Liberty!!!

[caribou]

Check this out!!!

Alaska already has mandatory CLO MUST sign off all eligible class 3 requests laws, conceled carry without a license for everyone and now what can we build at home????

Read this and freek out.....
http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell/governors-office.html

Gotta push the "Retrun to home" button, for some reason...



So here it is anyway.




Governor Parnell Signs Three BillsFirearms, Goldstream Public Use Area
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

No. 10-0102



May 27, 2010, Anchorage, Alaska – Governor Sean Parnell today signed legislation relating to firearms. House Bill 186, the Firearms Freedom Act sponsored by Representative Mike Kelly, establishes that a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is made either commercially or privately in Alaska and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law or regulation.



“HB 186 is about our individual freedoms as Americans,” Governor Parnell said. “It’s about providing for and protecting our families. It’s about standing up for state’s rights. And it frees the State of Alaska from restrictive federal firearm regulation and allows us to take responsible firearm regulation into our own hands.”

House Bill 319 changes statutes on Alaska concealed handgun permits. HB 319, sponsored by Representative Mike Hawker, clarifies that a permit does not have to be surrendered when it expires or when a permit holder moves out of the state. The bill also clarifies that an expired permit can be displayed, as long as the permit holder is not claiming that it is a valid permit. It also requires the Department of Public Safety to mail a notice to the permit holder at least 90 days prior to the expiration of a permit.

Governor Parnell also signed legislation making the Goldstream Public Use Area (GPUA) permanent. The GPUA encompasses nearly 2,000 acres of state land and has a growing network of trails and is utilized year round by outdoor enthusiasts. It was established in 1990 by Senator Bettye Fahrenkamp and Representative Mike Davis and was set to sunset on July 1. Senate Bill 195, sponsored by Senator Joe Thomas, repeals the sunset provision.



###

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! **** YOU Sara Brady!!!!

 

[NOLAEMT]

while it is now legal according to ak to make nfa items, I don't think the ATF will agree. I just hope someone richer and more stubborn than me (according to the fiance that may be impossible) will do it and challenge the feds.

 

[Deus Machina]

...in Alaska and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law or regulation.

I think the feds would strongly disagree with this one.

Until it's actually challenged, I think that, at best, it's just Alaska saying "We don't have a state law against it, so we're turning a blind eye." Federal laws trump state laws.

 

[happygeek]

The Constitution only gives the Feds the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Of course, the Feds have overstepped their authority and now regulate pretty much all commerce. Government agencies tend to not want to give up their power once they've managed to acquire it, hence the BATFE will fight this one tooth and nail I'm sure.

 

[danprkr]

I just hope someone richer and more stubborn than me (according to the fiance that may be impossible) will do it and challenge the feds.

I'm sure some rich guy will challenge it just for fun, probably through a corporation to keep himself personally safe. I just wish I was that guy. I would enjoy that fight. And of course the being rich

 

[W.E.G.]

probably through a corporation

An individual can CONSPIRE with a corporation.

Feds love that conspiracy charge.

You can be convicted of conspiracy, and acquitted of the substantive offense.

The first avenue, without making arrangements with cellmate Bubba, would be for a manufacturer to request an opinion letter from ATF as to whether excise tax will be charged on manufacture of something simple, like a .22 rifle.

If the response is unfavorable, then a federal declaratory judgment action might be in order.

 

[danprkr]

W.E.G.

Isn't that basically where they are in Montana with their similar law? And, has anyone heard how/if that is proceeding?

 

[MedWheeler]

Florida, too, I think. I'll have to check.. can't remember if it is a done deal yet, or still just in the works..

Edit: Just checked, and it appears that it goes into effect on 01 October, of this year. It applies only to firearms manufactured from that date on, and has some restrictions (ex: any gun using smokeless powder and having a bore diameter greater than 1.5 inches, and gun not designed to be fired by only one person.)

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

As more and more states seem to be passing this sort of law, how long before someone actually acts on it?

Also, IIRC, doesn't the Montana law also say that Montana LEOs will not cooperate with Feds in the arresting and prosecution of people who are following the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, but are still pursued by the Feds?

 

[Cosmoline]

The freedom acts are bugs on the fed's windshield I'm afraid. I wish the resources had been spent building more state gun ranges and helping lower the price of ammo.

 

[wideym]

The "Firearm Freedom Act/s" won't really have a leg to stand on when just one of the "built here/stays here" guns walks across the state line, and I'm sure it's going to happen at some point.

Either some idiot will move with it out of state, sell or give it someone out of state, or the Feds and/or Blumburg will "arrange" a sting operation. That's all the higher courts will need to strike down these laws regardless if the lawbreaker broke the state's laws willingly or not.

 

[UpTheIrons]

I think the wider goal here is for several of the states to start passing these bills. I don't believe there is any push to start manufacturing yet, just to get them on the books. At least, I've not heard of anyone doing any manufacturing yet.

I read something a couple months back about the SCOTUS looking at "an emerging consensus" when something like this gets to them on appeal. If more and more states start passing these laws, and more and more states start fighting the Fed's (impending for sure) crackdowns because of them, then when it gets to SCOTUS, the fact that X number of states are on board makes a theoretically stronger case than Billy Joe Bob Johnson's Florida-made .17HMR crew-served suppressed coyote decimator.

It makes something like Wickard v. Filburn easier to beat when there's more than just one farmer.

Or something like that.

 

[andrsnsm]

Our legislature in Oklerhomer passed something similar and then our jacka$$ Governor vetoed the bill. He's a lame duck so he's vetoing everything that doesn't fit his personal liberal agenda. How we voted him in twice is beyond me when every county went Republican in the presidential election.

 

[TexasBill]

What I don't understand is why the states that are on board with this type of legislation aren't also telling their Senators and Representatives to introduce and support legislation at the national level to ease some of the federal laws?

I am not opposed to the states flexing their own muscles; it's healthy and important that a balance be maintained (or restored) between the powers of the federal government and those of the states. However, the desirability of movement at the federal level is important as it can benefit the citizens of all states, including California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Wisconsin.

I looked through the firearms legislation proposed during this session of Congress. It might surprise you to learn there are pro-gun bills, too. Of course, none of the bills, pro- or anti-gun, have even been reported out of committee, but it would seem to me that we might see some beneficial movement if some state houses were to put a bit of pressure on their folks in Washington.