mean any dirk, dirk knife, bowie knife, dagger, pistol, revolver or gun.
Idaho Code § 18-3302A
Idaho Firearm Possession by Minors
It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to possess or have in possession any weapon, as defined in section 18-3302A, Idaho Code, unless he:
- Has the written permission of his parent or guardian to possess the weapon; or
- Is accompanied by his parent or guardian while he has the weapon in his possession.
Any minor under the age of twelve (12) years in possession of a weapon shall be accompanied by an adult.
Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Idaho Code § 18-3302E
Magazine Capacity Restrictions
Magazine capacity laws are designed to limit the number of rounds a firearm's magazine can hold, typically restricting it to a certain number of cartridges (e.g., 10 rounds or fewer). Some state laws restrict the amount of rounds that may be placed in a magazine at any given time, while others prevent the mere possession of unloaded magazines capable of accepting more than a certain number of rounds.
Prohibited Areas - Where Firearms Are Prohibited Under State law
Carrying a firearm into a place where firearms are prohibited by state or federal law is a common way for gun owners to find themselves in legal trouble. These places are known as “prohibited areas,” and they can vary greatly from state to state.
Below you will find the list of the places where firearms are prohibited under this state’s laws. Keep in mind, in addition to these state prohibited areas, federal law adds additional places where firearms are prohibited. See the federal law section for a list of federal prohibited areas.
Places Where Firearms Are Prohibited Under Idaho Law
- Courthouses
- Juvenile and adult correctional facilities
- Public and private schools
Idaho Code Ann. §18-3302C (1)
Idaho Schools
School Property Exception: The prohibition against possessing a firearm on school property (K-12) does not apply to:
- Any adult over eighteen (18) years of age and not enrolled in a public or private elementary or secondary school who has lawful possession of a firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon, secured and locked in his vehicle in an unobtrusive, nonthreatening manner... A person who lawfully possesses a firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon in a private vehicle while delivering minor children, students or school employees to and from school or a school activity.
Idaho Code Ann. § 18-3302D (4)
Idaho Colleges and Universities
Those who possess an Idaho Enhanced Permit may carry their firearm onto public university or college campuses except within:
- a student dormitory or residence hall; or
- any building of a public entertainment facility, provided that proper signage is conspicuously posted at each point of public ingress to the facility notifying attendees of any restriction on the possession of firearms in the facility during the game or event.
A “public entertainment facility” means an arena, stadium, amphitheater, auditorium, theater or similar facility with a seating capacity of at least one thousand (1,000) persons.
Idaho Code Ann. § 18-3309
Idaho Criminal Trespass Law
A person commits criminal trespass and is guilty of a misdemeanor when he enters or remains on the real property of another without permission, knowing or with reason to know that his presence is not permitted. A person has reason to know his presence is not permitted when, except under a landlord-tenant relationship, he fails to depart immediately from the real property of another after being notified by the owner or his agent to do so, or he returns without permission or invitation within one (1) year, unless a longer period of time is designated by the owner or his agent. In addition, a person has reason to know that his presence is not permitted on real property that meets any of the following descriptions:
- The property is reasonably associated with a residence or place of business;
- The property is cultivated;
- The property is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner that a reasonable person would recognize as delineating a private property boundary. Provided, however, if the property adjoins or is contained within public lands, the fence line adjacent to public land is posted with conspicuous "no trespassing" signs or bright orange or fluorescent paint at the corners of the fence adjoining public land and at all navigable streams, roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the private land from the public land, and is posted in a manner that a reasonable person would be put on notice that it is private land; or
- The property is unfenced and uncultivated but is posted with conspicuous "no trespassing" signs or bright orange or fluorescent paint at all property corners and boundaries where the property intersects navigable streams, roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land, and is posted in a manner that a reasonable person would be put on notice that it is private land.
Idaho Code § 18-7008(2)(a)
Prohibited Areas case:
U.S. v. Lopez, Supreme Court of the United States, April 26, 1995
Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, H.F. Garcia, J., of possessing firearm in school zone in violation of Gun-Free School Zones Act, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Garwood, Circuit Judge, 2 F.3d 1342, reversed and remanded with directions, and government petitioned for certiorari review. After granting certiorari, 114 S. Ct. 1536, the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that Gun-Free School Zones Act, making it federal offense for any individual knowingly to possess firearm at place that individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe is school zone, exceeded Congress' commerce clause authority, since possession of gun in local school zone was not economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce.
