"Militia" Stupidity = Talking Point for Anti-2A Types


PDA






HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 04:47 PM
Alaskan "sovereign citizens" plotting to assassinate LEOs and judges. (http://www.adn.com/2011/03/11/1750269/fairbanks-man-plotted-to-kill.html)

This all flows out of the fact that their ring leader, Schaeffer Cox, managed to get himself arrested by violating one of about two restrictions on concealed carry here in Alaska and decided that all out war with the government was preferable to appearing for arraignment on a misdemeanor charge.

And is surely going to provide quality talking points for anti-2nd Amendment types all over the country.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Militia" Stupidity = Talking Point for Anti-2A Types" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
General Geoff
March 12, 2011, 04:57 PM
I personally think the requirement to inform an officer that you are carrying concealed is ridiculous. Apparently this guy thought the same. I'm glad PA does not have such a requirement.

I cannot condone this guy's plans, but I will comment that they are not plans born from irrational hatred but from perceived injustice and intended retribution, rightly or wrongly.

HBrebel
March 12, 2011, 05:02 PM
Assassination of judges and LEO is not the answer, but if you think that this guy is wrong for standing up, you must be drinking the cool aide. If we stood up as one people, we might have half a chance against these devils that "govern" us. Problem is, divide and conquer works every time and that is what they have done to us.

HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 05:08 PM
I personally think the requirement to inform an officer that you are carrying concealed is ridiculous. Apparently this guy thought the same. I'm glad PA does not have such a requirement.

It's completely reasonable in a state where we let anyone carry with no permitting system whatsoever.

I cannot condone this guy's plans, but I will comment that they are not plans born from irrational hatred but from perceived injustice and intended retribution, rightly or wrongly.

The ringleader in this also tried to indict the judge assigned to his case, because the US government doesn't have the right to judge him. I'm actually pretty much in favor of completely suspending the firearms rights of people whose perception of injustice and desire for retribution is that far out of whack.

Assassination of judges and LEO is not the answer, but if you think that this guy is wrong for standing up, you must be drinking the cool aide.

So, wait, what did he stand up for again? His right to violate like the only gun law we have in this state? Or his right to fail to appear for his day in court? He seems to mostly have been interested in killing people because there was a warrant issued for his arrest relating to his FTA for court.

So are you really supporting his right to not stand up like a grown man and show up for court where he can present his defense? And instead celebrating his right to act like an angry 14 year old brat, only in this case with access to followers and class III firearms? Care to imagine what it would have looked like if him and his little gang of winners had actually carried out just one of their planned attacks with a fully automatic weapon? Think maybe Obama et al dream of that sort of thing every night when they consider gun policy and law?

The fact that people are hemming and hawing about how this guy wasn't really such a bad guy for plotting murder ("okay, murder is bad, but y'know, he got arrested and all and so it's understandable he'd be mad . . .") suggested we (gun owners) are likely to ultimately lose the 2nd Amendment fight -- to ourselves.

Vyacheslav
March 12, 2011, 05:14 PM
It's completely reasonable in a state where we let anyone carry with no permitting system whatsoever.

how is it reasonable? the officer has no reason to know that you are carrying

Danb1215
March 12, 2011, 05:18 PM
I also agree that is is completely unreasonable to have a must inform law. Vermont has no concealed carry permit and is not must inform, and it doesn't seem to be an issue.

hso
March 12, 2011, 05:18 PM
I don't understand how a lunatic fringe minigroup claiming some sort of militia status gives any real traction to Anti-RKBA groups. The small tinfoil poisoned groups are reviled by everyone outside of the anti government fringe.

HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 05:20 PM
I don't understand how a lunatic fringe minigroup claiming some sort of militia status gives any real traction to Anti-RKBA groups. The small tinfoil poisoned groups are reviled by everyone outside of the anti government fringe.

I'm not saying it gives anti-gun groups valid traction, just that it will provide media and gun control talking points, particularly given the nature of the kit involved.

Zoogster
March 12, 2011, 05:24 PM
It's completely reasonable in a state where we let anyone carry with no permitting system whatsoever.

Or you could just assume everyone is armed, bad guys are not going to tell you before they shoot you anyways so a duty to inform doesn't really keep cops from being shot.
You can consider whether you can tolerate dealing with a population presumed to be entirely armed when choosing to become a LEO in that state. Or whether the thought would make you excessively fearful or defensive.


While a requirement to tell a LEO does nothing to keep them from being shot because those planning to shoot are not going to inform before drawing, it does cause LEO in some cases to suddenly be much more inclined to shoot the citizen with no ill intent that is carrying. A movement can become more easily interpreted as a threat.
That same movement for the wallet or ID, opening a door or compartment, or showing them something puts them more on edge, even though logically the fact that you informed them means you are probably not a threat. Emotions and adrenaline are not always logical, and you just triggered a physical response upping the tension of the situation.

There is situations where informing the LEO is a good idea, and situations where it is a bad idea. Yet when it is law even the bad scenarios require informing.
Before a patdown after making your hands very visible might be a good time.
A legal requirement within a short time of initial contact as in some states, while in a potentially fluid and unclear scenario before they even know what is going on may not be, and simply increases your chance of being shot as a citizen.

geekWithA.45
March 12, 2011, 05:26 PM
I don't understand how a lunatic fringe minigroup claiming some sort of militia status gives any real traction to Anti-RKBA groups. The small tinfoil poisoned groups are reviled by everyone outside of the anti government fringe.

Here's the thing.

I have a couple of colleagues and acquaintances that I used to consider to be reasonable, and intelligent people.

They have since become entirely dedicated to the premise that the "Tea Baggers" are out to {______________fill in the blank, with your selection of sentiments ranging from "destroy the middle class" to "reverse 100 years of social progress and justice" etc & ad nauseum}.

In order to justify this world view, they have latched onto any phenomena that fits their theory as proof. Subsequently, they buy into an ancient smear*, and trot out lists of racially motivated crimes emanating from white supremacists groups as evidence of the "tea baggers" dedication to political violence.

Eventually, these same people *will* point to these ijits in Alaska as proof.

And you know what?

We cannot do a damned thing about either class of morons, other than to soundly repudiate them both.





*Modern manifestation of Ancient smear: white supremacists = militia freaks = conservatives = republicans = tea partiers

Remo223
March 12, 2011, 05:31 PM
I don't blame the guy for not complying with the stupid law. But if he is plotting charles bronson vigilante style revenge before even stating his case in court that's REALLY out there.

Shadow 7D
March 12, 2011, 05:33 PM
Horsesoldier
as I assume you are APD
how do your respond when you pull someone like me over one the Glenn or Boniface for going 5 over (going with the flow of traffic...)

And I tell you, 'officer, IAW with Alaska statute, I am informing you that I am armed'?

