Home invasion . . . it happens anywhere, anytime, are you prepared?

On June 23, 2013 at approximately 10:30 am, a nanny cam video from a home surveillance system demonstrates just what happens when a robber decides to kick your door down . . . in broad daylight.

The community was Millburn, NJ. A liberal town in a liberal state with strict gun control laws that protect the criminal.

Video link:
http://www.myfoxny.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9025554

A young woman with two small children was watching cartoons on TV in living room when a black male 5 ft 11 in, 210 lbs with a salt and pepper beard kicked in the front door and began beating her demanding to know where her valuables were. The video speaks for itself.

Liberal gun control advocates who believe that her beating was deserved, because she was white and middle class, probably applaud the fact that criminal was not harmed.

President Obama is probably pleased that the woman took the beating like a woman and survived. In 2005, as an Illinois state senator he voted to bar the use of a firearm for self defense, even in the case of the threat of death. Incredibly, in the face of this record of no sympathy for those women, men, and children who have been killed, maimed, injured and traumatized in criminal home invasions, over 80% of women 18-26 years of age voted for Obama’s reelection.
NJ is a liberal state with gun control laws that discourage the Second Amendment right of self-protection with a firearm in violation of the Second Amendment and the SCOTUS rulings in Heller
and McDonald, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Moore.

What you see in the video could have been much, much worse.

America, you need to awaken and understand that the only person in that video who was not under threat of losing their life was the black male beating the woman in the presence of her child . . .
Note that the police did not make an appearance and save the day. They respond to a call, they do not magically appear, and they usually appear . . . after the fact. Worse is the reality of the law concerning police protection. You have no right to police protection. Hence, the Second Amendment right of self-protection with a firearm.

Unfortunately, the May 25, 2013 home invasion in Mt. View in Anchorage showed that bad things happen to good people when they happen, without rhyme or reason. The elderly grandparents had been watching one of the grandchildren while the parents were at a movie with their four year old. The grandfather was killed, the grandmother mother was raped and killed, the great-grandmother who was there was raped, and the two year old child were raped by Jerry Andrew Active who had been released from jail that day. Active was unarmed.

Alaskans, we have solid gun laws that give us the right to self-protection. We do not need to live like a sheep, die like a sheep, as they do in liberal states. Your duty to your loved ones is to protect them, the cops come after the fact. Good locks and a handy firearm that you have trained to use to protect yourself and your family in your home is only common sense.
Americans were endowed with the right to self-protection with a firearm, not making use of the Second Amendment right is simply failing in one's responsibility to family and self.

Heller, the Second, DHS and the gun ban

The AR15 is a rifle that has been singled out by the gun control advocate as signifying all that is wrong with gun ownership. Yet, one person’s ugly, menacing, and unsuitable for this or that, is another’s functional, practical, effective and just plain fun. No one ever said the AR is pretty, but it is an effective and useful tool.

Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has made the point of the argument by those who own AR15s, as to the purpose of the rifle. The argument has been made by the gun control advocates that the alleged assault rifle that is the focus of the ban proposals is not a personal defense weapon, but a weapon of war. DHS’s Request for Bid (RFP) for 7,000 "Personal Defense Weapons" (PDW) for close quarters battle (CQB) demonstrates the hypocrisy and absurdity of the government’s position on military style rifles.

The rifles sought by DHS are the ubiquitous AR15 at the heart of the ‘gun ban’ proposed by President Obama and Senator Feinstein, with one major difference. The rifles in the DHS Request for Proposal (RFP) are also select fire, meaning that like the military issue M4, they will have a full auto and/or 3 round burst and a single shot capability. Other than that one feature, the PDW requested by DHS will be indistinguishable from the AR15 in common use.

The interesting aspect of the DHS RFP is the fact that DHS is specifying select fire weapons, when a few years ago, DEA purchased semi-automatic AR15s. Why has the government decided to upgrade the federal police agencies to provide a firearm equal to the military M4 carbine? Do we want federal police agencies, which are civilian police agencies carrying full auto weapons? Especially, given the increasing number of innocents wounded or killed by police officers?

Those companies responding to the DHS RFP are undoubtedly those same companies that now produce the AR15 in its hundreds of varied configurations. The same companies demonized by the gun control groups and our liberal politicians.

The AR15 has become America’s most popular rifle for a reason. It is simply a good weapon for sport shooting and self protection/self defense. Estimates of the number in private possession in the U.S. are as high as 3,750,000. The self defense use is obviously an attribute recognized by the DHS and civil police agencies that is in agreement with the use by the law abiding civilian. That it is used in so few crimes so as to be statistically irrelevant is another fact that argues against any ban.

Popular three gun shooting competitions are a test of skill using the AR15, semi-auto pistol and 12 gauge riot gun. Women also compete in these contests. The AR is simply fun to shoot.

The civilian AR15 is incapable of being modified to fire in other than a single shot (one round per trigger pull) mode due to changes in the sear design to prevent a full auto capability from being enabled by simply dropping in a military M4 or M16 sear. Therefore, the AR15 is a true personal defense weapon and sporting arm, and not a military ‘assault’ rifle, as claimed by the gun control lobby.

The civilian AR15 is a single shot, semi-automatic, gas operated, magazine fed military style rifle. Semi-automatic means that the gases expelled by the powder burning in the cartridge are used to automatically actuate the bolt of the rifle to extract and expel the empty cartridge case and to move the bolt back to compress a recoil spring in the butt stock that then moves the bolt forward to engage and push the next cartridge from the magazine into the rifle’s chamber and acts to cock the rifle. Military style rifle means that the AR15 outwardly shares many of the same attributes of the military M16 rifle or M4 carbine. The major difference is in the fire control limitations built into the AR15. However, the AR15 can use military issue 30 round magazines, and the same 5.56mmX45mm ammunition issued by the military for the M16/M4. Some versions are configured as rifles capable of firing the larger 7.62mmX51mm .30 cal (.308 caliber) military ammo. The USCG uses a variant that is chambered for .50 cal Beowulf for CQB for boarding suspected drug smuggling vessels.

The impact of this rifle upon the firearms industry and the American shooting public has been incredible. Literally millions of Americans enjoy ‘tricking out’ their AR15 rifle. The hundreds of modifications that can be made in terms of sights, optics, rails, hand guards, stocks, grips, slings, match triggers, weapons lights, flash hiders, muzzle breaks, barrel lengths, magazine types, and different caliber configurations are varied and wide ranging. This adaptability to fit the desire of the shooter allows the rifle to be personalized according to the taste and needs of the owner. Thousands of Americans are in business or employed in those businesses that support the AR15 in all of its various configurations.

The war drives much of the innovation, because most of the accessories were developed as a result of the combat experience and needs of our troops. American innovation and applied technology have made the AR15 the most flexible and adaptable weapon in modern firearms history.

The desire to eliminate the AR15 and high capacity magazines for both the AR15 and semi-auto pistols may be a goal of President Obama and the gun lobby. Effecting such a ban on either the type of firearm or the magazine capacity may be a problematic.

Heller held that ". . . United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. . . . Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

In its December, 2012 ruling, the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional. The court further reinforced Heller by finding that one’s Second Amendment right extended to carry beyond the home:

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense."

How any reasonable or prudent individual could conceive the AR15 or any semi-auto hand gun "unusual" or not in "common" use is simply unimaginable and incomprehensible, given the proliferation of these types of firearms throughout the civilian, security, police, and military sectors. What is in "common" use are the same weapons issued to civil police and used for the same purpose as the civilian uses them: personal defense and self protection. The AR15 used by civilians and civil police are very similar in terms of configuration and equipment are very similar to the M16/M4 of the military.

All weapons qualify as dangerous, whether a knife, sledge hammer, or firearm. That aspect of the argument is simply without merit.

The AR15 is in "common" organized militia use today with the various 32 USC §109(c) State Defense Forces (SDF) of the various States. The SDF volunteer soldier is required to provide one’s own weapons, ammunition, gear, uniforms and to also bear the cost of training to the benefit of the State. The SDF is paid only when called to State Active Duty. The SDF is the State only component of the organized militia. The Alaska State Defense Force is authorized under AS 26.05.100, its purpose under AS 26.05.070.

