As another session of the Idaho Legislature cranks up, Idahoans shudder at the prospect of more needless political discord and legislative shenanigans. Instead of working on legislation to deal with real problems, too many extremist legislators will waste our time trying to score political points on culture war issues like critical race theory, which most of them can’t even define. It gets worse each year.

Already this year we have seen the introduction of these nonsense bills:

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He is a regular columnist for The Hill online news. He blogs at JJCommonTater.com.

Recommended for you

Welcome to the discussion!

The Idaho State Journal invites you to take part in the community conversation. But those who don't play nice may be uninvited.

Comments that are:

  • off topic
  • defamatory
  • libelous
  • obscene
  • racist
  • abusive
  • threatening
  • an invasion of privacy (doxing)
  • profane (including attempts to misspell profanity in order to get around the profanity filter)

will be deleted. Repeat offenders will lose commenting privileges.

Comments are opinions of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions or views of Idaho State Journal.

(1) comment

donrfleming

I'm perplexed by the statement that "Senate Bill 1002 would establish an aggressor-friendly self-defense law."

Under Idaho law, "[a] person is not entitled to claim self-defense or justify a homicide when he or she was the aggressor or the one who provoked the altercation in which another person is killed, unless such person in good faith first withdraws from further aggressive action". State v. turner, 38 P.3d 1285

Senate Bill 1002 is about self-defense immunity. How does the bill change self-defense law to make it aggressor friendly?