WOOHOO! Alaska on it's way to VT style CCW Reform


PDA






stevelyn
May 13, 2003, 07:50 PM
I found this little gem in my inbox from the good folks at Gun Owners of America. I type the summary of the letter as follows.

Tuesday May 13, 2003

A bill is moving through the Alaska legislature which will enhance the ability of Alaska residents to carry concealed in the state.

House Bill 102 will move Alaska toward a Vermont system where gun owners can carry concealed firearms without first get fingerprinted, photographed or registered like common sex offenders.

The bill is a definite improvement from the law that is on the books now. Currently, it is unlawful to carry concealed weapons, other than a pocket knife or defensive weapon, without first getting permission from the state.

But HB 102 would allow any gun owner to carry concealed without a permit, as long as when addressed by a policeman, he informs the policeman of the concealed weapon and, if requested, allows the official to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact.

This bill is steadily advancing through the Alaskan legislature but still needs support from constituents through contact to their elected officials. It has passed the House and is in the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. It is imperative we continue to mount support to pass this bill onto the Governor and get this law on the books.

If your State Senator is on the Judiciary Committee, please call or send him an e-mail using the first letter below-- Judiciary Committee members are labeled in the roster with asterisks (*).

It is still important to express your support for this bill to your State Senator, even if he is not on the Judiciary Committee, because this bill could be quickly coming to the Senate floor for a vote.
END


Then of course the rest of the alert was followed by contact information for the AK Senate.

Wait until the media gets ahold of it and twists everything out of context.
Nothing in this bill implies that those prohibited from possessing firearms due to criminal or mental history will be suddenly given permission to carry concealed. Alaska already has laws covering firearm possession by prohibited persons. This allows persons who are not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms to carry concealed.
The reality in Alaska currently is if you see anyone outside an urban area they are likely armed and this bill will eliminate any liability to a law abiding citizen who may have not jumped through the gummint hoops. Alaska law already provides for concealed carry by those "engaged in lawful outdoor activity" this only extends it.

If you enjoyed reading about "WOOHOO! Alaska on it's way to VT style CCW Reform" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
spacemanspiff
May 13, 2003, 08:21 PM
dont hate me, but i think its a bad idea. only because of the amount of true idiots that have no idea whatsoever how to handle, carry, or even use a firearm that may then try to carry concealed.

the CCW course is a way to let those who take it know that they need further training. when i qualified, i'd say half of the 20+ in our class could barely hit paper at 7 yards. you may think thats an exaggeration, but sadly, it isnt.

our state already doesnt check for mental history, just criminal backgrounds. we are a 'shall-issue' state. all states should become such.

with that said, i realize that the 2nd Amendment already recognizes the Right of ANYONE to own/possess/carry a firearm. that right has not been infringed upon by our state.

this HB is good news for those who are proficient with firearms. but i hope that they still allow for individuals to go through the CCW course, and be issued an actual CHL. this makes purchasing a firearm much easier to not have to wait while the retailer calls the NICS in.

i'll have to give this one some more thought.

spacemanspiff
May 13, 2003, 08:31 PM
"04-30-2003 House Journal 1207
HB 102
The following was read the second time:

HOUSE BILL NO. 102
"An Act relating to concealed deadly weapons."

with the: Journal Page

STA RPT CS(STA) 3DP 3NR 960
FN1: ZERO(LAW) 960
JUD RPT CS(STA) 4DP 2NR 1088
FN1: ZERO(LAW) 1089

Representative Coghill moved and asked unanimous consent that the
following committee substitute be adopted in lieu of the original bill:

CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 102(STA)
(same title)

There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Representative Coghill moved and asked unanimous consent that
CSHB 102(STA) be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading,
and placed on final passage.
04-30-2003 House Journal 1208
Representative Cissna objected.

Representative Stoltze placed a call of the House and lifted the call.


**Representative Coghill moved and asked unanimous consent that
Representatives Joule and Kookesh be excused from a call of the
House until 1:30 p.m. today. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.


The question being: "Shall CSHB 102(STA) advance to third reading
on the same day?" The roll was taken with the following result:

CSHB 102(STA)
Second Reading
Advance to Third Reading on the Same Day


YEAS: 33 NAYS: 4 EXCUSED: 3 ABSENT: 0


Yeas: Anderson, Chenault, Coghill, Crawford, Croft, Dahlstrom, Fate,
Foster, Gatto, Guttenberg, Harris, Hawker, Heinze, Holm, Kapsner,
Kerttula, Kohring, Kott, Lynn, Masek, McGuire, Meyer, Morgan,
Moses, Ogg, Rokeberg, Samuels, Seaton, Stoltze, Weyhrauch,
Whitaker, Williams, Wolf

Nays: Berkowitz, Cissna, Gara, Gruenberg

Excused: Joule, Kookesh, Wilson

And so, CSHB 102(STA) advanced to third reading.

CSHB 102(STA) was read the third time.

The question being: "Shall CSHB 102(STA) pass the House?" The
roll was taken with the following result:

CSHB 102(STA)
Third Reading
Final Passage

YEAS: 31 NAYS: 4 EXCUSED: 3 ABSENT: 2

04-30-2003 House Journal 1209
Yeas: Anderson, Chenault, Coghill, Crawford, Croft, Dahlstrom, Fate,
Foster, Gatto, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Harris, Hawker, Heinze, Holm,
Kapsner, Kohring, Kott, Lynn, Masek, McGuire, Meyer, Morgan,
Ogg, Samuels, Seaton, Stoltze, Weyhrauch, Whitaker, Williams, Wolf

Nays: Berkowitz, Cissna, Gara, Kerttula

Excused: Joule, Kookesh, Wilson

Absent: Moses, Rokeberg

And so, CSHB 102(STA) passed the House.

Representative Masek gave notice of reconsideration of the vote on
CSHB 102(STA).



31 for passing this bill, 4 against.

answerguy
May 13, 2003, 08:33 PM
dont hate me, but i think its a bad idea. only because of the amount of true idiots that have no idea whatsoever how to handle, carry, or even use a firearm that may then try to carry concealed.

Do you have some examples from Vermont to back up your assertion?

Baba Louie
May 13, 2003, 08:36 PM
spacemanspiff,

Based on what do you make your claim? Knowing the good pople of Alaska (which I don't)as you must ... are you saying that they are vastly different than those who reside in Vermont in that they (Alaskans) feel compelled to do dastardly deeds once armed?

Do YOOOUUU feel that way? (j/k)

If it didn't get so cold (anything less than 70 is cold to me) there, I'd consider a move there based on the scenery, scarcity of people, weather and if I was a rich man.

Alas Alaska. I dream it well.

