Official...All Alaska Goes Vermont Style

Wildalaska

August 23, 2003, 01:02 PM

Yeah......Backfire just like it has in Vermont for the last 100 years.

Come on Steve, your in LE right...you know there is a difference between Alaska and Vermont...

Wild thinks everyone in Alaska but him (and maybe Spiff) are too dangerous and ignorant to be able to carry a gun responsibly.

I think that is an (expected) mischaracterization...

Blood will be flowing in the streets, the rivers will run red, the population will be reduced by half.......is that a bad thing?

Not if I get to pick the half that goes,,, :)

why would a normal person go around carrying a SAWED OFF SHOTGUN on their person????

You havent been to Alaska I can tell...the reason is called....Bears...

OK maybe not in the city..how about this premise before I put my tinfoil hat on...

Its normal to carry a weapon for self defense concealed. I choose (rhetorically) to do a sawed off shotgun. Its abnormal IMHO to walk into a public building carrying a long gun simply to make some silly immature point...

WildaowAlaska

Keith

August 23, 2003, 01:14 PM

Nope its just gonna backfire but hey dont say I didnt warn about it...

Wild,

Do you think Alaskans are stupid, or just more stupid (stupider?) than Vermonters? I'm not aware of any rampant insanity associated with the carrying of weapons in Vermont without the specific blessing of a state bureaucrat and the card that demonstrates that fact.

No doubt (just because it's a new thing), there will be a couple of knucklehead incidents - and those incidents will be prominently played by the local media. The local talking heads are already practicing their sourest and most disapproving, pursed-lipped scowls in readiness for that incident.

But, it will pass and in a year from now nobody will give it a second thought - just like in Vermont!

Keith

Geech

August 23, 2003, 01:23 PM

Why do you think it will backfire, Alaska?

Wildalaska

August 23, 2003, 02:51 PM

Keith and Geech, (and Keith you know this since you live here), Vermont is a homogenous, middle/upperclass "Yankee" state with strong traditional values and not a large influx of transient people.....

Anchorage (primarily) is a small microcosm of American society...we have a great number of lumpen here...I think there is a certain segment of society here who never had the cojones to carry a gun becasue it would be "illegal", but never wanted to get a permit because of perhaps their past...now these people will be carrying..

I live in one of the "bad" areas, I know what some of these bozos are like....

Couple that to the fact that our local newspaper I consider to be stridently liberal and anti gun, so every shooting in Mountainview is gonna be becasue of the new law...

I have concerns..and we as a matter of course are gonna urge everyone to get training......

And its not a question of the second amendment becasue I dont think that covers CONCEALED firearms....

WildBHPundermyarmAlaska

Keith

August 23, 2003, 03:02 PM

I think there is a certain segment of society here who never had the cojones to carry a gun becasue it would be "illegal", but never wanted to get a permit because of perhaps their past...now these people will be carrying..

If they can't carry now because of their "past", then they won't be able to carry after September 11th either. Nothing has changed.

And its not a question of the second amendment becasue I dont think that covers CONCEALED firearms....

What do you think "shall not be infringed" means? Is concealed carry a method of "bearing arms"? If you limit that right, are you not infringing on the bearing of arms?

There is no asterisk in the second amendment. It says what it means and it means what it says.

If you're worried about criminals with guns, then carry a gun to defend yourself.

Keith

Cosmoline

August 23, 2003, 03:18 PM

Wild, are you even FROM here?! I've seem plenty of people walk into stores with firearms. I walk into gun stores with uncased long guns all the time.

And Wild, what makes you think that the state's modifications to its CCW laws will impact the muni's own laws? From all I've heard, they won't. So CCW without a permit will still be a crime in MOuntainview, which will no doubt protect you from all the swarthy nogoodnicks :rolleyes:

Desertdog

August 23, 2003, 03:37 PM

Blood will be flowing in the streets, the rivers will run red, the population will be reduced by half.......
Just like in Vermont??

I want to see the statistics of rape, robbery, and murder at the end of 30 days, 90 days, 6 months, and 1 year after September 9 (or 11).

Sergeant Bob

August 23, 2003, 04:10 PM

Desertdog Just like in Vermont??

[Bad joke]Blood will be flowing in the streets, the rivers will run red, the population will be reduced by half....... [/Bad joke]

suijurisfreeman

August 23, 2003, 05:31 PM

After reading this thread, I now have a better understanding of Wildalaska's posts to my threads! I'll be doing some more checking on his previous posts! Perhaps some 'scouting' would have been in order before I entered the territory!

