Posted on 10/16/2005 1:47:00 PM PDT by 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.
Albeit now considered a source of revenue vs a right we should'nt have to pay for I am happy with what we have thus far as it is establishing a record, facts, data etc showing that allowing America's law abidding the ability to defend themselves in an outside of their homes is reducing crimes against persons nationwide.
Incrementally we have made wrongs right and make no doubt that we still have a long way to go and a responsibility or stewardship to be forever vigilant against the social engineers playing reindeer games with lives.....
When asked why I carry it is suggested that I am hoping to kill someone. No more than owning a fire extinguisher creates a desire to see my home on fire or carrying a spare tire for my truck makes me want to get out in the rain on a dark night to change a flat....
Just one more tool available to keep me and mine safe if we can't avoid a serious threat to our lives.
Just my opinion of course......Stay safe !
wrist.. sorry. I guess not then, =o)
Uh, people don't get warrants to search other people.
If I don't want you bringing a gun (or any other thing) into or onto my property, that should be my right.
Gotta love it BTTT!!!
I like it!
Part of the reason of the Second Amendment is to keep government officials in 'fear' of the general public.
Not now that the Government workers can be routinely armed as well.
...an opinion that I heartily share my friend!
I am pro 2A, but if someone doesn't want you bringing a gun onto their property, it should be their right.
Try to understand that my car is ~my~ property.
If you want to stop & search all cars before they enter your property, fine, get a warrant & do so.
Otherwise, live with Alaska's law, -- and with our nations 2nd amendment policy that says no infringements on our right to carry.
Uh, people don't get warrants to search other people.
You are nitpicking the issue.
If I don't want you bringing a gun (or any other thing) into or onto my property, that should be my right.
You have that right. You can put up a gate, and keep everyone out that refuses your search demands.
-- But once you let visitors on your property without a car search, their car is there legally, under the new Alaskan law.
Why would you object to a gun kept in your guests car?
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.
---
Uh.... without them they would be vulnerable to attack because the government employees couldn't defend themselves against a criminal who brought a weapon in! Strange thinking for a police chief...
You yourself are your own property...that doesn't give you the right to come onto my property, in other words, just because you or something is your own property, that shouldn't give you the right to bring it onto my property.
The Bill of Rights does not apply to private individuals.
And personally, I would not object to someone carrying a gun on to my property, either on their person or in their car, but since it's my property it should still be up to me whether I want someone to or not.
It has been my contention for some time that
municipal buildings, courts, city halls etc that
prohibit concealed carry holders from their right,
MUST provide gun check facilities, or they are FORCING
citizens to be disarmed between their cars/vehicles and
the said building.
I am pro 2A, but if someone doesn't want you bringing a gun onto their property, it should be their right.
Try to understand that my car is ~my~ property.
If you want to stop & search all cars before they enter your property, fine, get a warrant & do so.
Otherwise, live with Alaska's law, -- and with our nations 2nd amendment policy that says no infringements on our right to carry.
Uh, people don't get warrants to search other people.
You are nitpicking the issue.
If I don't want you bringing a gun (or any other thing) into or onto my property, that should be my right.
You have that right. You can put up a gate, and keep everyone out that refuses your search demands.
-- But once you let visitors on your property without a car search, their car is there legally, under the new Alaskan law.
...that doesn't give you the right to come onto my property, in other words, just because you or something is your own property, that shouldn't give you the right to bring it onto my property.
I repeat, - you can put up a gate and keep me & my car off your property for any reason.
The purpose of the Alaskan law is to prevent 'parking lot' gun bans..
The Bill of Rights does not apply to private individuals.
Everyone is obligated to support & obey our Law of the Land.
Now there's LEO with some good old common sense. I just wish all LE and government officials had as much.
Anyone who thinks a law against carrying guns will stop somebody from carrying a gun who intends to commit a far more serious crime with that gun has to have the IQ of a garden slug.
There are already restrictions on what people may do with other people's vehicles on their property. If I put my car on your property without your permission, in most (all?) cities you are allowed to have it towed and impounded, generally for a price specified by the city. You are not allowed to confiscate property from the car or do anything to deliberately prevent me from redeeming my car, in the same condition and with the same contents as when it was towed, by payment of the legally-defined fee.
Do those restrictions infringe property owners' rights? Are you going to campaign against those?
At least some politicians are prepared to stand behind Corporate Property Rights.
The Browning Hi Power has to be one of the prettiest semi-autos ever made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.