The Constitution Party of Idaho is opposed to HB 167, known as the Critical Infrastructure Trespass Bill.
HB 167 was introduced by Rep. Britt Raybould (R-Rexburg). The bill has already cleared the House Judiciary, Rules, and Administration Committee by a vote of 9-8. It is currently waiting for a vote on the House floor which could take place as early as tomorrow.
The purpose of HB 167 is to establish a new “critical infrastructure” trespass law. The bill would create a special category for trespassing.
However, the bill itself has a number of issues, including overall vague words and definitions that leave one to wonder what it actually covers. For instance, one of the areas defined as “critical infrastructure” is “Food and agriculture.”
What does the word “food” mean? Grocery stores? Restaurants? Food processing companies? Does a hot dog stand count as “Food?” We can’t see why not.
It will really be up to the courts to decide what it means since it isn’t defined in the legislation.
The bill also poses problems for those exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.
While the current law does not give signs the force of law, HB 167 will make it so signs are considered your “first notification” of trespassing. This means that no verbal notification would be required.
HB 167 also defines “government buildings” as critical infrastructure. Because of that, it will contradict Idaho’s firearm preemption law (IC 18-3302(J) which prohibits cities/counties from regulating firearms.
The current trespass laws are enough and adding yet more special protections for certain sectors of the private economy isn’t something the government should be doing.
The Idaho Freedom Foundation’s analysis of the bill, written by Parrish Miller, is a great recap of just how bad the bill is. Miller gave the bill a rating of -4.
Idahoans should contact their two House members immediately and tell them to oppose HB 167.