Alaska anti-gun-control law goes into effect Wednesday

http://www.helenair.com ^ | 10/15/05 | MATT VOLZ

[freepatriot32]

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.

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.”

The new law would allow cities to keep guns out of places beyond a restricted access point, such as a metal detector, but the chiefs say their cities can’t afford to staff and equip such points.

Plus, “It runs counter to the intent of public buildings to establish the checkpoints,” said Juneau Police Chief Richard Gummow.

Chenault said his interpretation of the new law differs. State law now does not specifically prohibit weapons in municipal buildings, but it does in state buildings. If municipalities pass their own weapons bans for public buildings, those laws shouldn’t be considered any more restrictive than the state’s ban, he said.

But he acknowledged that it may take a court challenge to see if his interpretation is correct.

The police chiefs are less concerned about the concealed-weapons permits. Two years ago, the Legislature removed the requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but the state continues to issue them. The NRA says those permits are still required in seven cities: Anchorage, Bethel, Juneau, Petersburg, Sitka, Valdez and Wasilla.

Even opponents of the law seem fine with getting rid of the permit requirements.

But state Sen. Hollis French, D-Anchorage, who voted against the bill, said he objects to its stance of putting gun rights over private property rights. The law says a government or person cannot create a rule that would prohibit someone from keeping a gun inside a car, wherever the car is.

“In that tension between the legitimate right to protect yourself, and, for me, the more absolute right to do as you see fit with your property, this tips the balance a little too far toward guns,” French said.

[don asmussen]

paulsen opines:

The second amendmnent only protects us from federal infringement. States are guided solely by their state constitutions.

As we see, some people here do not agree that the US Constitution is the "law of the land", -- and worse yet - will not support and defend our supreme rule of law.

Apparently they cannot read & understand the clear words of Article VI.

Someone can't, that's for sure.

Yep, that would be you:

Article VI says the U.S. Constitution (the contract) is the law of the land. That's it.

Three paragraphs and well over a hundred words on how all officials in every state are to swear to support our supreme law, -- and you conclude, - "that's it". --- How blind can you get?

Parts of the Constitution apply to the states; parts to the federal government.

True.. We agree.

The second amendment is one of those "parts to the federal government".

That's your factions unsupported opinion paulsen. You even fought a civil war about it. Want another?
ALL of the constitutions amendments are part of our supreme 'law of the land'.

[robertpaulsen]

"ALL of the constitutions amendments are part of our supreme 'law of the land'"

Yes they are. And they applied to the federal government only.

[don asmussen]

ALL of the constitutions amendments are part of our supreme 'law of the land'.

Yes they are.

Thank you for your momentary honesty.

And they applied to the federal government only.

That's a communitarian dream.
Feel free to dream on..

[Wolfie]

There's a combo for ya.

As long as they don't mistake the Glock for the Bong.

[pillbox_girl]

The second amendmnent only protects us from federal infringement. States are guided solely by their state constitutions.

You are absolutely wrong. Go back and read the Bill of Rights please.

The Second Amendment clearly says: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That means what it says: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

It does not say "except by state, local, and municipal governments".

The First Amendment does say "Congress shall enact no law ...", which could be interpreted as meaning that the power to enact laws establishing state religions and whatnot is reserved to the states. But it isn't. It has been painted as meaning no governing body (except John McCain) shall enact a law restricting freedom of speech.

So why do state and local governments get a pass on the Second Amendment when it clearly says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? The simple answer is that, legally, they don't.

State and local "gun control" laws, and ALL "gun control" laws for that matter, violate the "shall not be infringed" clause of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights and are UNCONSITUTIONAL.

Plain and simple (except, of course, to wanna-be despots and wanna-be sheep).

[Vision]

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

You gotta love Alaska

[dljordan]

"(my wife would never let us go there :-( )"

My situation exactly. I could have had a job in Anchorage but NOOOOO! She acted like it was the back of beyond. Sheesh! Generally women will pick comfort over freedom every time.

