Posted on 10/16/2005 1:47:00 PM PDT by freepatriot32
JUNEAU, Alaska — Starting Wednesday, a new anti-gun-control law in Alaska will allow handgun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit in the seven Alaska cities where permits are now required.
Gun owners will be allowed to keep their firearms in their vehicle, even if the car is parked on private property where the owner has a no-gun policy.
And, some police chiefs say, local ordinances that ban guns from public buildings such as city halls will no longer be enforceable.
Alaska’s new law forbids municipalities from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than state law.
The National Rifle Association, which helped Republican state Rep. Mike Chenault draft the new law, said it wants to prevent cities from passing restricting laws in the future. It’s what the organization calls 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 spokeswoman Kelly Hobbs from the NRA’s Fairfax, Va., headquarters. “Without it, it creates an unfair, inconsistent and confusing patchwork of local firearm ordinances.”
Chenault said a law-abiding citizen should be able to carry a firearm wherever he wants to, but in Alaska, that citizen may be breaking the law and not even know it.
“You could leave Homer with a gun in your vehicle and find yourself in conflict with laws in other municipalities just by driving through those municipalities,” he said.
The part of the law that most concerns Alaska police chiefs is the lifting of bans on guns in public buildings. That could leave government workers inside vulnerable to attack, said Anchorage Police Chief Walter Monegan.
“There are lots of people, myself included, we really value our constitutional rights,” Monegan said. “But if we had the same enthusiasm to also support our constitutional responsibilities, then I would be less concerned over this issue.”
Across the state in Bethel, Police Chief Ben Dudley said he also is concerned that he will no longer have the option of charging people with entering a municipal building with a weapon. But he’s more philosophical on the effects of that city law when it comes to stopping somebody who means to do harm.
“If there were people with bad intentions entering into municipal buildings, the law isn’t going to stop those people anyway,” Dudley said. “They’re going to stick a pistol down their pants anyway.”
The new law would allow cities to keep guns out of places beyond a restricted access point, such as a metal detector, but the chiefs say their cities can’t afford to staff and equip such points.
Plus, “It runs counter to the intent of public buildings to establish the checkpoints,” said Juneau Police Chief Richard Gummow.
Chenault said his interpretation of the new law differs. State law now does not specifically prohibit weapons in municipal buildings, but it does in state buildings. If municipalities pass their own weapons bans for public buildings, those laws shouldn’t be considered any more restrictive than the state’s ban, he said.
But he acknowledged that it may take a court challenge to see if his interpretation is correct.
The police chiefs are less concerned about the concealed-weapons permits. Two years ago, the Legislature removed the requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but the state continues to issue them. The NRA says those permits are still required in seven cities: Anchorage, Bethel, Juneau, Petersburg, Sitka, Valdez and Wasilla.
Even opponents of the law seem fine with getting rid of the permit requirements.
But state Sen. Hollis French, D-Anchorage, who voted against the bill, said he objects to its stance of putting gun rights over private property rights. The law says a government or person cannot create a rule that would prohibit someone from keeping a gun inside a car, wherever the car is.
“In that tension between the legitimate right to protect yourself, and, for me, the more absolute right to do as you see fit with your property, this tips the balance a little too far toward guns,” French said.
The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure.
The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion.
The Attorney General's opinion holds as much constitutional weight as Sarah Brady's.
Just as your cited supreme court opinions "hold as much constitutional weight as Sarah Brady's"?
Get real paulsen, - get back to basics.
--- We have an inalienable right to self defense, and our right to keep & bear arms cannot be infringed by any level of our governments -- because we have never delegated that type of power to local, state or federal lawmakers.
In fact, it's self evident that inalienable rights cannot be 'delegated away'.
Even if his opinion was accepted as the correct interpretation of the second amendment (currently, only the 5th Circuit Court holds that opinion), it still only applies to federal law.
