Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this such a good idea?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is this such a good idea?

    After reading this I have mixed feelings regarding this matter. I believe that persons with permits are less likely to abuse it. Not to mention there is going to be an increase with CCWs. They have not said yet whats "legal" in order to do it.

    ---No permit needed to carry concealed guns
    IN 90 DAYS: Governor signed bill, praising it as a Second Amendment victory.

    By MIKE CHAMBERS
    The Associated Press

    (Published: June 12, 2003)
    JUNEAU -- Alaskans will no longer need a permit to carry a concealed weapon under a bill signed into law Wednesday.

    In signing the bill, Gov. Frank Murkowski lauded the work of the Legislature and the National Rifle Association in protecting the Second Amendment rights of Alaskans.

    The bill would adopt the so-called "Vermont Carry" law that allows residents to carry a concealed weapon without a special permit. Vermont has no laws against carrying concealed weapons, the governor's office said.

    In Alaska, someone who applies for a concealed handgun permit is required to take a handgun course certified by the state Department of Public Safety.

    Rep. Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, said he sponsored the bill out of frustration with continually fine-tuning the state's gun laws.

    "I object to the government putting a precondition on that constitutional right (to carry a weapon). I'm presumed to be a responsible citizen until proven otherwise," Croft said.

    House Bill 102 does not eliminate the state's concealed handgun permit program. The governor's office said Alaskans could still apply for a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon in other states or to be exempt from background checks when purchasing firearms.

    But the bill, which takes effect in 90 days, would allow Alaskans who can legally carry a firearm to carry it concealed without such a permit.

    It does not change prohibitions against carrying firearms into courthouses, school yards, bars and domestic violence shelters.

    About 17,000 concealed handgun permits have been issued in Alaska, said Greg Wilkinson, a spokesman for the Alaska State Troopers.

    The measure will aid gun owners particularly in rural areas where handgun safety courses may not be readily available, Croft said.

    While the measure won broad support among lawmakers -- more than half in the 60-member Legislature signed on as co-sponsors -- it did have its detractors.

    Sen. Con Bunde, R-Anchorage, was among 10 lawmakers voting against the bill. Bunde said current Alaska law requires someone to understand their legal obligations and demonstrate proficiency before receiving a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    He said people often misuse handguns because of a lack of firearm education and training.

    "I am a strong gun advocate and very concerned that every time someone misuses a gun, particularly a handgun, we lose in the court of public opinion," Bunde said.

    Also signed into law was a bill to require the state Department of Public Safety to recognize all concealed carry permits issued in other states.

    The gun bills were among nearly a dozen new laws signed by Murkowski during a ceremony in Wasilla. Some of the highlights:

    Disclaimer: The writer does not represent any organization, employer, entity or other individual. The views expressed are those only of the writer. In the case of a sarcastic, facetious, nonsensical, stirring-the-pot, controversial or devil's advocate-type post, the views expressed may not even reflect those of the writer [This sig stolen from Brickcop who stole it from Frank Booth].

  • #2
    By signing the bill into 'Law', all he did was REAFFIRM an individual RIGHT......essentially 'legalizing' something that has been 'legal' all along.
    "When you guys get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a *****."
    -Commanding General, 1st Marine Division

    Comment


    • #3
      quote:
      Originally posted by shooter1201:
      By signing the bill into 'Law', all he did was REAFFIRM an individual RIGHT......essentially 'legalizing' something that has been 'legal' all along.

      That's certainly one interpretation! [Wink]

      Comment


      • #4
        I suppose that crminals and/ or thugs then should have always had that same right? I understand law abidding citizens should, thats why I like the idea of a permit.
        It would prevent people whith records and mental disorders(except in AK anyway) thw "legal" permission to carry. And if you abuse the laws you lose the permit. But I guess if you wanted to carry one anyway you would.


        TGY
        Disclaimer: The writer does not represent any organization, employer, entity or other individual. The views expressed are those only of the writer. In the case of a sarcastic, facetious, nonsensical, stirring-the-pot, controversial or devil's advocate-type post, the views expressed may not even reflect those of the writer [This sig stolen from Brickcop who stole it from Frank Booth].

        Comment


        • #5
          Felons aren't allowed to be in possession of guns, so they still can't carry them legally. This only allows law-abiding citizens to exercise a freedom they should have had all along.