I'm somewhat confused though, Alaska's Bill of Rights, Section 1:19 states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State." Since Alaska's Bill of Rights is the people's prior reservation of their inherent and inalienable rights where is the lawful authority of the Legislature to regulate the keeping or bearing or arms? Where in the 'Home Rule Powers' do towns or cities have the lawful authority to regulate the right to keep and bear arms, if the Alaska Legislature doesn't have the lawful authority delegated to it by the people then where do 'political sub-divisions thereof get the lawful authority?

Looking at Georgia's Bill of Rights, Section I, Paragraph VII: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne." Here it is self-evident that the lawful authority was delegated to the General Assembly to 'regulate the manner in which arms may be borne.'

Looking at Idaho's Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 11: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, not prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." Here it is self-evident that the lawful authority was delegated to the Legislature to 'pass legislation providing penalties for possession of firearms by a convicted felon.' I believe that this is the only State's Bill of Rights to do so! I can't help but wonder if all of those State's can lawfully punish 'convicted felons' from possessing a firearm - Constitutionally speaking of course?!

In the story printed in the Kenai Peninsula Clarion it stated, "When a new state law goes into effect September 9, Alaskans no longer will need a permit to carry a concealed weapon ....." My question would be, by what lawful authority did the Alaskan Legislature pass any 'law' requiring CCW in the first place? Where in the Bill of Rights or Constitution were they delegated that lawful authority? Without that lawful delegation of authority any 'law' passed by the Legislature would only amount to 'color of law', a de facto law that lacks the force and effect of law! If we are going to have 'government', then that government must be held to the rule of law beginning with the fundametal law, the Bill of Rights and Constitution!

Wildalaska

August 24, 2003, 01:54 AM

What do you think "shall not be infringed" means? Is concealed carry a method of "bearing arms"? If you limit that right, are you not infringing on the bearing of arms?

Keith until the Supreme Court has ruled, there is no established constituional right to carry concealed. Neither you nor I interpret the constitution, the Court does. I think that a far more cogent argument can be made that even if there is an individual right to keep and bear arms that is applicable to the states, that right does not cover concealed weapons vis a vis that it does. But thats the subject for another thread, and a complex one it would be, carrying with it historical analysis as well as legal analysis...

By the way this is interestinghttp://www.claytoncramer.com/duelinganddeliverance.pdf

If they can't carry now because of their "past", then they won't be able to carry after September 11th either. Nothing has changed.

Notice I didnt sday that these people COULD NOT get a permit becasue of their past, only that becasue of their past they may not want to...I am sure that there are numerous yahoos who are not willing to expose themselves to police scrutiny in order to get a permit..now these people can carry willy nilly....

Wild, are you even FROM here?! I've seem plenty of people walk into stores with firearms. I walk into gun stores with uncased long guns all the time.

Yep..live right in Spenard....you know where that ius...the same neighborhood wjhere you had to draw your gun in a motel right??

Now come on Cosmo, are you gtonna walk into Nordstroms carrying an AR 15? How about Safeway/Carrs...strap on an M1A and shop for veggies?

I see guys walk into gun stores every day, every single day, with uncased guns...thats not the same as walking through the 5th Avenue mall with an AK....what would be the point of doing that?

And Wild, what makes you think that the state's modifications to its CCW laws will impact the muni's own laws? From all I've heard, they won't. So CCW without a permit will still be a crime in MOuntainview, which will no doubt protect you from all the swarthy nogoodnicks

Already settled...Anchorage permit requirements are no longer apllicable...and not all the no goodnicks are swarthy.....

Suijurisfreeman, my suggestion is that you study up on case law.....