I understand, it got constitutional carry through the legislature,
but the real pain is that I have to ask every time I go in a friends home, DO YOU??
because, from what I read, you should ask if you are carrying not in the line of duty.

Remo223
March 12, 2011, 05:35 PM
Here's the thing.

I have a couple of colleagues and acquaintances that I used to consider to be reasonable, and intelligent people.

They have since become entirely dedicated to the premise that the "Tea Baggers" are out to {______________fill in the blank, with your selection of sentiments ranging from "destroy the middle class" to "reverse 100 years of social progress and justice" etc & ad nauseum}.

In order to justify this world view, they have latched onto any phenomena that fits their theory as proof. Subsequently, they buy into an ancient smear*, and trot out lists of racially motivated crimes emanating from white supremacists groups as evidence of the "tea baggers" dedication to political violence.

Eventually, these same people *will* point to these ijits in Alaska as proof.

And you know what?

We cannot do a damned thing about either class of morons, other than to soundly repudiate them both.





*Modern manifestation of Ancient smear: white supremacists = militia freaks = conservatives = republicans = tea partiers
Oh poor baby. Let me get my violin.

Lets make sure we understand YOUR predicament. You worry about how one loony in alaska is going to make it tougher for YOU to deal with YOUR friends? Are you kidding me?

Its not about you bud. Or your friends. I really couldn't care less what the situation is between you and your friends.

HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 05:41 PM
I personally leave people in possession of their firearms, though not everyone does. And it can sometimes create additional risk if, for instance, you then learn that the guy is facing arrest or having his vehicle impounded or some such. Unless someone just really sets off my spider sense or whatever I don't see the point in disarming someone who's law abiding enough to comply with the the requirement to inform.

The law is a very useful tool when dealing with those whose intent is not lawful -- gang members and felons in possession will not, for instance, ever mention they're armed.

I understand, it got constitutional carry through the legislature,
but the real pain is that I have to ask every time I go in a friends home, DO YOU??
because, from what I read, you should ask if you are carrying not in the line of duty.

It is a pain, and I also do -- and you're right, the waivers for carrying as a peace officer only come into play when acting under color of authority. And if I hung out in bars, I wouldn't go armed to also comply with the law (and because amazingly stupid things happen with alcohol in the mix . . .).

HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 05:43 PM
Oh poor baby. Let me get my violin.

Lets make sure we understand YOUR predicament. You worry about how one loony in alaska is going to make it tougher for YOU to deal with YOUR friends? Are you kidding me?

Its not about you bud. Or your friends. I really couldn't care less what the situation is between you and your friends.

And this is why gun owners are often their own worst enemies when it comes to the hearts and minds game for the undecided chunk of the population.

Shadow 7D
March 12, 2011, 05:47 PM
Don't forget, places like Alaska, Montana etc.
seem to attract 'End of the Roaders'
people who, for what ever reason,
live in the 'wild' or away from people or in this case 'land of the free'

And they don't really like governments, or actually, most anybody else.
so loonies with guns, not much past that, hell happened in my wife's home town in WV, some of the local tweekers tried to take out the sheriff.

Edit
Yeah, I agree Horsesoldier, it would be a nice enhancement for gangmembers, but what about the federal bingo of 5 year in prison for an armed felon? Why isn't that used for most of these guys too?

HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 05:57 PM
Stuff tends to only go federal when there's not only a valid federal charge but a federal agency that wants to get involved, but felon in possession is a state felony charge (MIW 3) and certainly gets pursued when applicable, in my experience.

NMGonzo
March 12, 2011, 08:23 PM
Assassination of judges and LEO is not the answer, but if you think that this guy is wrong for standing up, you must be drinking the cool aide.
The guy is a loon and there are ways to stand up in modern civilized society.

For buddha's sakes, the guy is in Alaska ... how much more LESS restrictive does he want his gun laws?

General Geoff
March 12, 2011, 08:32 PM
The law is a very useful tool when dealing with those whose intent is not lawful -- gang members and felons in possession will not, for instance, ever mention they're armed.
This seems like a contradiction. How is a law that does not affect those disinclined to obey it, useful?

Furthermore, if a person is in fact carrying illegally, he is by definition not required to inform you, because that would be self incrimination.

Shadow 7D
March 12, 2011, 08:43 PM
It can add 3+ years to their repentance, what might be a written citation for a baggie or two on a banger, is now years at Spring Creek, and a rather open book for further investigation.

Actually, I should explain, failure to inform is a low class misdemeanor in AK, being armed while in the commission of a crime isn't.

Sky
March 12, 2011, 08:59 PM
$165,000 back taxes and losing your home can make many bitter and look less than favorable on any government authority figure.

The situation was certainly not handled well (if reported facts are true) and he and his friends will get more than they bargained for for sure. I would think there might be more to the story than we are reading but in this case we will probably never know. From what I was able to read the guy is an idiot.

HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 09:25 PM
This seems like a contradiction. How is a law that does not affect those disinclined to obey it, useful?

1) Gangsta or gangsta wannabe or whatever is armed.
2) They fail to mention this immediately when contacted by law enforcement, as required under AK law.
3) Officers conduct a completely legal pat search for officer safety purposes during their contact.
4) Weapon found.
5) Gang member arrested and hauled down to jail.

So useful -- yes.

General Geoff
March 12, 2011, 09:30 PM
1) Gangsta or gangsta wannabe or whatever is armed.
2) They fail to mention this immediately when contacted by law enforcement, as required under AK law.
3) Officers conduct a completely legal pat search for officer safety purposes during their contact.
4) Weapon found.
5) Gang member arrested and hauled down to jail.

So useful -- yes.
I don't see where that law has any bearing on this course of events. You could conduct the pat down search anyway. Since they can't be convicted of violating the duty-to-inform law, it serves zero purpose.

HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 09:50 PM
I'm afraid your grasp of the legal system, at least how it works up here in AK, is flawed. If a pat search turns up a weapon that was not declared immediately IAW Alaska law, that person is prosecutable and very convictable.

If you mean felons specifically, they can (and have been) charged with both felon in possession and failure to report. Nothing under the duty to report statute excuses felons because they're already violating the law.

Gouranga
March 12, 2011, 09:52 PM
Look anti's are going to do what they do no matter what. There will always be ignorant people who will latch on to whatever reasons they give, whatever stats they give, etc. If one nimrod in AK is all it takes to turn someone into a raving anti then really they were always a raving anti.

As for the comments on this guys legitimacy, I am sorry. This is America, we DO NOT ASSASSINATE our government officials to protest a law. Bear in mind, this guy had no plans to kill anyone for this law until he was caught. It is about him not wanting to pay the price for breaking the law. I will disagree with the anti-2A Congressman, Judge, LEO, etc and argue till I am blue in the face, the second someone pulls out a gun to kill them, I will stand by the side of that Anti and defend them.