The unorganized militia comprises those who do not belong to either the National Guard or the State Defense Force of their State. The unorganized militia member also has an obligation to maintain a military grade arm suitable for militia use, such as the AR15. The member of the unorganized militia, like the SDF volunteer, is expected to provide their own arms, ammunition, and gear, when called up to serve by their governor. Under Alaska statutes, that authority rests with the governor under AS 26.05.110, with the militias defined under AS 26.05.010. All states have similar statutes denoting the organized and organized militias and the authority of the governor to call them up for State Active Duty.

The usual militia use is for the individual to have an AR15 or similar type of military style rifle of good quality in 5.56mmX45mm or 7.62mmX51mm with enough military compatible magazines to allow up to a 200 round individual soldier ammunition load out, depending upon caliber. The ability of the AR15 to utilize standard military issue magazines (30 round for 5.56mm ammo) is extremely important with respect to the ability of the organized and unorganized militia to use military stores in a major natural or man made catastrophe.

The State Defense Forces would be charged by the governor of their respective state to support the National Guard and to aid in restoration of order and to provide security. A call up of part or all of the unorganized militia may be necessary to supplement the NG and SDF forces. Therefore, commonality of the militia weapon with military issue rifles and carbines as to ammunition, magazines, operator controls and sighting procedures are extremely desirable and important to the effectiveness and usefulness of the militia during a time of duress. The AR15 unquestionably meets these criterion.

The "common use" finding in Heller renders irrelevant the President’s and Senator Feinstein’s arguments regarding the capacity of magazines. The so called "high capacity" magazine is in lawful common use by the civilian, military and police user. Therefore, any argument of the magazines being ‘unusual’ is moot.

The arguments of gun control advocates against the AR15 and firearms ownership in general are based not in substance, but founded in emotion and "I think"–opinion. The facts of "common use" should carry more weight in the discussion than how the AR15 impacts esthetically and the emotions imparted upon viewing it. And, those aspects speak to the mental condition of the viewer, and does not reflect negatively upon the rifle.

It is incredible that the law abiding would be penalized, because of an emotional response to an inanimate object, tens of thousands of which are in common use daily. This would be similar to outlawing sharp kitchen knives by the length of blade. Or, attributing an accident involving fatalities to an SUV, rather than the driver of the SUV. More crimes have been committed by criminals or the mentally unbalanced using knives than using rifles.

FBI crime statistics for 2011 show 356 crimes committed using rifles, and 1,659 using knives or other sharp instruments. This is a far more compelling case for the banning of knives than is made for the banning of a particular type of rifle.

The Second Amendment states:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The argument of the liberal gun control advocates that the Framers never anticipated firearms like the AR15 is specious and without merit. The Framers used the term "Arms" to denote that the people’s arms were to be as capable and comparable to those used by the military of the time and into the future. In using ‘arms’ rather than stating ‘musket’, for example, the Framers anticipated the continual evolution of weapons’ technology for the common soldier, and, thereby, for the people. It is incredible to believe, as is asserted by gun control advocates, that our personal weapons are not to be as contemporary, as capable and state of the art as those used by the military, given the citizen’s duty as part of the organized or unorganized militia. The AR15 and the semi-automatic hand gun are simply the current iteration of an ongoing, evolutionary individual weapons development process.

Whether intentional or not, the genius of the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in using the term "Arms" is indisputable in their allowing for that ongoing evolution of weaponry so that our Second Amendment rights would never be obsolete.

President Obama and Senator Feinstein are wasting the peoples’ time and money with the red herring of their proposed gun ban and magazine bans. The "common use" stated in Heller defeats the premise of their actions.

The AR15 is not "unusual". It is in common use by the millions by private citizens, security and civil police, all for the same purpose: self defense, and sport shooting. Even DHS recognized this common use in their RFP.

For more information:

Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Constitution of the State of Alaska:

Article 1 §19:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

Alaska Statutes:

AS 26.05.010

AS 26.05.070

AS 26.05.100

AS 26.05.110

D.C. v. Heller, 478 F3d 370

SCOTUS Heller decision from Cornell University Law School:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Moore v. Madigan, 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals:

http://www.nraila.org/media/10814375/stevensopinion.pdf

Estimates on the number of AR15 rifles in private ownership

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

Human Events:

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/02/the-ar-15-the-gun-liberals-love-to-hate/

FBI Unified Crime Report 2011:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain.pdf

FBI crime report tables, note: click on the table number to see the table you are interested in viewing.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data

Alaska Concealed Carry and Open Carry law

With the recent controversy over the type of weapons used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, it is appropriate to review Alaska’s firearms carry laws.

Alaska residents 21 years of age or older may carry a concealed firearm without prohibition with the following provisos:
The person is 21 years or older.
The person is eligible to own or possess a handgun under state and federal laws The firearm is legal.
Upon contact with a peace officer, the person immediately informs the officer about the weapon, and allows the officer to secure the weapon for the duration of the contact.
The person does not carry the weapon if they are intoxicated or impaired by alcohol or controlled substances
The person does not carry the concealed weapon in certain places:
In someone else's home without their specific knowledge and permission
In any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for on-site consumption, except a restaurant and the person does not consume alcohol beverages
In or around any public or private K-12 school or on a school bus without the knowledge and consent of the school's administrator. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container)
In or around a child care facility. (weapons may be unloaded and locked in the trunk of a car or secured in a locked container)
In a courthouse, court room, or office of the court system or justice related agencies
In domestic violence or sexual assault shelters.
Alaska's laws do not apply to federal property, offices, installations, or places under federal jurisdiction. Such places can include national parks, military bases, federal court buildings, space rented by federal offices, airports, or airport terminal areas. Please consult with the appropriate federal agency before deciding if weapon carry or concealed carry is permitted.
The owners or management of facilities, including such places as hospitals, universities, gymnasiums, or private property, may restrict or deny concealed carry on their premises. Failure to comply while on their property could violate trespass statutes. Municipalities may not prohibit or limit concealed carry beyond any statutory restrictions under AS 18.65.
Alaska’s concealed handgun firearms permit

Alaska does have a formal concealed handgun carry permit process. AS 18.65.700 through AS 18.65.790 govern Alaska’s concealed handgun permit program. 13 AAC 30 comprises the regulations for the concealed permit program. Although, Alaska law does not require a concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm, the concealed carry permit allows reciprocity with other States that have concealed carry permits as their only legal mechanism for carrying concealed. The Alaska concealed carry permit is a good idea if one travels Outside on business or for vacation and one is traveling to a State that has reciprocity with Alaska’s concealed carry law.

Having an Alaska Concealed Carry Permit does not mean that you will have the same rights as you would in Alaska when you travel to another State, as you have to meet the provisions of the law in that State regarding carry. Make sure that you review the concealed carry laws of the State you are intending to visit and ensure that transportation of your pistol meets federal and State transportation requirements as to packaging and locks. You will need to notify the airline of your intent to ship a firearm as part of your baggage in advance of the day of travel. Each airline may have differing requirements, so make certain you contact the airline with sufficient time to prevent any misunderstandings.

If you feel you need to apply for a concealed carry permit, you will need to complete and pass a concealed carry firearms course conducted by a qualified instructor, be finger printed, undergo a National Instant Criminal Check (NICS), and complete the state permit application. You must be 21 years of age, a resident, and be physically and mentally capable of using the firearms safely. Completion of the approved handgun carry course may be accomplished up to a year before submitting the application (13AAC30.070(a)).You can apply in person to any office of the Alaska State Troopers. The Dept. of Public Safety maintains a list of qualified instructors on their website. The URL for the DPS website is given below.

Even if you do not intend to apply for the concealed handgun permit issued by the State of Alaska, it is a good idea to take the course from an approved firearms instructor. The concealed carry course offers hands on firearms training and an overview of Alaska law. If you can pass the concealed handgun permit test given by the firearms instructor, you will have a good understanding of the law regarding the defensive use of a firearm.

Open carry

Most Alaska jurisdictions have few restrictions on open carry. Open carry restrictions with respect to where you can carry are the same as the concealed carry restrictions.

AS 11.61.190 through AS 11.61.200 define misconduct with a weapon.