WildreadthelawAlaska

spacemanspiff

August 24, 2003, 02:43 AM

Wild thinks everyone in Alaska but him (and maybe Spiff) are too dangerous and ignorant to be able to carry a gun responsibly.

okay, my turn to speak. the issue is NOT that people like me or wildalaska dont trust our citizens to carry a weapon. it is that we dont trust people to educate themselves about when deadly force will be necessary.
almost every one i've heard/read that has taken a CCW course has commented on the yahoos who ask over and over "well if i see someone who looks at me funny, can i shoot em?"
in my class one woman said "anyone comes into my home i'm gonna shoot. dont need to know who they are, they gonna be dead." instructor says "but if you cant see the person you are shooting, how do you know you arent endangering a friend or family member?" woman says " dont matter, they should know better. i'm gonna shoot."

another person says "well i can shoot if i see someone getting in to my carport and breaking into my car, right?" instructor says "is the carport attached to your home? is your life endangered? or just your property?"

and if you notice how many people on the CCW course have a difficult time qualifying on silhouette targets, do you really want every yahoo to carry a gun thinking they are marksmen when in fact they are not?

with the CCW course, people sign off on their application "yes, i took a course that covered state law regarding weapons offenses, deadly force, and qualified for accuracy, shooting twenty rounds into a silhouette from 7 feet and 15 feet."
if they slept through the CCW course, they still signed off to the state saying they are prepared to face the consequences. without such a provision, there will be accidents and negligence. and who will they blame?

cosmo, you live out in the valley, right? i read the troopers blotter occasionally from out there. i have an idea of what kind of yahoos are your neighbors.
keith, you are in kodiak, right? your experiences with citizens carrying weapons are more often for protection from four-legged beasts, right? how many native alaskans carry a gun for protection from 2-legged vermin?
here in anchorage it is a very different story.
we have repeated sexual assaults on our bike trails. fast food restaurants getting held up. spenard 'divorces'. a newspaper that runs an article about 'how to protect your business from robbery'. yet the entire article advocates complying with the BG's, and says really nothing about prevention. our media hesitantly acknowledges responsible concealed carry, and is quick to advocate that everyone behave like sheep and comply with bad guys demands.

gunsmith

August 24, 2003, 03:29 AM

thats not the same as walking through the 5th Avenue mall with an AK....what would be the point of doing that?
That sounds like a great conversation starter!
Like that guy said when asked "why did you climb mt Everest"
answr-"because it's there"...
It makes more tactical sense to keep your short barrelled
shotgun concealed,but it just seems like,um,er,uhFUN to walk thru the GAP orSPRINT or other corporations which have
given $$$ to anti gun org's and watch them squirm.
Often I am asked by anti's why I "need" a gun I answer
why do they "need" a free press, "need" to go to church or not,
"need" to disagree with a president, "need" to write a letter
to the editor or "need" not to be locked up and possessions
taken by the state without due process.
The RKBA is GOD GIVEN.
So are the other rights in the B.O.R
I dont have to prove "need"
it angers me the state imposes a permit for my GOD GIVEN rights.
This whole question of whether the sheeple will get their
undies in a twist cause some one went shopping with
an Uzi reminds me of the lame arguments about
letting blacks eat at whites only diners and go to the same schools.
...after the novelty wears off people will go back to wearing comfortabe
compact Glocks & Rugers sp101's and only bring the machine gun in the bank with them if they are worried it may get stolen if left in the pick up.
It felt great to vacation in AZ last year and not have to be concerned
about risking jail for enjoying my right to carry open.
The sheeple need to see responsible gun ownership!

Wildalaska

August 24, 2003, 04:24 AM

,but it just seems like,um,er,uhFUN to walk thru the GAP orSPRINT or other corporations which have given $$$ to anti gun org's and watch them squirm.

Sorry I dont use or carry guns to make anyone "squirm"....nor should any responsible gun owner

The RKBA is GOD GIVEN.

Yeah, OK...gonna find that in the Bible I guess....:rolleyes:

The sheeple need to see responsible gun ownership!

I dont think that Alaskans are "sheeple" whatever that silly word means...

Hey Keith, Spiff youse guys sheeple?

