House Bill 415

As the legislative year begins, several high profile bills have already become the subjects of widespread discussion and predictable disagreement.  Of them, House Bill 415 (concerning the expansion of conceal/carry permitting on school grounds to staff and faculty) has probably created the most engagement at the state level.  According to the official “purpose and financial impact statement” included with the bill’s text, “This legislation provides an alternative to the hired armed guards by giving the opportunity for Public K-12 school employeesto carry concealed weapons and can act as an armed protection force within the confines of the school. Individuals that are willing to participate in this program will need to have completed an enhanced concealed weapon training course. Additionally, this legislation requires all schools to remove “Gun Free Zone” signs from all public K-12 schools.”

The bill passed 53-16, receiving “aye” votes from every representative in southeast Idaho with the exception of Nate Roberts in the 29th District (representing Pocatello).  District 35’s Kevin Andrus and Josh Wheeler, District 34’s Britt Raybould and Jon Weber, District 33’s Barbara Ehart and Marco Erickson, District 30’s David Cannon and Julianne Young, District 29’s Dustin Manwaring, District 28’s Richard Cheatum and Dan Garner, Dsitrict 27’s Douglas Pickett and Clay Handy, District 30’s David Cannon and Julianne Young all voted with the majority.  The vote itself was almost entirely along party lines.

The financial impact statement of the bill states that the bill will not cost the state any additional funds.

While support from Republican Representatives in the House was obviously strong, the bill will now be sent to the senate where it is expected to face more opposition.  Among the groups which have opposed the bill are those representing the interests of law enforcement and educational
entities. 

The Idaho Association of School Resource Officers released a statement by its President Martin Ballis, which read in part, “Idaho House Bill 415 would remove local control from elected school boards to determine which, if any, staff would be allowed to carry firearms on campus… There is no doubt in my mind Representative Hill, and those who support this bill, care deeply about the safety of our students and staff. However, this legislation is a drastic mis-prioritization of statewide school safety initiatives with a focus on response over prevention.”  Ballis continues by explaining that since “nearly 95% of K-12 active shooters are current or former students of the targeted school” according to the FBI, school resource officers and school officials are uniquely situated to provide prevention rather than waiting until emergency response is required.  Ballis suggests that increasing funding for SROs is a better strategy than placing armed civilians in the immediate front lines of response.  

The Idaho Sheriff’s Association has also voiced concerns about the bill, primarily on the basis of its wording, rather than its intentions.  Sheriff Arne Jones stated that he was personally in favor of the bill as a “valuable tool needed to help protect our children,” though he acknowledged the recommendations of the Sheriff’s Association that the bill should only take effect if the district in question does not come up with a conceal/carry policy exception on its own terms, which would give the district more control over the parameters for implementation.

Issues of civil and criminal immunity from prosecution were also referred to by those opposed to the bill as potentially opening individuals up to legal repercussions as a result of either negligent or reckless action, as well as inaction during an incident. 

The Idaho Education Association, as well as many education-based organizations across the state, have been unified in opposition.  The primary issue is, much as Sheriff Jones mentioned, the idea of taking control over weapons on school grounds out of the hands of elected school boards.

Representative Clay Handy, who voted for the bill in the House, explained that many who voted for the bill expected the Senate side of the statehouse to pursue amendments to HB 415 that would increase the control school administrators had over the situation.  “Many districts are on top of this already,” Handy said in an email to the Enterprise. Superintendent Jon Abrams stated that the weapons issue should be controlled by local boards, rather than the
legislature.

House Bill 406

There is considerably less division over House Bill 406, which creates mandatory minimum sentencing for fentanyl trafficking.  It passed the house 53-14.

According to Lt. Governor Scott Bedke, “49% of overdose deaths in Idaho in 2022 were from fentanyl, and that number is probably underreported.”  

Unlike Bill 415, law enforcement organizations have expressed widespread support for the bill, including the Idaho Sheriff’s Association, as well as Sheriff Jones.  The sentencing guidelines laid out in the bill call for:

• Three years in prison and a minimum of a $10,000 fine for 4 to 13 grams, or for 100-249 pills

• Five years in prison and a minimum of a $15,000 fine for 14 to 27 grams, or for 250-499 pills

• 10 years in prison and a minimum of a $25,000 fine for more than 28 grams, or for 500 or more pills

Southeast Idaho is one of the most active locations in the state for the transportation of illicit drugs from locations in the south up to the I-80 and I-90 for further distribution.  I-15 is a frequent site of large interdictions of fentanyl, such as last July’s seizure of over 5,000 fentanyl pills hidden in Doritos bags in a vehicle stopped at the Maverik in Malad linked to a Honduran cartel.

Some concerns have been expressed about the unintended effects of the definition of “trafficking” as it might apply to small transaction dealers, especially young adults, who nevertheless would be remanded for mandatory long sentences.  The bill includes language to allow for homicide prosecutions in cases where the drugs involved can be linked to overdose deaths.  House Minority leader Ilana Rubel summed up the opposition’s stance on the bill by stating that it “reeks of injustice without any benefit to actually shutting down the fentanyl problem.”  According to Rubel, judges and prosecutors are the ones most familiar with the epidemic and the best suited to determine sentences.  Mandatory minimums, in the opponent’s opinion, would take more nuanced discretion away from judges and force them into imposing sentences they otherwise might not.

Both bills will head to Senate committees before they are either sent unaltered for votes, or amended and brought before the full chamber.