For more information:

Department of Public Safety Alaska Concealed Handgun website

List of States with which Alaska has reciprocity

Firearms ownership or possession

DPS concealed firearms permit contact information

Concealed Handgun Permits information and application forms

Restrictions as to where you can concealed carry in Alaska

List of approved finger printers

Alaska concealed handgun permit statutes and regulations

Alaska arrest law

The following is presented for informational purposes only. Contact an attorney if you have any questions regarding your rights under Alaska law.

The purpose of this article is not encourage Alaskans to go out and to make arrests, but to inform Alaskans that they have statutory authority to act in their own self-interest, if the situation requires it, and there is no law enforcement available. Alaska statutes give Alaskans the ability to deal with the criminal who thinks that he/she can violate Alaska’s criminal code in Bush communities, a remote mining camp or oil field, in remote wilderness or upon Alaska’s waters with impunity when there is no law enforcement available. This is another situation where lawfully carrying a firearm is in one’s best interest for safety, security, and in support of one’s public duty obligations.

The Second Amendment is restated under Article 1 §19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. Alaska’s Constitution further defines the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, free from interference by the State or any political subdivision of the State.

Article 1 Declaration of Rights

"§19. Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."

Alaskans have cause to carry weapons more frequently than other Americans, because of Alaska’s frontier status. The reasons for this are founded in the vastness of Alaska, 663,300 square miles, two and four legged predators, the lack of surface transportation infrastructure, and the lack of law enforcement outside of south central Alaska. Therefore, where there is no timely alternative, Alaska law has provided a means for the private person to arrest those that commit an offense under Alaska law.

The Legislature of Alaska has recognized Alaskans right to self defense and self-protection with a firearm under the Second Amendment. The role of firearms in Alaska covers survival, subsistence and sport hunting, use in the State Defense Force and the unorganized militia, and self protection/self defense against two and four legged predators. If necessary, that use covers self protection/self defense in situations involving a citizen’s arrest under Alaska statutes.

Any private person or peace officer in Alaska is authorized the power of arrest.

AS 12.25.010. Persons Authorized to Arrest

"An arrest may be made by a peace officer or by a private person."

It is the individual’s decision as to whether or not the person makes an arrest or ignores the situation and goes about one’s business. Note that the term ‘private person’ means any private person, citizen or not.

AS 11.81.900. Definitions.

"(b)(16) "deadly force" means force that the person uses with the intent of causing, or uses under circumstances that the person knows create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious physical injury; "deadly force" includes intentionally discharging or pointing a firearm in the direction of another person or in the direction in which another person is believed to be and intentionally placing another person in fear of imminent physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument;

(b)(24) "felony" means a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment for a term of more than one year is authorized;

(b)(44) "peace officer" means a public servant vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests, whether the duty extends to all offenses or is limited to a specific class of offenses or offenders;

(b)(45) "person" means a natural person and, when appropriate, an organization, government, or governmental instrumentality;

(b)(49) "premises" means real property and any building;"

AS 12.25.160. Arrest Defined.

"Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that the person may be held to answer for the commission of a crime."

What are the grounds for a citizen to make an arrest?

AS 12.25.030. Grounds for Arrest by a Private Person or Peace Officer Without Warrant

"(a) A private person or a peace officer without a warrant may arrest a person

(1) for a crime committed or attempted in the presence of the person making the arrest;

(2) when the person has committed a felony, although not in the presence of the person making the arrest;

(3) when a felony has in fact been committed, and the person making the arrest has reasonable cause for believing the person to have committed it."

Note that the crime must be of at the level of both a misdemeanor or a felony under Alaska statutes. If the crime is a misdemeanor, the person or peace officer, the commission of the crime must have been committed in the presence of the person or peace officer.

AS 11.81.390. Use of Force by a Private Person in Making an Arrest or Terminating an Escape.

"In addition to using force justified under other sections of this chapter, a person, acting as a private person, may use nondeadly force to make an arrest or terminate the escape or attempted escape from custody of a person who the private person reasonably believes has committed a misdemeanor in the private person’s presence or a felony when and to the extent the private person reasonably believes it necessary to make that arrest or terminate that escape or attempted escape from custody. A private person may use deadly force under this section only when and to the extent the private person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary to make the arrest or terminate the escape or attempted escape from custody of another who the private person reasonably believes

(1) has committed or attempted to commit a felony which involved the use of force against a person; or

(2) has escaped or is attempting to escape from custody while in possession of a firearm on or about the person."

Note the qualification of the felony offense involving the use of force against the victim, and the escapee being in possession of a firearm.

The amount of force one can use in making an arrest is limited by law.

AS 12.25.070. Limitation on Restraint in Arrest

"A peace officer or a private person may not subject a person arrested to greater restraint than is ncessary and proper for the arrest and detention of the person."

Obviously, only that force necessary and reasonable can be used in making the arrest. However, the private person may use force, up to and including deadly force in making an arrest or when assisting a peace officer in making an arrest. This in recognition that violent offenders may use force themselves in resisting arrest.

AS 11.81.380. Justification: Use of Force by Private Person Assisting An Arrest or Terminating an Escape.

"(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person who has been directed by another who that person reasonably believes to be a peace officer to assist in making an arrest or terminating or preventing an escape may use nondeadly force when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to carry out the peace officer's direction. A person may use deadly force under this section only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to carry out the peace officer's direction to use deadly force.

(b) The use of force under (a) of this section is not justified if the person believes that the peace officer is not justified in using that degree of force under the circumstances."

AS 11.81.390 as stated above also authorizes the use of deadly force only against those who have committed a felony involving violence or an escapee with a firearm.

Deadly force is authorized as necessary. The use of a firearm by the private person is anticipated for self-protection/self defense under AS 11.81 of Alaska statutes.

What is the authority given the person attempting to retake an escaped offender?

AS 12.25.120 Retaking Escaped Prisoner

"If a person arrested escapes or is rescued, the person from whose custody that person escaped or was rescued may immediately pursue and retake that person at any time and in any place in the state."

Obviously, the pursuit of an escaped prisoner can be made by the person making the arrest. Alaska law does not qualify the arresting individual as other than "the person from whose custody that person escaped".

Does a person under Alaska law have an obligation to assist a peace officer, should the person be directed to do so by a peace officer?

AS12.25.090. Peace Officer’s Authority to Summon Aid.

"A peace officer making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as the officer considers necessary to aid in making the arrest. A person when required by an officer shall aid in making the arrest."

If called upon, it is the duty of an Alaskan to comply with the peace officer’s request for aid.

Under what circumstances can a person use deadly force under Alaska law?

AS 11.81.335. Justification: Use of Deadly Force in Defense of Self.

"(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person may use deadly force upon another person when and to the extent

(1) the use of nondeadly force is justified under AS11.81.330; and

(2) the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the second degree, sexual assault in the second degree, or robbery in any degree."

Note that Alaska law does not require a level of threat of jeopardy to live, just to ‘serious injury’.

(b) A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating, except there is no duty to retreat if the person is

(1) on premises which the person owns or leases and the person is not the initial aggressor; or

(2) a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer’s employment or a person assisting a peace officer under AS11.81.380.

(3) in a building where the person works in the ordinary course of the person’s employment;

(4) protecting a child or a member of the person’s household."

In the Bush, any injury that serious physical injury could very well be mean death if the person is unable to get help immediately. HB55 introduced earlier this month by Rep. Mark Neuman will expand the Castle Doctrine under 11.81.335 to include ‘any place where the person has a right to be’, if passed by the Legislature and signed into law.

It is unconscionable for any legislative body to restrict the law abiding to a duty to retreat when confronted by a criminal. For a legislative body to pass such unconscionable legislation is to give the criminal an unreasonable advantage in any situation when attacking the law abiding. The criminal will know that he/she may act with impunity as the victim will also be required to unarmed. New Hampshire’s Legislature is considering revoking their Castle Doctrine provision of "any place where a person has the right to be" and replacing it with a provision once again requiring the law abiding to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. If one cannot run or run as fast as the criminal(s), then what? What happened to one’s natural rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Alaska law, like Florida’s Castle Doctrine, has given back to our law abiding citizens the right to self defense. The armed citizen is not a victim, and the criminal cannot rape a ".38". Therefore, in recognition of the random nature of crime, Alaska’s Legislature has reaffirmed Alaskans’ right to self protection by use of a firearm under the Second Amendment. In fact, Alaskans can act in their own self interest and effect an arrest under Alaska law.