Adios

spacemanspiff
May 13, 2003, 08:44 PM
an amendment was proposed, as follows:

(C) that is concealed on the person, and, if the
deadly weapon is a handgun, the person has not
completed, at some time preceding the possession, a
handgun course that meets the requirements of
AS 18.65.715 if a course meeting those requirements was
offered within 50 miles of the person's residence when the
person reached 21 years of age or at a time thereafter and
at some time preceding the possession"


5 voted for this, 33 voted against.


the query was placed again, asking to pass this bill, 33 for, 5 against.

its been in the senate now, working on getting passed in there.

spacemanspiff
May 13, 2003, 08:52 PM
Do you have some examples from Vermont to back up your assertion?
no, i was voicing my opinion on the idea that any hotheaded yahoo could be carrying, without having attended and passed a qualification, as well as being possibly unaware of the legal ramifications involved in using a weapon for self defense.

sure, a person could ignore all that information, but without such restrictions in place, how long would it be before a person who misused a concealed weapon blamed his/her actions upon the lack of training/ignorance of laws?

with courts ruling that the gun industry is responsible for murders/suicides, is it too much of a stretch, taking the lack of personal responsibility just a few steps higher?

John Galt
May 13, 2003, 08:58 PM
Spaceman....

Those who are "unstable" or whatever will "carry" irregardless of the law.

Such existing prohibition laws only serve to prohibit those who will always comport themselves in a moral manner.

They also serve to "create criminals" by making perfectly moral behaviour criminal.
For instance, if YOU needed to go down and check your store at 2am and decided to take along a pistol, then got stopped for suspicion of being drunk (2am) you could be sent to jail. You would not have done anything immoral, just illegal.

Just because someone does pay the fees, take classes, do two back flips, this does nothing to show what character they possess. It does not make a potential murderer suddenly become an upstanding citizen.

You are buying into the whole idea of more laws = less crime. That's ridiculous.

Shaggy
May 13, 2003, 09:00 PM
no, i was voicing my opinion on the idea that any hotheaded yahoo could be carrying, without having attended and passed a qualification, as well as being possibly unaware of the legal ramifications involved in using a weapon for self defense.

This just is not an issue. You are making the same case the idiots in Ohio are making to deprive honest people from carrying for defense.

There is no evidense that bears this out. None!!!

And the part if your quote above is also true no matter what the law is. What stops any hotheaded yahoo who has not attended and passed a qualification from carrying and using a gun now without knowing the legal ramifications?

rrader
May 13, 2003, 09:03 PM
spacemanspiff:

""no, i was voicing my opinion on the idea that any hotheaded yahoo could be carrying, without having attended and passed a qualification, as well as being possibly unaware of the legal ramifications involved in using a weapon for self defense.""

So are you saying Alaska should have stronger gun control laws in order to protect people from themselves?

""sure, a person could ignore all that information, but without such restrictions in place, how long would it be before a person who misused a concealed weapon blamed his/her actions upon the lack of training/ignorance of laws?""

They already do and such assertions are no defense against a civil action for negligence (Tort) or a criminal charge.

""with courts ruling that the gun industry is responsible for murders/suicides, is it too much of a stretch, taking the lack of personal responsibility just a few steps higher?""

The pre-emption bill will take care of the wayward juries, and you seem to advocate a governmental approach to training, the opposite of personal responsibility i.e., allowing each firearms owner the choice of deciding whether or not to obtain training.

Voters make poor choices all the time, yet we don't require a literacy test or current affairs training in order to vote.

Standing Wolf
May 13, 2003, 09:04 PM
I think it's an outstanding piece of legislation. As for those who'll abuse it, I'm sure they're the same people who already abuse the law in 1,001 ways. I doubt laws affect criminals much at all, or at least, not before they're caught breaking them.

stevelyn
May 13, 2003, 09:19 PM
spacemanspiff

Your whole argument takes on shades of anti (il) logic. That suddenly without the oversight of the Great Benevolent Father in Juneau, and the hoops to jump through that people are going to become irresponsible. It sounds elitist on the surface.
Responsible citizens are going to be what they have always been, productive, law abiding, responsible Alaskans with an option to protect themselves and their families.
There always have been and will continue to be yahoos that don't have the brains of an animal cracker. That is a fact of life and there is nothing we can do about it.
Current laws regarding criminal and negligent behavior are enough to deal with any forseeable problems that may occurr.
I personally do not want to live in a society so bent on prevention that it stifles freedom and personal responsibility. If you want an example, look at some of the east coast cesspools in the lower 48 and the PRK.
Vermont is evidence enough that you don't have to mass punish your citizenry for the acts of a few.
How many time have we heard the anti's same tired lies everytime a state has moved toward CCW reform? Everytime? We could play a word game with slogans such as "There'll be blood in the streets", Dodge City", "Fender benders will become blood-baths", "the Gunshine State" and numerous others. The truth is, none of it has happened. So I challenge you to show me your evidence that these things are going to happen here.

spacemanspiff
May 13, 2003, 11:34 PM
well thats why i prefaced my comments with 'dont hate me', i knew what i was going to say would be the minority voice around here.

its not necessarily that i would fear more criminal behavior, or BG's with guns, they already have them. its the ignorant that would pick up a gun, use it, not knowing what they really were doing. not realizing when it is lawful to use deadly force.

anyone who has taken the CCW class up here, and probably anywhere, has seen the idiots that dont know the muzzle end from the breach, cant figure out which way those cute bullets are supposed to face, much less to safely handle their weapon.

i dont support stricter laws. i think our existing laws are sufficient. maybe lower the price of the permit and the cost to renew it, thats all i'd like to see. i do support a requirement to take additional safety/marksmanship courses every so often. i say this because i know i could use more training, and who of us wouldnt want to educate ourselves further and train our bodies/minds to be in the best possible fighting shape they could be in?

more guns do equal less crime, but just as i would rather not be put in the position to shield my loved ones from a BG intending to do harm, i also dont wish to have to shield them from a good guy intending to do good.

I personally do not want to live in a society so bent on prevention that it stifles freedom and personal responsibility. If you want an example, look at some of the east coast cesspools in the lower 48 and the PRK.

i dont want stricter laws. our states existing laws in no way stifle the freedom and personal responsibility we all are entitled to. i dont think we'd have 'gunfights at the ok corral', or 'road-rage blood-baths'. i fear we would have people that have barely a passing interest in firearms and absolutely no sense of situational awareness unintentionally placing others in harms way.

Jim March
May 14, 2003, 12:35 AM
Waitasec.

There's a theoretical middle ground between "Vermont" and "shall issue", whereby you don't need a permit, but you DO need to carry proof of graduation from a private safety training program. With this "Vermont with training" system, the state never finds out who's packing but it gives the training in legal use of force and basic gun handling that some favor.