Methods of Carry - Open Carry Laws
Open carry and concealed carry refer to two distinct methods of carrying firearms in public. Open carry involves visibly carrying a firearm, typically in a holster, where it is easily seen by others. Concealed carry, on the other hand, involves carrying a firearm in a hidden manner, such as under clothing, so that it is not visible to others.
Idaho Open Carry
Open carry is generally allowed in Idaho with or without a permit, in all areas of the state where concealed carry is allowed.
Idaho Permitless Carry
First in 2016, and then expanded in 2020, the Idaho legislature passed a permitless concealed carry law. A person does not have to have a concealed weapons license to carry or be in possession of a deadly weapon or firearm in the following circumstances:
- Any deadly weapon located in plain view;
- Any lawfully possessed shotgun or rifle;
- Any deadly weapon concealed in a motor vehicle;
- A firearm that is not loaded and is secured in a case;
- A firearm that is disassembled or permanently altered such that it is not readily operable; and
- Any deadly weapon concealed by a person who:
- Is over eighteen (18) years of age;
- Is a citizen of the United States or a current member of the armed forces of the United States; and
- Is not disqualified from being issued a license under paragraphs (b) through (n) of subsection (11) of this section.
Idaho Code § 18-3302
Exhibition or Use of a Deadly Weapon
Every person who, not in necessary self-defense, in the presence of two (2) or more persons, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon in a rude, angry and threatening manner, or who, in any manner, unlawfully uses the same, in any fight or quarrel, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Idaho Code § 18-3303
No Weapons Signs
No weapons" signs are notices posted by businesses or private property owners indicating that firearms or other weapons are not allowed on the premises. The legal impact of these signs varies by state. In some states, these signs have the force of law, meaning that if a person carries a weapon onto the property in violation of the sign, they can face criminal penalties such as fines or arrest. In these states, ignoring a "no weapons" sign can result in legal consequences similar to trespassing.
In other states, however, these signs are merely a business's policy, and while a person carrying a weapon might be asked to leave, there are no legal penalties for entering with a weapon unless they refuse to leave when asked, at which point trespassing laws may apply.
Controlled Substance/Alcohol Laws
Most, but not all, states have laws in place that regulate possessing firearms while intoxicated, and individual states will define "intoxicated" differently. In addition to state law, federal law also prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” as defined by the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). There are five different schedules of controlled substances regulated by the CSA, scheduled as I–V. The types of drugs that are regulated range from heroin as a Schedule I substance, to Robitussin AC as a Schedule V substance. Even a gun owner that is prescribed a scheduled drug by a physician can be in legal jeopardy if it is proven that the drug was taken in a frequency or manner other than was prescribed.
Although legal for medicinal or recreational use in many states, marijuana remains classified as a scheduled controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), codified as 21 U.S.C. § 812. On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice published a proposed rule change that would reclassify marijuana from schedule I to a schedule III drug. It is anticipated this rescheduling will formally occur in 2024 or 2025. Unlike schedule I drugs, schedule III drugs may be lawfully prescribed by a licensed physician, and thus the possession of these prescribed drugs does not make the possession of a firearm inherently unlawful the way possession of a schedule I substance would. This means that the rescheduling of marijuana to a schedule III drug would finally allow for the lawful use, possession and purchase of firearms by prescription marijuana users. However, if it is determined that the marijuana is possessed without a prescription, is used in a manner that is not prescribed, or that the individual with the prescription is addicted to marijuana, possession of a firearm would still be a federal offense. Federal law states that a person is addicted to a controlled substance when they have “lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician.”
27 C.F.R. § 478.11, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3)
Consumption of Alcohol
- It shall be unlawful for any person to carry a concealed weapon on or about his person when intoxicated or under the influence of an intoxicating drink or drug. Any violation of the provisions of this section shall be a misdemeanor.
- In addition to any other penalty, any person who enters a plea of guilty, who is found guilty or who is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section when such violation occurs on a college or university campus shall have any and all licenses issued pursuant to section 18-3302, 18-3302H or 18-3302K, Idaho Code, revoked for a period of three (3) years and such person shall be ineligible to obtain or renew any such license or use any other license recognized by this state for the same period.
Idaho Code § 18-3302B
Controlled Substance case:
United States v. Burke, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. December 2, 2019
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the offense of armed robbery involving controlled substances described in 18 U.S.C. § 2118(c)(1) is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). We hold that it is.