IMO, this guys legitimate beef with the law ended when he decided to counter an unjust misdemeanor by murdering judges and LEO's. So yes, I absolutely do hold it against him.

General Geoff
March 12, 2011, 09:58 PM
Nothing under the duty to report statute excuses felons because they're already violating the law.
See Haynes v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States). Felons by definition need not inform you, regardless of the law, because it would be self incrimination. You can charge them with it, but you would never get a conviction if the defense is at all competent.

If a pat search turns up a weapon that was not declared immediately IAW Alaska law, that person is prosecutable and very convictable.

Only if the guy isn't a prohibited person. He could certainly still be convicted of actual possession of a weapon if he is a prohibited person, but he couldn't be convicted of failing to inform.

General Geoff
March 12, 2011, 10:08 PM
This is America, we DO NOT ASSASSINATE our government officials to protest a law.

From what I read of the article, the plan was only to kill the officials if government agents killed the defendant first. That's not assassination, it's eye-for-an-eye.

From the article:
"At that February 12th meeting COX specifically unveiled his "241" (two for one) plan which called for his militia to respond to attempts to arrest or kill him by responding against state court or law enforcement targets with twice the force and consequences as happened to him or his family," according to the criminal complaint. "If he was arrested, two state targets would be "arrested" (kidnapped). If he was killed, two state targets would be killed. If his house was taken, two state target houses would be burned."
Vigilantism? Yes, absolutely. Assassination? No.

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2011, 10:15 PM
The small tinfoil poisoned groups are reviled by everyone outside of the anti government fringe.


the fringe is larger than you might think read here and you find some.

i always thought that informing was to protect ME. that it might keep the cop safe was secondary to me. then again i spent a lot of time actually getting stopped as opposed to imagining it and running through paranoid conspiracies in my mind.

the folks in this article? are filed under "cuckoo for cocoa puffs"

Patriotme
March 12, 2011, 10:22 PM
You can call the groups whatever you want but once a group starts planning the killing of innocent people they have become a terrorist organization not a "Militia."
I wouldn't call the Bloods a militia despite their being armed and ready to defend their "Turf."
A lot of people use the militia titile when they are an entirely different group of gun owners and the media happily reports that these groups are militias. I don't think that we need to join the MSM in using the term.

General Geoff
March 12, 2011, 10:24 PM
You can call the groups whatever you want but once a group starts planning the killing of innocent people they have become a terrorist organization not a "Militia."
The only reason the Founding Fathers aren't labelled by history as terrorists, is because they won.

geekWithA.45
March 12, 2011, 10:36 PM
Posted by remo223:
Oh poor baby. Let me get my violin.

Lets make sure we understand YOUR predicament. You worry about how one loony in alaska is going to make it tougher for YOU to deal with YOUR friends? Are you kidding me?

Its not about you bud. Or your friends. I really couldn't care less what the situation is between you and your friends.

Oh, puhlease.

Seriously?

Do you really believe that I'm talking about some situation between myself and some colleagues in search of sympathy from strangers on the freakin' Internet?

Seriously?



Has it crossed your mind that I'm telling you guys about this so that you can UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ABOUT HOW SOME PEOPLE THINK?


The point that I was trying to make is that some people are going to do things that will feed our opponents talking points, and there's not much we can do about it except to repudiate them.

The other point I was trying to make is that some of our opposition is going to grasp any straw they can get hold of to prove to themselves that their point of view is correct, and there's not much we can do to about that either.

Some people are just nuts, and they're gonna do whatever they're gonna do.

cassandrasdaddy
March 12, 2011, 10:37 PM
plotting to kill troopers just because they were high ranking and lived in your hood is assassination not some sorta squint through one eye close the other vigilantism

trying to portray it as such is another of the kinda things that give traction to anti groups and would it would surprise me to see it posted here

gym
March 12, 2011, 10:50 PM
This is just another confirmation to me that society is going to hell in a handbasket. Killing judjes and police is just not an acceptable topic for me. I could enter into this discussion but why give it any more cedibility. It already should be closed in my humble opinion. We don't do assasination theorys here, do we. And a lunatic is an lunatic anywhere, remember that walpaper hanger in Gremany. People can rationalize anything given enough time and the gift of gab. It's when others start listening that you need be carefull.

HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 10:55 PM
IMO, this guys legitimate beef with the law ended when he decided to counter an unjust misdemeanor by murdering judges and LEO's. So yes, I absolutely do hold it against him.

His panties didn't, apparently, get all twisted up because of his sentiments about the Second Amendment. He got all bent out of shape because the court system had the sheer audacity to call to him appear and account for his actions in response to the charges. Not "how dare they enforce this wrong law" but "how dare they try to enforce any law on me."

Because he's apparently a raving narcissist who can't deal with being treated the same as his fellow citizens, no matter how much he tries to dress that up in something patriotic, pro-2A or whatever else.

HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 10:58 PM
Only if the guy isn't a prohibited person. He could certainly still be convicted of actual possession of a weapon if he is a prohibited person, but he couldn't be convicted of failing to inform.

Insofar as I can think of at least one case where this absolutely was not the case, I'd recommend you take it up with the DA for the 3rd Judicial District up here in AK, since I'm sure they can better explain how they prosecuted on that than I can.

General Geoff
March 12, 2011, 11:00 PM
Insofar as I can think of at least one case where this absolutely was not the case, I'd recommend you take it up with the DA for the 3rd Judicial District up here in AK, since I'm sure they can better explain how they prosecuted on that than I can.
The DA has every reason to get a conviction, it's not their job to bring up constitutional objections to the charges. I'm saying that given a competent defense and a judge who adheres to jurisprudence, the charge would be thrown out. And even if a judge lets the charge stand, the appeals process would eventually overturn the conviction (for that charge alone, of course).

kinkinhood
March 13, 2011, 12:58 AM
To play a bit of the side that is counter to the arguement that it shouldn't be necessary, having that law can help prevent an officer from say drawing and firing on someone who happen to have no desire to do any harm to the officer, but they had their wallet right next to where their pistol sits and in the darkness of the twilight the motions can be mistaken as drawing said pistol rather than pulling a wallet out. Yes an officer shouldn't make that kind of mistake, but the officer is still only human and is still capable of misinterpreting a situation.

Hoppes Love Potion
March 13, 2011, 01:29 AM
Sounds to me like the guy just wanted to be left alone. I think the "duty to inform" is BS. How can they legally compel you to do something just because an officer enters your immediate area? They've made it a crime to not speak. That is unspeakable.

Shadow 7D
March 13, 2011, 03:18 AM
Geoff, Fail...