Am I reading this right, that that's where Alaska is now headed with the latest modifications to the bill?

If so, COOL. There's a lot to be said for such a thing. In a place like California where the "gun culture" has been systematically trashed and there's lots of immigration from places with no gun culture at all, I have to say I can see the value of at least 8 to 16 hours of very basic training, but I also know DAMNED well how permits can be misused.

Wildalaska
May 14, 2003, 12:36 AM
The nice thing about our CCW stat here in Alaska is that it mandates some training....as there are many who are clueless entirely about everything, its a help.

I tend to agree with Spiff...what works in Vermont may not work here for reasons that would require far to much space to discuss...suffice it to say, I firmly beleive the regulation of carrying CONCEALED weapons is 100% constitiuoional and if a state chooses to do so (as it does here) thats OK with me. Remember open carry here is legal everywhere...

WildalaskaslikenowhereelseAlaska

atek3
May 14, 2003, 03:03 AM
sorry I'm a 'crazy pro-gunner' I say anything waiting periods, background checks, training requirements, psych evals, are camels noses under the tent. If it would save one life if... (insert the measure here) I still wouldn't give a damn. Because that one life saved would be vastly outweighed by the hundreds or thousands lost by the oppressive gun control that followed. Keep Gun Control at a comfortable level, like umm, no gun control.

Maybe in places like vermont where practically anyone can carry concealed w/o a license, the NRA should step up and offer reduced price gun training to lure local numbnuts into getting trained. Two Benefits, more trained gun owners, and less ammo for the statists to use for their next gun control scheme.

atek3

Jim March
May 14, 2003, 03:24 AM
Long-term, I agree.

There IS at least one advantage to shall-issue: it gives us statistics for use by the likes of John Lott (although we could use some more people in the field PRONTO). And high numbers of permitholders tell the populations of shall-issue states that the "gun nuts" can in fact be trusted, which is why Gore lost almost all the shall-issue states including his home state: his "scapegoating" was too obvious.

A possible second advantage: it tells the .gov exactly how many people are going to feel REALLY screwed if they try anything draconian. We're now out past 5 *million* permitholders, that's enough to give any real screwballs pause.

"Vermont with training" may be politically feasible in some states, and is at least better than shall-issue.

atek3
May 14, 2003, 04:26 AM
Hey Jim, I agree on all counts :)

atek3

another okie
May 14, 2003, 04:43 PM
The answer to your concerns about idiots with guns is universal education in the use of firearms, not restrictions on our right to defend ourselves.

stevelyn
May 14, 2003, 10:48 PM
I could live with a training requirement. Attending a training class or even more than one would be the prudent and responsible thing to do. The information given out in the training classes is tactically valuble and from a legal standpoint gives armed citizens an overview of the criteria that must be met according to the AK Statutes, before employing deadly force. Like any other martial arts training, (yes armed SD IS a martial art) the objective is to avoid the fight, but to win decisively if the fight can't be avoided.
A training requirement IMHO would be no different than the training requirement we have for bowhunters, muzzleloader hunters, and general hunter education for new hunters, and would probably open their eyes to issues they never thought of before. I'm not equating the right to self-defense with the PRIVILEDGE to hunt. I'm just drawing parallels to things that may be new to some folks.
I doubt that those with a passing interest in firearms are suddenly going to become full-time pistol packers. More than likely those people are going to be carrying open while out in the booines or shoved under a car seat on a roadtrip, rather than carrying concealed in urban areas.

I have to agree with Jim March on the availability of statistics if in fact training class records could in fact be used to determine the number of people CCW. It could be used to help fight battles further down the road.

Now for an Alaska Homeland Security resolution like the Montana legislature recently passed........... :D:evil: :D

treeprof
May 15, 2003, 10:13 AM
We have no training requirements or mental competency checks here in Georgia, and we don't have a bunch of CCW permittees running around shooting things up with their concealed weapons. And having lived in both Alaska and Georgia, I can say the proportion of yahoos in the general population is probably about the same in both places. Having said that, I think a prudent person SHOULD get training on their own. But I think stevelyn is right that not many are going to suddenly start carrying. In fact, I'm appalled at the number of people I know with CCW who never carry.

pytron
May 15, 2003, 11:31 AM
Same in Washington -- no training requirement. Just show up and fill out form. Return and pick up license (some offices mail them).

Even though I think it's ridiculous to get a permit for a right, I think that the WA/GA form of permitting is the best of the shall-issue.

Now our repricocity in WA state is terrible. But that's another issue.

-Pytron

Jim March
May 15, 2003, 06:14 PM
I fully realize that states such as WA, ID, GA and at least one of the Dakotas are "shall issue without training" and it works just fine.

But here's a question: if you had a choice between those sorts of programs, where the state knew exactly who has a CCW permit, and a "Vermont with training" program where they DON'T (but you have to carry a training certificate issued privately), which would you prefer?

Me, I'd rather have "Vermont with training".

In WA state, I know the permit runs $60. That's enough to pay for at least 8 hours of training, possibly 16 with class sizes in the 20 to 30 range. Even if the training ends up being more, I'd get more for my money!

Second, "Vermont with training" may be possible to pass via the legislative process in some states, where "pure Vermont" isn't.

Third, there ARE places like California and others where the "gun culture" is currently non-existant and the crime rates are high enough that a sizable fraction of your permitholders are going to have to shoot. I have to maintain that training would be more useful here than in a place like Idaho.

themic
May 15, 2003, 06:44 PM
what about taking your private training certificate to the state, with your ID, and getting an official standard wallet card, but no records are kept and no signatures needed? they just look at your cert, type your name in on a typewriter and laminate it, and you're done. hell, they could even authorize notary publics to do this, and anyone could get it done at a bank or law office.

granted, it'd be hard for many governments to NOT keep records, but notary-style decentralization could fix that.

Justin
May 15, 2003, 07:18 PM
In addition to Vermont, there are a number of states that don't require a training course to get a carry permit. Indiana has a system like this, and I daresay that I'd be hard pressed to come up with evidence of ignorant permit holders wreaking havoc.

Carrying a handgun is a lifestyle choice, and it's been my experience that those who carry a pistol regularly educate themselves regarding the law and how to shoot.

Given that carrying a handgun isn't the easiest thing to do in the world, I wouldn't be surprised to find that those who aren't proactive enough to get educated probably end up deciding to leave their pistol in a drawer or safe instead of carrying it with them.

Mark D
May 15, 2003, 07:33 PM
You can't remove the idiocy from someone with a simple class. They may come away more knowledgeable, but that doesn't mean they are more competent. You can make something "Idiot Proof", but someone will always provide a "Better Idiot" to counter.