The facts underlying this case are straightforward and not in dispute. Michael Burke walked into a Walgreen's Pharmacy, pointed a gun at an employee, and demanded all of the pharmacy's OxyContin. The employee complied, and Burke left the pharmacy with close to 900 pills. A responding officer later spotted Burke in a vehicle, at which point Burke led the police on a high-speed chase, eventually abandoned his car, and fled on foot. Hours later, police caught up with Burke and arrested him.
The government charged Burke with two counts: (1) armed robbery involving controlled substances, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2118(c)(1); and (2) use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Burke pleaded guilty to both offenses. The district court sentenced Burke to consecutive terms of 37 months on Count One and 84 months on Count Two, to be followed by concurrent five-year terms of supervised release.
Burke did not directly appeal his sentence, but later filed a motion challenging the validity of his § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Burke argued that his conviction for use of a firearm during a crime of violence is unlawful because the predicate offense for that charge—armed robbery involving controlled substances—no longer qualifies as a crime of violence. The district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability. On appeal, the government does not raise any procedural barriers to our consideration of Burke's collateral attack, so we proceed straight to the merits.
Vehicle and Transport Laws
Permit reciprocity and other differences between state regulation of firearms can create a difficult landscape for firearm owners to navigate while transporting firearms interstate. In 1968, and again in 1986, Congress set out to help hunters, travelers, and other firearm owners who were getting arrested for merely transporting firearms through restrictive states. To help simplify the complex web of state firearm laws, Congress passed the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (“FOPA”) as part of Senate Bill 2414. The specific “safe harbor” provision of the law, often referred to as the “McClure-Volkmer Rule,” provides some protection for gun owners transporting firearms through restrictive states, subject to strict requirements. This federal law is covered in more detail in the federal law section of this database.
Beyond federal law, the laws of each state will impose additional restrictions, or protections, related to transporting firearms in a vehicle.
Idaho Transporting a Firearm in a Vehicle
Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to restrict or prohibit the carrying or possession of:
- Any deadly weapon located in plain view;
- Any lawfully possessed shotgun or rifle;
- Any deadly weapon concealed in a motor vehicle;
- A firearm that is not loaded and is secured in a case;
- A firearm that is disassembled or permanently altered such that it is not readily operable; and
- Any deadly weapon concealed by a person who :
- Is over eighteen (18) years of age;
- Is a citizen of the United States or a current member of the armed forces of the United States; and
- Is not disqualified from being issued a license under paragraphs (b) through (n) of subsection (11) of this section.
Idaho Code § 18-3302(4)
Vehicle Transport & Storage case:
State v. Haley, Court of Appeals of Idaho. August 29, 1996 129 Idaho 333
Defendant was convicted in the District Court of the Third Judicial District, Canyon County, Dennis E. Goff, J., and Renae Hoff, Magistrate, of carrying a concealed weapon without a license. Defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Perry, J., held that: (1) exiting vehicle as officer approached did not remove defendant from purview of concealed weapon in motor vehicle statute, and (2) weapon's assembly was not element of offense and did not have to be proved by state.
Officer Lindauer, of the Nampa Police Department, issued a citation charging Haley with carrying a concealed weapon in an automobile. Haley pled not guilty and went to trial before a jury. Officer Lindauer testified that upon responding to a call from a service station near the freeway, he was approached by Rochelle Haley and Truman Owens. Rochelle and Owens reported that Haley, Rochelle's father, was across the street, armed with a handgun and that he had threatened to shoot them. The officer testified that he then drove across the street toward Haley's pickup and as he approached the vehicle, Haley got out of the pickup and locked it. The officer stated that he then approached on foot, frisked Haley and began to question him. In answer to the officer's inquiries, Haley indicated that he had a gun and that it was covered by some clothing in the cab of the pickup. The officer testified that he retrieved a .25 caliber semi-automatic handgun, which contained a magazine with four live rounds, from the pickup.
Haley testified regarding allegations of domestic violence between Rochelle and Owens, as well as his relationship with the couple. Haley challenged the allegation that he had threatened to shoot Owens or Rochelle. He did not otherwise contradict the account given by the officer. The magistrate presiding over the proceedings denied a motion to acquit after the close of the prosecution's case and again after the close of Haley's case. The jury found Haley guilty. The magistrate sentenced Haley to: thirty days in jail, with twenty-eight of those days suspended; a fine of $150; and one year of unsupervised probation. Haley appealed the judgment of conviction to the district court, which affirmed.
