From the Times-News this morning:
William Stirling Teeter, 50, of Burley, was charged with felony aggravated assault Friday night following an unusual response to a teenager's ball landing in his yard. The alleged incident culminated in Teeter pulling a semi-automatic pistol on the 13-year-old boy.
According to the Cassia County Sheriff's Office police report, the victim was playing with the ball while Teeter was mowing his lawn when the ball rolled onto Teeter's yard. The victim said he walked over to retrieve the ball, and then, the report reads, "William drew a pistol from his hip."
The article goes on to report that "Teeter asked if the charge would affect his concealed weapons license and federal firearms license."
This is exactly why the wisdom of recent legislation allowing national park visitors to carry loaded weapons into the park should be questioned. Having a concealed weapons permit does not guarantee one's sanity or proper judgment in the use of that firearm. The last thing a family trying to enjoy Old Faithful should have to worry about is whether a Mr. Teeter is going to be pulling a gun on them.
Who packs heat while they mow their lawn, anyway? In Burley?

In one of the more rural portions of Burley, too. The dude is out in the country mowing his lawn and a ball lands in his yard and he pulls a gun. And only a mile from the largest daycare in the Mini-Cassia area--Lorraine's. Insane.
Posted by: thepoliticalgame | June 24, 2009 at 09:13 AM
If the report is anywhere near accurate as to the facts, Teeter is demonstrably unqualified to carry. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
As a once-upon-a-time trouble-making 13-year-old boy, I'm happy that I grew up somewhere other than Mr. Teeter's neighborhood.
Posted by: fortboise | June 24, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Unfreakingreal!
Posted by: Julie in Boise | June 24, 2009 at 04:22 PM
Oh, now - yu'll STOP. He didn't mean nuthin' by it. See? Look - right here.
"Teeter said he didn't aim at the kid."
.
See? No harm, no foul. (no pun, either....)
Posted by: Wordsmith | June 25, 2009 at 08:18 AM
And in case you're interested....it was also a small gun.
Check out this ad /website.
http://www.sigsauer.com/Default.aspx
Posted by: Wordsmith | June 25, 2009 at 08:20 AM
I agree with fortboise, it doesn't sound like Mr. Teeter's concealed carry permit is long for this world...
And I do understand the concerns about the weapons carry in National Parks. I think one of the only cheezy extremist conservative slogans that I agree with is that "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"...meaning that if someone wants to do something illegal, they won't care whether they can legally take the gun there, or not. So outlawing them only removes them from persons who would be carrying them legally. The others would still bring them.
Does anyone here know what it takes to get a concealed carry permit? I haven't looked it up, I always assumed there had to be more than just a cursory glance at the stability of the individual...but I'm probably wrong about that.
Posted by: Nemesis | June 25, 2009 at 09:31 PM
Gary appears to be battling this one out in the comments over at In the Middle:
Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition
Posted by: thepoliticalgame | June 26, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Uhh...I don't know what happened to the link, probably got lost in my *all* my html skills! ;) All two of them! Here is the link: http://www.magicvalley.com/blogs/political/in_the_middle/comments.php?y=09&m=06&entry=entry090624-085317
Posted by: thepoliticalgame | June 26, 2009 at 12:30 PM
"Does anyone here know what it takes..."
I've been vaguely wondering about that, too. Quick search turned up an Idaho FAQ:
http://www2.state.id.us/ag/faq/concealedweaponspermit.htm
Posted by: Tom von Alten | June 26, 2009 at 06:09 PM
Reading that FAQ, it's rather odd. "You must demonstrate familiarity with the firearm," but you don't have to "take a test."
So... you have to have A firearm, first of all. (Do I have to demonstrate that it's mine? Legal? Registered?)
And since there's no test, the sheriff can pretty much decide on whatever criteria s/he likes whether you've "demonstrated" well enough. Fascinating.
Posted by: Tom von Alten | June 26, 2009 at 06:14 PM
Dang, that would have been an easy search, sorry I didn't go there.
I am a little concerned, I guess, that there's not more to it than that. But after thinking harder, I don't know what I would do differently, what outcome I would expect. Any emotional stability "test" would be rather subjective on the part of the person doing the scoring, I guess.
I'm on my way to see what's cooking at "In the Middle"...thanks for pointing that out, Tara.
Posted by: Nemesis | June 26, 2009 at 07:17 PM
I have a concealed carry permit.
You don't have to own a firearm.
I took two classes, one being primarily lecture and one consisting of shooting several handguns to make sure I wouldn't shoot my own foot off.
They do a background check. This costs some money.
One of the things I learned in class was never to say I shot someone because I was protecting my property. It is only legal to shoot someone if you are in fear for your life. I don't recall anything about pulling a gun on someone without the intention of shooting them.
(Why did I get a concealed carry permit? Because I wanted more familiarity with handguns and a concealed carry class seemed the most effective way to get it. Plus, it freaked out my California friends.)
Posted by: sharon fisher | June 28, 2009 at 08:05 AM