You cite an Alaskan law, then post a link to a FEDERAL case
as far as the 5th protecting them due to the duty to inform,
under Alaskan Law, you don't have to carry, but if you do, you MUST inform, failure to is a CRIME...
And No you don't have to admit it, but you will still get convicted of the illegal ACTION

And people go to jail for it, unfortunately, and sometimes fortunately, all the time,
so PLEASE, NEVER LEAVE GEORGIA, and stay away from Alaska, we don't need to pay for your stay in the pen too,

As for this guy, he had to appear, but he is part of a fringe 'tinfoil hat gang' up here, that CALL THEMSELVES A MILITIA and 'refuse to acknowledge' the US government or 'surrender their personal sovereignty'

They live in the boonies, don't pay taxes, don't get SSN for their kids, or birth certificates etc....

Damn end of the roaders
they would fit in better in cali or washington...

HorseSoldier
March 13, 2011, 03:28 AM
Sounds to me like the guy just wanted to be left alone.

You should probably google Schaeffer Cox if you're somehow getting that out of the cited story about him. He's been trying to interject himself into state and local politics in Alaska for a while. He only decided he wanted to be left alone when he got charged with a misdemeanor and was too much of a coward to show up for his day in court.

How can they legally compel you to do something just because an officer enters your immediate area?

You do grasp the idea that society has been empowering the police with authority to compel people to do all sorts of things for quite a while now -- like since the dawn of civilization -- right? Do you get all quivery in your Bill of Rights every time you drive by a traffic stop?

Here in Alaska we let anyone who's not a felon carry concealed any way they please. If we had a CCW permit system, maybe we'd have a law that revokes that privilege/permit when people fail to inform or otherwise violate our MIW 5 statute (carrying in bars, carrying in people's homes without their permission, etc.).

But we don't -- we've made concealed carry a right, with a total of about three Big Boy Rules attached to it, one of which is you tell a cop you're armed when he contacts you or you contact him. No minimum class or training requirement, no fees for the privilege, no chief of local law enforcement review -- just an expectation that people who're armed act like adults. And frankly it seems to work pretty well up here -- citizens here in Anchorage do decidedly less whining than the collective THR community on this topic for whatever reason. And the people who run afoul of the the law tend to be people who probably lack the maturity or mental health to be allowed arms (Schaeffer Cox being a winning example) or those who are intent on committing crimes. Either way, the law is effectively weeding out people who shouldn't be armed in the first place (to an extent -- MIW 5 is a low level misdemeanor, so conviction doesn't tank your right to carry up here after the fact, unless you wind up on probation where they restrict your right weapons).

Shadow 7D
March 13, 2011, 03:59 AM
If we had a CCW permit system, maybe we'd have a law that revokes that privilege/permit when people fail to inform or otherwise violate our MIW 5 statute (carrying in bars, carrying in people's homes without their permission, etc.).

They never abolished the CCW when the legalized concealed carry with out a license. If you want reciprocity, you have to get your CCW from the troopers.

HorseSoldier
March 13, 2011, 04:16 AM
True. Like you say, folks only get them if they're concerned about travel out of state and reciprocity, but they are available.

.338-06
March 13, 2011, 04:49 AM
As for this guy, he had to appear, but he is part of a fringe 'tinfoil hat gang' up here, that CALL THEMSELVES A MILITIA and 'refuse to acknowledge' the US government or 'surrender their personal sovereignty'

They live in the boonies, don't pay taxes, don't get SSN for their kids, or birth certificates etc....

Damn end of the roaders
they would fit in better in cali or washington...

I really don't think they call themselves a militia, they call themselves 'sovereign citizens' and if you google the term there's a lot of information-from both sides.

Fairbanks is chock full of warm, wonderful people. The radical fringe up there (both ends of the spectrum) seems to be an order of magnitude worse than other places.

Cosmoline
March 13, 2011, 05:04 AM
but if you think that this guy is wrong for standing up, you must be drinking the cool aide. If we stood up as one people, we might have half a chance against these devils that "govern" us.

He didn't "stand up" he refused to tell a trooper he was carrying. He's a complete loon, and has nothing to do with Alaskan gun owners or the right to keep and bear arms.

This is ALASKA. If you want to change a law, you can! It's actually not that difficult assuming you get enough people to agree with you. But in this case, the mandate to inform makes sense in context and is not unpopular. We have TREMENDOUS freedom when it comes to firearms. Both under the codes and in practice. I have exercised that freedom as have many others. One area of potential trouble is when an armed citizen and an LEO have some interchange. The mandate to inform prevents any misunderstandings and makes it clear you are a good guy. It works, and it's not oppressive.

I actually don't think some of you understand anything about this state. Law enforcement barely even exists in most of it. Even if the LEO's wanted to be some oppressive anti-gun regime like the NYPD, they don't have anywhere near the manpower to do it. So you can live your whole life here and have no interactions at all with unformed officer apart from traffic infractions. You can live your whole life as a GENUINE HERMIT and have no interactions with anyone whatsoever. This guy has gone out of his way to cause troubles and get into trouble because that's the kind of person he is. A nogoodnick.

He apparently thinks he has some control over a genuine militia of armed Alaskans. He does not. Most Alaskans are armed, and most Alaskans are in the militia per statute. This joker does not lead us.

Unfortunately as noted above this state gets more than its share of end of the roader nogoonicks. Including refugees from the Montana Militia, the Freemen, the common law court movement and the sovereign identity movement. They're all sad, sad jokes to us. How oppressed am I supposed to feel living in a state where the government runs my shooting range and I ride a bike around town with a huge rifle strapped to my back? These jokes need to go back to the lower 48. And since that's where we send most of our prisoners, I expect that's precisely where they will be going.

I don't always see eye-to-eye with our local LEO's and I certainly don't see eye-to-eye with most judges. But to try to set up some kind of "sovereign" cell and make plans to assassinate people is absolutely way over the line.

Unfortunately, the aptly-named Cox has tried to glom on to our movement by declaring himself the head of the Second Amendment Task Force. Kind of like me declaring myself Pope I suppose. But it is unfortunately up to us to denounce the worthless waste of salt and have nothing whatever to do with whatever revolution he thinks he's leading. These people are insane.

From what I read of the article, the plan was only to kill the officials if government agents killed the defendant first. That's not assassination, it's eye-for-an-eye.

It's conspiracy to commit terrorist acts to protect his little wanabe revolutionary cell. It's conspiracy to undermine MY government by threat! I take that very personally. I want that whole bunch in prison and I want them to lose their Alaska privileges. At least the Jihadist over in King Salmon had the common decency to make a hit list of outsiders. He was pretty friendly with the locals.

