This is a discussion on Alaska Model??? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; As I read various threads, I am struck by what appears to be a dichotomy.
On-the-one-hand (in some threads), we as a group appear to ...
View Poll Results: Do you agree with the Alaska model of minimal gun control?
- 326. You may not vote on this poll
July 30th, 2009 10:56 AM
As I read various threads, I am struck by what appears to be a dichotomy.
On-the-one-hand (in some threads), we as a group appear to approve/applaud the Alaska model of minimal gun control – i.e., if you can legally possess/own it you can carry it, OC or CC. Moreover (in some threads), we tend to condemn those States that restrict ownership and carry.
On-the-other-hand (in other threads) a majority of the posters seem to believe that CC needs to be earned by some level of competence – i.e., meet a standardized requirement for an individual to properly perform specific task/job; have a combination of knowledge, skills and behavior utilized to improve performance at a task. More generally, competence is the state or quality of being adequately or well qualified, having the ability to perform a specific role/job/task.
Is this an illusion?
Where do we stand?
A vote "Yes" means that you agree with the Alaska model of minimal gun control – i.e., if you can legally possess/own it you can carry it, OC or CC.
A "No" vote means you think that only those who earn the privilege of carrying a handgun should be allowed to do so-- e.g., you think that in order to carry one must do one, or more, of the following:
1) Demonstrate a need to carry a firearm.
2) Demonstrate a prescribed knowledge of the State’s legislative code & regulations and the precedent case law
3) Demonstrate a prescribed knowledge of the parts, nomenclatures, operations of firearm and ammunition.
4) Demonstrate an established level of skill/proficiency -- using live-fire.
Last edited by DaveH; July 30th, 2009 at 08:46 PM.
Reason: Couldn't get the info in the poll. Had to move it up to my post.
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
July 30th, 2009 10:56 AM
July 30th, 2009 11:28 AM
I applaud Alaska for stepping aside and allowing it's citizens their complete 2nd amendment rights; the rest of the states should be ashamed of the bull crap they put honest citizens through just to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
July 30th, 2009 11:41 AM
Self defense shouldn't be considered a privilege. It is a basic tenant of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
While I agree that we want everyone to be responsible and proficient, I don't think it is reasonable to restrict, say, and old person who is unable to qualify. In reality, this is their only hope at maintaining their own security.
Yes, I would hope that people self regulate when they become unsafe. Of course, I know that many will do stupid and unsafe things (and you won't avoid that by training). But, from my perspective that is part of the price of Freedom for All.
And, I'd rather be a bit less safe in order to preserve my Freedom.
The only real complaint I have re: the Alaska CC is the need to notify when entering a home. Personally, I think this basically "outs" every CCer, which seems particularly stupid.
July 30th, 2009 11:50 AM
I think this goes to interpretation of the original docs of the constitution, do we place our society into the mix and say well now they would have framed it this way or do we say the right to bear arms (no criminal history, psych issue confirmed danger to society) is the right to bear arms.
I wish everyone would be proficient and I would personally prefer compentency but I am not sure that was the intent not did the framers face 21st century issues...
Yes is what I think the law of the land and its intent is...
July 30th, 2009 11:59 AM
I voted "yes". However...I believe purchase of a handgun should require proof that a basic handgun safety has been taken within the last, let's say, 5 years.
July 30th, 2009 12:17 PM
I believe that the sentiments the OP is refering to is the result of 2A restrictions. If we are to prevent further erosion of our RKBA we must show that we are willing to go above and beyond what the Constitution covers - i.e. background checks, training and so forth. As stated by others, I also feel that it is the responsible thing to make sure that I am as well versed in the laws that apply to carrying a handgun and that I am proficient in its use. However, this has nothing to do with whether or not I have the RIGHT to own/carry that handgun.
"Mind own business"
"Always cut cards"
July 30th, 2009 12:28 PM
I say, "Yes!"
We should be able to buy anything, carry (CC/OC) anywhere, anytime...OMO...but criminals already do that.
I do understand the need for some control, but it should be taken care of in the criminal department.
Misuse a gun and you're done!
I'm sure that it is an over simplification on my part, but we are talking about a 'right', not a privilege.
It's not like driving a car, or having a beer...2A is different. We need to continue to fight for relaxed gun rights and continue to tighten up the criminal misuse of firearms.
Stay armed...remember to vote...stay safe!