BS.. -- In effect, the US Attorney General's opinion is the Executive Branch opinion.. -- Our executive is sworn to support our Constitution, as written; -- and our Constitution is the Law of the Land, -- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State, notwithstanding."
---- Just as it says in Article VI.
Those are facts you never even try to refute.
States are bound by their state constitution, not the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the Attorney General's opinion does not change that fact.
robertpaulsens opinion "holds as much constitutional weight as Sarah Brady's".
The Ninth Circuit is NOT the Supreme Court. I would have thought someone as willing to quote legal history as you are would know that.
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit is the most corrupt, liberal, socialist, anti-american court in the country. It is also the circuit that holds the dubious honor of having that largest number of its decisions overturned by the actual Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has more of its decisions overturned than all the other circuit courts COMBINED.
In other words, the Ninth Circuit Court is WRONG!
Explain this to me:
The the First Amendment right of the people to peaceably assemble is an individual right.
The Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects is an individual right.
The Ninth Amendment's open affirmation of non mentioned rights retained by the people refers to individual rights.
BUT ...
For some reason the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is NOT an individual right? Instead, it's some vague concept like a "collective right"?
And for that matter, just what is a "collective right"? How can a group have rights that the individuals in that group do not? Isn't that just mob rule?
The plain answer is that all rights are individual rights. If they're not, then they're not rights, they're powers or privileges for a few.
And another thing. You say these rights are not "granted by the Constitution". Well, that statement is correct, but not in the way you think it is. Look at Amendment Nine. It clearly says the rights therein are "enumerated". It does not say "granted". That means the Bill of Rights merely lists and numbers them, it does not grant them. They exists a priori. By the Ninth Amendment, the people posses these rights whether or not they are mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution, and the government, does not have the authority to grant these rights, just as it does not have the authority to take them away.
Your arguments, really, just make me ill. You take it as an assumption that the courts are the highest authority in this country. You believe that the Constitution only means what a court says it means. Well, you're wrong. The Constitution means what the Constitution says. It's really not a difficult document to read and understand. But throughout history, judges and politicians have done their damnedest to twist, pollute, and dilute the test of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in support of their own political agendas. Sure, they've have the political power to do so, but they never had the authority or the right.
And yet you seem to think that that is just fine. You are so proud of your ability to quote legal minutia that you never analyze the legal decisions themselves. You readily agree to the recent unconstitutional Kelo decision just because the Supreme Court claimed it was constitutional. You blindly accept the legal decisions of a Supreme Court with justices like Ginsberg who firmly believe that so called "international law" supersedes our own Constitution. By your logic, she managed to sleaze her way onto the court, so she must be right. You accept the Ninth Circuit's obviously incorrect claim that the Second Amendment, unlike all the other Amendments, only refers to an "collective" right. You twist your head around so much that you even accept something as self contradictory as the concept of a "collective right". You've wrapped yourself up in the cloak of weasel words and false justifications provided t your by corrupt legal decisions. And you're proud of it.
You, sir, are an enabler of corruption, and an ally of tyrants.
there's also magnum research that makes both a semi (desert eagle) and a revolver (bfr) in .50
Well said..
Our boyo will now "shut up", as he can't "put up" anything rational in rebuttal.
No it is not. I did cite three Supreme Court cases, however. Miss them? I also cited a 7th Circuit decision. Miss that one also? All of the cites, including the cites from the 9th Circuit, are consistent.
"For some reason the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is NOT an individual right?"
Changing the argument? Have you conceded that the second amendment does not apply to the states? Good.
As to the RKBA being an individual right, only the 5th Circuit has ruled that way (once) in all of recorded history.
"The Constitution, and the government, does not have the authority to grant these rights, just as it does not have the authority to take them away."
But of course. I never said any differently.
"By the Ninth Amendment, the people posses these rights whether or not they are mentioned in the Constitution."
Yes they do. But nowhere is it written that the government must protect these rights.
"And for that matter, just what is a "collective right"?"