If the background check says the applicant is good to go, then so be it. Give them their permit and call it good.

Jim March
May 15, 2003, 08:19 PM
I believe that where there is training, the most valuable portion of said training is the "legal use of deadly force" standards, and warnings about what'll happen if you goof that up.

There's a dead-simple, dirt-cheap way of getting people that training, too, at zero cost. Set up a pool of experienced cops, and let citizens take "ride-alongs" with them for a few hours of personalized instruction. Doesn't cost squat, improves police/community relations, there's no downside.

spacemanspiff
May 20, 2003, 05:46 PM
the minutes arent entered into the system just yet, but it appears that this bill has passed another level and is on its way to the governor.

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/start.asp

search on the above link for: HB 102, and you'll get the full listing of actions involving this bill.

GregoryTech
May 20, 2003, 06:55 PM
Training is an incrediby GOOD idea. Only an idiot would carry a device capable of delivering lethal force without knowing how to safely handle it. On the other hand, it makes terrible LAW.

[Mandatory] training raises the bar, and is a barrier to someone lawfully carrying a weapon. Without coming to a decision on whether it's worth it or not, you can at least acknowledge that it IS a barrier to some. Some people [including those who are otherwise familiar with guns] might work too many hours to take [the required] training. Some people might not have the money [for the required class]. Or others might not have the time to get trained between a perceived threat and an attack. To SOME degree, this is a barrier, an infringement.

That being the case, if you support an infringement for the [purported] betterment of society in general, you should have some pretty compelling reasons. The anti's focus on feelings, on fear, on how hidden guns make them feel [for the reasons for their infringements]. We [can certainly do better and] focus on the facts.

So let's look at the facts. There are enough states in the country that do not require ANY training by law for people to carry concealed guns. GA was mentioned. In addition, I know that PA, VT, NH, and WA do not require training by law. There are five states where the citizens are running around with concealed guns and they did not have to get state mandated training. Permit/license holders in these states are not shooting eachother or anyone else up at alarming rates [or even unalarming rates].

The bottom line is this, there is data out there and it does not support mandatory training. Any support of mandatory training is "feelings" based. There is nothing so compelling about madatory training that I can support this barrier, this infringement to the RKBA.

I'll repeat. Training is an incrediby GOOD idea. Only an idiot would carry a device capable of delivering lethal force without knowing how to safely handle it. But it makes terrible law. Encourage training, YES! Require it by law, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

[clarification edits enclosed in square brackets]

Wildalaska
May 20, 2003, 07:06 PM
Of course the nice thing about a permit is no Brady Bill check, fill out yer yellow form and go home!

WildwhydidIspendthe$99Alaska

jdege
May 20, 2003, 07:32 PM
The primary benefit of a training requirement is that it means that there are more states that will recognize your permit.

Jrob24
May 20, 2003, 07:36 PM
I'm kind of sad to see some Alaskans opposing VT carry. I would be ecstatic if I could have it in my state. Here we need to take a safety course and get a license just to own a gun. If we tried to get rid of the training requirement the antis would scream that there would be a flood of accidental shootings etc... How would those of you in free states feel about taking a course just to OWN a gun? It's the same thing with concealed carry. Don't assume that you are one of a few "elite" who are worthy of carrying. This is a great opportunity to strike a blow against gun control. Please don't pass it up.

Wildalaska
May 20, 2003, 08:54 PM
Well its all academic anyway since I dont think the new law eliminates penalties for carryibng concealed without a permit, its very poorly written.

GregoryTech
May 21, 2003, 09:34 AM
Well its all academic anyway since I dont think the new law eliminates penalties for carryibng concealed without a permit, its very poorly written.

I read it very quickly, but it looks like it does, unless you're under 21.

???

I'm proabably wrong, and I didn't have time to look up the current statute to see how the ammended statutes would read with the revisions.

Anyway, for the reasons I explained above, this is great news. I read this: HB 102 (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=HB0102B&session=23).

GregoryTech
May 21, 2003, 09:37 AM
Vermont with training" may be politically feasible in some states, and is at least better than shall-issue.

I can live with it as a political reality (and I do, I live in FL where there is a training requirement). But I can not support it.

GregoryTech
May 21, 2003, 09:45 AM
Third, there ARE places like California and others where the "gun culture" is currently non-existant and the crime rates are high enough that a sizable fraction of your permitholders are going to have to shoot. I have to maintain that training would be more useful here than in a place like Idaho.

What makes you think that people coming from a place where the gun culture is non-existant would suddenly decide to take up arms, not learn anything about them, and begin to shoot eachother up?

I'd guess very few people without a gun culture background would get a gun. Those that did would generally be responsible enough to get SOME training. And those who didn't wouldn't cause nearly enough of a public hazard to restrict the rights of an entire state's population.

I don't want to start repeating myself, but I very strongly believe in training. I just do not believe in allowing the government to set up a barrier to the RKBA with the phoney excuse of "In the public interest..."

The only way to be free is to take the risk and allow others to be free. Once you try to decide who deserves their rights, someone else will decide if you deserve yours.

TallPine
May 21, 2003, 10:06 AM
The only way to be free is to take the risk and allow others to be free. Once you try to decide who deserves their rights, someone else will decide if you deserve yours.

That sums it all up ...

Wombat
May 21, 2003, 10:28 AM
Bingo!! Winner!! Give that man a kewpie doll !!!

GregoryTech saved the best for last in his series of excellent posts:

"The only way to be free is to take the risk and allow others to be free. Once you try to decide who deserves their rights, someone else will decide if you deserve yours."

Thats where the proverbial rubber meets the proverbial road... gut check time.

spacemanspiff
May 21, 2003, 12:55 PM
Don't assume that you are one of a few "elite" who are worthy of carrying.

while alaska may have decent gun laws and few restrictions, that doesnt mean that our gun-owning citizens are competant with their weapons. drugs and alcohol play a major factor in the majority of negligent/accidental firearm deaths. but after qualifying for the CCW and seeing the amount of people in that class that had no common sense when it came to their weapons, (including a ND - i am 99.9% posititve it was a ND, no one fessed up to whose gun went off on a supposedly cold line when one group was walking away from and another was walking onto the firing line). i am convinced that alaska needs to keep its existing laws. we are not a small elite group. it is estimated betweeen 75000-90000 CHL's have been issued in this state that boasts a population of 623000. know what that boils down to? with 2/3 of the population being over the age of 21 and 2/3 of the population living in the three major cities (anchorage fairbanks juneau) where those who CCW live, (2/3 of 623,000 = 411,180 living in three major cities, and 2/3 of 411,180 being of eligible age= 271,379.
if there are 75,000 permits issued, one in 3.6 who are 21 yrs of age or older, and living in anchorage, fairbanks, and juneau, have been issued a permit. if the figure is 90,000, that figure moves to one in 3.0

GregoryTech
May 21, 2003, 01:21 PM
spacemanspiff,

I had been looking foward to your reply because in the past, you have always seemed impressed with facts. I am surprised and dissapointed that you still support a government imposed training madate. Doing so, despite your experience during your class, is doing so despite the facts. It's based on emotion. It's based on fear. You are afraid of untrained gun-toters because of an unsubstantiated fear of a large number of accidents, so you want the government to solve it for you. Can you see the comparison I draw to Sarah Brady? She is afraid of anyone with a handgun because she believes, without facts to back it up, that their existance is a danger to society. It too is unsubtantiated, and she too wants the goverment to solve it with law. You and she are putting forth the same argument, with the line in the sand being drawn at slightly different points.