Storage Requirements
Some states have laws that require gun owners to take specific measures to secure their firearms, especially in households with children. Many of these state laws mandate that guns be stored in locked containers or safes when not in use. These laws often impose penalties for failing to secure firearms, particularly if they are accessed by unauthorized individuals, such as minors.
Police Encounter Laws
Some states impose a legal duty upon permit holders that requires them to inform a police officer of the presence of a firearm whenever they have an official encounter, such as a traffic stop. These states are called “duty to inform” states. In these states you are required by law to immediately, and affirmatively, tell a police officer if you have a firearm in your possession.
In addition to “duty to inform states,” some states have “quasi duty to inform” laws. These laws generally require that a permit holder have his/her permit in their possession and surrender it upon the request of an officer. The specific requirements of these laws will vary from state to state.
The final category of states is classified as “no duty to inform” states. In these states there are no laws that require a gun owner to affirmatively inform an officer if they have a firearm. Additionally, there are also generally no laws that require you to respond or provide a permit if asked about the presence of a firearm.
Interacting with Police
Idaho is a no-duty-to-inform state, which means you are under no legal obligation to affirmatively inform an officer of the presence of your firearm and may not be under a legal obligation to respond if asked by the officer.
- If you choose to inform an officer that you have a firearm, make sure you follow these rules:
Keep your hands visible at all times. - Comply fully with all instructions given by the officer.
- If you are asked if you have a firearm in your presence, it is recommended that you be completely truthful and cooperative.
- If asked, advise the officer of the location of the firearm.
- Do not reach for your firearm or other weapons unless instructed to do so.
Red Flag or Emergency Risk Orders
Emergency Risk Orders (or "Red Flag Laws") enable rapid legal action when someone is believed to be at significant risk of harming themselves or others with a firearm. Generally speaking, these controversial laws allow law enforcement to seek a court order to temporarily confiscate firearms from the individual and prevent them from purchasing new ones while the order is in effect. The most robust laws also permit family members and others to file petitions.
Use of Force in Defense of Person
The legal use of force, including deadly force, is regulated by state law. There are no federal laws that dictate when you can use force in self-defense in all states. As such, it is essential to become familiar with individual state laws.
Idaho Self-Defense Law
Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
- When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person;
- When committed in defense of habitation, a place of business or employment, occupied vehicle, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation, place of business or employment or occupied vehicle of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein;
- When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mortal combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or
- When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
Idaho Code § 18-4009 (1)
Idaho Self-Defense Jury Instruction
A homicide is justifiable if the defendant was acting in self-defense. In order to find that the defendant acted in self-defense, all of the following conditions must be found to have been in existence at the time of the killing:
- The defendant must have believed that the defendant was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
- In addition to that belief, the defendant must have believed that the action the defendant took was necessary to save the defendant from the danger presented.
- The circumstances must have been such that a reasonable person, under similar circumstances, would have believed that the defendant was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and believed that the action taken was necessary.
- The defendant must have acted only in response to that danger and not for some other motivation.
Self-Defense case:
State v. Doyle, Court of Appeals of Idaho. March 2, 2022
Doyle shot a man who had burst into his trailer with a weapon and with whom he had a history. Law enforcement later discovered that Doyle was a convicted felon who had not had his right to possess a firearm restored. The State charged Doyle with unlawful possession of a firearm.1 Following a bench trial, the district court made the following factual findings on the record. Doyle acquired his grandfather's .357 caliber pistol the day before the shooting incident. Doyle wanted the pistol for his protection against Colten Schell. Schell had threatened Doyle by suggesting Doyle would be harmed in a hunting accident. Prior to the shooting, Schell had been near Doyle's trailer, brandishing a firearm, and challenging Doyle to a fight. Doyle confronted Schell outside his trailer and a physical fight ensued. The fight ended and Doyle and Schell parted ways. Later in the day, Schell reappeared and forcibly entered Doyle's trailer with a weapon. In response, Doyle grabbed the .357 caliber pistol and shot Schell leaving him incapacitated. Doyle then left his trailer to summon help.
During the bench trial, Doyle argued that he was protected from prosecution pursuant to I.C. § 19-202A; that his right to possess the weapon and protect himself was protected by the United States and Idaho Constitutions; and that his actions, under the circumstances, satisfied the defenses of necessity and self-defense. The district court found the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Doyle was a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm.
