Yeah, but I wouldn't recommend it.
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.
Well, it's a start. Now how about we start forbidding municipalities, states, and congress from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than the United States Constitution allows?
What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is so damn difficult for some people to understand?
Private property?
Kelo nixed that.
Any new "toy" that is in the neighborhood is examined and admired for its characteristics.
As far as I am concerned, someone could bring an Abrahms tank over to our house for lunch, and I'd be happy. We'd feed the American GIs roast beef sandwiches, potatoe salad, hamburgers... you name it.
Bottom line? The United States Military is the ONLY portion of my taxpayer dollars that I would EVER - EVER want my money going to put food into other American mouths.
/rant
Actually, no. It is not your right.
There is a reason why the Second Amendment is the second, while private property only gets mentioned starting in Amendment 3.
The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That means what is says: shall not be infringed. Not by Congress. Not by your state. Not by your local municipality. Not by your local homeowners association. And not by you.
As a private property owner, you do have the constitutional right to decide who is and is not allowed onto your property. That is your right. However, by the Bill of Rights, you are NOT allowed to decided whether or not they may exercise their right to keep and bear arms while on your property. Unless you are willing to search everyone at the gate and specifically exclude those who are exercising their right to keep and bear arms, you are not empowered to make complaint about them exercising their rights after the fact. Now, if they abuse their right to keep and bear arms and engage in harmful behavior, that is a different matter entirely.
Of course this is really moot. I can see no rational reason why anyone should feel the need to exclude law abiding gun owners; they are not the problem. You can spend all the time you like around law abiding gun owners carrying concealed arms and never know it. It's the non-law abiding gun owners who are the problem, and they don't obey "gun control" laws or rules (it's kind of what makes them non-law abiding).
Uh no, the Bill of Rights does NOT apply to private citizens.
Do not tell me I cannot prevent Free Speech on my property. Or any other right, if I do not want it to happen on my property.
I will also have to say your lack of understanding in regards to simple civics and law is astounding.
> Kelo nixed that.
Just like Dredd Scott affirmed the property rights of slave owners.
The court was wrong on Kelo just as they were wrong on Dredd Scott.
The real question is whether or not it's going to take another Civil War to fix the court's error on Kelo like it did on Dredd Scott.
To your logic. If I were invited to your home for a soiree for dinner with a prime rib and a carving knife, would you perform an iris scan, fingerprint scan, and report same to the FBI, CIA, and Homelan Security, and send emails to MI5?
(rolling eyes to jack-ass mentality)
Then again, some folks are clueless.
A clue.: Rewind 200 years ago.
No I wouldn't, but that's hardly the point.
I would be well within my rights to not allow you entry for any reason I deemed necessary.
Yes. It does. It applies to EVERYONE. That's the point.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is giving you such difficulty?
Do not tell me I cannot prevent Free Speech on my property. Or any other right, if I do not want it to happen on my property.
No. You may not.
If someone is saying something you don't like on your property, you are empowered to have them leave. You are NOT empowered to silence them. You are NOT empowered to prevent free speech, only their presence on your property.
I do not see why you are having such difficulty comprehending the distinction. It's really very simple.
Bigger issue.... Is a government "worker" have more sancrsanct RIGHT than any on else. This is total bullsh!t.
I know a guy who is a Senator. Is his skin any more valuable than my wife's.
The gun bills are bullsh!t. Our familiy's skins are more, "sacrosanct{" than any goverment desk jockey.
If some one wants to come in and murder these workers they wouldn't worry about breaking a simple handgun ban law.
At least now instead of hiding under a desk and praying while waiting in terror to be found and executed at his leisure, these workers can arm themselves,train and shoot the bastard back.
Congrats Alaska.
If you allow my vehicle on your property, you're violating my property rights by searching the vehicle. In other words, your property rights ends at my car door handle as long as you allow my vehicle on the property. If you don't like what's in your employee's cars, you might as well bulldoze the parking lot.
It's not the same as providing a locker for a worker. The company owns that locker and can search it.
Once you learn and understand that the Bill of Rights does not apply to private citizens, but to the Government and its relation to private citizens, get back to me.
If your logic was correct, then the owner of this website could not ban a poster...because that would be an infringement on their right of free speech.
Until then, any discussion with you is useless.
You make valid points, but a property owner should still be allowed to allow or disallow what he wants and doesn't want on his own property.
That being said, business/owners who don't want guns on their property are hysterical.
Yeah, but I wouldn't recommend it.
My gun will stay off your property[parking lot] inside my property[vehicle].
Oh please.
The problem here is that your lack of basic understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the nature of rights themselves has become sufficiently widespread that people mistake the error for the actuality. The tragedy of this is that some people who hold to the same misconceptions that you do have managed to successfully legislate based on their mistaken ideas. But that doesn't mean they are right.
What does "shall not be infringed" mean?
You (and so many other people, unfortunately) seem to think there's a hidden "except for" somewhere in there.
Not necessary. Just be safe with it, and you can bring it anywhere you like on my property.
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.