What is the jeopardy for the individual acting in the ‘public duty’ and either assisting a peace officer or in making an arrest?

AS 11.81.420. Justification: Performance of Public Duty.

"(a) Unless inconsistent with AS 11.81.320-11.81.410, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justified when it is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree, judgment, or order,

(b) The justification afforded by this section also applies when

(1) the person reasonably believes the conduct to be required or authorized by a decree, judgment, or order of a court of competent jurisdiction or in the lawful execution of legal process, notwithstanding lack of jurisdiction of the court or defect in the legal process; or

(2) the person reasonably believes the conduct to be required or authorized to assist a peace officer in the performance of the officer’s duties, notwithstanding that the officer exceeded the officer’s authority."

Given Alaska’s vastness and the lack of law enforcement resources in much of Alaska, firearms carry is common in Bush Alaska. Obviously, the reason for possession of firearms encompasses defense against predators, two legged or four legged, survival, and one’s militia obligation and right to self protection by use of a firearm under the Second Amendment. One’s firearms also come under lawful use in one’s obligations to the public duty by making an arrest or coming to the aid of a peace officer under Alaska law.

If called upon to aid a peace officer, and one is carrying concealed, one must always immediately inform the peace officer that one is armed.

Alaskans should consider advisable lawful concealed carry in Alaska’s larger towns and cities. Alaska’s population has increased by approximately 80,000 over the last five years. Many of those coming to Alaska are hoping for jobs and opportunity now lacking Outside, because of the ongoing recession. Unfortunately, along with the law abiding came the criminal element and an increase in drug trafficking. The right to use a firearm for self protection has been reinforced under Alaska law giving the law abiding Alaskan practicing lawful carry an advantage in any encounter with the criminal element. The criminal cannot count on even liberal Alaskans being unarmed.

In is incumbent upon the individual who practices legal carry of a firearm in Alaska to know the law regarding the use of deadly force. This knowledge is paramount to understanding your rights in the aftermath of an encounter that results in the use of deadly force. The decision to use deadly force rests with the individual. Therefore, taking a concealed weapons carry (CCW) course is an excellent idea, even if one does not desire to apply for a CCW permit. If you intend to carry, you need to know the law.

A serious firearms training program to develop one’s skill with a firearm is absolutely necessary to be competent to carry and to insure that one is able to properly react to an armed confrontation. A few hours at a firing range monthly or at least every quarter will insure your skills are maintained. There are many good firearms instructors in Alaska who can assist in developing your skills with your firearm that you intend to use for concealed carry.

The incident in 2012 involving two NYPD police officers who managed to hit 9 innocent bystanders when firing at an armed suspect who was within 15 feet of the police officers is a reminder that not even the professionals get it "right" every time.

The fact that one’s public duty may require one to act to arrest another who is in violation of the law is a responsibility not be borne lightly. The ability is there under Alaska law, but the choice whether or not to act in defense of the law is rests with each "private person". One should only act to effect an arrest when there are no law enforcement resources available within a reasonable time.

The foregoing is presented merely for informational purposes. Any opinions expressed are those of the author. Contact an attorney if you have an questions or concerns about your rights under Alaska law.

For more information:

Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Article 1 §19, Constitution of the State of Alaska

New Alaska firearms legislation

HB24

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/28/Bills/HB0024A.PDF

HB55

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/28/Bills/HB0055A.PDF

Alaska Statutes

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folio.asp

or http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/statutes.htm

Alaska Carry

Most Alaska jurisdictions have few restrictions on open carry. Open carry restrictions with respect to where you can carry are the same as the concealed carry restrictions.

AS 11.61.190 through AS 11.61.200 define misconduct with a weapon.

Alaska concealed handgun permit statutes and regulations

http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/PermitsLicensing/docs/achp/ACHP%20Statutes%20and%20Regs.pdf

Department of Public Safety Alaska Concealed Handgun website

http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/PermitsLicensing/concealedhandguns.aspx#

List of States with which Alaska has reciprocity

http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/PermitsLicensing/reciprocity.aspx

Firearms ownership or possession

http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/PermitsLicensing/firearm.aspx

DPS concealed firearms permit contact information

http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/PermitsLicensing/Contactus.aspx

Concealed Handgun Permits information and application forms

http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/PermitsLicensing/permit.aspx

Restrictions as to where you can concealed carry in Alaska

http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/PermitsLicensing/inAK.aspx

List of approved finger printers

http://dps.alaska.gov/Statewide/background/fingerprinters.aspx

Obama's plan impacts the States adversely

Given the President’s and the liberal gun control lobbies’ intent to ban "assault" weapons and "high capacity" magazines, the question now becomes, what is the impact of these initiatives upon the ability of the unorganized militia and the 32 USC § 109(c) State Defense Forces to respond to a call up by their governor to State Active Duty in an emergency?

The Second Amendment states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The militia of each State is comprised of two distinct components. One is the organized militia. Each State’s organized militia under State law is comprised of two components: the National Guard and the 32 USC § 109(c) State Defense Force of a State. There may also be a Naval Militia, which is actually part of the Navy, but it plays no role in terms of the unorganized militia. The second component of the militia of each State is the unorganized militia, which is comprised of the citizens of each State who are not members of the organized militia or the U.S. military. The officers to the organized militia are appointed by their respective governor. The National Guard, the federal militia, is authorized pursuant to Article 1 § 8:
". . . To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The State Defense Forces are authorized by Congress pursuant to 32 USC § 109(c): "In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces."

Twenty three States, including the State of Alaska, have organized a State Defense Force (SDF) pursuant to 32 USC § 109(c). The SDFs and their contribution to the defense of their State and the maintenance of law and order in an emergency are virtually unknown to the American public. SDFs are comprised largely of former military, former and serving police officers, professionals, trades people, and people from all walks of life who volunteer their time, money to serve their State. SDF volunteer soldiers are required to provide their uniforms, firearms, ammunition, training, and transport at no cost to the State until called up for State Active Duty. At which time, they are paid according to State law. In Alaska, the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF) volunteer soldier is paid the equivalent of a first year Alaska State Trooper, or approximately $187 per day. ASDF volunteer soldiers have no benefits except for Workman’s Compensation Insurance. (Alaska statutory authority: AS 26.05.010, AS 26.05.030, AS 26.05.070, AS 26.05.100, AS 26.05.110, AS 26.05.260)

The other component of the militia is the unorganized militia. Alaska law defines the unorganized militia as: " (b)(2) the unorganized militia, consisting of all qualified persons available for service but not serving in the organized militia." The unorganized militia is comprised of every able bodied man and woman over 17 years of age who are able to perform militia duty. Each State has statutes that govern the composition of and establish the qualifications for the organized and unorganized militia. The federal government sets the standards for the National Guard, as the National Guard has a federal mission and may be commanded by federally appointed regular military officers. (Alaska statutory authority: AS 26.05.010)

Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution of the United States demonstrates that the Congress must provide the money to organize, provide the arms, equipment, and discipline for the National Guard. The States are to provide for training and to appoint the officers thereof. However, in reality, the federal government provides the money to train the federal National Guard. While the State governor may have control of the State’s National Guard when not called to federal active duty, the National Guard of any State is always at the beck and call of the President who is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. Peprich v. U.S. DOD confirms the President’s authority to use the National Guard at any time, including calling up the National Guard for deploy overseas for training: "Article I’s plain language . . . establishes that Congress may authorize members of the National Guard of the United States to be ordered to active federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States without either the consent of a state governor or the declaration of a national emergency . . . The unchallenged validity of the duel enlistment system means that Guard members lose their state status when called to active federal duty, and, if that duty is a training mission, the training is performed by the Army. During such periods, the second militia clause is no longer applicable . . . This interpretation merely recognizes the supremacy of federal power in the military affairs area, and does not significantly affect either the State’s basic training responsibility or its ability to rely on its own Guard in state emergency situations . . . The consent of a Governor . . . may not be withheld . . . with regard to active duty outside the United States, its territories, and its possessions, because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such active duty." (Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. (1990), 335, 337; Dukakis v. U.S. DOD, 686 F. Supp., 30 (1988))

A State Defense Force cannot be called to federal duty, and exists solely for the use of the State, it falls to the State to provide for the State Defense Forces and/or the unorganized militia. Alaska’s budget for the Alaska State Defense Force has historically been about $26,000 per year to pay for a part-time administrative technician and administrative costs. However, Alaska and the other States with SDFs, do not provide arms for either the SDFs or the unorganized militia. The SDF volunteers  provide their own equipment, arms, ammunition, training and transportation. The members of the unorganized militia will also be required to provide their own gear, weapons and ammunition.