The district court determined that the statutory right to self-defense provided in I.C. § 19-202A applies to persons who are defending themselves on charges of violent crimes as opposed to nonviolent offenses, so I.C. § 19-202A did not apply to Doyle's unlawful possession of a firearm charge. The district court stated that an absurd result would occur if the statute were to be applied as broadly as argued by Doyle because it would effectively preclude prosecution for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon under I.C. § 18-3316(1).
The district court found that prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons did not violate the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution based upon United States Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-27, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) and this Court's decision in State v. Cheatham, 159 Idaho 856, 859, 367 P.3d 251, 254 (Ct. App. 2016).
The district court determined that a necessity defense could be raised for the charge of unlawful possession, but found Doyle was not in imminent harm or threat of harm when he acquired the pistol.2 Additionally, the district court determined Doyle could have prevented the threatened harm by a less-offensive alternative. Therefore, Doyle's defense of necessity failed. Consequently, the district court found the State met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the possession of the firearm was not justified in Doyle's case. Doyle timely appeals.
Self-Defense case:
State v. Iverson, Court of Appeals of Idaho. January 6, 2014
Darryl Farnham received word that his former girlfriend was involved in an altercation with her current boyfriend, Iverson. Darryl and three others drove to the house where the former girlfriend and Iverson lived in order to come to her aid. After finding out she was no longer at the residence, Darryl stood next to his vehicle parked in front of the residence, talking on the phone. Iverson approached him, grabbed the phone, threw it in the street, and engaged in a verbal altercation with Darryl for several minutes, telling Darryl to leave the property on several occasions. Dustin North, who had arrived with Darryl, exited the vehicle and began slowly walking towards Iverson. Iverson then punched Darryl once in the face, causing Darryl to sustain multiple fractures requiring surgery and the insertion of titanium plates and screws. Darryl and several witnesses stated Darryl had been turning away from Iverson at the time of the punch.
On July 13, 2011, Iverson was issued a citation charging him with battery, Idaho Code § 18–903. A jury trial was scheduled to commence on October 19. On October 5, during the pretrial conference, Iverson first alerted the State that he intended to claim self-defense. On October 11, after the discovery deadline passed, the State disclosed an additional potential witness, Shawn Farnham, Darryl's brother, who would testify to several text messages Iverson sent Shawn following the incident, at least one of which indicated a motive for the use of force other than self-defense. In the days that followed, the State also disclosed its intent to call Dr. Farr, Darryl's treating doctor, as a potential expert witness and disclosed Darryl's medical records and photographs of his injuries taken before and after surgery. On the morning of trial, Iverson requested that Shawn and Dr. Farr be excluded from testifying and that introduction of the medical records and photographs be disallowed because the late disclosure of the witnesses, records, and photographs hampered his ability to prepare for trial.1 The magistrate limited Dr. Farr to testifying as a custodian of the medical records, preventing him from testifying as to Darryl's injuries, but allowed the admission of Shawn's testimony and the medical records and photographs. Iverson also requested that the photographs be excluded pursuant to Idaho Rule of Evidence 403 because they were unfairly prejudicial and minimally probative. The magistrate denied the motion.
At trial, Iverson testified he did not feel threatened by Darryl specifically, but felt threatened by Darryl and his friends' presence on the property and by North's (a large man) slow approach towards him while clenching his fists. Iverson testified he felt it necessary to punch Darryl because he could not turn his back on Darryl in order to defend himself against North. Both Darryl and North testified they had not used, and did not intend to use, force against Iverson during the verbal exchange. Several witnesses testified Darryl never acted aggressively toward Iverson. Shawn testified that shortly after the incident, Iverson sent him a text message stating, in relevant part: “I just beat the f––– out of your brother. It's been a long time comin'.”
The jury found Iverson guilty as charged. He timely appealed his conviction to the district court, arguing the prosecutor committed misconduct by making certain statements in the pretrial hearings and during her closing arguments. He also argued the magistrate erred by allowing admission of the photographs and other evidence. Following a hearing, the district court affirmed the conviction. Iverson now appeals.
Use of Force in Defense of Others
Defense of third party laws allow an individual to use force, including deadly force, to protect another person from harm. These laws generally permit intervention if the third party would have had the right to use force in their own self-defense under the same circumstances. The exact application of these laws will vary by jurisdiction, so it is important to understand the framework of each individual state.
Use of Force in Defense of Habitation
The term "castle doctrine" comes from English common law providing that one's abode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections and immunities, from which one is not obligated to retreat before defending oneself against attack, and in which one may do so without fear of prosecution.
