Idaho Senate Joint Resolution 101

This is a proposed amendment to the state constitution.  In general, it is unoffensive.  Some people are concerned this is a Trojan Horse to create "red flag" laws without any legislative action.  That sounds a little paranoid, but the sections of concern:

(10) To reasonable protection from the accused and those acting on behalf of the accused throughout the criminal justice process.
(D) Nothing in this section is intended to, or shall be interpreted to, supersede an accused's federal constitutional rights, nor to afford a victim an independent right to be heard as a party during trial.

Note that an accused's state constitutional rights (such as Art. I, sec. 11) are not explicitly protected. I suspect this is an oversight. A person under indictment for a felony may not "ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition."  I suspect anyone charged with domestic violence (the driver for SJR101) is going to be subject to a restraining order, which is also a firearms disqualifier under federal law.  This does not create any new authority that a restraining order does not already provide.  I would contact your legislators and emphasize that Sec. 1(D) should be revised from "federal constitutional rights" to "constitutional rights recognized by both the U.S. and Idaho constitutions."

The letter I wrote to my representatives this morning:

Dear Rep. Gestrin:Senate Resolution 101 has one worrisome oversight: sec. D provides "Nothing in this section is intended to, or shall be interpreted to, supersede an accused's federal constitutional rights, nor to afford a victim an independent right to be heard as a party during trial."  It would be good to replace "federal constitutional rights" with "rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Idaho constitutions."  Some people have imagined ASJR101 as a way to justify additional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.  I think this apparent exclusion of the guarantees under Art. I, sec. 11 of the Idaho constitution as some sort of end run to impose restrictions on the rights of the accused.  I do not think this is the case, but I would sleep easier with this change.
Very Truly Yours,Clayton E. Cramer

Rep. Moon says that the sponsor will not be changed by the sponsor.  She is voting against.