October 15, 2005, 11:32 AM
October 15, 2005, 11:32 AM
October 15, 2005, 11:36 AM
Damnit, now i wanna move to alaska.
October 15, 2005, 11:57 AM
Senator Hollis French believes that property rights trump civil rights. So, if Alaska passed a law banning Native Americans from public buildings would this be permissible?:confused:
If a government is not allowed to discriminate among its citizens based on race, ethnicity, religion, creed or national origin, it is not allowed to discriminate among civil rights. There is no hierarchy of civil rights; the RKBA is the same as any other right.:)
October 15, 2005, 12:12 PM
We're fortunate to live here and we're fortunate to have the elected leaders that we have..... or at least most of them.
However, where we are today has been a work in progress for almost 20 years. The evolution started when the AK Constitution was reworded to clarify the RKBA to be an individual right (Thank you Sam Cotton). The original wording was verbatum of the 2A.
I can remember when concealed carry was against the law and LE would charge someone if they were caught carrying concealed and not engaged in legitimate outdoor activity...........whatever that means.:rolleyes: Most DAs never prosecuted it though.
I can also remember when the "sky-is-falling" crowd opposed the original concealed carry bill. Then the original law was tweeked and since has become more libertarian to what we have today (thank you Rep. Eric Croft D-Anchorage).
October 15, 2005, 01:08 PM
Kinda restores your faith in the system. Good job Alaskans!!
October 15, 2005, 03:01 PM
...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.
October 15, 2005, 03:10 PM
``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.'
Ive wanted to move to alaska for the past several years. Here is yet more incentive.
October 15, 2005, 03:32 PM
Aren't you forgetting "reasonable restrictions"?
Hollis French is an idiot. He believes in whatever's convenient at the moment.
October 15, 2005, 03:45 PM
Yeah it is pretty nice up here. Think that the article is wrong about one thing though. When I took the CCW course up here , I was told it was Palmer, not Wasilla, that had the license requirement. Oh, well. Hey the only advantages to getting the CCW license up here are: waiving the NICS check for buying a gun, reciprocity with other states, and........
drum roll please......
you can carry into a restaurant that has a bar as long as you aren't consuming alcohol. The way the law is worded you must have a license to do it. Weird wording but that is what the assistant DA (who taught the legal portion of the class) showed us. Stay safe and come visit any time. I guarantee you will have a great time if you love the outdoors. :)
October 15, 2005, 06:16 PM
God I love Alaska.
Some of my best memories are from three weeks I spent in Alaska - back in '96/97 (I was 12/13). I hope to visit/return again someday.
October 15, 2005, 08:57 PM
hey, this isnt news!
pasting from packing.org:
This bill took effect June 11, 2003 and changes Alaska Statute 11.61.220 to allow anyone who may legally possess a firearm can carry it concealed without having to obtain a special permit if 21 years of age or older. The possession of a firearm at courthouses, school yards, bars and domestic violence shelters will continue to be prohibited. Alaskans may still obtain a concealed carry permit if they want reciprocity with other states or want to continue to be exempt from background checks when purchasing firearms. The effective date of this law change is September 9th, 2003
the gang at wild west guns sends their warmest regards to THR!
visit www.thefiringline.com for the hottest deals on guns from ken! :D
October 17, 2005, 01:35 PM
hmmm....the article linked above appeared in todays local paper...guess there was something new about it afterall.
its a lot of fluff though. i think its misrepresented that anchorage was one of the cities that required the permit. back in 2003 when alaska went to vermont-style carry laws, i contacted the states department that issued permits. they were interpreting it back then as being statewide, no permit necessary. anchorage definitely was one of those cities, because APD was quoted in an article back then as having to start 'assuming all vehicles pulled over would have armed occupants' instead of being able to pull up the info from a license plate.
about the biggest thing to change via the above linked to article is that now city/municipality property cannot prohibit firearms on their premises.
this is a loophole in the law, and i think it will be closed within a few years. basically this is the state of alaska saying 'hey you cities out there cannot have stronger rules about guns than are at state level'. the state can now dictate which government premises can allow firearms.
the types of buildings where the signs will be coming down is the city hall, the police station, fire departments, city-owned convention centers, animal control, to name but a few. personally, of those that i named, i would disarm if i had to go to the police station.
as conservative as this state is, our newspaper is quite liberal. whenever issues arise that garnish public responses, they will print letters to the editor that favor their position the most. for example, if they get 10 letters for an issue, and 10 against, they will tend to print more of the ones that mirror their position.
in this issue however, there have been only letters printed in favor of the signs coming down. the gist of the letters sent in has been 'criminals arent stopped by the posting of mere signs'.