Many states have instituted castle doctrine laws, with varying degrees of formality. Some states have statutorily enacted castle doctrine laws, some have judicially-created protections (called “common laws”), while others have no amplified protections in the home at all.
Idaho “Castle Doctrine”
A person who unlawfully and by force or by stealth enters or attempts to enter a habitation… is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit a felony.
Idaho Code § 18-4009 (2)
Deadly Force Presumption
A person using force or deadly force in defense of a habitation… is presumed to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the force is used against a person whose entry or attempted entry therein is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.
Idaho Code § 19-202A (5)
"Habitation" means any building, inhabitable structure or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, and includes a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest, and includes the curtilage of any such dwelling.
Idaho Code Ann. § 18-4009 (3) (a)
Use of Force in Defense of Property
Generally speaking, the use of deadly force is limited to circumstances that reasonably present an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death of a human being. As such, using deadly force in defense of mere personal property is almost categorically prohibited. Although most states will allow the use of some amount of force (i.e. physically restraining someone until the police arrive), the use or threatened use of deadly force in defense of mere property is generally not permitted.
Defense of Property
When conditions are present which under the law justify a person in using force in defense of [another] [the person] [the person’s family] [property in the person’s lawful possession], that person may use such degree and extent of force as would appear to be reasonably necessary to prevent the threatened injury.
Reasonableness is to be judged from the viewpoint of a reasonable person placed in the same position and seeing and knowing what the defendant then saw and knew. Any use of force beyond that limit is unjustified.
Idaho Criminal Jury Instruction 1522
Self-Defense Immunity
To address the risk that those acting in lawful self-defense might be sued by their attacker, some states have implemented protective measures in the form of civil immunity statutes. These statutes serve to shield victims from certain civil lawsuits. If a state has a civil immunity statute in place, you generally enjoy protection from being sued by your attacker or attacker’s family as long as your use of force is deemed to be criminally justified. This legal framework provides a layer of protection for individuals who, in the course of defending themselves, might otherwise be subjected to additional legal challenges in the form of civil lawsuits.
Idaho Civil Liability Law
Any party maimed or wounded by the discharge of any firearm aforesaid, or the heirs or representatives of any person who may be killed by such discharge, may have an action against the party offending, for damages, which shall be found by a jury, and such damages, when found, may in the discretion of the court before which such action is brought, be doubled.
Idaho Code Ann. § 18-3307
Idaho Civil Immunity Law
A person who uses force as justified [by the self-defense laws], is immune from any civil liability for the use of such force except when the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person against whom the force was used was a law enforcement officer acting in the capacity of his or her official duties.
Idaho Code Ann. § 6-808
Immunity case:
Harris v. Roderick, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. September 25, 1997
Kevin Harris brought a Bivens1 action against thirteen named federal law enforcement agents, as well as several unnamed individuals and the United States for their actions at Ruby Ridge, Idaho during two days in August 1992. The individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, in part on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion to dismiss in part, but denied the motion with respect to almost all of the Fourth Amendment claims. The defendants appeal the denial of qualified immunity with respect to the remaining claims, which constitute the heart of Harris's action, and seek dismissal of his complaint in its entirety. We reject the defendants' arguments in toto and affirm the applicable rulings of the district court.
We state the facts, as we must on this appeal, as they are set forth in Kevin Harris's Second Amended Complaint.
On August 21, 1992, six Deputy United States Marshals (“Marshals”): Arthur Roderick, Larry Cooper, William Degan, Thomas Norris, Joseph Thomas, and David Hunt,2 came onto Randall Weaver's property in Boundary County, Idaho to serve an arrest warrant upon Weaver. Kevin Harris was living on the Weaver property. Cooper, Degan, and Roderick confronted Harris, Weaver, Weaver's 14–year–old son, Sammy, and the Weaver family dog, Striker, at the “Y,” the intersection of two roads near the Weaver property. As Striker was heading home in response to Weaver's call, Roderick shot and killed him. After his dog was killed, Sammy fired two shots in Roderick's direction, turned, and began to run home calling out “I'm coming, Dad....” Cooper and Degan, who were hiding in the woods, then fired their guns. One of the two, most likely Degan, shot at the gun Sammy was holding, and severely injured his arm. Cooper then shot at Sammy after he was disarmed and while he was continuing to run away. The final shot hit Sammy in the back, killing him.
A “melee” of firing erupted prior to the time Sammy was killed. Harris states he fired one or more shots into the woods in the direction of those he thought were trying to kill him as well as the others. He asserts, however, that those shots were fired in self-defense because he believed that he had to return the fire in order to protect his own life and that of Sammy. Degan was killed during the firestorm when a single round struck his upper shoulder. Harris admits that he may have fired the fatal shot.