WildgotanewswedemausertodayAlaska

stevelyn

August 24, 2003, 08:29 AM

Wild,

Yes, I'm in LE and have been all my adult life from the military to civilian. My assignments have been primarily bush. Although my tour of duty has me in the eastern Aleutians, I'm actually a Fairbanksan and my point of view is based on that. All of the communities I've worked in including the present one is/are/have been armed to the teeth. Everyday I see 4-wheelers, snowmachines, boats, whatever driven or ridden by people with rifles, shotguns or handguns hanging off them or their equipment. These people are not going to be anymore of a threat if these guns are hidden. Myself nor anyone on my department sees this as a problem.
One of your posts has given away the other half the story and that you reside/work in Spenard. Well no wonder you say the things you do. Everybody knows Spenard's reputation of being the armpit of Anchorage....okay Mountain View is the other armpit and Anchorage is an armpit of Seattle. But like any larger city that has bad sections Anchorage has to have one too. Spenard's and Mountain Views populations ARE NOT representitive of the rest of the population of Alaska. The best thing that could happen to Spenard would be to evacuate the friendlies, and call in an airstrike from the guys at Elmendorf.
Now one the things you have pointed out is VT's homogenous society. I don't see VT as being anymore homogenous than AK (urban vs rural is a red herring). VT has had an influx of immigrants from MA moving in there over the years and I'm willing to bet the only thing they have in common is economics.
Another thing you pointed out, is that there are people who may want to carry, but didn't get the permit because they didn't want the scrutiny of law enforcement. I can promise you this, if that is indeed the case, they are probably carrying anyway. More than likely if there is something that would keep them from being issued a permit, they are prohibited from legally obtaining and possessing firearms in the first place.
As far as increased numbers of people actually carrying on the street, I doubt that in practice it will change much. What will change is the number of vehicles that have concealed handguns in them. Pariculary those making the trip between ANC-FAI-Valdez. Personally the last thing I would want is to be broke down somewhere on the Parks, Glenn, or Richardson Hwys miles from anywhere and not have a means of self-defense. A lot of people are reluctant to put a handgun in a vehicle even on a long trip because it would only take one over-zealous trooper on a seatbelt stop to get you a non-existent or at the least a BS weapons charge for having it under a seat or in a console. The new law eliminates that possibility and only holds you accountable for your own misconduct in actual use of the weapon.

If you want to do something about illegal or stupid gun use, start pushing your legislator to follow Gov. Murkowski's lead and eliminate the self defense issue with the druggers and gang-bangers. These guys show up armed for a shootout in a parking lot and none of them can get convicted because they all claim self defense and the court buys it. I'm sorry, you come armed with your buds to a pre-planned gunfight, that is not self defense, it's a battle plan.

suijurisfreeman

August 24, 2003, 09:01 AM

Wildalaska,
>Suijurisfreeman, my suggestion is that you study up on case law ...<

I'm scratching my head, which takes precedent, 'case law' or the Bill of Rights and/or Constitution? In Kentucky it's self-evident, Bill of Rights, Section 26, "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegaged, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."

I think that will about finish my 'lesson' on case law for today!

The flow chart of the people's sovereign power looks like this, the sovereign people are at the top, their inherent and inalienable rights are expressed in a Bill of Rights, a Constitution delegating a limited portion of their sovereign power to their State government, a State Legislature that has lawful authority to pass laws that conform to both the Bill of Rights and Constitution and on down the line .....

Again a brief quote from the book, "Our Government", "Nothing is more vital to you and me than our personal freedom. No part of the Constitution is more important than the Bill of Rights, which safeguards that freedom of worship, liberty of speech and of press, right of trial by jury, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the other recognized guarantees of individual freedom. As long as the Bill of Rights remains effective, our liberties are secure."
"Our laws are of three kinds, listed in the order of their superiority. 1. Constitutional 2. Statutory 3. 'The Common Law'. As has already been shown, Constitutional Law is the fundamental law. It is contained in a single document comparatively brief in words but broad in aspect. It declares principles rather than practices. It is concerned with doctrines rather than details. It is the foundation upon which the whole struture of our government rests. While constitutional law is capable of change, changes come slowly and this is to be desired; it is a protection against whim and caprice. Our constitution confers upon the Legislature the authority to enact the second kind of laws - statutes, which furnich the practices and the details of government. Since members of the Legislature are elected directly by the people, for limited terms, the influence of the people in the enactment of statutes is seen to be significant. The third kind of laws are not found in a single document or in a written code or compilation. They are expressed in the 'Common Law', established by precedents and maintained by judicial decisions. "

That pretty much sums up what a limited Constitutional Republic is all about! Number 1 is Constitutional Law, Number 2 is Statutes and coming in a distant Thrid is 'case law'!

Keith

August 24, 2003, 01:12 PM

Keith until the Supreme Court has ruled, there is no established constituional right to carry concealed. Neither you nor I interpret the constitution, the Court does.

Wild,

You and I have a very fundamental difference in how we view the constitution. I think the founders would be surprised (and appalled) that many today think their clear statements to be above the understanding of the common man; that each word has to be analyzed and "interpreted" by teams of lawyers to discern the intent.