Shadow 7D
March 13, 2011, 05:51 AM
Hey Cosmo, I forget (ok I admit I haven't reread the statues lately)
Is defense of officer before or after defense of family (<<--as defined under the Domestic Violence statue)

Any who, I got the Militia stuff from reading either the Frontiersman or the Daily News Miner. Really don't see why the guy didn't just show up to the court, It's just Class B misdemeanor

http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter61/Section220.htm

Oh and BTW, you don't have to tell any cop near you
it says: "(A) that is concealed on the person, and, when contacted by a peace officer, the person fails to"

cassandrasdaddy
March 13, 2011, 09:11 AM
how did they end up so deep in the tax hole? that they needed a revolution to get out? and what do they do for money? to eat?

HorseSoldier
March 13, 2011, 08:22 PM
The federal government's complaint in the tax case can be read here (http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/sites/635/assets/6RPL_Vernon_tax_case.pdf), though it does not explain how the tax debt was accumulated (and how the female half of the couple racked up $92,000 in tax debt in one year).

HorseSoldier
March 13, 2011, 08:34 PM
Further news on Schaeffer Cox and company in the Fairbanks paper here (http://www.newsminer.com/pages/full_story/push?blog-entry-Schaeffer+Cox+said+courts+feared+his+militia%20&id=12328219&instance=blogs_editors_desk). He was already running his mouth publicly about having his supposed followers/henchmen killing State Troopers if they attempted to enforce a court order regarding him losing a custody dispute in January. Doesn't seem very mysterious why the FBI would have been able to get warrants for wiretaps all over this guy. And doesn't look like his sole gripe with the court system was because of his profound respect for the Second Amendment.

Zoogster
March 13, 2011, 08:35 PM
To play a bit of the side that is counter to the arguement that it shouldn't be necessary, having that law can help prevent an officer from say drawing and firing on someone who happen to have no desire to do any harm to the officer, but they had their wallet right next to where their pistol sits and in the darkness of the twilight the motions can be mistaken as drawing said pistol rather than pulling a wallet out. Yes an officer shouldn't make that kind of mistake, but the officer is still only human and is still capable of misinterpreting a situation.

It does not prevent that. In fact it heightens the alertness of the officer, increasing how quick they will be to draw over a perceived threat because they have just been informed of a deadly threat.

Without the requirement you also have the option of informing if you feel in a specific situation it will reduce the chance of a misunderstanding.
That can be a good choice, if going for your wallet will uncover it, or a LEO will be patting you down and discover it.


If however you are pulled over for a routine ticket, the officer is feeling out the situation, then you inform them of a deadly threat to their safety they would have never even known existed, it places you in greater danger.
You would have never exited the car, the gun is secure and out of sight, and they would have never known about the gun, but now you have put the gun directly on their mind, and the thought of that gun will be quite active in their mind the entire time they are dealing with you.
That did not increase you safety, it actually decreased your safety.
Yet it never increased the officer's safety because if you were a bad guy that was going to use it you wouldn't have told him before using it.
So it puts you in more danger, and doesn't put the officer in any less.


There is similar situations. Say you are a good samaritan, or a witness to another crime, or giving a statement of an event you are not directly involved in, or...
Cops come, they are not focused on you at all, they don't care about you, they are dealing with the criminal if they are present, focusing on the criminal and victim or those directly involved, fact finding, and trying to gather the details. You and what you are doing would be the last thing on their mind.
Suddenly you inform them as required by law that you are carrying a lethal threat.
You go from being nobody on their consciousness to very prominent. Out of some crowd or group of people you become one of those they are most aware of. What you do, how you move.
Did it increase your safety? No. Quite the contrary.
Would it have increased their safety if it was a bad guy? No.
In all honesty it might even decrease their awareness of other threats because a larger percentage of their attention is on you than otherwise would be, even when dealing with other people.

It should not be a legal requirement, it should be a discretionary voluntary thing. Something you do based on the situation, whether they will run across it or see it or may see it at some point during your contact with them. Not every time all the time, putting them on high alert for no reason.

Cosmoline
March 13, 2011, 08:38 PM
Again, I don't think you understand Alaska. Telling an officer you're armed doesn't set off alarm bells or put them on "high alert." Quite the contrary. I've notified officers in a few direct dealings I've had with them in the past, and it hasn't been a major issue at all. They don't freak out about it. This would probably be different in much of the lower 48, where carrying a firearm is unusually and already comes with licensing requirements.

If you tell them, right off, then they know several things. They know you're armed and where the firearm is. They also know it's unlikely you're going to try to shoot them, having just told the officers about your CCW. Alternatively, if you don't tell them and the situation ends with you being taken into custody for some reason, they're not going to suddenly stumble across or see a hidden firearm during that process. THAT is liable to get them worked up.

"No surprises" is a really good policy in such circumstances.

General Geoff
March 13, 2011, 08:41 PM
Geoff, Fail...

You cite an Alaskan law, then post a link to a FEDERAL case
as far as the 5th protecting them due to the duty to inform,
under Alaskan Law, you don't have to carry, but if you do, you MUST inform, failure to is a CRIME...
And No you don't have to admit it, but you will still get convicted of the illegal ACTION

Last I heard, the right against self incrimination is incorporated against the states. I'm not talking about the "illegal ACTION" of carrying, I'm talking about the legal requirement of COMPELLING a person to incriminate himself by telling an officer he is illegally carrying. It simply does not pass constitutional muster. The fifth amendment does not *only* apply to people who aren't doing something they don't have to do. :confused: It applies to anyone who is committing a crime. By requiring a person who is committing a crime to tell an officer of the law that he is in fact committing the crime, that is a violation of the fifth amendment.

While there may be convictions of prohibited persons already under this statute, I maintain that it is only because the defendants did not have a competent defense and/or did not take advantage of the right to appeal. Make no mistake, it would be overturned eventually.


edit; just to attempt to make it more clear.
under Alaskan Law, you don't have to carry, but if you do, you MUST inform, failure to is a CRIME...
This REQUIREMENT to inform, violates the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. It doesn't mean the prohibited person can't subsequently be convicted of actually carrying illegally; it just means he can't be convicted of, well, REMAINING SILENT.

Shadow 7D
March 13, 2011, 08:52 PM
What ever, come with a lawyer, sadly I think you will go down in major flames

But, even if you do get a walk on the 5th,
you still get 5 years for illegally possessing it, and a high class felony weapons charge from the state...

Yep, they'll getcha coming and going up here.
so If your illegal, they got you covered TOO

General Geoff
March 13, 2011, 08:56 PM
What ever, come with a lawyer, sadly I think you will go down in major flames

The fifth amendment does not help me (or ostensibly anyone else here), since I am not a prohibited person. The duty to inform is completely enforceable against people carrying legally.

HorseSoldier
March 13, 2011, 08:56 PM
If however you are pulled over for a routine ticket, the officer is feeling out the situation, then you inform them of a deadly threat to their safety they would have never even known existed, it places you in greater danger.