Including all the open carry states where no training is mandated, including the 5 or mor states where no training is madated to carry concealed, and including all the long guns owned by all the sports shooters, in 1999 there were still only 776 accidental firearms deaths in the whole country according to the CDC. While tragic, compare that to thousands of deaths by drowning and the thousands of poisoning. You'd be better off calling for mandatory swimming lessons for bathtub or pool installations than mandatory gun training, and they're not constitutionally protected.

I can appreciate your desire to want everyone who carries a gun trained. I share that desire. But for the life of me, I can't understand how you can support the idea that the government should step in here and impose barriers when the facts clearly do not support you.

jdege
May 21, 2003, 01:54 PM
When you get federal reciprocity approved, forcing states to recognize my new Minnesota permit, I'll argue for an end to the training requirement.

Until then, I want the law to mandate training, because without a training requirement, there are fewer states that will recognize my permit.

spacemanspiff
May 21, 2003, 02:03 PM
i can see how the comparison is made between me and sarah brady, but you also must have realized that i have an open mind when it comes to most matters.

when i first bought a gun, i too was unsafe. i knew nothing about firearm safety at home or on the range. i kept wondering why people gave me dirty looks for fiddling with my POS gun while everyone else was downrange.

then i came to TFL. i realized i wanted the respect of fellow gunowners and the only way i would gain such is if i absorbed and applied as much good information as possible from others.

in fact, i wasnt set on carrying concealed when i took the course. i merely wanted to know the legal side and learn what a person should expect if they are forced to defend themselves.

at packing.org, you can view the history of alaskas (and other states i assume) laws and the various revisions made to the statutes involving carrying concealed. we went from qualifying with specifically a revolver or a semi-auto (had to qualify with both if you wanted the option to carry either). or if you qualified with a 9mm, you couldnt carry anything above that caliber. there were also various restrictions involving open carry that have been changed or abolished.
its never been said that alaska has strict gun laws. no one has ever complained that it was 'too difficult' to obtain a CHL. no one has ever said 'alaska needs more lenient CCW laws'.

during my CCW class, we discussed situations where people felt they could/should/would use a weapon. one woman said if anyone came into her home she would shoot, no matter if she could tell who it was or not. she said her family would know better than to come into her house unannounced and unexpected. she didnt seem to care if she killed one of her kids thinking it was a bad guy because she wasnt aware of her target. a more humorous example is when the instructor had one of the women in the class stand up (a petite little asian lass) and had one of the men stand up as well (a short white skinny guy), he said to her, if that man broke into your home would you be justified in killing him if you feared for your life? then he stood up another man, (a tall heavyset black man) and asked her again. the heavyset guy said "well yeah, i'm so much bigger than she is". another guy (redneck) said, 'well you got that 'other' thing as well'. but i digress..
hope that didnt offend anyone, no one in the class was offended by the light jab made concerning race.

Biff
May 21, 2003, 06:02 PM
Just a few concerns about Alaska going to Vermont-style concealed carry:

1. The only state with reciprocity will be Vermont

2. No more background check and 5 day wait waivers for permit holders when purchasing a new gun

3. Five years from now when Gov. Ulmer or Gov. Begich takes office, and all current permits have expired, Senate President Ethan Berkowitz will push through legislation for tough new gun control measures!

spacemanspiff
May 21, 2003, 06:50 PM
actually, reciprocity is for permitees, correct? so a person could still obtain a CHL in alaska and have it recognized in other states. but residents who dont choose to get the license can only practice unlicensed ccw in their own state. thats how i interpret it anyways.

edit - notice the amendment to the weapons statutes still references licensed concealed carry, but also allows an unlicensed person to ccw as long as they inform law enforcement officers of what they are doing when stopped or detained by LEO.

Biff
May 21, 2003, 07:19 PM
Spiff-

OK, I took a good long look at the bill. CCW permits are not affected. It looks to me like this is not Vermont style carry. This bill, instead of lessening legal restrictions actually seems to increase them for non-permittees by allowing the state to charge someone who is carrying concealed without a permit with an additional misdemeanor if they don't let the policeman know they are armed when they are approached by an officer acting in a legal capacity.

Non-permitted concealed carry is still illegal since you still have to fit into the "affirmative defense"criteria that is listed about 1/2 way down the bill, i.e. You are hunting, engaged in outdoor activity that may necessitate you having access to a gun to defend you life, on your own property, etc.

Remember- this bill was brought to you by the same group of politicians who were elected to go to Juneau and cut government's size and budget. Then they get there and propose a sales tax!

TallPine
May 21, 2003, 07:38 PM
To all you folks who insist on the govt requiring handgun training as a prerequisite for CCW ...

how about requiring some child rearing training before being allowed to have intercourse (whether or not it is concealed) ?

Seems like it would do more good. :neener:

spacemanspiff
May 21, 2003, 07:53 PM
biff (whoa, biff and spiff, we'd make a pair, wouldnt we? :D )
it probably wont be long before the remove that part about 'affirmative defense for lawful outdoors activity' once this amendment is passed. i think thats the whole point of it, to make it NOT a crime for a person to carry concealed for protection against 4-legged critters. i may be wrong though.

tallpine, whats so wrong with being required to obtain training with firearms for ccw? it doesnt hurt anyone does it? is it an inconvenience?

Biff
May 21, 2003, 09:26 PM
Spiff- (and other fellow Alaskans)

Prior to the passage of this bill, by law CCW permit holders, and ONLY permit holders were required to tell law enforcement officers, who contacted them in an official capacity, that they were carrying, upon initial contact. If the LEO has to ask, he may cite you for a class 5 misdemeanor, since the information was not volunteered at the outset.

This bill merely placed the same notification requirement on non-permitees who may be carrying concealed under the affirmative defense criterea.