We also have a fundamental difference in how we view our fellow citizens. I think the vast majority are decent people who will refrain from engaging in a blood bath even though they can now carry a pistol without paying the state $99.

Keith

Wildalaska

August 24, 2003, 02:17 PM

All of the communities I've worked in including the present one is/are/have been armed to the teeth. Everyday I see 4-wheelers, snowmachines, boats, whatever driven or ridden by people with rifles, shotguns or handguns hanging off them or their equipment. These people are not going to be anymore of a threat if these guns are hidden. Myself nor anyone on my department sees this as a problem.

Usually you can see them coming when their drunk right? :)...Interstingly, do you wear a threat plate on the back of your vest? I know Troopers that do....

But like any larger city that has bad sections Anchorage has to have one too. Spenard's and Mountain Views populations ARE NOT representitive of the rest of the population of Alaska. The best thing that could happen to Spenard would be to evacuate the friendlies, and call in an airstrike from the guys at Elmendorf.

You know that Bush vs city thing is tiresome, especially when its the economy of Anchorage that allows the Bush to survive..suffice it to say I am sure Spenards crime rate is no higher than that of Bethel or Kotz...and btw, many of our crimes are committed by inebriated Busg dwellers...

What will change is the number of vehicles that have concealed handguns in them. Pariculary those making the trip between ANC-FAI-Valdez. Personally the last thing I would want is to be broke down somewhere on the Parks, Glenn, or Richardson Hwys miles from anywhere and not have a means of self-defense. A lot of people are reluctant to put a handgun in a vehicle even on a long trip because it would only take one over-zealous trooper on a seatbelt stop to get you a non-existent or at the least a BS weapons charge for having it under a seat or in a console. The new law eliminates that possibility and only holds you accountable for your own misconduct in actual use of the weapon.

Funny I have never heard of nay problem carrying in the car, considering it has been LEGAL in Anchorage...

If you want to do something about illegal or stupid gun use, start pushing your legislator to follow Gov. Murkowski's lead and eliminate the self defense issue with the druggers and gang-bangers.

Ya mean make self defense an affirmative defense rather thatn a defense? Make the armed citizen PROVE that he act4ed right rather than the state proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not...Hmm..here you are advocating all sorts of yahoos carrying guns by saying "a few bad aplles shouldnt spoil the bunch" yet you are essentilly wanting to destroy the right of self defense becasue of those same bad apples...not very consistent

WildinterstingconumdrumAlaska

Wildalaska

August 24, 2003, 02:20 PM

I think the founders would be surprised (and appalled) that many today think their clear statements to be above the understanding of the common man; that each word has to be analyzed and "interpreted" by teams of lawyers to discern the intent.

I disagree with your view of the founders... if they werent anticipating interpretation, why all the writings and commentaries...

They were learned in the moild of Blackstone, they knew all about legal interpretation....

I think the vast majority are decent people who will refrain from engaging in a blood bath even though they can now carry a pistol without paying the state $99.

I think that you are right...in Kodiak....

WildanywaywewillseeAlaska

Wildalaska

August 24, 2003, 02:24 PM

That pretty much sums up what a limited Constitutional Republic is all about! Number 1 is Constitutional Law, Number 2 is Statutes and coming in a distant Thrid is 'case law'!

Whatever, I think you sound far more educated in the law if you studied it and just didnt quote willy nilly out of whatever fringe literature that you read....

And with that, join my ignore list...post away, I cant see it.....

WildenoughofthisAlaska

suijurisfreeman

August 24, 2003, 02:32 PM

I know this will be ignored but since when did the Bill of Rights and/or Constitution become'willy nilly fringe literature'? I thought these are the bedrock, fundamental law of this nation, did something happen over night that I'm not aware of? :banghead:

Hey, I just became a 'Senior Member' by posting a reply that's going to be ignored! So why am I so excited? :confused: :banghead: I think I just lost the words to a song or two, can't remember, one or two?

Keith

August 24, 2003, 02:43 PM

I disagree with your view of the founders... if they werent anticipating interpretation, why all the writings and commentaries...

For the most part, those writings and commentaries are the arguments between various factions on the merits of the proposed constitution. The Bill of Rights was issued in response to that - to CLARIFY peoples and states rights; as well as define the limits of federal power (10th amendment, etc).