Following this, the initial Ruby Ridge incident, Harris alleges that Cooper and Roderick met and conspired to lie about the events that occurred at the “Y.” Harris maintains that, in order to conceal their wrongdoing, Cooper and Roderick decided to say that Harris was the aggressor—that he had initiated the firing and had not acted in self-defense. Their falsehoods, according to Harris, were intended to absolve them of responsibility for the deaths of both Degan and Sammy Weaver and to shift the blame to him.
After the initial shootings, the FBI dispatched a special unit designed to deal with crisis situations, called the “Hostage Rescue Team” (the “Team”). The Team, which was under the command of Richard Rogers, is composed of two types of agents: snipers and assaulters. The Team normally operates under the FBI's Standard Rules of Engagement which “provide that an FBI agent may kill a person with whom he or she comes into contact only when the person presents an immediate risk of death or great bodily harm to the agent or another person.”
However, a group of FBI and Marshal Service officials decided to rewrite the Rules of Engagement and create Special Rules of Engagement for Ruby Ridge. The Special Rules first provided that “any armed adult observed in the vicinity of the Weaver cabin could and should be killed,” but were then narrowed to read “any armed adult male ” in order to eliminate the possibility that the Team would fire at Vickie Weaver, Randall Weaver's wife. Furthermore, Harris alleges that the agents involved represented to other agents that the situation at the Weaver property was a “continuing firefight” although there had been no firing of weapons for 32 hours.
During the afternoon of August 22, 1992, after being told by Rogers to follow the Special Rules, several members of the Team took positions on a hill overlooking the Weaver cabin. This group included Lon T. Horiuchi, a Team sniper, who, according to Harris, was a highly trained marksman equipped with a thick-barreled .308 caliber bolt action rifle. Harris alleges that with that combination of skill and equipment Horiuchi could hit a quarter-inch target at 200 meters.
At about 6:00 p.m. that evening, Weaver, his daughter Sarah, and Harris, who were in the cabin and unaware of the presence of the Team agents stationed on the hill, decided to go to the shed where they had placed Sammy's body after they had washed it and prepared it for burial. After arriving at the shed, Weaver reached up to open the latch and was shot in the back by Horiuchi. Weaver yelled to his wife, Vickie, that he had been shot and began to run back to the cabin, as did Sarah and Harris. Vickie, with her infant daughter Elisheba in one arm, held the outer cabin door open with the other. The complaint alleges that Horiuchi then fired a second shot in an effort to kill both Harris and Vickie. The bullet passed through the clear glass in the open door, striking Vickie in the head, and after passing through her, hit Harris in the upper arm and chest. Vickie Weaver was killed instantly.
After the shooting ended, FBI personnel drove a military tank onto the front yard of the Weaver property and, using a loudspeaker, announced their presence. Harris remained in the cabin, despite a shortage of food and water, for eight days, during which time the FBI employed a variety of tactics designed to lure those remaining in the cabin outside. These tactics included the constant playing of loud music, the use of bright lights at night to prevent the Weavers and Harris from sleeping, referring to Vickie as if she were still alive, and taunting the cabin's occupants with descriptions of the food that was available to the agents. The FBI also installed cameras and microphones around the cabin and placed a remote-controlled robot with a shotgun attached aimed at the door. Harris, badly injured and in pain, alleges that he repeatedly asked his cabin-mates to shoot him in order to end his suffering. Vickie's body rested on the kitchen floor wrapped in blankets all the while. There is no indication in the complaint who, if anyone, in addition to Elisheba, Sarah, Weaver, and Harris, may have remained alive and in the cabin.
After eight days, Harris surrendered. He was taken to the hospital where he was treated for his injuries and underwent surgery. He was in intensive care for about twelve days.
Harris was then indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on a number of charges relating to the events of August 21 and 22. The charges included assault with a deadly weapon on Roderick, Cooper and Degan, as well as first degree murder of Degan. After a jury trial, he was acquitted on all charges.
