spacemanspiff
New member
I haven't been paying as much attention as I should have lately, just found this Op Ed piece:
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/7451992p-7362219c.html
text:
Gun law goes too far
Take guns away in a disaster? Not likely to happen in Alaska
Published: February 16, 2006
Last Modified: February 16, 2006 at 01:41 AM
You have to wonder why House Bill 400 is necessary in Alaska.
The one-page bill would amend Alaska's disaster law by making it a Class A felony for anyone during a state-declared emergency to confiscate or attempt to confiscate any lawfully owned or carried firearm. The penalty could be as heavy as a 20-year prison sentence and a quarter-million-dollar fine.
Scenes of looting and stories of worse after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans underscore the need for self-reliance when disaster sweeps away normal law enforcement protection, along with life, property, utilities and commerce. But Alaskans' right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and, more specifically, the Alaska Constitution. Further, the legal lessons of New Orleans have been laid down: A federal court in Louisiana ordered New Orleans police to stop a general confiscation of firearms, and the Federal Emergency Management Administration backed off a firearms ban among residents in temporary housing when challenged by the National Rifle Association and others.
"This bill will insure that law-abiding citizens are not disarmed by the government during a time when they may need their firearms the most," wrote the sponsor of House Bill 400, Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole.
But this bill doesn't seem necessary. And even if it were, it seems excessive to threaten a felony for city or state officials who use their best judgment to protect the public during a disaster.
First, it's difficult to conceive that any state or municipal government agency in Alaska would attempt to confiscate firearms. Alaskans are strong supporters of firearms rights -- witness the 73 percent support for the 1994 constitutional amendment that added this sentence to Alaska's fundamental law: "The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."
That's unequivocal language that doesn't need any further clarification, disaster or not.
Second, a Class A felony carries the same penalties as some murders and rapes. To put a public employee in the same class for even overzealous judgment during a disaster makes no sense. And if any private citizen or group tried to confiscate firearms, such thievery already is covered in law.
This legislation is a solution in search of a problem that we don't have in Alaska. Lawmakers should drop it and spend the time on more pressing business.
BOTTOM LINE: Protect Alaskans' gun rights in a disaster? We've already got it covered
=================================
My initial reaction is that the writer is attempting to gloss over what happened in New Orleans, the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens.
This particular phrase: "it seems excessive to threaten a felony for city or state officials who use their best judgment to protect the public during a disaster. alarms me. Can it really be said that the mayor's order to confiscate guns, by the police, National Guard and US Marshalls (source:http://www.reason.com/hod/dk091005.shtml - if this source is incorrect please advise, doing just real quick research here) was "best judgement to protect the public"?
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/7451992p-7362219c.html
text:
Gun law goes too far
Take guns away in a disaster? Not likely to happen in Alaska
Published: February 16, 2006
Last Modified: February 16, 2006 at 01:41 AM
You have to wonder why House Bill 400 is necessary in Alaska.
The one-page bill would amend Alaska's disaster law by making it a Class A felony for anyone during a state-declared emergency to confiscate or attempt to confiscate any lawfully owned or carried firearm. The penalty could be as heavy as a 20-year prison sentence and a quarter-million-dollar fine.
Scenes of looting and stories of worse after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans underscore the need for self-reliance when disaster sweeps away normal law enforcement protection, along with life, property, utilities and commerce. But Alaskans' right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and, more specifically, the Alaska Constitution. Further, the legal lessons of New Orleans have been laid down: A federal court in Louisiana ordered New Orleans police to stop a general confiscation of firearms, and the Federal Emergency Management Administration backed off a firearms ban among residents in temporary housing when challenged by the National Rifle Association and others.
"This bill will insure that law-abiding citizens are not disarmed by the government during a time when they may need their firearms the most," wrote the sponsor of House Bill 400, Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole.
But this bill doesn't seem necessary. And even if it were, it seems excessive to threaten a felony for city or state officials who use their best judgment to protect the public during a disaster.
First, it's difficult to conceive that any state or municipal government agency in Alaska would attempt to confiscate firearms. Alaskans are strong supporters of firearms rights -- witness the 73 percent support for the 1994 constitutional amendment that added this sentence to Alaska's fundamental law: "The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."
That's unequivocal language that doesn't need any further clarification, disaster or not.
Second, a Class A felony carries the same penalties as some murders and rapes. To put a public employee in the same class for even overzealous judgment during a disaster makes no sense. And if any private citizen or group tried to confiscate firearms, such thievery already is covered in law.
This legislation is a solution in search of a problem that we don't have in Alaska. Lawmakers should drop it and spend the time on more pressing business.
BOTTOM LINE: Protect Alaskans' gun rights in a disaster? We've already got it covered
=================================
My initial reaction is that the writer is attempting to gloss over what happened in New Orleans, the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens.
This particular phrase: "it seems excessive to threaten a felony for city or state officials who use their best judgment to protect the public during a disaster. alarms me. Can it really be said that the mayor's order to confiscate guns, by the police, National Guard and US Marshalls (source:http://www.reason.com/hod/dk091005.shtml - if this source is incorrect please advise, doing just real quick research here) was "best judgement to protect the public"?