That citizens may bear arms as part of a militia only.
The courts have interpreted the second amendment (which only applies to the federal government -- as we've agreed) to mean that the federal government is prevented from infringing on the right of the states to form a well regulated militia, the state militia being necessary to the security of a free State and all that.
"The Constitution means what the Constitution says."
As interpreted by ... who? You? Are you to define an unreasonable search? A speedy trial? Excessive bail? Free speech?
Ah. Maybe "the people" are to interpret the U.S. Constitution. There you go. That's the ticket.
Do you think "the people" could compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 before they go back to watching Wheel of Fortune?
After all, "It's really not a difficult document to read and understand." Idiot.
Yes, they are consistent. They are consistently WRONG. They are consistently contrary to the text and meaning of the Constitution and the bill of Rights.
Have you conceded that the second amendment does not apply to the states? Good.
YOU were the one who brought up the Ninth's incorrect position that the Second Amendment applies only as a "collective" right. And no, I do not concede, because I am still right, and you are still wrong.
The Second Amendment does not apply to the states. It applies to the people. All the people. Every individual person. It is a right of the people. It is not a right that can be revoked or changed by the states, or the federal government. That is what "shall not be infringed means", regardless of what some gun-grabbing totalitarian judge or sycophantic legal toady like you might think.
As to the RKBA being an individual right, only the 5th Circuit has ruled that way (once) in all of recorded history.
Because courts also get things right. In this case, the number of courts that have ruled correctly (such as this case) or the number that have ruled incorrectly (such as the Ninth) is irrelevant to the basic fact that the Second Amendment enumerates the inviolate individual's right to keep and bear arms.
But of course. I never said any differently.
But you have. You say the states have the power to revoke these rights. They don't.
Yes they do. But nowhere is it written that the government must protect these rights.
WTF? You really are an enabler of tyranny, aren't you. Protecting the rights of the people is the primary task of government. Otherwise you don't have government, you have tyrrany.
That citizens may bear arms as part of a militia only.
Firstly, do you understand the difference between dependent and independent clauses? The Second Amendment enumerates a right to keep and bear arms as a right of the people, not a right of the militia. It clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", not "the right of the militia". If you somehow are correct (which you are not), then who decides who gets to be in the militia? The government? If the right to keep and bear arms can be applied only to particular people in this way, then it is not a right. It is a privilege. Rights, by definition, cannot be applied to a select group. They must be held by all or they are not rights.
Secondly, what is the militia? If you think it's the National Guard, or any other government sanctioned or organized body, then you are again absolutely wrong. The National Guard was created 112 years AFTER the Bill of Rights was written. Look at the Fifth Amendment. It clearly recognizes that the militia is separate from the armed forces. The militia is defined in United States Code, Title 10, Section 311, as "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age". Notice that it says NOTHING about being in any official military organization or anything about the militia being organized, sanctioned, or controlled by the states. Moreover, at the time the Constitution was written, the militia was clearly seen as nothing more than the people having taken up arms. Don't believe me?
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee (Father of the Tenth Amendment),
Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
I particularly like the line about minds being influenced by truly anti-republican principles. Sound familiar?
So here's the crux of the whole militia issue. You think people can only bear arms if they are in the militia. You have it exactly backwards. The people are in the militia specifically because they are bearing arms. And the Second Amendment enumerates and guarantees their right to do so.
The courts have interpreted the second amendment (which only applies to the federal government -- as we've agreed)
No. We have not agreed. You have just cutely tried to claim that I agree with your position, because you haven't got a valid argument to support it. We will only agree on this once you recognize that you are utterly wrong.
To the point of this sentence: only some courts have interpreted the Second Amendment this way. Those courts are wrong. And so are you.
to mean that the federal government is prevented from infringing on the right of the states to form a well regulated militia, the state militia being necessary to the security of a free State and all that.