Harris then brought this Bivens action in the district court, alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, for the actions that took place at Ruby Ridge. Harris sued the following thirteen individuals: Deputy Marshals Arthur Roderick and Larry Cooper; Deputy Director of the United States Marshal's Service G. Wayne “Duke” Smith; Directors of the United States Marshal's Service, Jose Antonio “Tony” Perez and Henry Hudson; FBI Special Agent and Director of the Hostage Rescue Team, Richard Rogers; Larry Potts, Assistant Director of the FBI in charge of the Criminal Division; FBI Special Agent and Member of the Team Lon T. Horiuchi; FBI Special Agent and Supervisor of the Team, Steve McGavin; FBI Special Agent and Team Sniper Coordinator Les Hazen; FBI Special Agent and Team Logistics Coordinator, Dale Carnege; and FBI Special Agents William D. Gore and Eugene F. Glenn.
Harris claims that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Cooper and Roderick, by their actions—principally their fabrication and dissemination of a false account of the initial shooting incident—caused him to be shot and to suffer nearly fatal physical injuries; subsequently, he contends, the deputies' actions led to his arrest without probable cause and his wrongful prosecution for the murder of Marshal Degan. Harris next alleges that all thirteen named defendants conspired to and did deny him his Fourth Amendment rights by their preparation, authorization, and dissemination of the Special Rules of Engagement. More specifically, he contends that the Special Rules led Team sharpshooter Horiuchi to shoot and seriously wound him, in violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from the application of excessive force. He also seeks to hold Horiuchi directly liable for the shooting.
Defendants moved to dismiss the various counts for failure to state a claim and on the ground of qualified immunity. In a published opinion, Harris v. Roderick, 933 F.Supp. 977 (D.Idaho 1996), the district court denied the motions with respect to almost all of the Fourth Amendment claims. Defendants appealed.
Duty to Retreat
A duty to retreat is an obligation to flee that is imposed upon a civilian who is under attack. If applicable, it applies to the victim of unlawful force prior to their ability to use deadly force to defend him or herself. The duty to retreat makes self-defense unavailable to those who use deadly force when they could have retreated from the confrontation safely. The alternative to duty-to-retreat laws is no-duty-to-retreat laws or stand-your-ground laws as they’re commonly called. Stand-your-ground states impose no duty to flee upon victims and instead state that one can stand their ground and meet force with force, under certain situations.
Idaho Stand Your Ground Law
In the exercise of the right of self-defense or defense of another, a person need not retreat from any place that person has a right to be. A person may stand his ground and defend himself or another person by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge without the benefit of hindsight. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a person incarcerated in jail or prison facilities when interacting with jail or prison staff who are acting in their official capacities.
Idaho Code § 19-202A (3)
Use of Force Against Animals
Idaho has provided individuals with a clear statutory justification for using deadly force against an attacking animal. It is not a violation of Idaho's animal cruelty laws for "The killing of any animal, by any person at any time, which may be found outside the owned or rented property of the owner or custodian of such animal and which is found injuring or posing a threat to any person, farm animal or property."
I.C. § 25-3514(6)
Cases to Watch
Manslaughter case:
State v. Custodio, Court of Appeals of Idaho. May 15, 2001, 136 Idaho 197
Defendant was convicted in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, Joel D. Horton, J., of voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated battery and burglary. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Perry, J., held that: (1) defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights; (2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to transfer venue due to pretrial publicity; (3) character evidence regarding victims was inadmissible; (4) trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; (5) sentencing enhancements for use of a deadly weapon in involuntary manslaughter and aggravated battery convictions were error; and (6) defendant's aggregate sentence was not excessive.
Custodio argues that contrary to the district court's analysis, the proper inquiry is not the number of crimes involved but whether those crimes arose out of the same indivisible course of conduct. The Idaho Supreme Court has addressed the scope of I.C. § 19–2520E in two previous cases. In State v. Searcy, 118 Idaho 632, 798 P.2d 914 (1990), the defendant hid in the back room of a store where he waited to either steal or rob as the situation dictated. Upon his discovery by the store owner, a confrontation ensued and the defendant shot the store owner in the stomach. The defendant then told the store owner that if she opened the safe he would call an ambulance. The store owner opened the safe and the defendant removed the money. The defendant then shot and killed the store owner. The defendant was convicted of robbery and murder, and the district court enhanced both sentences for use of a deadly weapon I.C. § 19–2520. However, pursuant to an I.C.R. 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence, the district court removed one of the enhancements after it determined that imposing both enhancements would violate the limitation contained in I.C. § 19–2520E. The Idaho Supreme Court stated that the district court's determination that the original sentence imposed on the defendant was invalid was correct because it contained two separate enhancements in violation of I.C. § 19–2520E. Searcy, 118 Idaho at 638, 798 P.2d at 920.