Proposed Idaho Legislation Flies Directly In The Face Of Anti-Gun Advocates


How do you deal with someone attacking you? Many people, including many law enforcement officials, tell you to run, and, if you can do that to get to safety, that can be a great choice.

But what if you can’t run? What if you have to fight to prevent an assault or murder? Are the laws on your side? In many cases, no they are not, but some states have passed controversial “stand your ground” laws. If you’ll remember, it was exactly this kind of law that helped George Zimmerman go free from criminal prosecution after the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida. Wikipedia defines a stand your ground law as:

stand-your-ground law (sometimes called “line in the sand” or “no duty to retreat” law) is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can “stand their ground” and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats.

In other words, stand your ground laws do not require you to have to retreat or run to use self-defense as a legal justification for using force to stop a threat.


This makes sense if you realize that a person can’t always turn and run, and it’s not always safe to turn and run. Sometimes you do not have any other choice but to say “It stops here” and do what you have to do to prevent someone from being injured or killed by the aggressor.

Now, Idaho has introduced their own stand your ground law. The Associated Press notes:

The legislation would allow people to use deadly force if they believe such force was necessary to avoid injury or risk to one’s life or safety not only in their home, but also in their places of business and vehicles.

This legislation, if it passes, is good news for the people of Idaho because people who use their firearm to protect their own lives or the lives of other people should not also have to fear government prosecution for doing the right thing.



  1. I believe the entire country should be this way. Why should we be legally bound to run scared. Criminals know the law is on their side if a citizen uses deadly force to stop them, therefor they have no fear. If however they know that all citizens have a right to resist with deadly force and won’t allow themselves to be willing victims and do so on a large scale, only then will we start winning back our streets and homes. ARM YOURSELF,LEARN HOW TO USE YOUR WEAPON , TRAIN AND PRACTICE AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE . In most cases the police can not get to you fast enough to protect you . They can only photograph and process the crime scene. It’s up to you to protect yourself and others.

    • I am in complete agreement with you, however, DEMOCOMMUNIST-RUN States (such as COMMUNIST N.Y. where I am a resident ) will NEVER allow that (because their CRIMINAL “friends” might get hurt or worse DEAD.
      We have a “governor” that “rules” like a “king” (UN-safe act) shoved through in the dead of night.
      HOWEVER if ANYONE kicks in MY door, they WILL face DEADLY pushback. I AM INDEED armed, professionally Trained, have an unrestricted concealed carry permit and practice regularly. When a cop is minutes away (or in MY case HOURS,) my .45 ACP and Browning auto 5, 12 gauge with 00 buck 2-3/4 inch magnums travels a LOT faster

      • Al, you must not be a politician. If you were you would understand the ongoing plan to create a society of people(?) with no imagination, backbone, or assumed responsibility for self-care. The government, at most levels, wants voters that will do what they’re told and depend on that government to deal with any and all unpleasantness. Your ‘arm yourself…’ idea is excellent.
        “Somebody should do something!” Is something you will probably never hear me say.

    • Your comment is awaiting moderation
      Al, you must not be a politician. If you were you would understand the ongoing plan to create a society of people(?) with no imagination, backbone, or assumed responsibility for self-care. The government, at most levels, wants voters that will do what they’re told and depend on that government to deal with any and all unpleasantness. Your ‘arm yourself…’ idea is excellent.
      “Somebody should do something!” Is something you will probably never hear me say.

    • My comment was written as a response to Al Kushner. It looks like a response to Cliff. It is not.

  2. I detest the requirement in NY state to retreat before using deadly force. If I can avoid a conflict, clearly I would do so. But, frankly, in the face of a threat to myself or my family where serious injury or death could come as a result due to an aggressor’s action, deciding to try to retreat may not be a viable option – and in exercising the option to use deadly force to stop said threat will almost certainly result in my being prosecuted by some hot shot prosecutor wanting to make a name for him/herself as a “law & order” representative of our state. It is so very wrong on many levels. Trying to defend against such prosecution would more than bankrupt many residents, resulting in plea bargain wins for prosecutors as folks opt to minimize their already unjust punishment just to avoid losing everything in an effort to defend against an unduly hostile force. I really wish we would see federal legislation on this point, where the rights of the victim trump the rights of the aggressor/criminal.