[pillbox_girl]

don asmussen: "ALL of the constitutions amendments are part of our supreme 'law of the land'"

robertpaulsen: Yes they are. And they applied to the federal government only.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is giving you difficulty, Robert dear? For that matter, what part of "supreme law of the land" do you not understand? If it applies only to the federal government, then it's hardly the Supreme Law of the Land, now is it? Fortunately, it IS the Supreme Law of the Land. Now if only we could get those in power to remember that little inconvenient (for them) fact.

[Teacher317]

Interesting that his focus is on the safety of our masters in government, rather than in the populace that is supposed to be his primary motivation.

[MissouriConservative]

SMITH AND WESSON MODEL 500 4" BARREL REVOLVER

* Most Powerful Production Revolver in the World Today

* Massive 500 S&W Magnum® Cartridge 2600 ft/lb. Muzzle Energy

* A Hunting Handgun For Any Game Animal Walking

* Recoil Tamed with Effective Muzzle Compensator

* Hoque Sorbathane® Recoil Absorbing Grip

* Internal Lock

* Ultimate Defensive Carry and Dangerous Game Backup Handgun

* Easily Removeable Muzzle Compensator for Different Recoil Reduction Effects and to Accomodate Different Types of Ammunition

* Comes with 2 Compensators - 1 for Lead Bullet and 1 for Jacketed Bullet Ammunition

* Muzzle Energy Capability in Excess of 2000 ft/lb. in a 56 oz. Package

There is the perfect concealed .50 caliber.....lol

[GeronL]

looks like something that would break my hand, and its not all that weak. pretty cool.

[MissouriConservative]

I told the Mrs that it would be great for Santa to place one of those in my stocking.....one can dream can't they?

[GeronL]

You'll probably get coal =o)

[MissouriConservative]

As bad as I've been this year, it will coal with a side order of switches.....lol

By the way, in the spirit of policital incorrectness.....MERRY CHRISTMAS.

[GeronL]

Merry Christmas and G'night to you too

[robertpaulsen]

The U.S. Constitution (the contract between the states and the federal government) is the supreme law of the land. Parts of the U.S. Constitution apply to the states; parts to the federal government. The Bill of Rights applied to the federal government. Only.

Depending on their state constitutions, the states were free to establish a state religion (and some did), restrict the press, search without a warrant, regulate guns, etc. And they did these things.

After the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868, the U.S. Supreme Court starting applying some of the Bill of Rights to the states in a process known as "incorporation". It wasn't until 1925, for example, that "Freedom of Speech" was applied to the states. "Freedom of the Press" followed in 1931. "Freedom of Assembly" in 1937. "Separation of Church and State" in 1947. "No Unreasonable Search" in 1949. And so on.

I have court cases which document each "incorporation". The second amendment has yet to be incorporated. The second amendment, today, only protects us from federal laws, federal infringement. States are guided by their state constitutions.

Didn't you ever wonder how some states allowed concealed carry and others didn't? If the second amendment applied to the states, that would be unconstitutional.

Now, since this is the first time we've corresponded, I've been nice. If you're going to respond with something along the lines of, "The states are violating the constitution ... they're infringing on our constitutional rights ... the Supreme Court is in collusion with the states ..." and other such unsupported garbage, I think we can just call it a day.

[pillbox_girl]

You're wrong. And you just don't get it.

You may have a minimal knowledge of legislative and legal history, but your comprehension of basic constitutional law is utterly incorrect.

Again, what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" are you having problems with?

Read the First Amendment. It clearly says "Congress shall make no law...". Therefore, you argument that the First Amendment applies only to the federal government and not to the states themselves might be considered valid.

But such an argument is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

Take a look at the Second Amendment. Go ahead and actually read it. Does it say "Congress shall"? Does it say "except for"?

No. It does not.

It clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

While the First Amendment clearly states that it applies only to congress, the Second Amendment clearly states that it applies in general and in total. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. At all. By anyone. The power to infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms is prohibited by the constitution to the states (as outlined in the Tenth Amendment). They cannot legally touch it (granted, they have, but illegally and unconstitutionally).

As I said above, your bogus argument that the Second Amendment has not been "incorporated" is invalid (and absurd). Such might have been necessary for the First Amendment, because it does specifically just restrict Congress. It does not apply to the Second Amendment. The "shall not be infringed" clause by itself is more than enough to show that it is "incorporated" (to use your invalid terminology) a priori.

The Tenth Amendment clearly states that some powers are denied the states by the Constitution. If, as you incorrectly postulate, the Amendments and articles of the Constitution need to be "incorporated" before they are imposed on the states, then why was the Tenth Amendment ever written? Why does it mention that the Constitution denies the states certain powers if those restrictions need to be "incorporated" first?

The Second Amendment specifically denies anyone, including the states, the power to infringe on the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Gun control is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All gun control. You may not like it. It may conflict with the legal fantasy you live in (along with so many others, unfortunately), but it is true.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Didn't you ever wonder how some states allowed concealed carry and others didn't? If the second amendment applied to the states, that would be unconstitutional.

Oh Puh-Freaking-Leaze! What planet are you living on? Surely you are not that naive?

These laws ARE unconstitutional! They just haven't been challenged in the Supreme Court yet. Why? Well, thanks to liberal useful idiots and their evil masters, we have not yet seen a Supreme Court in recent years since all this unconstitutional crap began that gun owners are sufficiently confident would make the right decision (just look at their unconstitutional Kelo ruling). Bringing such a case before the court is extremely risky because there is a chance that the court might simply strip away the Second Amendment entirely (particularly if we get more democrat appointees on the bench or pseudo-conservatives who only every have to pass the "Roe v. Wade" litmus test). We need a SOLID pro Second Amendment majority on the court. That's why Bush was elected, and it's something I have yet to see him actually deliver.

[robertpaulsen]

"These laws ARE unconstitutional! They just haven't been challenged in the Supreme Court yet."

Sure they have.

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."
-- U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the (second - rp) amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."
-- PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the State of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest without warrant of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the Second and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the Federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."
-- Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894)

The lower federal courts have ruled similarly:

"Since we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states, we need not consider the scope of its guarantee of the right to bear arms. There (U.S. v. Miller) the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia. Because the second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second amendment."
-- Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982)

The Ninth Circuit has ruled FIVE TIMES that the second amendment does not create a fundamental individual right, and also that it is not a restriction on state laws because the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, 965 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 998 (9th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 519 U. S. 912 (1996); San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F. 3d 11121 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Mack, 164 F.3d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1999); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002).

Unless you have more than capital letters and bold type to support your views, don't bother responding. I have no intention of playing "Yes it does! No it doesn't!" games with you. Put up or shut up.

[don asmussen]

pillbox_girl:
"These laws ARE unconstitutional! They just haven't been challenged in the Supreme Court yet."


[Paulsen denies our RKBA's;]


" --- Sure they have. ---"

[And cites some tired old statist ops]

-- U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
-- PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
-- Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894)

The lower federal courts have ruled similarly:

The Ninth Circuit has ruled FIVE TIMES that the second amendment does not create a fundamental individual right, and also that it is not a restriction on state laws because the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.

Unless you have more than capital letters and bold type to support your views, don't bother responding.
I have no intention of playing "Yes it does! No it doesn't!" games with you. Put up or shut up.

["FIVE TIMES" bold type followed by his circular argument "No it isn't!" game. Tish tish.]


______________________________________



WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL


Address:http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

--- Conclusion ---
   
  For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views.

The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion.

Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

[robertpaulsen]

The Attorney General's opinion holds as much constitutional weight as Sarah Brady's.

Even if his opinion was accepted as the correct interpretation of the second amendment (currently, only the 5th Circuit Court holds that opinion), it still only applies to federal law. States are bound by their state constitution, not the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the Attorney General's opinion does not change that fact.