home

Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 09:24:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Beginning Wednesday, Alaskans will be able to carry a firearm in their vehicle and no longer need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A new state anti-gun control law that goes into effect will essentially bar municipalities from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than state law. The National Rifle Association, which helped Republican state Rep. Mike Chenault write the legislation, says except for the concealed weapon permit requirements, most Alaska city and state gun laws are the same.

What the NRA wants to do is prevent cities from passing more restrictive laws in the future. It calls it state pre-emption, and Alaska will be the 44th state to have such a law on its books. "We are looking to make it uniform to all 50 states," said NRA spokeswoman Kelly Hobbs. "Without it, it creates an unfair, inconsistent and confusing patchwork of local firearm ordinances."

< Kilgore Criticizes Opponent For Death Penalty Defense | On Cheney's Role in Leaks Probe >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights | 19 comments (19 topical)
    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    What do you call an Alaskan with a rifle? Seriously outgunned. I've got a cannon. Seriously, tho, the way of the gun is the way of America. At some point it will reach a critical mass, most likely in the event of a national emergency, and all hell is liable to break loose. Even if everyone's just "protecting" themselves, that's a lotta lead flying around.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    I think this is the last issues we on the Left need to be concentrating on right now. We have the opponate on the ropes and we stop to look at the girl with the card that has what round we're in. Focus.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    since most people with a gun couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, and few of them have the type of training to handle one in tense circumtances, it would be a lot of wasted lead. interestingly, i just saw a report on cnn, quoting from the most recently released fbi statistics on violent crime, that violent crimes again decreased last year, by around 2.5%. this causes me to wonder just who these people are arming themselves against? forget that weenie gun, i'm getting myself a 20mm, rapid fire cannon!

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#4)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    I'm a gun fan, but the "firearm in their vehicle" bit kind of irks me. The new law says they can have a gun in their car while parked on private property with a "no guns" policy posted. Thus stomping the property rights of the parking lot owner. I wish my bosses would let me keep a gun in car on the company lot, but they don't, so I don't. The Man doesn't need to override that.
    violent crimes again decreased last year, by around 2.5%. this causes me to wonder just who these people are arming themselves against?
    Crime goes down, say guns aren't needed, crime goes up, say guns need to be restricted...

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#5)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Ok...Alaska is Alaska. If the three people that live up there want to carry guns...that's cool. The reason I say that is those of us who have never been to Alaska have no idea of why they want to carry guns. But...I would imagine that in some parts of Alaska, people have more of a chance of running into some wild crazy creatures of the coldness (bears and such) than running into people who they want to shoot. That's why I think this sort of decision (as well as most others) should rest with the states. Federal govt should only step in when there are disputes among states or situations that are bigger than the state.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    The problem's not with carrying, it's with BRANDISHING. Brandishing laws are poorly enforced. If you brandish in the face of a n*gger, for instance, that's a warning or a slap on the back, but if you brandish in the face of a fellow KKK member, then the proper response is for the cop to torture the brandisher in the back of the jail, and then burn down his house. If people are allowed to carry a terrorist device like a gun, why not bombs? After all, someone with a full clip and a few carts in their bag can 'do up' an entire shopping mall about as good as a small explosive. Better make sure to stop all brown-skinned people and search them, because when Leroy goes off his meds or his meth doesn't sit right, and he blows away thirty of his neighbors in a hail of lead, you wouldn't want a Mexican or an Arab to pull a boxcutter on him or something.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Paul in LA is on your side..... Thank God Paul in LA is on your side. Speaking of going off his meds....

