"You can carry on the trail; holster it at the door."

That's not a hypothetical for Idaho shooters. Grand Teton, Yellowstone, City of Rocks — these aren't abstract locations. If you're carrying during a family park day, you're making that exact choice every time you need to use a visitor center bathroom.

"SAF is betting the feds can't produce one for 'no guns in the gift shop.'"

That's the crux of the whole Bruen argument in one line. The government's going to try to dress up a ranger station bookstore as a courthouse analogy, and that's going to be a stretch to make in front of a federal judge — especially in Texas.

Don't expect this to change your summer plans. Federal litigation grinds slow, and whatever the district court decides, it heads to the Fifth Circuit either way. But the Bruen framework is doing exactly what it was designed to do here — forcing the government to justify restrictions with history instead of policy preference.

For Idaho specifically, this case matters more than it might in a state without this much federal park land. A favorable ruling — even years from now — changes the practical reality of carrying in some of the most-used public land we have access to.

Have you ever been caught off-guard by the building ban in a national park — either talked to a ranger about it, or just made the decision to leave your gun in the car rather than deal with the liability?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett