Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Alaska Gets It Right On Gun Control

Cool.

JUNEAU, Alaska — Starting Wednesday, a new anti-gun-control law in Alaska will allow handgun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit in the seven Alaska cities where permits are now required.

Gun owners will be allowed to keep their firearms in their vehicle, even if the car is parked on private property where the owner has a no-gun policy.

And, some police chiefs say, local ordinances that ban guns from public buildings such as city halls will no longer be enforceable.

Alaska’s new law forbids municipalities from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than state law.

The National Rifle Association, which helped Republican state Rep. Mike Chenault draft the new law, said it wants to prevent cities from passing restricting laws in the future. It’s what the organization calls state pre-emption, and Alaska will be the 44th state to have such a law on its books.

“We are looking to make it uniform to all 50 states,” said spokeswoman Kelly Hobbs from the NRA’s Fairfax, Va., headquarters. “Without it, it creates an unfair, inconsistent and confusing patchwork of local firearm ordinances.”

Chenault said a law-abiding citizen should be able to carry a firearm wherever he wants to, but in Alaska, that citizen may be breaking the law and not even know it.

“You could leave Homer with a gun in your vehicle and find yourself in conflict with laws in other municipalities just by driving through those municipalities,” he said.


If only politicians in other parts of the country could display good common sense like this:

The part of the law that most concerns Alaska police chiefs is the lifting of bans on guns in public buildings. That could leave government workers inside vulnerable to attack, said Anchorage Police Chief Walter Monegan.

“There are lots of people, myself included, we really value our constitutional rights,” Monegan said. “But if we had the same enthusiasm to also support our constitutional responsibilities, then I would be less concerned over this issue.”

Across the state in Bethel, Police Chief Ben Dudley said he also is concerned that he will no longer have the option of charging people with entering a municipal building with a weapon. But he’s more philosophical on the effects of that city law when it comes to stopping somebody who means to do harm.

“If there were people with bad intentions entering into municipal buildings, the law isn’t going to stop those people anyway,” Dudley said. “They’re going to stick a pistol down their pants anyway.”


Exactly. When you criminalize the possession of firearms only criminals will possess them.

Comments

Avatar for azlibertarian

Great news. However after the fourth word, the linguistic twisting begins. “Anti-gun-control”? What’s that all about? How about “gun-freedom” or “gun-rights”? Would that explain to the reader just what the Alaskans have done more clearly than a double-negative? Why does a journalist and an editor go to these lengths to express what ought to be so simple? [Never mind. Don’t answer that. They’re MSM, and therefore statistically likely to be liberal. So, of course, on this topic, they’d twist their language into something almost completely unrecognizable rather than write clearly and which made sense.]

And the ever-statist police chiefs worry about those who work in municipal offices. How about this: Let the municipal workers carry their weapons too. Citizens--even those employed by municipalities--ought to have the right to possess the means of self-defence.

azlibertarian on October 16, 2005 at 09:10 am
Avatar for Andrew

Gonna have to disagree with you that Alaska got this law right.

This part stuck out specifically:

Gun owners will be allowed to keep their firearms in their vehicle, even if the car is parked on private property where the owner has a no-gun policy.

I’d say the owner of said property should be able to forbid firearms.  I’m sorry, but I think property rights trump gun rights in this instance.

Another part that I’m not too sure of:

And, some police chiefs say, local ordinances that ban guns from public buildings such as city halls will no longer be enforceable

Is this saying that you’re allowed to conceal a weapon in public buildings or are you simply allowed to keep them in your car?  If you’re allowed to conceal them, are courthouses included?

Andrew on October 16, 2005 at 10:10 am
Avatar for azlibertarian

I’d say the owner of said property should be able to forbid firearms. I’m sorry, but I think property rights trump gun rights in this instance.

Might not privately owned cars parked on a firearm-prohibiting parking lot be considered private property also? IOW, do the private property rights of the parking lot owner trump the private property rights of the car owner?

Is this saying that you’re allowed to conceal a weapon in public buildings or are you simply allowed to keep them in your car? If you’re allowed to conceal them, are courthouses included?

In preface, I haven’t read anything regarding the AK law, so I don’t really know, but as I read it they’re talking about public places like the library or the DMV. However, here in AZ (and most other places to my knowledge), courthouses are a different breed of public building. Basically, anywhere where decisions of serious consequence are made--courthouses, hospitals, etc. will ban weapons that might be legally carried elsewhere. I’m all for gun-freedom, however I do recognize that there are some places where people lose their access to their kids, are sent to jail, or are unwilling to see a loved-one die. In other words, public places where the emotions are raw and on the surface are places that I’d be able to justify not permitting the public to be armed. Your Mileage May Vary, however.

azlibertarian on October 16, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Avatar for Brass

Andrew,

It is illegal under state law to possess a firearm in any courthouse or courtroom in Alaska.

Colorado passed a similar law just recently and it was much needed.  Because of all the different laws in every county and town at one point, if I had my AR15 in the car, I would not be able to drive from Kansas to my home in Vail without risking arrest if I had been pulled over unless I drove 150 miles out of my way.  This law makes it easier for law abiding citizens to remain law abiding.

Brass on October 16, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Avatar for Andrew

Might not privately owned cars parked on a firearm-prohibiting parking lot be considered private property also? IOW, do the private property rights of the parking lot owner trump the private property rights of the car owner?

I would think yes.  The lot owner has a right to refuse to allow people to possess firearms while parked in his/her lot.  If people don’t want to follow those rules, then they should go somewhere else.

I agree with parts of this law, but this part in particular really bothers me.

Andrew on October 16, 2005 at 01:10 pm
Avatar for Mark J

Well, it’s private property, so they can just tell that person to leave.

Mark J on October 16, 2005 at 02:11 pm
Avatar for Mr. Bowen

I think that the right of Self Defense, being much much closer to the right to Life, (and I’m not talking about abortion, though that is tangential) trumps any Property concerns.

I’m speaking of natural rights here, not the ones enumerated in our Constitution.

Mr. Bowen on October 16, 2005 at 03:10 pm
Avatar for Sphagnum

Andrew:  You gotta think this through before you object

I’d say the owner of said property should be able to forbid firearms. I’m sorry, but I think property rights trump gun rights in this instance.

The point of the law is to make gun-control laws uniform throughout the state.  The point of this particular sentence that you pulled out is to make it so that I cannot get into legal trouble by bringing a firearm onto a property that I was invited onto.  If the person wants no firearms on their property, it’s their and they have every right to kick me off or ask me to remove the firearm.  It’s private property.

Sphagnum on October 16, 2005 at 04:10 pm
Avatar for Sphagnum

“Anti-gun-control”? What’s that all about? How about “gun-freedom” or “gun-rights”?

That really bugged me too…

Sphagnum on October 16, 2005 at 04:10 pm
Avatar for Brandon

or pro-Second Amendment.

Brandon on October 16, 2005 at 08:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

How about this? You can carry a firearm anywhere you want, but are prohibited from using it for any purpose other than self-defense.  I think that is what the second amendment is really all about.  Why not punish an illegal act, instead of making the act of simply possessing a gun illegal? I believe that is infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

robert108 on October 16, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Avatar for Andrew

You gotta think this through before you object

Yea, I didn’t really think it through when I wrote it.  Kind of confused me, but those Sunday afternoon bake-offs will do that to you.

Andrew on October 17, 2005 at 02:10 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.