Example #1: Freddie Fisherman normally carries his blue Super Blackhawk openly while fishing. He is near the falls on the Russian River, away from the crowds, when it starts raining. He puts on his raincoat and makes sure to cover up his gun withthe coattail so it stays dry. This is permissible under the affirmative defense statute. The local Fish and Game Trooper is making his way upstream checking fishing licenses. He gets to Freddie and asks to see his fishing license. Freddie says, Sure Officer," and reaches into his back pocket for his wallet. As he is reaching for his wallet, his coat rides up and Tommy Trooper spies the muzzle end of an Uncle Mikes holster. Tommy cites him for failure to notify.

Example #2: Harry Homeowner lives in Mountainview. Since there is gang activity in his neighborhood, he feels it is prudent to be armed at home, so he slips a .38 chiefs into his pants pocket. Since he is in his own home, this is entirely legal. An APD officer is investigating a burglary in the neighborhood and knocks on Harry's door. Harry opens the door. The officer asks him if he has seen any suspicious people or vehicles in the area in the last 3 hours. Harry says, "No sir, officer, I haven't noticed any strange people around, but there is a Hummer that drives through the neighborhood pretty regularly. But I think its owned by a local politician." In the course of the conversation, Officer Tweety notices an unusual bulge in Harry's pants. Officer Tweety asks, "Is that a gun?" Harry answers honestly, "Yes, Sir," and is then arrested for failing to notify.

I'm afraid GOA missed the mark on this one. If you live in Alaska and want to carry concealed, it is advisable to go ahead and get a permit.

(This sounds like a good topic for the Rick Rydell Radio Show)

jdege
May 21, 2003, 11:10 PM
Failure to notify is a really bad idea.

Especially when it has some sort of "immediately" provision.

Required to tell when asked, yes. But subject to penalties if you volunteer it early enough?

Absurd.

GregoryTech
May 22, 2003, 09:08 AM
can see how the comparison is made between me and sarah brady

Doesn't that bother you?

Doesn't it bother you that you no longer have standing to argue against gun control? If an anti-gunner claims that a state shouldn't pass a CWL law because more guns means more crime, and you try to argue "not true, look at the facts" you have no standing to do so because you yourself ignore the facts in support of a (mild) gun control position. If an anti-gunner wants all handguns banned because he's afraid of them, you can't argue that criminals would still get them and that unarmed victims are worse off, just look at NYC, DC, and Chicago, because if facts don't matter to you when deciding gun policy, you can't arbitrarily decide that they do and have any credibility.

Doesn't that bother you?

whats so wrong with being required to obtain training with firearms for ccw? it doesnt hurt anyone does it?

Yes, like any other gun control, it kills people. See my first post. There are people who are otherwise familiar with guns who can't afford the state-mandated training or who can't take the time off work. These people are disarmed by your policy.

Besides, it's the wrong question. Since you are arguing for a (mild) gun control measure, it is your responsibility to prove that it is worth it, not the other way around.

spacemanspiff
May 22, 2003, 12:58 PM
gregory, following are some of my previous comments in this thread:

dont hate me, but i think its a bad idea. only because of the amount of true idiots that have no idea whatsoever how to handle, carry, or even use a firearm that may then try to carry concealed.

no, i was voicing my opinion on the idea that any hotheaded yahoo could be carrying, without having attended and passed a qualification, as well as being possibly unaware of the legal ramifications involved in using a weapon for self defense.

ts not necessarily that i would fear more criminal behavior, or BG's with guns, they already have them. its the ignorant that would pick up a gun, use it, not knowing what they really were doing. not realizing when it is lawful to use deadly force.

more guns do equal less crime, but just as i would rather not be put in the position to shield my loved ones from a BG intending to do harm, i also dont wish to have to shield them from a good guy intending to do good.
i am not arguing for gun control. having to qualify for accuracy and learning what the laws are involving a self defense shooting does not put a person at any inconvenience, IMHO.
note that i am not concerned with BG's who are armed in this context, it is the idiots who think they know what they are doing but really dont. for that matter, i likely fall into that category as well, i know i need more practice.

if a person cant set aside money for the fees to obtain a CCW, thats likely a financial problem that they could resolve. up here, the training course costs $75-$100, that includes your photos and fingerprint cards, and then you submit that with $100 to the state to process your application. a person will spend no more than $200 to get their CHL.
but is that the end of the expense to carry concealed? not for me. i've spent many hundreds after that on belts, holsters, mag carriers, spare magazines, ammo, clothes that are able to help conceal the weapon better.

the difference between what i am arguing for and what the antis argue for, is that i dont want STRICTER laws, i want to keep the existing laws.

GregoryTech
May 22, 2003, 01:56 PM
dont hate me, but i think its a bad idea. only because of the amount of true idiots that have no idea whatsoever how to handle, carry, or even use a firearm that may then try to carry concealed.

no, i was voicing my opinion on the idea that any hotheaded yahoo could be carrying, without having attended and passed a qualification, as well as being possibly unaware of the legal ramifications involved in using a weapon for self defense.

ts not necessarily that i would fear more criminal behavior, or BG's with guns, they already have them. its the ignorant that would pick up a gun, use it, not knowing what they really were doing. not realizing when it is lawful to use deadly force. [how many is that?]

more guns do equal less crime, but just as i would rather not be put in the position to shield my loved ones from a BG intending to do harm, i also dont wish to have to shield them from a good guy intending to do good.[how likely is that?]

You're still doing it. Nothing you said is based in facts. "I think", "I feel", and "I fear" points only. If you want facts, they're available.

I am not arguing for gun control

Yes you are. You may not mean it like that, but arguing for keeping a stricter government control on who gets to carry a gun is an argument for gun control, even if you believe it's unobtrusive.

having to qualify for accuracy and learning what the laws are involving a self defense shooting does not put a person at any inconvenience

Except those people that don't have the time or money to take the state mandated version of it.

if a person cant set aside money for the fees to obtain a CCW, thats likely a financial problem that they could resolve

Says you. There are people in many different financial situations, I would never make that assumption. How about shif workers who work during the state-mandated type training courses?

up here, the training course costs $75-$100, that includes your photos and fingerprint cards, and then you submit that with $100 to the state to process your application. a person will spend no more than $200 to get their CHL.
but is that the end of the expense to carry concealed? not for me. i've spent many hundreds after that on belts, holsters, mag carriers, spare magazines, ammo, clothes that are able to help conceal the weapon better

Someone who can't afford all those things does not have the right to self defense? What if she learned how to safely handle a gun from her dad and has been shooting since age 12, was bequethed a handgun by her dad, and works the night shift in a scary part of town for minimum wage to feed 2 kids? You'd rather she not have the right to self defense?

the difference between what i am arguing for and what the antis argue for, is that i dont want STRICTER laws, i want to keep the existing laws.

