While I remind everyone that both Alaska and Vermont (along with various federal laws such as the unconstitutional "gun free school act") impose a fair number of restrictions on where a gun can be carried without a permit, would that our own legislature would follow their lead in respecting the RIGHT to own AND CARRY a firearm. In most regards, Alaska now does Vermont one better. No permit is required to carry a firearm (openly or concealed, if I'm not mistaken) in most public places AND Alaska also has a "shall issue" concealed carry law similar to Utah's for those who want or need to carry in places like schools or to avail themselves of reciprocity in other States.
Any legislators willing to follow Alaska's example?
Charles
==================
Charles Hardy
<utbagpiper@juno.com>
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Great News!
----------
Source:
The Future of Freedom Foundation
http://www.fff.org/
The Gun-Control Tide Is Turning
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0308a.asp
by Scott McPherson mailto:mcpherson0627@juno.com
http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/bios/sxm.asp
August 4, 2003
Advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have modest reason to celebrate
these days. The state of Alaska recently became the second state, after
Vermont, to allow citizens to carry concealed firearms without a permit or
any of the restrictive measures, such as fingerprinting or background
checks, that often accompany the permit-application process.
And on July 15 the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 6-1 that │a citizen╣s
desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security
is at its apex when undertaken to secure one╣s home or privately owned
business.▓ The decision came when the court heard the case of a Milwaukee
store owner who was arrested for having a loaded gun in his pocket. The
police were enforcing the state╣s draconian concealed-carry law, which
allows only │peace officers▓ to carry concealed weapons.
The Wisconsin court ruled, however ï on the basis of a 1998 amendment to the
state╣s constitution that states that │people have the right to keep and
bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful
purpose▓ ï that protecting oneself while at home or one╣s place of business
is clearly consistent with that │other lawful purpose▓ standard.
These two events mark small but significant victories for America╣s
gunowners and all supporters of individual freedom.
Do they signal a sea change in the way most Americans are thinking about
guns? Can we now expect widespread support for the repeal of our nation╣s
many unconstitutional gun-control laws? Unfortunately not.
Still, what does seem to be happening, at the very least, is that more and
more Americans are rejecting the absurd, leftist, 20th-century invention of
a │collective right▓ to own a gun (e.g., through a state agency such as the
National Guard) in favor of an individualist interpretation of the Second
Amendment more consistent with the intentions of the Framers. More
important, a few state governments seem to be listening.
When writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Framers wanted to
ensure that the citizenry at large would be armed to protect their
respective states against foreign aggression or a tyrannical central
government; this was the general militia (as compared with the │select▓
militia, which they greatly feared) early statesmen were talking about when
they wrote the Second Amendment.
The Founders wanted to maintain a constant and large supply of gunowners who
could defend liberty were it ever to be seriously threatened again.
Remember, these men had lived through the early days of the American
Revolution; they had seen the militia at work on April 19, 1775, when armed
farmers swarmed like bees on an invading British army and sent it back to
Boston in tatters. Whatever their misgivings about the militia replacing a
conventional standing army, they knew first-hand that a countryside full of
armed citizens was the greatest first line of defense.
Tench Coxe, a personal friend of James Madison (who with George Mason
co-authored the Second Amendment), summed it up best when he wrote, │Their
swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the
birth-right of an American.▓ Such men would be horrified to hear modern
Americans claim that gun ownership was a right only of government employees.
For these early Americans, one of the citizen╣s first duties was to own a
gun ï if necessary, __as a last resort for use against government
employees__.
At the same time, the right of an individual to own and use a gun to defend
his home and property would have been accepted as a given, not even worthy
of discussion or debate ï which is precisely why it was never discussed, let
alone debated, in either the Constitutional Convention or early congresses.
People would own guns for the broad purpose of security, as the Wisconsin
court has acknowledged. If someone wishes to argue that home, state, or
national security should be assigned orders of importance, it doesn╣t weaken
the case for an individual right in the least.
Ever since the 2000 presidential election, many pundits have been warning
Democrats that gun control is a losing issue. Many believe that key
Democratic states such as Tennessee and Arkansas, which should have been
easy pickings for Al Gore, were nonetheless lost because of his anti-gun
proposals.
In the same vein, these pro-gun victories in Alaska and Wisconsin suggest
that a minor groundswell is taking place in our country. Even if most
Americans are still (mistakenly) prepared to support │reasonable▓ gun
control at the federal level, such as background checks, they are also
(wisely) signaling that such measures should not be used to erode the
general right to own guns.
We may be a long way from abolishing all of our failed, immoral, and
unconstitutional gun-control laws, but this year╣s actions taken by the
Alaska legislature and the Wisconsin Supreme Court indicate that, however
slowly, the tide is finally moving in that direction.
Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