+1 what Cosmoline said. On the street, when told people were carrying, my usual response was something to the effect of "good on ya". In a state where armed citizens are rare and exotic creatures it might ruffle feathers, but up here it's a routine part of traffic stops and not terribly unusual in other forms of contact between officers and citizens.

It should not be a legal requirement, it should be a discretionary voluntary thing.

As stated up thread, our approach up here is Big Boy Rules -- anyone can carry anything they want as long as their not a felon and old enough to be in possession of the weapon. They just have to be up front about it when contacted by police. It's entirely a non-issue in something well over 99% of cases where it occurs.

General Geoff
March 13, 2011, 09:00 PM
As stated up thread, our approach up here is Big Boy Rules -- anyone can carry anything they want as long as their not a felon and old enough to be in possession of the weapon.
It was my understanding that a person between the ages of 18-21 is not allowed to carry concealed in Alaska, yet could legally own a handgun. :confused:

Zoogster
March 13, 2011, 09:21 PM
There is other situations where a requirement to inform is also bad.

If for example you are at work, some guy causes a problem, commits a crime, or some other situation brings officers to the workplace. This happens sometimes, a co-worker, someone attracted to the workplace because they have a problem with an employee, a run of the mill criminal, etc All workplaces can get some problem that brings officers to them.
You were never involved, your firearm was never involved.
Now in a work setting you need to announce that you carry a firearm, perhaps even against company or business policy. Certainly contrary to the views of other coworkers.
There was no increased safety from informing, yet the duty to inform just made many people you didn't want aware you carry aware, people that will still be aware weeks, months, or years, into the future because of the stupid law.

There is other situations. For example we had a thread not long ago about idiot friends that would grab at a gun, even a poster here said he would grab for some friend's gun if it became unconcealed (yes obviously that is someone to avoid) to encourage them to conceal it better.
There is morons like that out there, including some possible co-workers, extended family, and other people you don't get to pick and choose in your life.
Now some scenario that brought the police, a situation completely unrelated to you, that you may have never even been involved in, has required you to reveal to others nearby that you carry.
It could be moron friends, associates, extended family, etc
Friends you can change, but many others you deal with regularly you cannot change so easily.
Sure you can try to surround yourself with more responsible people, but you do not get that option for everyone.

You don't get to choose all your family, co-workers, associates, and others that it may be beneficial to keep uninformed that you carry. Yet as soon as a cop comes around the law requires you let every moron around know you carry a gun?



The requirement to inform every time even when it would certainly have been a non-issue is bad for all the reasons I previously cited in the other post, as well as these.

General Geoff
March 13, 2011, 09:25 PM
Now in a work setting you need to announce that you carry a firearm, perhaps even against company or business policy.

Interesting point, though I can't help but wonder if asking the officer to talk to you in a more private area before informing him you're carrying would be a violation of the duty to immediately inform...

Zoogster
March 13, 2011, 09:36 PM
You could have a similar situation with a 21+ concealed carry licensed student legally carrying in a state that allows it on college campuses.
The carrier was never involved in any problem themselves, yet coming into contact with a cop requires they announce to everyone nearby they have a gun that violates school policy?

Suddenly numerous naive young students are aware and gossiping about the gun. Faculty become aware.
It could result in expulsion.
Expelled for a gun nobody would have ever known about because of a duty to announce it when in contact with a cop.
Even if it does not result in problems attending the school it can result in other problems.
Someone could even exaggerate it in the future resulting in an armed swat type scenario because someone reports a man with a gun weeks or months later.
Even intentionally to cause trouble if they have some problem with either the action of carrying or the individual themselves.


A duty to report is bad.

HorseSoldier
March 13, 2011, 09:43 PM
You can what if it to death (even if your what-ifs are not internally consistent in all cases) but the fact remains that that's our system here in Alaska and it works well without all the speculative drama you're trying to dream up.

Again, perhaps because guns up here just aren't a big deal. Mileage might vary in more hoplophobic states -- and the only people I've known to get worked up about concealed carry issues up here, or be startled to find out someone is carrying, etc., are recent arrivals from Outside who are conditioned to see the world in light of whatever repressive gun laws are on the books where they're from. I can only assume the what-ifs are coming from somewhere where that is the case.

armoredman
March 13, 2011, 09:46 PM
Carry a business card and hand it to him. "I am lawfully carrying a concealed sidearm. I ask you not to announce this loudly as someone nearby may wet their pants."

I have to announce to LE during lawful contacts, and that doesn't mean walking past him on the sidewalk. In all the times I have done so, I have been asked what ammo I like, where did I get my pistol, etc.

thorn726
March 13, 2011, 10:25 PM
can i just bang my head against a wall for awhile please, I've had this thrown at me too often. The topic just has me laughing and shaking my head, i can hear them///

cassandrasdaddy
March 14, 2011, 05:39 AM
after reading the linked article i see that this guy and his supporters were just plain nuts and all the political stuff was delusional window dressing

Davek1977
March 14, 2011, 06:04 AM
Sounds to me like the guy just wanted to be left alone. Lots of people want to be left alone. However, most people don't formulate plans to kidnap and kill government officials when asked to answer to a violation of the law. This guy took "disgruntled" to a whole new level, and went far beyond "wanting to be left alone". Thats like saying Pablo Escobar was responsible for importing " a little bit of cocaine". WE don't get to pick and choose which laws are valid or which are directly applicable to us as individuals. Apparently, someone forgot to inform THIS guy of such minor details and the potential ramifications

merlinfire
March 14, 2011, 11:06 AM
I don't understand how a lunatic fringe minigroup claiming some sort of militia status gives any real traction to Anti-RKBA groups. The small tinfoil poisoned groups are reviled by everyone outside of the anti government fringe.

You're absolutely right....as long as we as a community don't start sympathizing with them.

As has been said already, the 2nd Amendment is not about killing judges and cops, and anyone who thinks it is, is not your friend.

Cosmoline
March 14, 2011, 08:43 PM
I'm talking about the legal requirement of COMPELLING a person to incriminate himself by telling an officer he is illegally carrying.

It's really a moot point. If the felon is carrying illegally, the low level misdemeanor of failing to inform will be nothing compared with the penalties for carrying while a felon.

General Geoff
March 15, 2011, 01:09 AM
That's precisely my point, Cosmoline. The duty to inform law is itself moot. The only people it compels to inform, are the folks who don't pose any threat to law enforcement anyway.

gym
March 15, 2011, 01:46 AM
Who is this moot guy, he keeps coming up. I can't even get the cpos here to take a report. They could care less. If you interupt their day they get upset. i went to shake hands with one I called for an incident cocerning guns, and he told me he couldn't shake my hand because it was his gun hand. ***, I got Bat Masterson in my driveway. There was nothing moving in 100 yards, and my hands were right in front of me. Gun hand my ass, too much tv. For everyone that is a gentleman there is another who is a frustrated tv actor, 10-4. see the doorman.
I am more afraid of a poorly trained officer than a bad guy. A bad guy I can dispatch, trying to explain the law and legal reprecussions of their actions to someone with little of no experience and a failing budget who is told "really" don't write reports, unless you have to. Is frustrating. When the main souce of revenue is traffic tickets, because people arent paying taxes on houses like they did before the crap hit the fan is a bad situation. One guy gives out 50 speeders before noon. How do I know, the car dealer who sold him his car told me, because he gave him one. Hes a double amputee who still rides a glide, God Bless. There's a storm a comin, Less you say better it is. If you have to then you have to. Thank God I don't

Diggers
March 15, 2011, 03:21 AM
Wow seems like some of the fringe comes here.