But you're using their arguments, thus losing credibility and the ability to use facts in your future arguments with THEM.

spacemanspiff
May 22, 2003, 02:37 PM
Nothing you said is based in facts. "I think", "I feel", and "I fear" points only. If you want facts, they're available
i havent been making arguments based on fact, i'm using my opinions. i do think for myself, you know. :D
but arguing for keeping a stricter government control on who gets to carry a gun
i am not arguing on WHO gets to carry a gun, these same people would also have to fit the legal requirements to own a gun, correct? we arent talking about letting criminals carry concealed, we are talking about law abiding citizens who have to take simple steps to ensure the safety of everyone.
There are people in many different financial situations, I would never make that assumption. How about shif workers who work during the state-mandated type training courses?
instructors up here offer courses at various times of day and will work with the applicant. you can take the course in one day (usually a saturday or sunday) or split it up between two evenings. the instructors are flexible. i wouldnt make the assumption that a person would never be able to change his/her schedule in the interests of their ability to defend themselves.
Someone who can't afford all those things does not have the right to self defense?
i never said that. i never even hinted at that. but if you are so concerned with their well being, why dont you post an ad in the classifieds offering to front the money for the courses and time lost from work so they can obtain the permits? put your money where your mouth is.


the funny thing is, when people started the battle to make CCW legal, getting trained and informed of the legal issues was a good thing. now its "intrusive" and an "obstruction of a persons right to self defense" and "inconvenient because someone has to miss work or cut back on beer and cigarettes to afford them".
gregorytech, no offense, but so far all your arguments seem petty. a person who cant make time in their schedule to educate themselves and prove their qualifications. a person who cant afford the cost of the permit but can afford to buy a gun and ammo.

tell me, out of the 776 accidental firearm deaths in 1999, how many of those were preventable? if you said '776', you are absolutely correct. how do you prevent such deaths? first off, behaving responsibly with firearms. second, how does a person learn to be responsible? none other than by being educated.

i feel that if every gunowner VOLUNTEERED to take a safety course each year, that number of accidental deaths would drop, possibly all the way down to zero.

GregoryTech
May 22, 2003, 02:43 PM
:banghead:

Wildalaska
May 22, 2003, 02:58 PM
Right on Spiff.....

WildthumbsupAlaska

spacemanspiff
May 22, 2003, 03:01 PM
aww come on now....arguing with me is not at all like banging your head against a brick wall. i'm much softer than brick.

as gun-friendly as our state is, its residents dont quite operate with a full deck of cards, know what i mean? ;)

GregoryTech
May 22, 2003, 03:11 PM
tell me, out of the 776 accidental firearm deaths in 1999, how many of those were preventable? if you said '776', you are absolutely correct. how do you prevent such deaths? first off, behaving responsibly with firearms. second, how does a person learn to be responsible? none other than by being educated

Ok, you tell me, since you are in favor of state mandated training, how many of these 776 accidents were by people who had permits but no state mandated training, and thus would have been prevented by your mandate?

I'll finish my participation in this thread with by saying again, that training is a vital part of carrying a gun. Only an idiot would carry a device capable of lethal force without knowing how to use it. But giving the power to the government to dictate those terms is dangerous business, unconstitutional, and as proven by the facts, unnecessary.

spacemanspiff
May 22, 2003, 03:29 PM
you know what training the state says a person has to have up here? a 12 hour course. half that is spent going over the legalities with the assistance of the district attorneys office. the other half is spent at the range.
to qualify on the range, the shooter must put a minimum of 8 out of ten shots into a silhouette at 7 yards, and another 8 out of ten at 15 yards. the rest of the time we spent doing one handed drills, weak hand drills, double taps with one in the head, demonstrations on tap-rack-bang, weapon retention, point shooting, shooting while moving horizontal to target, and lowlight drills with flashlights. we also were instructed on simple firearm maintenance, how often to clean, how to disassemble the weapon, etc.

pardon me if i dont find that in any way 'unconstitutional', 'dangerous', or 'unnecessary'.

GregoryTech
May 22, 2003, 03:43 PM
Ok, ok, from the sound of it, the people of Alaska are more dangerous than the people in NH, VT, PA, WA, and GA. And ME, NM, AZ, VA (among others) where open carry requires no training.

Alaskans should be required by their government to get training. In fact, 12 hours isn't nearly enough. I am going to write your legislature and ask that they double the training requirements. Why? More training means more safe and more responsible. Actually, I'll ask that they triple the requirements. Only then will I trust you Alaskans with a gun.

GregoryTech/OUT

pytron
May 22, 2003, 03:44 PM
I agree with GregoryTech and disagree with the Alaskans. Please excuse the following rant, it is not a personal attack, but merely a voicing of my frustrations.

I agree that it is idiotic, dangerous, stupid, etc, etc, etc. to carry without having any training.

However, just like I feel that concealed carry permits are unconstitutional and violate my right to keep and BEAR arms, I feel that mandated training is also unconstitutional.

I don't care if all you have to do is watch a video or take a ridiculously easy class. It is still unconstitutional and a barrier to the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

I do find it dangerous, just like the permits, when time is critical. For instance, a woman who recently filed for divorce because of physical abuse.

It is dangerous for her to wait 5 days to "cool off" before she can purchase her pistol.

It is dangerous for her to wait so she can then schedule her permit class two weeks from now and get a baby-sitter for the entire weekend.

It is dangerous for her to wait 30 days until her permit clears.

This is only one case where I find permits & training requirements dangerous, unconstitutional and unnecessary.

-Pytron

Biff
May 22, 2003, 04:37 PM
Just a stupid suggestion here....

What if firearms safety and familiarization were a required course in all public high schools?

After all, most states offer Driver's Ed in school.

Many schools hand out condoms on the basis that,"The kids are going to be exposed to sex anyway!"

Battler
May 22, 2003, 04:49 PM
Permits are meant to inconvenience those who would exercise the right (or as they see it, privelege). As an anti-gun person if the permit should be $100 or $200. Ask an anti-gun person if it should be 10 hours training or 20.

Think of someone who does something you don't like/approve of. Wouldn't you like THEM to have to get a permit or go to jail?

spacemanspiff
May 22, 2003, 05:07 PM
really gregory?? you'd do that? you are a super guy. :D

lighten up folks. take a couple happy pills. all we have is a difference of opinion.

Henry Bowman
May 22, 2003, 05:11 PM
I know for a fact that WA and PA do not require any training and are true "shall issue." There may be others (including VT). I have not heard of these states having more idiots-doing-stupid-things-with-guns than any other.

Wildalaska
May 22, 2003, 05:17 PM
There is no training necessary necessary in Alaska for open carry.

There is no constituional right to carry a CONCEALED firearm. Even if there was, training would pass contstitutional muster.