    • Retreat?? As in going to the closet or desk where your piece is kept? Or to where you have another dozen magazines stashed ( all standard capacity of course lol).

  3. No obligation to retreat should be a right. If I’m attacked it is also the rights of all citizens being attacked.

  4. Enter my property Illegally are Uninvited at your own risk. I will take any and all necessary
    steps to protect my family from criminals. No exceptions, No excuses.

  5. Stand Your Ground had no bearing in the acquittal of Zimmerman, it was an open and shut case of self defense which is legal most everywhere. Is this Idaho law really an improvement ? Are you only allowed to stand your ground in your home, business or vehicle ? Why not everywhere you have a right to be ?

  6. Our country is under attack from people who are not true Americans. They care more about illegal immigrants than American citizens. This is a Dispicable situation.

  7. These laws do not go far enough. Even in cases where the shooter is officially judged “not guilty”, the family of the violent perp–who has possibly not spoken to the “shootee” in a decade or more–then proceed to bankrupt the shooter with lawsuits. In Albuquerque back in the 1990’s, a retired gentleman who was a ccw holder, while shopping at a local Walmart, witnessed a man repeatedly stabbing a female employee. Our hero drew his weapon and dispatched the stabber–the estranged husband of the victim. No charges were brought against the shooter, but the wife of the stabber sued the shooter for depriving her of her husband’s affection and financial support. The shooter was destroyed financially, eventually losing his home. We need a law that will hold the shooters in these cases exempt from civil litigation arising from his/her lawful use of force.

    • You are So Right this needs to be addressed! If you need to protect yourself or others from harm you should not have to worry about getting sued by their family. When they are in the wrong! Have not seen cases where the Police have shot robbers and the families sued them for money! If they are committing a crime they should not be compisated!

  8. I am proud to be a native of Idaho for 3 generations. We cringed in the 80’s with the bad press we heard coming from the Northern part of the State and we hated when outsiders called us all Racist. But Idaho is an extremely wonderful place to live (that’s by no means an invitation for more people to move here!) and raise a family. There was a joke in the 80’s when a Pilot landing a commercial airliner was coming into Boise, he said “Welcome to Boise Idaho, Set your watches 20 years in the past.” That, I’m sorry to say, isn’t the case anymore, but I’m glad we are leading the Country with this new legislation.


    • No, the Constitution is clear on this point, your rights are natural, or as you wish God given rights, and the Government can neither give them to you nor take them away. Any so called “Right” that a government can give you they can also take away. This is the entire basis of the Bill of Rights.

    • It is a Right given to us by the Constitution and is one of the inalienable rights in The Bill of Rights. It is not given to us by the federal government, it is given to us for the federal government to abide by.

  10. Friday, February 9th, 2018 Karnes City, Texas (Photo: Labeled for reuse) The size of the Idaho prison population has grown to the point that they have an ongoing bed shortage in the state’s jails and prisons. Soon, up to 250 male prisoners will be moved from Idaho to the Karnes County Correctional Center in Karnes City, Texas. This is a temporary arrangement, as the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDC) continues the search for a prison-bed provider to establish a long-term agreement with.

  11. One issue not discussed is that there are self defense tactics that can put a criminal down permanently. Not too many can but the possibility is there. Do we have any rights for such people? I am not aware of any.

  12. Everyone who owns a firearm should become a member of the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA). Look it up on line. It has given me a great deal of “peace of mind”.

    Retired LEO

  13. Can’t agree with you more Leonard, but we all know that the legislators in state and federal government walk around with there heads up there asses. Any laws that they pass to protect shooters in these cases would not be very well thought out, history proves that. You can bet that the laws will be full of loopholes and grey areas that won’t fully protect the shooter. It kind of makes you wonder weather our lawmakers are capable of drafting in depth laws. I guess it takes to much heavy thinking, they can’t have all that on there minds when they’re on their way to the golf course. Is that what we pay these jokers for? As for the woman who says that the shooter took away her husbands affection, well maybe he was telling her that he loved her as he was trying to stab her to death, maybe she would have preferred to die. I wonder if she thanked him for saving her life? A little food for thought, don’t dwell on it.

Comments are closed.