Again wrong. You do not understand what a militia is. A "state militia" is not a militia. A militia, by definition, is not formed by the states. It is formed by the people (see above). Also, the Second Amendment does not say anything about state militias. And it specifically says, militia or no, that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people.
> "The Constitution means what the Constitution says."
As interpreted by ... who? You? Are you to define an unreasonable search? A speedy trial? Excessive bail? Free speech?
Ah. Maybe "the people" are to interpret the U.S. Constitution. There you go. That's the ticket.
Do you think "the people" could compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 before they go back to watching Wheel of Fortune?
And here we finally see the root of all your arguments. Your inherent elitism have finally come out into the open. You clearly believe the people are so simple that they cannot understand what a simple expression like "shall not be infringed" means. They are just too simple minded to understand all the subtle nuance and hidden meaning that shows "shall not be infringed" means the exact opposite of what it does. Obviously, you think the people are so foolish and childlike that they need good, intelligent, better people like you to be their leaders, law interpreters, and masters.
Well, thank God they don't.
I've said it before, and it still holds: You are an enabler of tyrants. Such a pity there are so many fools and idiots out there who think as you do. You are nothing more than a symptom of how badly our great nation has fallen short of its potential and how completely we have betrayed the sacrifices of the Founding Fathers who created it.
I forgot to ping you in on my last response (#166) to the wanna-be peasant paulson. Enjoy (though I'm not sure why I bother debating the weasel - ever time I read one of his posts, I feel an urgent need for a bath).
Paulsen make his normal snide [and personal] attack:
"It's really not a difficult document to read and understand." Idiot.
As interpreted by ... who? You? Are you to define an unreasonable search? A speedy trial? Excessive bail? Free speech?
Ah. Maybe "the people" are to interpret the U.S. Constitution. There you go. That's the ticket.
Do you think "the people" could compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 before they go back to watching Wheel of Fortune?
Your answer bears repeating, as you "boldly" nail him..
Pillbox_girl:
And here we finally see the root of all your arguments. Your inherent elitism have finally come out into the open.
You clearly believe the people are so simple that they cannot understand what a simple expression like "shall not be infringed" means.
They are just too simple minded to understand all the subtle nuance and hidden meaning that shows "shall not be infringed" means the exact opposite of what it does.
Obviously, you think the people are so foolish and childlike that they need good, intelligent, better people like you to be their leaders, law interpreters, and masters.
Well, thank God they don't. I've said it before, and it still holds:
You are an enabler of tyrants. Such a pity there are so many fools and idiots out there who think as you do.
You are nothing more than a symptom of how badly our great nation has fallen short of its potential and how completely we have betrayed the sacrifices of the Founding Fathers who created it.
______________________________________
Again, -- well said. -- It's a pity, but your words will just fly completely over paulsens head. -- [I sometimes wonder if he enjoys the disdain of his peers]
-- Keep up your good work..
Yep. But not all rights. Even when a right IS protected, like speech, not all forms of speech are protected (eg., libel and slander).
The people decide which rights they will protect, and to what degree.
"Because courts also get things right."
Pretty selective, aren't you?
"It clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", not "the right of the militia"."
Uh-huh. The right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. According to the courts.
"If you somehow are correct (which you are not), then who decides who gets to be in the militia?"
That was up to each state, but the Militia Act of 1792 provided federal standards for the organization of the militia of each state.
"If the right to keep and bear arms can be applied only to particular people in this way, then it is not a right."
Of course it is. According to the courts, the second amendment protects from federal infringement the right of people to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. That's the right that's protected. It's very specific.
"You say the states have the power to revoke these rights. They don't."
Revoke rights? Who said that?
I said that an individual's RKBA is protected by his state constitution, not the second amendment. If the state constitution is silent (as is California's and five others), then the state legislature is unrestricted when it comes to guns. In Illinois, the state constitution allows for the banning of handguns. And some cities in Illinois do just that -- Chicago, Wilmette, Morton Grove, and others.