Cosmoline This --> the aptly-named Cox made me laugh a lot. :) Thanks!

Here are a few facts about Cox and people like him. He is in it for HIMSELF. He does not understand the concept of belonging to a society. His view of our society is it’s a place where he takes what he wants and gives nothing back. Basically he is just a HUGE A-hole, and one that feels murder is fine if someone dares hold him accountable for his actions.

Have no delusion; people like this are what tyrants are made of NOT heroes. He has no interest in 2A or any other issues of “freedom”. All of that is just fodder to try to manipulate the situation he finds himself in order to get what he wants.

He is NOT some noble figure fighting for justice. He is a crack pot with a personality disorder, having a dangerous temper tantrum because people are not letting him do anything he wants, any time he wants to.

We, thankfully, live in a society of laws which create a stable safe environment for all of us to enjoy. We are all part of that society and benefit from it and thus we ALL are supposed to contribute to it.

Idiots like Cox are just trying to bring our society down to their crappy level of pure selfishness.

Less people like Cox in our society makes it a better place, without a doubt.

cskny
March 15, 2011, 10:59 AM
HorseSoldier, You make all kinds of sense and I think other's just don't want to hear it.

This guy is a nut.

if a drunk driver smashes through an intersection, wipes out a bunch of people, and then runs. We don't "commend" him when he threatens to assassinate people instead of going to court because the intersection was inherently flawed and dangerous.

EVEN if the intersection was flawed and dangerous.

As a community, we need to stop 'standing up' to defend idiots.

cskny
March 15, 2011, 11:03 AM
That's precisely my point, Cosmoline. The duty to inform law is itself moot. The only people it compels to inform, are the folks who don't pose any threat to law enforcement anyway.


BUT the law then gives a LEO the right to arrest those who don't inform! That's another legal tool for the police to arrest the BAD GUYS on the spot.

What are you guys missing?

henschman
March 15, 2011, 12:26 PM
I am definitely not of the opinion that some here are -- that everyone should always obey the law no matter how oppressive it is -- but you've got to pick your battles. Of all the laws to choose to wage war against the government over, why this one? While it is definitely an infringement on the rightful liberty of individuals, and initiates force against people who are not threatening anyone or anything, I believe there are much worse infringements going on every second. You could probably generate more sympathy for your cause if you chose another issue to stand on.

To be clear, I believe Alaskans should disobey this law, but if they are caught, it makes more sense to pay the piddly fine and take a misdemeanor on your record rather than fight to the death. I believe everyone except for the saddest statist boot lickers draw the line at which they are willing to do that, but jeez, save it for something more serious!

Also, if you are trying to make a stand for liberty, I don't think it makes sense to answer a violation of your liberty with a violation of someone else's liberty. Defending yourself against those who are actually attempting to initiate force against you is one thing, but YOU would be the one initiating force if you tried to kidnap some gov't clerk because your friend was kidnapped by agents of the government.

Oh and FWIW i'm a lawyer and I agree with Geoff about the "fif."

Cosmoline
March 15, 2011, 02:49 PM
The only people it compels to inform, are the folks who don't pose any threat to law enforcement anyway.

Telling the officer you're armed lets the officer know that. Not a bad idea. Confusion and surprises are not what you want in such interactions. So I'm not sure what the big issue is.

Of all the laws to choose to wage war against the government over, why this one?

And why the State of Alaska, which is about the least heavy-handed state government around when it comes to the RKBA. Heck you can go off and live as a hermit. You'll never even see a trooper.

Flynt
March 15, 2011, 03:36 PM
This is a really distressing thread. First, it saddens me to read about the gang of thugs that would assasinate public officials. Next it disappoints me that so many posters here miss the point and get involved in a discussion of the CCW disclosure law. Whether the law is a good one or not is beside the point. The militia or whatever you call them are vile, evil people. Conspiracy to commit murder is just plain wrong, no matter how you slice it.

I was taught to always question authority and don't be afraid to challenge injustice. I was also taught murder was wrong. I was also taught that democracy involves a compact between the people and the government: I cede some of my ability to do anything I want in exchange for having a say in setting the rules. We elect representatives to set the rules -- and I'm not going to agree with every one. You don't just kill the guys in power -- that's a dictatorship, Soviet style. A lot of our best young men have died defending us from that form of government.

Have some of us become so entangled in idealogy that we've lost our way? If so, God help us all.

KodiakBeer
March 15, 2011, 04:07 PM
Oh, trust me, this lunatic fringe militia group IS making public traction among the anti-RKBA types.

What started out as a nice little case to test the duty to inform law, has now spiraled into a media frenzy (at least locally).

The silly part is that the entire state apparatus is RKBA-friendly, so Cox's day in court might well have resulted in lifting the silly rule. Now, it's politically impossible to do away with the rule.

wgsigs
March 15, 2011, 04:15 PM
Flynt, thanks for verbalizing some of my same thoughts. I am afraid that some of these digressive responses have reinforced the OP's original point. More ammo for the anti-2nd amendment types. Instead of condemning the obvious nut case, they indirectly defend/rationalizing his behavior by criticizing the misdemeanor law he chose to ignore.

HorseSoldier
March 15, 2011, 04:59 PM
While it is definitely an infringement on the rightful liberty of individuals, and initiates force against people who are not threatening anyone or anything, I believe there are much worse infringements going on every second.

It should be stated that the Alaskan duty to inform does not apply if you are in your own residence or on your own property that residence sits on. So if you remain on your own property your rights are not infringed in any way, shape, or form. Rather like how if you only want to operate a motor vehicle on your own private property you don't have to have a drivers license or insurance on your vehicle. But, if you choose to enter into public areas with a concealed weapon you have a duty to inform. Just like how if you choose to drive on public roads you share with other motorists we require you to be a licensed driver (only CCW is much less restrictive) and we require you to stop your vehicle at the direction of peace officers if so directed. I'll probably make heads explode among all sorts of readers of this thread by mentioning we also have another statute that makes CCW'ing while intoxicated or impaired by drugs a crime as well (another misdemeanor), rather exactly like how we don't tolerate driving under the influence.