I have no trouble understanding the simple declarative sentences in the Bill of Rights. Frankly, I find it insulting when someone (usually a liberal) suggests that the language is too arcane and the subjects too lofty, for me to understand - that I need some lawyer in a robe to "interpret" these simple words and sentences for me.

Keith

Intune

August 24, 2003, 02:55 PM

...only holds you accountable for your own misconduct in actual use of the weapon.
Stevelyn is right on the money.

Keith

August 24, 2003, 03:49 PM

To all:

I hope non-Alaskans reading this don't come to the conclusion that there is some kind of intense debate going on within the state about this issue!

The newspapers and local tv news have barely covered the issue. Even the opinion and "letters to the editor" pages of the Anchorage paper have been largely silent on the subject. It's just not a big issue to anyone.

People here already own and carry guns regularly. And many carry them concealed without a permit - legally - every time they head out of town. For example, it's legal to carry a concealed gun in "outdoor activities" like hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. And it's legal to carry concealed to and from those activities. The new law isn't a radical departure from the old law - it just makes it legal to carry without a permit "in town."

I'll tell you a story that describes police attitudes. A friend of my wife's was being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. She went to the police and got a restraining order, etc, and while there she was advised to get a gun and carry it with her at all times. She protested that she didn't have a permit, but they assured her that nobody on "this police force" was going to hassle a lady about little thing like carrying a gun.

Keith

Wildalaska

August 24, 2003, 08:18 PM

Keith I have to agree with your entire post as above....no one really cartes about the new law its all an intellectual excersize (except for the "trainers" who are now out of biz)

But...

Frankly, I find it insulting when someone (usually a liberal) suggests that the language is too arcane and the subjects too lofty, for me to understand - that I need some lawyer in a robe to "interpret" these simple words and sentences for me.

Its not what is says..its what it means in analying a specific set of circumstances...and..

Why is your interpretaion any more valid or invalid thatn someone elses...someone has to decide...

WilditsadonedealnomatterwhatAlaska

sensop

August 24, 2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Wildalaska:
quote:

The RKBA is GOD GIVEN.

Yeah, OK...gonna find that in the Bible I guess....

Say, WHAT? :confused:

Porter Rockwell

August 25, 2003, 12:05 AM

The disguise is worn thin Kennie,
gentlemen wildalaska is simply a migrated New Yorker complete with stereotypical viewpoints.
Please bear these facts in mind when reading his "eastern" big city opinions which are in no way typical of real Alaskan residents!

Wildalaska

August 25, 2003, 12:10 AM

gentlemen wildalaska is simply a migrated New Yorker complete with stereotypical viewpoints.Please bear these facts in mind when reading his "eastern" big city opinions which are in no way typical of real Alaskan residents!

Like you, a real Alaska resident...

O yea thats right, them folks all think alike...all in lockstep eh?

WildhowtriteAlaska

spacemanspiff

August 25, 2003, 12:57 PM

The new law eliminates that possibility and only holds you accountable for your own misconduct in actual use of the weapon.
so, before this law, i was responsible for my GOOD conduct when using my weapon? when it is you or your loved one that is injured or killed by an unlicensed person carrying concealed, who will you blame? the person for not getting proper training, even though that person is NOT under any obligation to have any training? or the system that allowed an incompetant yahoo to carry concealed legally? my guess is you or your family will sue both the person and the state.

keith, the soon-to-be-moot matter of carrying concealed while 'engaging in lawful outdoor activities' needs to be clarified. the law states that "it is an affirmable defense" if you were fishing, hiking, biking, other outdoor activity while carrying concealed without a license.
that doesnt mean you wont be arrested if caught doing so. the 'affirmable defense' means when you are taken before a judge, that is your defense. so if the person wanted to risk getting arrested, and charged with crimes, they could carry concealed while engaging in 'lawful outdoor activities'. or they could just carry openly.

porter, my opinion is similar to Wild's. what is your excuse for a person like me? that i am not a lifelong resident?
this discussion is becoming like ones seen on DU. when one person makes a valid argument the other can only respond with "spin faster!" you should be thankful that only one side is saying "put more spin on it!"

Keith

August 25, 2003, 01:41 PM

so, before this law, i was responsible for my GOOD conduct when using my weapon?

You are always responsible for your own behavior, bad or good. The law doesn't change that.

when it is you or your loved one that is injured or killed by an unlicensed person carrying concealed, who will you blame?

The person shooting the gun. The law doesn't change that, either.

the law states that "it is an affirmable defense" if you were fishing, hiking, biking, other outdoor activity while carrying concealed without a license.