The Revolutionary War corollary for the SDF and the unorganized militia is the "Minutemen" of the Great American Revolution who, upon notification, grabbed their gear, firearms, and ammunition and immediately headed for the designated place of assembly. For those states without an organized SDF, the "Minutemen" role falls to the unorganized militia.

In Alaska, a call up of the unorganized militia would essentially be a mass draft into the State Defense Force. The ASDF would then have the responsibility for training the unorganized militia. ( Alaska statutory authority: AS 26.05.010, AS 26.05.100, AS 26.05.110)

The Alaska State Defense Force has historically been called to State Active Duty pursuant to AS 26.05.070, which states: "In the event of war, disaster, insurrection, rebellion, tumult, catastrophe, invasion, or riot; or if a mob or body of men act together by force with intent to commit a felony or to offer violence to persons or property, or by force and violence to break and resist the laws of the state, or the United States; or in the case of imminent danger of the occurrence of any of these events; or whenever responsible civil authorities fail to preserve law and order, or protect life and property, or the governor believes that failure is imminent, the governor may order the organized militia or any part of it, into active state service to execute the laws and to perform duties in connection with them that the governor considers proper. Whenever any portion of the militia is ordered into active service by the governor, it becomes an additional police force, retaining its separate entity and operating at all times as a military organization under military command, with power to cooperate with but not to supersede the existing civilian law enforcement officers whenever possible, for the re-establishment of law and order and for the protection of life and property. The governor may also order members of the organized militia to active state service, with their consent, for the purpose of training or for full-time duty with the office of the adjutant general."

Obviously, the intent of the Alaska Legislature in drafting AS 26.05.070 was to provide the governor with a military force capable of acting as a state police force to restore order and maintain law and order in the event of an emergency. This implies an armed force. All civilian law enforcement officers are armed. It is unreasonable to believe that the organized State militia be an unarmed military, which would severely limit its use. Former Alaska Governor Tony Knowles was alleged to have stated to the effect that "unarmed soldiers are just more victims waiting to happen," upon his authorizing the ASDF to be armed just after the attacks of 9-11.

What would be the impact upon the organized and unorganized militia were there to be a ban on semi-automatic military style rifles and semi-automatic magazine fed pistols and high capacity magazines?

Most SDF volunteers use the AR15 or some variant of the rifle in 5.56X45mm or 7.62X51mm. Other authorized weapons include the M1A, FNFAL, or HK 91 7.62X51mm rifle or other comparable military grade semi-automatic rifle chambered for 7.62mm. 30 round magazines are expected as the magazine for these rifles. The 7.62mm rifles have 20 round magazines. Where authorized, SDF volunteers provide magazine fed semi-automatic hand guns in .45 cal or 9mm. Magazines for the pistols and rifle are expected to be at least equal in capacity to those of the military or the civilian police.

During the Revolutionary War and up until the common use of the brass cased bullet, the caliber of the weapon did not matter a great deal. The commonality was the black powder that provided the charge for the weapon. Each individual in the days of muskets and black powder rifles had lead molds and were expected to provide their own cast balls or cast bullets for use in their black powder muskets or black powder rifles. They could simply melt spent lead balls taken from the battlefield or another source of lead to make into ammunition. Today, that would not be practical.

The British Brown Bess army musket had an effective range of 175 yards, but was used at about 50 paces, or 150 feet maximum from the target, for greatest effectiveness. There were many Brown Bess muskets in use by the Colonial Army against the British Army, because the of the British colonial requirement that military age males be required to maintain their own arms and ammunition for militia duty. Therefore, there is pre-colonial precedent for the Second’s militia requirement with respect to the duties and obligations under the Second Amendment. George Washington was an officer in the British Colonial Militia.

The requirement for a semi-automatic rifle and a semi-automatic pistol for the State militia coincides with the military requirements for service weapons. The M16 and M4 rifles in use with the Army and USMC are select fire weapons with both a semi-automatic and three round burst capability. Therefore, the militia being armed with a semi-automatic rifle capable of using military ammunition is a common sense requirement.

In Alaska, were the unorganized militia to be called up, it would be expected that each individual would provide their own AR15 or some variant or a semi-automatic military style rifle in 7.62mm at the very minimum.

All of these weapons and the military and police compatible magazines are readily available on the civilian market. Now, the President of the United States and the liberal gun control lobby under the guise of protecting children have threatened the availability of these weapons and the magazines necessary to their use as a militia duty weapon pursuant to the militia requirements under the Second Amendment.

It is critical that the militia aspect of the Second Amendment be fully appreciated with respect to the firearms expected as duty weapons to be supplied by the individual militia member. The reason for the requiring military style rifles in 5.56mm or 7.62mm for militia duty is a commonality of ammunition and, in the case of the AR15 and its variants, a commonality of magazines with military stocks.

Of what use would the militia be to the defense of the State and/or the United States, if the members of the SDFs and the unorganized militia showed up for duty with the myriad variety of rifles and ammunition available in today’s market? How could such a militia expect to be resupplied with ammunition from military stores, if the firearms and calibers are not standardized? Or, supplied with adequate magazines, when their rifles are not magazine fed?

The military does not stock ammunition for hunting rifles. As a result, the militia’s usefulness would end when they run out of ammunition.

The AR15 family of rifles shares the same magazines as the military’s M16/M4 family of rifles/carbines.

Under the Second Amendment, each member of the unorganized militia and the organized State Defense Forces has a duty and an obligation to maintain a weapon suitable for militia duty. Each member–every man and woman of military age in this country–has a duty to purchase and to maintain a military grade semi-automatic rifle compatible for use with ammunition from national military supplies.

If there ever is a call up of the unorganized militia, they would be expected to fall under State military command with a strong likelihood of being attached to National Guard units or being directly inducted into State Defense Force units. Therefore, commonality of weapons type and ammunition is critical to organization, training and logistics. It only makes sense that the militia be able to use the same ammunition as federal forces and have a commonality in basic weapons operation and controls.

Any rational human being with any knowledge of history, geology, astrophysics, weather, or politics should know that it is a matter of ‘when’, and not ‘if’ with respect to any call up of the unorganized militia. One’s political ideology does not relieve one’s obligations or duty under the Second Amendment.

Any ban on ‘assault’ weapons and high capacity magazines reduces the military capability of this country with respect to the potential usefulness and military effectiveness of the unorganized militia and the State Defense Forces. Such a ban would have a serious negative impact upon the States to have the internal military resources necessary for the restoration and maintenance of law and order in the event of an emergency.

The 2d Amendment and the Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre

On December 14, 2012 a horrific mass murder occurred in Newtown, CT, a small town that was noted as being ‘quiet’ and a nice place to live. Already, the liberal politicians are jumping on this like ‘white on rice’ to make political hay over the bodies of the dead.

A 20 year old named Adam Lanza who evidently suffered from mental issues was the shooter. It is reported that a total of four pistols had been found at the shooting site. He also had a semi-automatic rifle in his trunk that was not used. He murdured 28 people, including Nancy Lanza, his mother, that day.

The liberal outcry has focused the public scrutiny upon the firearms and the false need to further restrict American’s Second Amendment rights to self-defense and self-protection.

Apparently, Nancy Lanza was one who collected firearms legally. The liberal press has been trying to make her hobby appear aberrant in the eyes of the public and has implied that her acquisition of the firearms was possibly illegal. It appears that at least two of the pistols used were hers. The Bushmaster AR15 rifle found in the trunk of Adam Lanza’s car was also her’s. All legally owned, and legally purchased.