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
July 30th, 2009 12:31 PM
I think the original poster placed to many reasons the state should be allowed to deny you a CPL.
I don't think "Show need to carry" should be included but I have no problem with having to show you know basic safety rules, and able to shoot well enough to not be a danger to your own foot.
July 30th, 2009 12:45 PM
It's hard to give a plain Yes or No answer to something so complicated, but if I have to choose I'd go with Yes. The right to protect your life is/should be, a basic human right, no Government or any other organization has the right (morally) to tell someone that they must be defenseless in the face of danger. Due to age and physical condition many people can't even fight off the least attacker without a gun and since the technology exists they shouldn't have to.
Even if the Constitution said nothing about the right to bear arms, I'd still consider it a basic human right. No Constitution or any other document can take away that right.
July 30th, 2009 12:51 PM
Perfectly said IMO.
Originally Posted by PNUT
July 30th, 2009 01:00 PM
This has to be a landslide.... For anyone on here to vote "No" would be against the DC forum,.. Or should be.. If ALL people was armed, it would be a safer world.. Yes, people will still get shot and killed,..That has been happening sense Cain and Able.. But at least is evens the odds... No-one wants to take a knife to a gun-fight..
July 30th, 2009 01:06 PM
Exactly how I felt. I did not vote because of it.
Originally Posted by TedBeau
July 30th, 2009 01:15 PM
I said No. Although, I think it should be every law abiding citizens right to own a firearm, I don't think that every law abiding citizen is suited to carry a firearm.
Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
July 30th, 2009 01:41 PM
Yes, I like the Alaska & Vermont models of self defense. Our Constitution and supreme court, but only 2 states, recognize that the right of self defense by bearing arms is a God given right, predating our Constitution or any other form of government.
Originally Posted by Keltyke
A right is a right, no matter what. There can be no "test" of whether someone is worthy of exercising that right. Would you require someone only use correct spelling and grammar before being " allowed" to exercise their First Amendment rights? Does someone need to practice only an "approved" religion to exercise that right?
All creatures in nature have the right of self defense, using the best tools and abilities they possess. With some that means teeth and claws, some others depend on stinky chemicals excreted from their bodies. Many rely on natural camouflage, speed or stealth. On a molecular level, bodies, including human bodies, are in a constant battle with invaders by using their immune systems to fight off disease and infections. Those of us higher on the food chain are relatively fragile in matters of fighting. We have fists with thin skin covering them, brittle bones in them and some rather harmless teeth , but for the most part we are rather weak. Therefore we rely upon weapons that we acquire as a result of our larger brains and higher intellect. Those arms started out as rocks and sticks, evolving into the arms we have today.
A case can be made that even convicted felons, serving time in a prison, have a right of self defense. If jumped by a stronger inmate or gang, should the weaker ones meekly submit, or exercising the laws of nature, fight back? Sure, they may receive in-house punishment, but one must be alive to be punished.
Laws and civilizations are instituted among man. That is our social nature. Laws are given to try and regulate behavior. Some laws are for the public good, but some others are for the benefit of the law givers to maintain power and control. Requiring some kind of test is wrong not only for our right to bear arms, but in our rights to speak, read, worship (or not), or vote as well.
U.S. Navy Veteran '65-'69
Retired Police Detective '71 - '01
NRA Life Member / SAF Member
U.S. Constitution (c) 1791, All Rights Reserved.
July 30th, 2009 01:53 PM
Originally Posted by cmb
Well stated and directly on point...........to view the matter in ANY other fashion is accept licensure and preconditions. Hell, if you require training to exercise the 2nd, then most certainly you've gotta agree with close regulation of the other ENUMERATED rights!
(then again, maybe we ought to require one to prove citizenship prior to voting, speaking, exercising religious preference, or perhaps even being able to lock our doors to ensure our security of person or property) (or mayhaps the unenumerated ones IE: abortion or welfare receipt for that matter!)
Bottom line is you either accept ALL of those rights or NONE!
By Czampion in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
Last Post: May 11th, 2009, 08:43 PM
By batpot in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: February 13th, 2009, 09:12 PM
By pgrass101 in forum Member Meeting Place
Last Post: June 19th, 2007, 09:47 PM
By pmaenner in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: July 5th, 2006, 03:13 PM
By SubNine in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
Last Post: June 5th, 2006, 07:49 PM
Search tags for this page
home protection for felons
Click on a term to search for related topics.