No Alaskan cop is going to arrest someone for carry of a concealed weapon when engaged in "outdoor activities". This is legal carry, with or without a permit. That legal definition has also been expanded to recognise carrying to and from outdoor activities.

Look, I don't know if you've taken the Concealed Carry course, but if you have you'll likely agree with me that it is a joke! It's nice to get the legal definitions defined without all the "lawyerese", but beyond that it's just about worthless.
The only thing the new law changes, is that people won't have to pay the state $99 to carry a gun. It will make me very happy if shortly after the new law comes into effect, we hear about some thug getting shot to death along one of the jogging trails in Anchorage. The possibility of that happening is far more likely than the possibility of some ordinary person going insane with new "legal" ability to carry a gun...

Keith

spacemanspiff

August 25, 2003, 01:56 PM

the 'retirement' of a sexual predator would make me smile too.

i'm sure you would agree that carrying a firearm brings great responsibility. if you carry, you have decided that you will use deadly force to save your life, your loved ones lives, and quite possibly that of a stranger if you feel it is necessary. you take into consideration lines of fire, whats beyond your target, and the best way to stop the BG.

the CCW training can set people on the right path to solving those issues. i for one learned a lot at me CHL course. i had previously read the laws regarding weapons offenses, but it tood the DA's representative to clear up all ambiguities for me to feel comfortable knowing when deadly force is supposedly 'justifiable'. it also helped to see what kind of 'marksmen' were being qualified as well. i can't in all honesty say that i trusted everyone who took the course that day to hold or even think about a firearm. out of the 20+ individuals, maybe 5 knew what they were doing. even i sucked that day.
ten of my twenty shots were in the ten ring, 8 were in the 9, and 2 flyers in the 8. only one person achieved all 20 shots in the ten ring, with a beretta 92.

Keith

August 25, 2003, 02:21 PM

Spiff,

I think marksmanship is possibly the least valuable "skill" when it comes to self-defense with a handgun. Let's face it; if you draw a gun to save your life it's probably going to be at near contact distance. Clear thinking under stress is going to make or break the day, not marksmanship.

As for the new law, it's going to change nothing because most people interested in carrying a gun already do so. The only new people to begin are liable to be those who couldn't afford the training and license fees under the old system. The poor are those most at risk of crime, and the cost under the old system made it difficult for them. Now Granny can stick that old .38 in her purse when she heads down to cash her SS check and I'm glad she can!

Keith

spacemanspiff

August 25, 2003, 02:58 PM

yeah, funny thing is, at 7 feet, some shooters were hitting the GROUND in front of the target. and thats in a controlled environment, not the high stress situation of being attacked.

suppose the state makes driving a vehicle without a drivers license legal. sure, many without a license are already driving, and you can surely trust each driver to be responsible and safe, right?
what if they made car insurance no longer a requirement? how safe would you feel with more drivers on the road that cannot pay for damages caused to your vehicle or your person?

Keith

August 25, 2003, 03:09 PM

what if they made car insurance no longer a requirement? how safe would you feel with more drivers on the road that cannot pay for damages caused to your vehicle or your person?

I'm insured, so I don't need to worry about what others do.

yeah, funny thing is, at 7 feet, some shooters were hitting the GROUND in front of the target. and thats in a controlled environment, not the high stress situation of being attacked.

I fail to see the logic here. If you look to police shootings you'll find that most shots fired even by trained police are misses. Are you suggesting that because they MIGHT miss when defending their lives, they should not be allowed to carry arms?

Keith

MeekandMild

August 25, 2003, 03:31 PM

we have a great number of lumpen here Just curious, what is a lumpen? Is this similar to the German word Undermenschen? (spelling may be wrong) And how are lumpen less trustworthy than upper class yankees?

Keith

August 25, 2003, 04:01 PM

Lumpen (lumpenproletariat) is a political term used by Marxists to describe the "rabble" - those used as tools by the government.

Keith

Cosmoline

August 25, 2003, 05:24 PM

Anchorage permit requirements are out?! I must have missed that, but in any case all I have to say is

YEEEEEE HAW!

Nordstrom here I come, AK-47 and all!
:D

Free at last, free at last!