Adam Lanza killed his mother and used her legally owned firearms to commit mass murder. Not once has the media managed to link Adam’s possession of the firearms with the killing of his mother. Obviously Adam Lanza acquired the firearms used in the mass murder by murdering his mother. Not by legally acquiring them. The question that should be asked is, did he have to kill his mother to get the firearms in the first place?

It has been reported by NBC that recently Adam Lanza tried to purchase a rifle on two separate days at a sporting goods store in Danbury, CT, but had been refused the purchase both times. CT has a waiting period before purchase. However, the report stated that he had been refused the purchases. A waiting period is not a refusal for a purchase. More should be forthcoming in the investigation as to why Lanza was refused the purchase of a rifle twice.

Connecticut, like every State, has imposed restrictions on legal firearms carry on school grounds. Law abiding citizens who legally carry a firearm are not allowed to take the firearm into a school. Law abiding citizens obey the law, criminals and those with criminal intent do not. Elementary schools are left unprotected from the criminal. Many inner city middle and high schools in heavily populated states with gang related violence have metal detectors and armed guards.

Given the prohibition against carry on school grounds, would any sane law abiding concealed carry gun owner risk jail time to go to the aid of the people in the school with their firearm, were the individual to witness a shooting in progress?

Legally carrying concealed carries no obligation to go to the aid of another or to put your own life at risk. That many have gone to the aid of others in jeopardy is a tribute to their sense of civic duty and training. The legal use of firearms by law abiding citizens has stopped 1.5 million to 2.5 million crimes a year across the U.S., and saved hundreds, if not thousands of innocent lives each year.

An Alaskan, like his/her Outside peer, who legally carries a firearm will not carry the firearm where prohibited to avoid breaking the law. The individual is not a threat to the children, other than in the minds of liberals who want absolute control over our lives.

The liberal believes that taking the firearm away from the law abiding citizen makes us all safe. History has shown that premise false. The Brady law waiting periods, and CT is one state with a waiting period to purchase a firearm, did not result in any reduction in crime rates where implemented.

Where concealed carry laws have been passed, mass mayhem arising from shootings between legal carry citizens has not happened, much to the disappointment of the liberal politicians. From 1977 to 1992, states that passed concealed carry laws had a reduction of 8.5% in murder, 5% reduction in rape, 7% reduction in aggravated assault, and a 3% reduction in robbery.

If the number of kids killed were a factor, football for our children would be outlawed. 45 kids were killed over a three year period in the 90s from heat stroke, injury to the head, and heart failure. Yet, there is no hue and cry to ban football.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is prominent in his taking advantage of this tragedy to call for the banning of firearms. This is typical of the liberal elite. Bloomberg is a billionaire who has one of the few concealed carry permits in NYC and is protected by armed body guards. A typical liberal hypocrite. You, lowly citizen are not to be trusted with a firearm, but those who live in the world of the rich and liberal are as gods on Mt. Olympus, above reproach and excepted from any earthly restrictions on self defense and protection. It is for the common man or woman and the children to be sacrificed upon the liberal alter by the criminal so that these elite can ‘feel good’ about themselves. Oh, see how civilized that we are, we took their firearms away, violence has been banished . . . because we say it is! And, they tend to live in areas relatively crime free due to private security, and increased police patrols, because of their economic and political status. Such people do not live in the real world, but they recognize the danger, because they enjoy private armed security protection and they exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense by concealed carry, where they act to deny the same right to the average law abiding citizen.

Is everyone forgetting the 13 service members killed at Ft. Hood by Major Nidal Malik Hasan on 5 November, 2009? This slaughter happened on a military base where concealed carry is prohibited. The soldiers were all unarmed.

The July 20^th theater shootings by James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado were in a business that prohibited the legal carry of concealed firearms. Only Holmes was armed. The theater was a safe place for Holmes to commit his carnage.

April 16, 2007 Virginia Tech campus shootings were enabled, because the college regents had prohibited the legal carry of concealed firearms. Only the shooter was armed, leaving the student body at the mercy of the criminal and the insane.

In each of these massacres, the victims were unprotected, unarmed and vulnerable. The common element was their vulnerability imposed by shortsighted politicians passing unrealistic laws prohibiting their right to self-defense using a firearm under the Second Amendment.

You cannot outlaw something and make it so. The war on drugs is an abject failure. DUIs are still prolific–yet there is no law to outlaw cars, other than SUVs.

Crime is rampant in our major cities in the face of major initiatives to better police the high crime areas and to educate against violence. The missing element is the armed law abiding citizen.

To the socialist liberal, if firearms were banned, then Adam Lanza could not have killed those children. Yet, in China, on the same day, a demented individual with a knife managed to slash 22 elementary children at their school. Private firearms ownership is prohibited in China. The weapon used is irrelevant, because it is merely a tool, it is the state of mind of the killer that is the catalyst.

A firearm can be an advantage a criminal, but, not if there are citizens legally armed and prepared to respond. We arm the police for self-protection, why not ourselves? We have the right under the Second Amendment to self-defense. Our rights are endowed by a Creator and immutable.

The major factor in the proliferation of crime in many states has been the disarming of the law abiding citizen, or placing such restrictions on firearms ownership that one cannot carry outside of the home, and must keep the firearm locked and unloaded in the house, thereby making them useless–except as an object of theft. The effect is that only the police and criminals are armed.

Outlawing legally carried firearms is the only instance where the government has chosen to unreasonably restrict or to outright deny the law abiding citizen their rights to self-defense under the Second Amendment. The liberal is not interested in preventing a criminal entry to a premises that prohibits the carry of firearms, but to restrict the law abiding, because in the liberal mind there is a greater danger from the law abiding armed and trained citizen than from an armed criminal. In their liberal minds, they believe that their fellow law abiding citizens are mentally unhinged in wanting to own a firearm in the first place, and incompetent and untrustworthy in the use of a firearm, because that’s how the liberal ‘feels’ about firearms ownership. Of course, there are exceptions, but only liberal hypocrites are allowed to be the exceptions, like Bloomberg and his liberal ilk.

It is interesting that in the liberal mind, it is alright for only two groups to be armed: one with a badge and a gun, and the other the lawless criminal. The government controls the group with the badge and gun. This group comes on the scene after the group operating outside of the law finishes their evil. The law abiding citizen is expected to just suffer the consequences of the criminal act and to move on with their life, if they survived the encounter with the criminal.

It should be noted that the Constitution of the United States provides no bar to being offended or to being afraid. It does, however enable the individual the right to speak out and a right under the Second Amendment to self-defense of person and family using a firearm. In fact, it deems ownership and use of a firearm for such purposes necessary.

Connecticut made it illegal to enter a school with a firearm. It is illegal to carry concealed by a law abiding citizen or a soldier on a military base. NYC banned the ownership of handguns under the Sullivan Act. It is illegal to carry openly or concealed in many states where murder and mayhem are serious problems. The outcome of government abolishing legal firearms carry by law abiding citizens only results in the unnecessary death of innocents and the proliferation of crime. Such failed policies do serve the purpose of keeping the law abiding citizens afraid and looking to the government to afford them safety that they themselves have the right to under the Second Amendment. A safety that government has failed to provide and cannot provide.

The deaths of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary are a direct result of a failed government policy designed not to protect the children, because no sane individual would believe that the mentally imbalanced or the criminal would obey the restriction on firearms carry, but to restrict the law abiding, because it makes liberals ‘feel’ safer.

Instead of America and Americans focusing on those calling to restrict restrict our Second Amendment rights, and and the facetious lie that Americans should somehow be collectively ashamed by the murder of these innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary, we should argue for the full exercise of our Second Amendment rights under the Constitution. Our rights are immutable. Yet the liberal politicians are again telling us that we need to further restrict our rights to meet the liberal utopian view of the world so that Bloomberg and his liberal cohorts can ‘feel’ good. And, to be the only citizens allowed to legally carry under their law.