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    I wish my bosses would let me keep a gun in car on the company lot, but they don't, so I don't. The Man doesn't need to override that. Roy, thats a company policy, not a law. I have a CCW and carry in all sort of palces that have signs that say "no weapons." As long as I'm not breaking the law I have to say I have little concern for the rule of a private citizen who will never know that I have a gun.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    I have a CCW and carry in all sort of palces that have signs that say "no weapons." As long as I'm not breaking the law I have to say I have little concern for the rule of a private citizen who will never know that I have a gun.
    How lovely for you that you have so little respect for the rights of others. How offended would you be if someone on your property acted in a manner against your wishes? Oh right...you have a gun, so you don't care what they think. Seems like just another case of mistaking your pistol or rifle for your "gun", IMNSHO.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Speaking from experience, I'm quite in favor of allowing registered and licensed handguns being carried by law abiding citizens in their cars. Myself being the victim of an attempted car jacking in broad daylight on a very busy business district street in Atlanta, I can testify to my progressive sisters and brothers that there comes a point where we cannot simply trust that our police will ensure our security (at least not without psychic police and Star Trek transporter beams). That doesn't mean that your average mother of three should be able to easily obtain an or legally have an Uzi to keep in their minivan. Unless you're going to outlaw all weapons, it should be understood that a lawful gun owner will have a gun present in their vehicle at one time or another. Given that self defense using deadly force in a life threatening situation is a valid justification, how should one fully utilize their legal right to resist if they are disarmed? By the same token, I feel concealed weapon permits are a necessary evil, but that there still must be local ordinances preventing taking such items into spaces in the name of civilized behavior where security is entrusted (and liability is clear) to professional security staff (airports, libraries, schools, Corporate environments, etc). Shorter version: there needs to be a common sense balance, not "all or nothing", the way this particular debate is currently framed.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    LWW trolls so you don't have to. Gun rights are universal. Since the NRA is promoting carry laws and blowing off police approval for concealed carry, the NRA is objectively PRO-TERRORIST. Any 'Arab' (Saudi) or 'Mexican' (Saudi) terrorist who wants to carry is good to go. Will they be able to shoot everyone in the mall before the little old ladies can whip out their pearl-handled vanity pistolas? That's where all the fun will be. Oh, and the road rage is going to be swell. Farmer, family of five, blown to bits by Leroy, whose three meth personalities share his one ARMED TO THE TEETH body. Leroy, why did you shoot up the Farmers? 'They smiled at me, so I knew they were up to something.'

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    LWW: LOL! PIL: Ask the people in Wash. DC is gun rights are universal.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    Wile, you missed the point. Gun rights are given to all races and ethnic groups alike in most places. Therefore, these policies of concealed carry without police approval and car carry of handguns are objectively PRO-TERRORIST. It is better, from the standpoint of 'homeland security,' to have the police do background, need, and fitness checks on people before they can legally carry guns in public. Btw, if the Brazilian the British killed was here instead, and under these policies was armed, and was attacked by uniniformed men claiming to be police, should he pull and shoot back? How about the other armed persons, should they open fire when they saw a terrorist running and police shouting after him (as the incident reports, later debunked, claimed)? Your response to LWW's pathetic troll shows, once again, that a cartoon character is just a joke.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#14)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    Look for Brady, Violence Policy Center, and related ilk, to ramp up their rhetoric of the bloodbath to come; same old bull$hit.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    PiL's right. A terrorists who's willing to break the law by commiting murder would first have to obey the law by submitting to a background check. Tragedy averted.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#16)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    Oooh, we should require police approval before exercising the right to free speech, too. 'cuz of propaganda and stuff. I'll see your "objectively pro-terrorist" and raise you a "think of the children" who are exposed to unregulated evil ideas.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    Posted by roy: "A terrorists who's willing to break the law by commiting murder" Are there any other kind? The point is that when everyone has a bulge in their jacket, the police job is multiplied to infinity. 'Objectively Pro-Terrorist' is your 'ilk's' way of thinking. Don't you like it? When being stopped by uniformed or uniniformed police, your chance of being blown completely away multiplies to infinity if you are armed. It makes every stop a felony stop. Even a grandmother has to be suspected of being armed and (therefore) dangerous.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    The point is that when everyone has a bulge in their jacket, the police job is multiplied to infinity.
    If "a bulge in their jacket" is a vervesome way to say "possibly a concealed gun", then everyone already has one. A small gun can be concealed in any clothing beyond speedos. That said, another benefit of requiring police approval for exercising free speech is that with fewer people talking about controversial topics, it'll be easier for police to figure out which ones are doing so as conspiracies. Doesn't make it a good idea.
    'Objectively Pro-Terrorist' is your 'ilk's' way of thinking. Don't you like it?
    My ilk is libertarian; our way of thinking is however we feel like. But, yes, conservatives abuse the terrorist card too.
    When being stopped by uniformed or uniniformed police, your chance of being blown completely away multiplies to infinity if you are armed.
    I've been stopped three times while carrying a concealed weapon. It's not a big deal. Moreover, anyone who's willing to kill a cop is willing to carry a weapon without a permit.

    Re: Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights (none / 0) (#19)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    “That said, another benefit of requiring police approval for exercising free speech is that with fewer people talking about controversial topics,”
    We could regulate the free exercise of religion as well. If the feds registered citizens according to religious affiliation it would be easier to track members of those ‘questionable’ religions that have a propensity toward violence.
    “…your chance of being blown completely away multiplies to infinity if you are armed.”
    Typical. If this had even a passing association with reality (something I try not to get Paul mixed up with too often) it would be trivial to show an increase in gun violence after the passage of conceal/carry laws. Several states have liberalized their carry laws over the last few decades; show me the associated rise in violence.

    Alaskans Get Greater Gun Rights | 19 comments (19 topical)