PS--double checked at it appears our fair Muni has conceded the point without a fight. All right!

spacemanspiff

August 25, 2003, 05:38 PM

i worked for nordstrom when i dropped out of school. back then (8 yrs ago) they were rather anti-gun. for 'security' everyone had to check backpacks, or purses with store security. no firearms were allowed on premises. they would escort employees out to the 5th ave parking garage if they asked, but they werent too concerned with employee safety.
employee theft concerned them more. i had many opportunities to pocket hundreds, even thousands of dollars from registers that werent properly emptied the night before. the fifty and hundred dollar bill sections of the register often were overlooked.

now, should you enter nordstrom with an AK, i'd advise you enter on the 2nd floor. all the uppity old women work on that floor.

Wildalaska

August 25, 2003, 07:13 PM

now, should you enter nordstrom with an AK, i'd advise you enter on the 2nd floor. all the uppity old women work on that floor.

As long as he doesnt do it on the first floor and scare all the cuties away from the perfume counter, its wonderful that every good looking female in the state congregates in one place....of course if the wife catches me I better have an AK...

WildimmarriedbutnotdeadAlaska

spacemanspiff

August 25, 2003, 07:54 PM

8 yrs ago, ALL the women on first floor and third floor were drop dead gorgeous! one who worked in brassplum would do live modeling of swimwear. a six foot blonde goddess, she'd stand motionless for 15 minutes at a time while every guy in the store would drool, i mean watch in admiration.

wild, it must be about time for a trip to the bush-co? :D :evil:

Wildalaska

August 25, 2003, 08:06 PM

wild, it must be about time for a trip to the bush-co?

My wife is half my age...I dont plan on getting her mad....

WildshesgotaguntooAlaska

MicroBalrog

December 17, 2003, 01:16 PM

Why would any normal person do that?

Actually I like that idea!

oldfart

December 17, 2003, 08:09 PM

This hread brings back some memories.

I was living in Palmer and one winter night, a lady knocked on my door. It was cold and that damned wind was blowing down the valley, so I invited her in. It turned out that she was a Jehovah's Witness out passing out literature. We talked awhile and she reached into her handbag for a book or something but couldn't find it.

So she started taking stuff out. First was a pile of papers, then a pint of whiskey, then some more papers and finally a .44 Magnum. We talked some more and by the time she left, I had convinced her to keep the gun closer to the top.

Never saw her again but I'm sure she stayed safe.

Ryder

December 17, 2003, 08:25 PM

It's been in effect for a quarter of a year now.

So how deep are the bodies piled? Morgues stacking them in the alley? Or does everyone seem just a little more polite these days? Did ya frame that old permit?

Wildalaska

December 17, 2003, 08:43 PM

Actually there has been a rash of murders and shootings since Sept...however, seems most are gang related, and in at least one, the shooter should not have been able to even buy a pistol (under 21)...of course that statistic, like very few gun control stats means little pro or cobn....that being said, no one really seems to care one way or the other about a permit or lack thereof....permits come in handy..I figure that if I get one in WA and again in FL, with my alaska carry permit, I should have most of the carry states covered...

WildtravelerAlaska

spacemanspiff

December 17, 2003, 10:20 PM

wonder what the stats are on shootings across anchorage since the law went into effect?
were not having a RECORD number of homicides, as of right now there are 15 or 16,, lowest annual number was 11, highest was 30-something.

can always expect to have one or two around x-mas.

biere

December 17, 2003, 11:04 PM

I believe it was on the first page where wild alaska first mentioned the idea that some folks might be emberrassed with their past. They could legally get a permit, but due to being shy they might avoid getting the permit due to the hoops required to get the permit.

That reason alone is a good argument for not needing to proove you deserve a permit.
Reminds me of being young and wanting to buy some condoms. I legally could, but I was shy.

I can understand why both wild alaska and space man spiff both have mentioned untrained folks with guns as well.

My problem with that is people need to learn to take responsability for their actions and the state needs to stay out of it.

In order to learn to drive the state offers a learning permit once you can answer some questions in the proper manner. After that either your parents can teach you to drive or your school or you can get a private business to do it.

I think it is a good idea for everyone who wishes to carry a gun to have paid a few hundred bucks and attended a serious shooting class or two.

However, I am all against the state government saying "it will be so to get your papers."

I hope all states eventually get their courts to allow proper carry of a firearm, just like vermont and now alaska have done.

As for the concept that alaska or any state or city has a better or worse mix of folks, I find that discriminatory since the current gun laws prevent criminals from having firearms.