There is legislation introduced in Michigan to once again allow legal carry in schools and government buildings. This means that any citizen who has a concealed carry permit and has taken additional firearms training will be allowed to carry when they visit a school or a government agency. This should be the example for the rest of the U.S., including Alaska. This is how it used to be and should be again for a free society. This would be good in Alaska, given our high percentage of active duty, former military, and former and retired police officers, and a well trained and legally armed citizenry.

While Alaska has the most liberal carry laws in the U.S., Alaskans still cannot exercise their legal Second Amendment rights on school grounds, in government buildings, and those businesses that post a notice prohibiting the carry of a firearm on the premises. A notice must be posted near the door or on the door readily visible to the public that demonstrates that the building or business prohibits the free exercise of our Second Amendment rights.

Such firearms free zones create danger free zones for the criminals, and unnecessarily endanger the government employee, students, and business owner and their clientel. Notice is prominent that there will be no danger to the criminal who elects to commit a crime.

School staff should have the right to legal carry, with at least some of the staff armed at all times, especially in major high schools with a history of violence against the teachers. Additional training should be required to qualify for such carry.

The responsible, legal carry of concealed weapons by armed law abiding citizens should not be prohibited, but welcomed by business and government.

The liberal attitude that the public should be disarmed needs to be set aside by our politicians in favor of the recognition of immutable Creator given rights to self-protection and self-defense under the Second. Even the federal courts are beginning to recognize that our rights under the Second Amendment to self-protection mean that our firearms be carried with us for that use.

On December 12, 2012 in the case of Moore v. Madigan, the federal Seventh Court of Appeals ruled against the State of Illinois ban on lawful concealed carry. The court ruled that the concept of self defense is "broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home." Illinois will have 180 days to draft legislation to enact legal carry legislation that "will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public."

The Legislature of the State of Alaska needs to extend Alaskan’s ability to legally carry firearms where they are now restricted against doing so. Law abiding Alaskans should be allowed to legally carry concealed on school grounds without restriction. The safety of our children may depend upon the law abiding citizen who happens to be in the right place at the time an "Adam Lanza" decides to use that school as his obituary.

It is the duty of each American to be armed and adequately prepared in the use of a firearm. It was the Framer’s intent that the firearm be carried at all times for self-protection. It is time to throw off the liberal lie and to demand the full and unfettered exercise of our Second Amendment rights.

Sarah Palin running for President?! NOOOOOOOO!!!!

I just read an article on Real Clear Politics that confirmed my worst fears. Sarah Palin is definitely going to make a run for the brass ring of the Presidency. This egotistical, paranoid, soap opera queen and failed governor of the GREAT STATE of ALASKA, this individual who stated time and again while running for that high office "This is the greatest job that I could have," and who promised that she would never leave that office for national office before her two potential terms were up . . . Sarah Palin would be a disaster as a President.

I worked for that campaign as a volunteer, I wrote in support of her campaign, I talked to people, I did what I could to support her in her race for governor. Sarah called me, I did not call her and volunteer.

When Sarah Palin took her oath of office, she closed the door to most of the peons like me, and on her promises regarding change and open, conservative, pro-family, pro-life, constitutional State government.

Her administration was characterized as being left to itself without clear leadership or direction from her. She did something none of us thought that she would do. Instead of a new start for State government as she campaigned on--the Palin Revolution, remember?--she rehired many of her predecessors' commissioners and appointees. She changed nothing. If anything, she muddied the waters of State government further.

Her theme of open and transparent government was a joke. Contact with her office was a trial, without much chance of any call being returned. I heard this again and again from people who tried to contact the governor’s offices for one reason or another and were told that their call would be returned, but never was.

I have personal experience with her administration's public access policies. Open and transparent? Anything but.

I understand that the commissioners were left to work out amongst themselves what they thought she wanted from them. Sarah Palin was described as being above details, and uninterested in anything other than what she was trying to accomplish at the moment. A recent interview with Walt Monaghan, the former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner under Palin, confirmed this characteristic of her administration. She was distant and aloof and out of touch with her commissioners.

As time went on, she increasingly made public appearances to respond to specious and idiotic attacks upon her family, character and ethics. Something she should have left out of her job as governor. It seemed she was making more retorts to these detractors than policy statements. Instead of hiring a publicist, attorney, attack dog, whatever, it was the governor's office that was dragged into the soap opera that was Governor Sarah Palin. She embarrassed us, and she acted immaturely, and foolishly by letting herself be swayed from her responsibilities as governor. She failed as a leader to keep the governor's office above the circus atmosphere, and, instead, used that office a bludgeon against those she did not like. The governor’s office was allowed to enter into the realm of a family feud between her sister and her former husband, an Alaska State Trooper.

Sarah is not a conservative. At best, she is a RINO with a great public persona who says all the right things, but shows her true colors in the record of her administration as governor.

Sarah Palin added 800 employees to the State of Alaska and oversaw the biggest expenditures since Statehood. She handed out a $1,200 fuel rebate to Alaskans in a shameless exhibition of pandering to the public with the public’s money. She expanded her cabinet to include a sub-cabinet that was devoted to . . . get this . . . climate change. She named the sub-cabinet the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet whose executive director was a federal EPA employee. According to her commissioner of DNR, and her Climate Change Sub-cabinet, global warming was a man-made problem.

Worse, the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet composition was the antithesis of her claims of supporting the State's sovereignty over ever increasing federal encroachment.

It is difficult to believe that she really supported the State of Alaska's sovereignty as expressed under AS 38.05.500-505 when she let a federal employee act as management in her offices. Especially, when a single source contract for approximately $80,000 was let to Climate Change Strategies (CCS), a progressive, anti growth, anti-development, population control cookie cutter global warming consultant to give the liberals the tools that they needed to feel better about destroying an economy through carbon tax initiatives. CCS was contracted to set up and administer her sub-cabinet. Sarah Palin signed up the State as an observer in the Western Climate Initiative arm of this organization.

Sarah Palin a supporter of the Second Amendment and our military? Highly suspect, given what she ordered where the 32 USC §109(c) Alaska State Defense Force is concerned.

Sarah Palin was the first Republican Governor to reduce the military forces of the State of Alaska by disarming the Alaska State Defense Force and rendering it from an operational, disaster response unit with an outstanding record of achievement over eight years to that of an unarmed "reserve of last resort". In doing so, then Governor Sarah Palin ignored the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Art. 1 Sec. 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, AS 26.05.070, AS 26.05.100, and the intent of NGR 10-4 sec. 5 and sec. 6, something her Adjutant General, LTG Craig Campbell should have been most aware of.

Her zeal for diminishing the Alaska State Defense Force and thereby removing from the State’s disaster response resources a proven operational unit that was a state military police constabulary has only been exceeded by her successor, Gov. Sean Parnell. Both former Governor Sarah Palin and Governor Sean Parnell have shown an incredible indifference to the fact that by their actions against the Alaska Sate Defense Force that they have shown a complete disregard for the militia’s right to bear arms. They also demonstrate a callous disregard for the fact that unarmed troops cannot afford protection and safety to those whom they serve. Alaskans are less safe because of Sarah Palin’s acts against the Alaska State Defense Force.

In diminishing the military forces of the State of Alaska, then Gov. Sarah Palin, and Gov. Sean Parnell,her successor and her former Lt. Gov., both went against the Alaska Republican Party's plank in support of the military in Alaska:

“C. We recognize Alaska’s strategic military location and unparalleled training opportunities and welcome the expansion of forces in Alaska, including our Active Duty, Reserves, Alaska National Guard, naval Militia, Coast Guard and Alaska State Defense Force.”

That this was done in a time of WAR should cause serious consternation on the part of any who might be considering Sarah Palin as qualified for the Presidency. That she stepped all over the Second Amendment and Alaska's constitution in doing so by diminishing the right of the organized and unorganized State militia to be armed should give cause to all who own weapons to worry about our Second Amendment rights if she actually achieves the presidency. That she did so during time of war should give considerable consernation to any who is concerned about the security of this great country.