          Mike
          "Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. And the United States of America has the best doctor-to-daredevil ratio in the world!" -- Captain Lance Murdoch, The Simpsons

          Comment


          • #6
            If it will be legal to CCW without a permit, why is a bill recognizing the permits issued in other states necessary?
            Paul

            Comment


            • #7
              quote:
              If it will be legal to CCW without a permit, why is a bill recognizing the permits issued in other states necessary?
              No...It gives Alaskans a permit to travel to other states and be recognized.

              For example...a New Hampshire Permit is good in Florida. A VT native (similar to the new law in AK) would need to go to anopther state, and pay out-of-state fees, in order to be able to travel, since he doesn't have a permit.

              Actually, in a way, this gives them LESS of a right. There are a few federal laws that govern this type of thing...The "Gun Free School Act" is one of them. (Amazing how well that law works, BTW...) It specifically exempts CCW holders.

              So in my home state, where some limitations are made on my right to carry, I ultimately have more freedom with the permit. In VT, which completely respects my right, I couldn't carry onto school property...because the federal government doesn't recognize my right.

              Note that this is just an example; I know the law because I have to, not because I don't trust our SRO to do his job.
              I haven't felt this good since we stole the 2000 elections!--Ned Flanders

              Comment


              • #8
                Lack of a permit only prevents law abiding citizens from carrying. The way I read the article I'm not sure if non residents are allowed to carry in AK without a permit. I'm glad to see a second state affirming the second ammendment.
                Bill R

                Comment


                • #9
                  I have a car. I also have a drivers license, and the car is registered. I have no problem with these requirements since I have no intention of using thecar to kill someone or rob a bank. I also do not have a gun and have no intention of getting one.

                  If someone feels they need a gun for self-defense or wants it for hunting there should be no problem with getting a permit. Someone caught with a gun but no permit could go to jail for 30 days or whatever punishment the law imposed.

                  Some people feel they shouldn't be required to get a permit since gun ownership is a right, just as driving a car is a right (or privilege). The word used is a technicality in both cases. I don't see why anyone should object to getting a gun permit unless the person is up to no good.

                  There should be some way to distinguish between a nervous citizen and a fruitcake.

                  [ 06-13-2003, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Snoopy1 ]

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Snoopy1, driving on a public highway is not a right. Owning and carrying a firearm is. Do you need a permit for free speech? Rights do not require permission.
                    Bill R

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Bill,

                      OTOH, a convicted felon, when he is released from jail, can have go stand on a bench and talk about whatever he wants too. He can't go into a gun store and walk out with a 9mm. Some rights you lose permanetly.

                      I think it would be great if the Federal government just said "Ok, screw it, here's the deal: when you want to buy a gun, the dealer gives you a background check for criminal history. If you're clear, you pay $X, and get a license good for four years, when it expires, you pay a re-registration fee. The license permits you to carry a concealed weapon in all 50 states,
                      except where specified otherwise.*"

                      * for example, schools, airports, private property where it's posted "no weapons" etc.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        quote:
                        Originally posted by Snoopy1:
                        Some people feel they shouldn't be required to get a permit since gun ownership is a right, just as driving a car is a right (or privilege). The word used is a technicality in both cases.

                        Well, if you want to consider the fact that our founding fathers specifically acknowledged certain rights as a "technicality", then go right ahead. You're the kind of person the government loves! However, there is no right to drive a car and there is one to keep and bear arms. Now, I'll give you that the issue gets fuzzier when you speak of carrying concealed, since the 2nd Amendment does not address that specifically.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          quote:
                          the issue gets fuzzier when you speak of carrying concealed, since the 2nd Amendment does not address that specifically.

                          I'm good with open carry. It's more comfortable, especially in the summer, it would send a very clear message that if you're looking for a victim, don't look here (something I try and do with body language anyway) and I think it would lead to a resurgence of manners. [Wink]

                          The only problem is the investment in a different style holster. None of my concealed holsters have a security system.
                          I haven't felt this good since we stole the 2000 elections!--Ned Flanders

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ahhh...a subject that is near and dear to my heart.

                            Consider the fact that permits to carry weapons has only been "required" in most states since the last decade.

                            Now we have somewhere around 40 states that have a permit system, and that number is going up. Even in notorious anti-gun states like Illinois and Missouri,the lawmakers are catching some serious flack over it. It seems that no matter what some of the citizens vote in, a few anti gun legislators always seem to gum things up one way or the other.

                            Now consider the language in the second amendment that states the "right to bear arms SHALL not be infringed". This right was good until this last century, a permit was not even thought of. Basically ANY citizen had a right to self defense until they screwed up and got it revoked.