"Secondly, what is the militia? If you think it's the National Guard ..."
It is not the National Guard, and I never claimed it was. The militia as described in the U.S. Constitution no longer exists. There is no militia today.
"Those courts are wrong."
Says who? You? And who are you?
"You do not understand what a militia is. A "state militia" is not a militia. A militia, by definition, is not formed by the states."
"And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct ..."
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
"You clearly believe the people are so simple that they cannot understand what a simple expression like "shall not be infringed" means."
I clearly believe that YOU don't know what it means. You've proved that already. Your ignorance is astounding.
You believe, and would have other people believe, that their gun rights are protected by the second amendment. "Not to worry, people", you'd say, "The second amendment will protect you".
What a fool. Sarah Brady loves people like you. If the people of California listened to you, they wouldn't be working on a state constitutional amendment to protect their RKBA. "Hey, why should we pass an amendment to the state constitution? pillbox_girl says the second amendment protects us already."
Life is so simple for simple people like you, isn't it? You say the constitution says A. The courts say B. Well, the courts are wrong.
La-di-da. Life goes on.
I hope you don't vote.
Useful idiots abound.
paulsen inanely objects:
Yep. But not all rights.
Sigh.. --- Robbie, ~all~ of our rights to life liberty, or property are 'protected'. Try reading the 14th.
Even when a right IS protected, like speech, not all forms of speech are protected (eg., libel and slander).
How droll.. You have no 'right' to libel & slander robbie, - but I must admit, -- you do it so well you rarely get caught.
The people decide which rights they will protect, and to what degree.
Ah yes the old democratic 'will of the majority' theme..
Gotta love it when you start spouting your communitarian line..
Does this Chief really think that a maniac who wants to shoot up a county office or a courtroom cares about breaking that law against guns in the courthouse?
Gun laws aren't intended for criminals, criminals by definition don't obey laws. Gun laws are intended to keep law abiding people from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.
Of course I do. The 9th amendment says I do. Just like the 9th amendment says I have a right to do drugs.
It's just that those rights are not protected by society.
Even when a right IS protected, like speech, not all forms of speech are protected (eg., libel and slander).
How droll.. You have no 'right' to libel & slander robbie, - but I must admit, -- you do it so well you rarely get caught.
Of course I do. The 9th amendment says I do.
The 9th says you have a right to lie & defame? How twisted.
Just like the 9th amendment says I have a right to do drugs.
But robbie, you do have the right to self medicate/intoxicate yourself, -- as it's evident you do - in some of your more creative posts..
It's just that those rights are not protected by society.
The people decide which rights they will protect, and to what degree.
Ah yes the old democratic 'will of the majority' theme, coupled with the weird socialistic idea that we can lie about what are our 'rights' -- if we have the politically correct intent..
Oh, he doesn't need society. The ghost of Ayn Rand protects rights.
Paulsen
Of course I do. It's just that those rights are not protected by society.
Mojave 'observes', inanely:
Oh, he doesn't need society. The ghost of Ayn Rand protects rights.
Ah yes the old democratic 'will of the majority' theme, coupled with the weird socialistic idea that we can lie about what are our 'rights' -- if we have the politically correct intent..
Now topped with ghostly observations on individualism.
You two stir up quite a pot of nonsensical bull..
Ah yes tpaine's hatred of our society, our forms of goverment and our Founding Fathers,
"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817.
"And where else will this degenerate son of science [Hume], this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809.
"A nation ceases to be republican...when the will of the majority ceases to be the law." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1808.
The ghost of Ayn Rand protects rights.
Ah yes the old democratic 'will of the majority' theme, coupled with the weird socialistic idea that we can lie about what are our 'rights' -- if we have the politically correct intent.. Now topped with ghostly observations on individualism.
Ah yes --- hatred of our society, our forms of goverment and our Founding Fathers.
More bizarre observations, unsupported by any facts..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.