When you, as an individual, choose to go into situations where you are interacting with other individuals, the law has always imposed certain limitations on individual liberty and freedom to address or minimize potential for conflicts.

The circumstances of Cox' MIW 5 arrest are not that he was minding his own business and mean officers showed up to vex and harass him. Officers responded to a 911 hang up call and did a walk through to check the welfare of people in the residence. One resident hastily contacted Cox' "Liberty Bell" network which he had set up to monitor police activities . . . because she was concerned that the police would find her marijuana grow when they were in the residence. (Which they did, and which they did nothing about because they weren't there with a search warrant and because Alaska courts don't care much about non-dealer level amounts of pot anyway).

Cox showed up on scene and spoke to a supervisor. During that contact, the sergeant noted Cox appeared to have a pocket knife and asked Cox about weapons -- he admitted to only the pocket knife, forgetting to mention his concealed pistol. Cox then went to enter the residence, where two officers were doing their walk through. The sergeant noted Cox was wearing body armor and thought it prudent to do a pat search before letting this guy walk in on two officers. Only when the prospect of the search made discovery of the pistol inevitable did Cox mention it to the sergeant.

Totality of those particular circumstances? Arrest seems entirely reasonable.

Also, if you are trying to make a stand for liberty, I don't think it makes sense to answer a violation of your liberty with a violation of someone else's liberty. Defending yourself against those who are actually attempting to initiate force against you is one thing, but YOU would be the one initiating force if you tried to kidnap some gov't clerk because your friend was kidnapped by agents of the government.

Schaeffer Cox's "stand for liberty" appears to have popped up on law enforcement radar after he started making public statements about murdering State Troopers after he lost a child custody case some months before his MIW arrest and was looking at the court enforcing his loss of custody if he did not comply. A couple weeks before his MIW arrest, he was arrested for felony DV assault after he choked his wife out (later plead out as a misdemeanor crime that doesn't fall under state DV statutes).

It seems to have been further aggravated by the Office of Childrens Services investigating him -- presumably at least in part because of his felony DV arrest.

Then we get into his whole plunge off the deep end where he declared the courts have no right to judge him, made various threats towards members of the courts and law enforcement, and then started on his plot of have his minions kidnap and murder peace officers and members of the court if Cox were arrested or otherwise held accountable by the legal system.

There's no principles on display here except a narcissist and sociopath going off the rails because he's sufficiently dysfunctional that he can't regulate and moderate his behavior (and aggression, judging by the DV assault, death threats and whole 241 plan), even in a place as permissive as Alaska. (Which is saying something.)

What started out as a nice little case to test the duty to inform law, has now spiraled into a media frenzy (at least locally).

The silly part is that the entire state apparatus is RKBA-friendly, so Cox's day in court might well have resulted in lifting the silly rule. Now, it's politically impossible to do away with the rule.

Cox's version of events is that the officer who arrested him is lying about the circumstances, not that he deliberately decided to challenge an unjust law.

Not that his day in court would have resulted in any change to the law. MIW 5 has been on the books for a while, is frequently charged by various agencies in the state, and has withstood legal scrutiny on a number of occasions. Cox, who apparently can't function like a coherent human being in courtroom settings in any case, wouldn't have brought any meaningful critique or challenge to the law had he shown up for court.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2011, 07:43 PM
gee whiz horse soldier you sure know how to rain on revolutionary fantasies with facts. real party pooper you are to make the hero to be a wife beater with some real serious other issues in real life . whats the mental health care like in alaska jails?

Diggers
March 15, 2011, 07:44 PM
Yep, like I posted before,

he was arrested for felony DV assault after he choked his wife out

<deleted>

Amazing. Showing up to more or less confront the police, armed and wearing body armor? HorseSoldier you guys up in AK are cool hands, in the lower 48 someone pulling that stunt would probably result in a lot more dramatic action than a misdemeanor charge.

General Geoff
March 15, 2011, 07:53 PM
I'll probably make heads explode among all sorts of readers of this thread by mentioning we also have another statute that makes CCW'ing while intoxicated or impaired by drugs a crime as well (another misdemeanor), rather exactly like how we don't tolerate driving under the influence.
At the risk of a possible derailment, I wonder what the definition of "impaired" is in accordance with this law, considering many, if not most people, are habitual users of various types of drugs, not just OTC but also prescription.

Anyway, I have no sympathy for the guy who no-called, no-showed for his court hearing.

Shadow 7D
March 15, 2011, 08:09 PM
Like Kodiak pointed out,
The law could have been challenged, and there are 2nd amendment groups, like the 2nd amendment task force, that are, and have been working on this issue.

BUT
Cox isn't either, a good case (sorry but he is guilty as sin-not that bad of a thing to challenge the law, BUT his is crazy, rather disliked, and it would take Johnny Cochran to get him off)

Nor is he a member of the 2nd amendment task force.

So now the state will probably drop the MIW 5th and just throw the rest of the book at him.

Geoff, if you bothered to actually look any of this up....
it's the same as driving

General Geoff
March 15, 2011, 08:25 PM
Geoff, if you bothered to actually look any of this up....
it's the same as driving

That's a misnomer since Alaska's DUI law (http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/statutes/title28/chapter35/section030.htm) makes no mention of being under the influence of drugs at all; only specifically alcohol, "inhalants," or a controlled substance (which is a federally defined term). I can only presume HorseSoldier was referring to a different statute that includes a reference to drugs in general, or misspoke.

cassandrasdaddy
March 15, 2011, 09:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_substance

A controlled substance is generally a drug or chemical whose manufacture, possession, and use are regulated by a government. This may include illegal drugs and prescription medications (designated Controlled Drug in the United Kingdom).[1]

In the U.S., the DEA is responsible for suppressing illegal drug use and distribution by enforcing the Controlled Substances Act. Some precursor chemicals used for the production of illegal drugs are also controlled substances in many countries, even though they may lack the pharmacological effects of the drugs themselves. Substances are classified according to schedules and consist primarily of potentially psychoactive substances. The controlled substances do not include many prescription items such as antibiotics.[2]

Some states in the U.S. have statutes against health care providers self-prescribing and/or administering substances listed in the Controlled Substance Act schedules. This does not forbid licensed providers from self-prescribing medications not on the schedules.

HorseSoldier
March 15, 2011, 10:04 PM
That's a misnomer since Alaska's DUI law makes no mention of being under the influence of drugs at all; only specifically alcohol, "inhalants," or a controlled substance (which is a federally defined term). I can only presume HorseSoldier was referring to a different statute that includes a reference to drugs in general, or misspoke.

MIW 4 specifies liquor or controlled substances. The state has its own schedule of controlled substances, which don't differ from federal guidelines on legal/illegal (as far as I know), but do differ substantially on precise scheduling.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Militia" Stupidity = Talking Point for Anti-2A Types" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!