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

[stevelyn]

I found this little gem in my inbox from the good folks at Gun Owners of America. I type the summary of the letter as follows.

Tuesday May 13, 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[spacemanspiff]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[spacemanspiff]

interesting readings concerning HB 102

"04-30-2003 House Journal 1207
HB 102
The following was read the second time:

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

with the: Journal Page

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

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

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

There being no objection, it was so ordered.

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

Nays: Berkowitz, Cissna, Gara, Gruenberg

Excused: Joule, Kookesh, Wilson

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

CSHB 102(STA) was read the third time.

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

CSHB 102(STA)
Third Reading
Final Passage

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

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

Nays: Berkowitz, Cissna, Gara, Kerttula

Excused: Joule, Kookesh, Wilson

Absent: Moses, Rokeberg

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

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



31 for passing this bill, 4 against.

 

[answerguy]

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

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

 

[Baba Louie]

spacemanspiff,

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

Do YOOOUUU feel that way? (j/k)

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

Alas Alaska. I dream it well.

Adios

 

[spacemanspiff]

gets even more interesting...

an amendment was proposed, as follows:

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


5 voted for this, 33 voted against.


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

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

 

[spacemanspiff]

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

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

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

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

 

[John Galt]

Spaceman....

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Shaggy]

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

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

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

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

 

[rrader]

spacemanspiff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Standing Wolf]

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

 

[stevelyn]

spacemanspiff

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

 

[spacemanspiff]

well thats why i prefaced my comments with 'dont hate me', i knew what i was going to say would be the minority voice around here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jim March]

Waitasec.

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

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

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

 

[Wildalaska]

The nice thing about our CCW stat here in Alaska is that it mandates some training....as there are many who are clueless entirely about everything, its a help.

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

WildalaskaslikenowhereelseAlaska

 

[atek3]

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

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

atek3

 

[Jim March]

Long-term, I agree.

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

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

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

 

[atek3]

Hey Jim, I agree on all counts

atek3

 

[another okie]

The answer to your concerns about idiots with guns is universal education in the use of firearms, not restrictions on our right to defend ourselves.

 

[stevelyn]

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

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

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

 

[treeprof]

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

 

[pytron]

Same in Washington -- no training requirement. Just show up and fill out form. Return and pick up license (some offices mail them).

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

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

-Pytron

 

[Jim March]

I fully realize that states such as WA, ID, GA and at least one of the Dakotas are "shall issue without training" and it works just fine.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[themic]

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

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

 

[Justin]

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

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

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