Sarah Palin is not intellectually or politically qualified to be president. By intellectually, I mean that she has never studied or been interested in international affairs. Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she lacked the judgment necessary to weigh local and State issues concerning Alaskan much less weigh global issues against national interests. Sarah Palin failed miserably as the governor of the Great State of Alaska, as she did not even make it through her first term. She did not even make it two years into her administration. If Frank Bailey’s book has any truth to it, Sarah Palin can be characterized as a petulant, spoiled child who wanted to quit, because she could not stand the criticism.

You think criticizing Obama produces a spectacle, wait until Sarah Palin becomes President.

I have only seen one other as poor a candidate for the highest office. That one other is the communist and Muslim sympathizing, socialist, apologist heretic that is currently occupying the highest elected office of the United States: Barack Hussein Obama. A close second is former president James Carter.

Unfortunately, I personally believe that Sarah Palin as President would make Obama into a statesman by comparison.

That Sarah Palin just purchased a house in Scottsdale, Arizona for $1.695M is an indication of how much an Alaskan this woman really is.

Yeah, she is good looking and she says the right things that resonates with conservatives and most middle class family oriented, hard working Americans. However, that is all that Sarah Palin is and does. She is a mouthpiece and a lightning rod for the opposition.

Can you imagine her soap opera on national television with her as President? We would be more of a laughing stock than we are under Obama. She is worse than Obama where a sleight is concerned. She would rail publically against any who dared criticize.

Surely, we won't be that stupid to elect someone who is clearly unqualified for the presidency so soon after getting rid of the pretender that is now in that office?

The Republican Party has some serious soul searching to do. There has to be a candidate that has a consistent record of fiscal and social conservatism, who will not compromise our Constitution and our social and moral values, who is not afraid to say that they are an American and that our culture is distinct, that English is our language, and who will not BOW to a foreign potentate, and who has the credentials to be President. Who, like Ronald Reagan will not place his/her ego above that of the country, and who will not only say the right things about America, but will act upon those words to make it so.

Sarah Palin is NOT that candidate.

Real Clear Politics piece on Palin:

Another left wing nut job

We need to be careful how seriously we take the hypothesizing of the liberal media regarding the Tucson shootings. The ramblings of the left leaning media in attempting blame where there is none is dangerous. Liberal Congressmen and
Congresswomen now urge an attack upon the First and Second Amendments in violation of their oath of office.

When MAJ Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood, the same media and liberal politicos cautioned against drawing conclusions regarding Hasan’s intent, his religion, and whether or not his acts constituted jihad.

This is the liberal left in full array. They have a cause. They have mayhem that they can point to caused by a nut with firearms, the cause anti-célèbre of the left.

A liberal Congresswoman was shot. Does that give rise to a conclusion of an anti-liberal bias on the part of the shooter?

Collateral damage in a politically motivated shooting or just carnage for the sake of carnage?

While right wing rhetoric is blamed, I can remember the left media openly calling for the death of George Bush, a sitting President. The desire for Limbaugh’s death seems to comes up all too often in the liberal media.

Our former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and Big Sis, Janet Napolitano, categorized our soldiers returning from the war zone and any who believed in the Bible and who owned firearms as terrorists.

Are the memories of the left media that bad?

The shooter in Tucson was a nut job. His classmates in college were afraid of him. Afraid. He was no giant with tattoos and a bad attitude. He was a nut case. Even the Sheriff who blames the incident on right wing rhetoric had reports that this individual had made death threats previously.

Was the shooting politically motivated? I don’t believe so. He fired indiscriminately into a crowd and was lucky with the Congresswoman. The rest of the casualties, just additional numbers to raise the event to the level of national attention. Obviously, that was his goal. His own glorification and gratification, not a political statement.

Was the shooter a conservative nut job? Not by the published opinions of his classmates. He was characterized by them as a left wing nut job. His manifesto, like that of President Obama, was that of Marx, not the Declaration of Independence.

The upcoming attack upon the First and Second Amendments will be relentless for as long as the left can garner attention to this event.

The Congresswoman should have had security. She commented on previous threats. The City of Tuscon should have had a couple of cops there as a matter of course. If for no other reason, there are gangs and crime in Tuscon.

The Sheriff was aware of the shooter’s lack of stability. Yet, he blames Rush Limbaugh. Why did he not assign a deputy or two to the event?

Evidently, the judge who was killed was there to bring attention to crime arising from the flood of illegals and drugs coming across the border. That his comments are forever silenced is a loss. Who knows, maybe, his comments might have given rise for the Congresswoman to examine her positions.

The real shame is the loss of innocent life of those just there to speak with their elected representative and to just be there as a matter of family, like the little girl.

The danger in what happened is in the political exploitation of this event. The libs are out to make a run on the First and Second Amendments. The very protections against the political oppression that will be attempted under the guise of preventing any similar future event.

Instead of urging caution before reaching a conclusion, the left is doing exactly what it urged against in the aftermath of MAJ Hasan’s killing of his fellow troops.

Sarah Palin having any blame is laughable and makes this once again the theater of the absurd on the part of the left.

Our rights are now . . . selective

A recent decision of the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Chicago’s hand gun ban.

The decision of the 7th Circuit in favor of Chicago in maintaining its hand gun ban revolved around the idea that the Second Amendment does not have to be obeyed by States and their subdivisions of government. According to the 7th Circuit, States, counties and cities are exempt from obeying the Constitution—but only where Second Amendment rights are concerned.

The Chicago decision puts the 7th Circuit at odds with the 9th Circuit (!), which ruled last year that the Second Amendment applied to the States and lower subdivisions of government.

This decision brings into sharp focus the self-deluding mindset that sets the liberal apart from the conservative. To liberals, the Constitution is perverted to fit their world view, without respect to what the Framers intended. If the liberal mind cannot conveniently find the context under the Constitution that supports their goal, they invent penumbras to enable their ideological desire.

One has to remember that the individual rights enumerated in the Constitution merely affirm individual rights conferred upon a free people by our Creator. These rights were not conferred by man, to be given or revoked at the whim of any political power or despot.

The assault upon talk radio demonstrates that the First Amendment does not protect political speech in the liberal mind, but only serves to protect the policies and ideology of the party in power. Under a Democrat regime, talk radio must be “fair” and “equal” in its presentation of the issues.

Can you imagine our Forefather’s reaction to a demand by the Crown for “fairness” in the presentation of their arguments for independence from England?

The Crown’s idea of fairness was the bayonet and hangman’s noose.

President Obama’s, Sen. Harry Reid’s and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s idea of “fairness” is to silence the opposition once and for all. How far they are willing to go is demonstrated in the unrelenting assault upon the Second Amendment and the perversion of the First Amendment into an instrument of political repression.

During the closing days of the presidential campaign, then Candidate Obama stated those rights that he considered “individual” rights. He excluded the Second Amendment in that dissertation.

The recent selection of appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court further demonstrates Pres. Obama’s subtle intent to scuttle any impeding Constitutional authority. By appointing a judge in whose opinion the Constitution is a work in progress ensures that the liberal agenda will be interpreted favorably, no matter the wording of the Constitution.

Awhile back, I wrote on Pres. Obama’s incredible refusal to divulge proof of his citizenship qualification required by Article 2 §1 of the U.S. Constitution. My point was that if this requirement could be ignored, then so could other articles of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

The First and Second Amendments and Article 2 are under assault in the Democrats’ expression of power.

It was a liberal Supreme Court majority that did most of the damage where the Ninth Amendment was concerned.

How long before any of the 1st through the 15th Amendments become inconvenient to those in power?

Obviously, the First and Second Amendments already are.

How long before the “Crown” resorts to the bayonet and the hangman’s noose to silence opposition?

The intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the arguments of that creative process have been well documented leaving little doubt as to the limitations imposed upon government intended.

There can be no compromise where the Constitution of the United States is concerned. It means what it says, and it only means what is stated.

The government cannot restrict that which was conferred by our Creator. To do so is to confirm the reason and need for the Second Amendment.

Regardless of party label, beware the political power that acts to silence the opposition.

Above all, beware the President who ignores the Constitution.

Educate your children as to the meaning and rights affirmed by the Constitution. Every family, and every citizen should have a copy of the Constitution.

There is no other document in the history of this world that confers upon a people the power to prevent government excess. The balance between the peoples’ freedom and government power
is maintained by the Second Amendment.