And felons may be deprived of any right to bear arms too!:neener:

WildenufsaidAlaska

pytron
May 22, 2003, 05:25 PM
I hesitate to respond, because I feel I will be just fanning the flames, but here I go. :D

There is no constitutional right to carry a CONCEALED firearm. Even if there was, training would pass constitutional muster.

I agree, just as there is no constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Rather, the constitution simply defends a God-given right. The constitution does not give rights, it merely protects them.

I'd love to see the passage in the constitution where the power to regulate concealed firearms is given to the government.

Concealed or not, makes not a bit of difference. I didn't see "open carry" in the second amendment, do you? ;)

Felons are their own subject.

-Pytron

spacemanspiff
May 22, 2003, 05:30 PM
are you saying that the government only (or should only) have powers described in the Constitution? if so, where is it written that sales and consumption of alcohol or tobacco is legal only for consumers over a certain age? where is it written that a person must be a certain age to engage in sexual intercourse? where is it written that drugs are illegal in the constitution?

jdege
May 22, 2003, 05:48 PM
Yes, the government should be limited to those powers granted to it explicitly. At least the federal government should.

As for federal laws regarding alcohol sales and consumption? If the sale doesn't cross state lines, it's none of the feds' business.

pytron
May 22, 2003, 06:06 PM
I'm not going to dive into the other powers. Let's just look at the second ammendment. The part that says "Shall not be infringed". It seems to me that regulating concealed carry would be infringing on the right to bear arms. That is my beef with concealed carry permits, training or not.

I guess getting rid of the training requirement is making it "less unconstitutional" :D

I used to feel the same way you did about mandatory training. I also believed that permits were a good thing. But I've come to realize that both of these are serious infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excellent quote I have printed out and put in my cube from GregoryTech earlier in this thread:

The only way to be free is to take the risk and allow others to be free. Once you try to decide who deserves their rights, someone else will decide if you deserve yours.

-Pytron

PS. I noticed there was no rebuttal of my hypothetical divorcee scenario. I would love to hear any.

spacemanspiff
May 22, 2003, 06:32 PM
figured there was enough anectdotal examples that it wasnt necessary, but i'll indulge you.

i'll use my states laws/statutes:
1. no waiting period.
2. nics background check is almost always approved within minutes.
3. gunshop staff would be more than willing to advise what the laws are regarding open carry, concealed carry, as well as informing her that in her own home she doesnt need a license to conceal.

or she could carry concealed illegally, and should she have to use deadly force to defend herself, its very unlikely that any charges would be brought up against her.


but that scenario is flawed to begin with. far too often a woman will stay with an abusive husband because her emotions cloud her logic. she may feel that she 'needs' him and that 'he will change'. i know women that are in this type of abusive situation, and after a while, you start to stop feeling sorry for the woman that CHOOSES to stay in the relationship even though it puts her safety and that of her children at risk.

pytron
May 22, 2003, 06:46 PM
I will use the classic "defense by 1,000 questions": :D

Basically, "the law doesn't permit you to carry concealed so just break the law because you probably won't be prosecuted."

How are you supposed to be a law-abiding citizen and defend yourself? Don't you see the infringement of rights? Why is it any different when she is at home than when she is in her car or picking up her kids from daycare? The obvious rebuttal is that those are "public places". Well, why is her right to self-defense any less important in public? How is she infringing on the rights of others by carrying a concealed pistol that they don't even know about? And what is the difference after she gets a scrap of paper saying "you have permission"?

-Pytron

GregoryTech
May 22, 2003, 08:00 PM
There is no training necessary necessary in Alaska for open carry.

Ok, now we're bordering on the absurd. You're okay with your fellow Alaskans carrying openly without state madated training, but untuck his shirt and you're uncomfortable?

Wildalaska
May 22, 2003, 08:17 PM
You're okay with your fellow Alaskans carrying openly without state madated training, but untuck his shirt and you're uncomfortable?

Yep...

A. I can see him/her coming
B. Its a rural bear protection thing, and people do it generally for the right reasons...now get ready..
C. There aint no macho psychological needs involved...open carry in the field doesnt make me concerned about mall ninjaism.

If someone is humpin a concealed weapon around me, I want the peace of mind, little as that may be, knowing he at least knows what hes supposed to do.

spacemanspiff
May 22, 2003, 08:18 PM
well pytron, i suppose it comes down to how we interpret and define the piece of paper that allows us to carry concealed.

you see it as "permission" granted by a tyrannical government authority (or is that an exaggeration?)
i see it as "qualification" recognized by a state agency.
besides, arent you forgetting that a firearm is our Last Resort? dont we have other avenues available? oc-spray, edged weapons, etc? just because a person has to wait to get a ccw doesnt mean they are completely defenseless. the firearm is a tool. not a cure-all.

GregoryTech
May 22, 2003, 08:29 PM
If someone is humpin a concealed weapon around me, I want the peace of mind, little as that may be, knowing he at least knows what hes supposed to do.

But if the very same guy, tucks his shirt to expose his gun it wouldn't bother you... Interesting.

Or, said another way, the state mandated training makes you feel better about other people with concealed guns. Fine, as long as you realize the credibility issues you cause with that position.

Lastly, the class is not going to guarantee that he knows what to do. Irresponsible people are going to remain irresponsible, responsible people are going to remain responsible. Class or no. Law or no.

Accidental drowing and poisoning take thousands of more lives each year in this country. You should be more concerned about the Clorox Bleach under the counter at your favorite restaurant than the gun in the pocket of the guy sitting next to you.

pytron
May 23, 2003, 10:56 AM
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Here is what I think it comes down to (I am attributing things to "You" which is the Spiff/Wild collective, because it's easier to read :D ):

We are both not comfortable with untrained people carrying concealed weapons. You want to mandate state training. I want to remove the training requirement.
We are both not happy that a person in critical need of carrying concealed would have to do it unlawfully. You advocate breaking the law. I advocate repealing the law.
We are both okay with people carrying openly. You are unconfortable if they untuck their shirt. I could care less.
We both agree that a firearm is not the ONLY self-defense tool. You believe it should be specially regulated. I believe it is just a particular tool, and should not be regulated.
You think that government training helps provide a bit of safety to others. I believe that it is just another barrier provided by the antis.


I think that about sums it up.

-Pytron

Battler
May 23, 2003, 12:11 PM
What I DO know is that one day we'll be having this same argument over licencing requirements to OWN.

"I don't want my neighbor shooting me through his wall".

<sigh>

When obstacles designed to discourage participation become encouraged by their victims, an anti-gun victory has truly been consolidated.

If you enjoyed reading about "WOOHOO! Alaska on it's way to VT style CCW Reform" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!