                            Now heres the kicker...

                            Requiring a permit,a fingerprint card, a back ground investigation and in some cases "permission" from a sherrif or a local police chief ASSUMES that you are guilty of something until you "prove" yourself innocent.

                            Now looking at the word structure in the second amendment , the word SHALL , means that it WILL NOT be infringed. Because I work fulltime at a nuclear plant, the word SHALL has federal implications that even the FEDS take seriously and even those that dont work in a lawmaking cababiity seem to understand.

                            For instance,If I am working from a procedure that says I SHALL do this or that and I dont do it, I am not only subject to immediate termination, but I could be subject to a 10,000 fine and 10 years in jail.

                            Knowing how the feds interpret "shall" on other things and seeing how lawmakers interpret "shall" to mean whatever they want it too at the time points to some serious double standards by the government.

                            Then there is the liberal argument that the second amendment was only for the National Guard. What the people fail to understand is that there was no national guard until this century. The "milita" that people talk about was EVERY man in the country that could be called upon for defense if needed. The militia was to provide their own weapons and ammo, in many cases large citys had militias that even had weekly drills and armories. It could even be argued that the first shots fired in the Revoultuionary War was fought over gun control when the Brits marched on Concord to seize the local armoury, which in that case even include several cannons.

                            Now back to "Shall not infringe". In my state, it costs 129 dollars to get a permit for 4 years.Although it is not a big deal for most people that value their life, it IS a big deal to some. Does the fact that one may not be able to afford the cost mean that their life is worthy any less ?

                            And another thing...since the state requires a background check by the FBI, why dont they pay for it ?

                            Lets look at the state of Vermont. A state that by practice completley blows away most of the antigun arguments. NO permit is required, yet there seems to be no pattern of abuse there.Now Alaska does the same thing and we have the anti gunners squalling about the potential dangers of such an act, yet they have no complelling evidence to prove or back up any of their allegations of what "might" happen.

                            What some good, law abiding people dont realize because they do not think like criminals is the fact that a criminal dosent obey the law. The "LAW" only hinders those that choose to abide by it. An example of this would be the fact that every American that ever drove a vehicle has broken the law by exceeding the speed limit at one time or another. The law did not PREVENT them for doing it, they only suffered the consequences if they were caught.

                            Back in the good old days when the Federal and state government actually had ethics and an honor system that people understood and abided by, there was no need for permits. When people were held accountable for their actions, when you couldnt be sued for somebody trying to steal your property and then getting injured, when people understood that protection of their life and the lives of their familys was their responsiblity and not the polices',a permit was unheard of.

                            Now for those that are unable to think clearly and for those that beleive nothing will ever happen to them...consider this.

                            TODAY a permit may cost 50 dollars and most can afford it. 20 years from now and several anti gun administrations away, whats it gonna cost ? Whats it gonna cost if some organization like the United Nations decides that it is unwise for the common citizen to own one ? Suppose we have a president like Bill Clinton that subverts his authority to the UN, an organization that works daily to eliminate the ownership of private guns and has been sucessfull in almost every country in the world ?

                            Any time you subject a "right" to regulation by the Federal or even a state Government, you are in danger of losing that right.

                            Of course, they'll be smart about it. They'll do it a little at a time, raise the price of few bucks here and there without actually ever eliminating the right but eventually you'd have to be a millionaire to excercise it. So once again, if you are rich, you can enjoy a "right" that most cannot.

                            Dont think it can happen ? History proves you wrong. Wont happen here in the good old USA you think? Then people like you are EXACTLY why it will happen.

                            Thats my take on it, but HEY, Im a simple man.

                            [ 06-14-2003, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]
                            "The American People will never knowingly adopt Socialism. Under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every segment of the socialist program,until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

                            Norman Thomas

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              quote:
                              Originally posted by CiaJ:
                              Bill,

                              OTOH, a convicted felon, when he is released from jail, can have go stand on a bench and talk about whatever he wants too. He can't go into a gun store and walk out with a 9mm.

                              Most of us are not felons though. Why should WE need a permit to exercise our rights? A permit is not necessary to determine if I am a felon.

                              quote:
                              Some rights you lose permanetly.
                              Unless you're a convicted dope dealer that has enough pull with the Democratic Party to get Lee Baca to write a letter of recommendation for a presidential pardon to President Clinton which is granted in the final hours of his presidency. [Eek!]

                              [ 06-14-2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Bill R ]
                              Bill R

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 6300 users online. 338 members and 5962 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X