![Lawrence Love, draped in an U.S. flag, demonstrates outside of the Alaska Capitol in support of the 2nd Amendment as part of a nationwide show of support on Friday. Love said, "If we lose the 2nd Amendment, we lose them all."](http://jun-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11970685.jpg "Lawrence Love, draped in an U.S. flag, demonstrates outside of the Alaska Capitol in support of the 2nd Amendment as part of a nationwide show of support on Friday. Love said, "If we lose the 2nd Amendment, we lose them all."")
JUNEAU — A handful of Alaska lawmakers have thrust their state into the national debate over gun control by setting up a showdown with the federal government that some consider treasonous and others defend as patriotic.
They say that unlike people in most of the rest of the nation, many Alaskans use firearms on a daily basis and that any regulation attempt by the federal government represents an undue encroachment on their constitutional rights.
In response to the perceived threat of a sweeping reaction from Washington, D.C., to recent mass shootings — including the rampages in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn. — they’ve proposed legislation that would make any new federal law limiting gun rights unenforceable in Alaska, using “nullification bills.”
Such measures, which have always been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, make it a state crime to enforce federal law and have been blamed for inflaming some of the nation’s most turbulent eras — including touching off the Civil War.
Supporters who have pushed such legislation in defense of gun rights this year — including lawmakers in 16 other states, mostly in the South and West —say the bills are necessary to fight back against federal overreach and that the U.S. Constitution demands they take such action.
“Federal courts have often leaned toward favoring federal power over state sovereignty in spite of the fact that our Founding Fathers clearly intended otherwise,” said Alaska Republican state Rep. Wes Keller, in his sponsor statement of his bill that challenges federal authority.
“It is an illogical perversion of one of our most important founding principles to presume states must comply with unconstitutional federal language,” he added.
Opponents also point to the Constitution to say that the nation is hinged in part on the notion that federal law trumps state law, protecting civil rights, voting rights and other liberties Americans have come to expect.
“States cannot effectively ignore or countermand federal law,” says Hugh Spitzer, a professor of law at the University of Washington.
In order to challenge federal authority, Spitzer said, states have to challenge the constitutionality of a given law before the Supreme Court, “or they can try to get their senators or congressmen to repeal the federal law, or they can try to secede from the United States.”
He added later that the debate was settled with the Civil War.
Across the nation, many nullification bills already have died. And many others appear headed for a similar fate, but the recent advance highlights an increasingly vigorous political fight that centers on this question: When it comes to big-picture topics, whose right is it to decide?
In Alaska, the two Republican-sponsored joint resolutions making their way through the state House and Senate, clearly aim to make the case that gun rights are a state-level issue. The proposals seek to have President Barack Obama rescind the 23 executive actions on gun violence he signed on Jan. 16, about a month after the Connecticut school shooting.
Obama’s executive orders address mental health issues and provide authorities more training, among other provisions. None of the orders specifically mention restricting gun ownership or banning certain types of weapons or accessories.
Additional proposals are being discussed in Congress, but no measures have advanced. Still, the Obama administration has become a magnet for criticism among gun rights supporters.
“We as a culture tend to overreact to crazies,” said Republican state Sen. Fred Dyson.
He added, “There’s quite a bit of activity in Congress to regulate firearms, and all of us worry that that’s headed toward registration.”
To those who hold such concerns, people who would restrict gun rights simply cannot empathize with their lifestyle.
“Here in Alaska, firearms are tools to us,” said Jim West, owner of the Wild West Guns, which has locations in Anchorage and Las Vegas. “We carry them around for bear protection. We feed our families with them.”
Another Alaska measure, proposed by GOP House Speaker Mike Chenault, calls for criminal penalties for authorities who try to enforce federal regulations in the state that would assert control over firearms.
“Tragedy is not a license for federal encroachment on constitutionally protected freedoms,” Chenault said in a statement.
It’s unclear whether the proposals have a chance of passing.
“The devil is in the details,” said Republican state Sen. John Coghill, speaking about Chenault’s measure. He was reluctant to speculate, but said the issue “is probably a hot enough topic where enough people would agree on some statement.”
Jerry McBeath, a professor of political science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, however, said Chenault’s bill is “clearly unconstitutional.”
Spitzer, the Washington law professor, explains some of the historical context of such measures.
Proponents of nullification 200 years ago “took the position that the United States was created by the states,” he said.
“Daniel Webster, who debated against nullification, took the position that the United States was formed by the people of the United States, not the states,” Spitzer added, citing the first line of the Constitution.
“And that difference — between whether the United States was formed by the states, or was formed by all the people of the United States — is the fundamental difference that was fought over in the Civil War,” he said. “The North won, that is the end of it. Period.”
The nullification debate still cycles every so often. Such bills have been used to defend school segregation during the 1950s and laws that seek to overrule federal authority over marijuana have advanced more recently.
As gun rights prompt the latest round of debates, House Majority Leader Rep. Lance Pruitt promises that the issue won’t distract the state Legislature from their priorities this session — oil production, cheaper energy for Alaskans and the economy.
“I think one of the things that’s been important to both members of our caucus as well as Alaskans is to maintain that Second Amendment right” to bear arms, Pruitt said at a press conference last month.
“We will do whatever we can to defend that right,” he said. But if no new legislation passes on the issue lawmakers will not “feel that we failed.”
McBeath, the Alaska Fairbanks professor, says this sort of legislation can be expected every so often, even if it ultimately goes nowhere.
Politicians “do some grandstanding every once in a while,” he said. “It’s symbolic.”
Comments (76)
Add commentNY gun law
The article at CNN said "Both the GOP-controlled Senate and Democrat-dominated Assembly approved the measure by overwhelming margins". So much for the NY Gov having total control over the bill. I guess the GOP controlled NY Senate must have been brain-washed by the Nazi NY Governor. The article says it will permit closer monitoring of the mentally ill, which is what LaPierre originally said should happen. Its restricting purchasing ammunition magazines that carry to seven bullets, it used to allow 10 bullets. It makes it a mandatory life sentence to kill first responders. It includes a statewide gun registry and a uniform licensing standard, altering the current system in which each county or municipality sets its own standard. There is no loss of 2nd Amendment rights.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/us/new-york-gun-bill
Lars isn't a bad guy.
Lars isn't a bad guy. Actually, he's a good guy. He's the kind of guy I'd like to see drive up if my car was broken down out the road on a snowy day. My political views and his political views don't line up all that much. But, he's a good guy.
I object
to a president that has never heard a shot fired in anger, nor felt the rush of a near miss and the instant thought that goes thru the head --"That could've been mine."
What does he know? I step off my boat in Taku Harbor and I see steaming scat -- yes I am armed. I have never shot a bear, but I have never worried about wrestling with one.
If we are not careful we become nation of wussies. We got a leadership deficit. We got a guy that could not lead a class of 2nd graders from A to B because he needs his Princeton grad wife to tell him about social issues. Both are privileged wussies. Both are pansies.
@Good
You say "It's straight out of the worst of nazi germany."
Lessee... a gun control law is the worst of Nazi Germany?
the population of New York state is about 19.5 million. The Nazis killed 6.4 million in concentration camps.
Any concentration camps in NY?
"im·be·cile
noun
1. Informal. a dunce; blockhead; dolt.
2. Psychology . (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of the second order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, above the level of idiocy, having a mental age of seven or eight years and an intelligence quotient of 25 to 50.
adjective
3. Informal. stupid; silly; absurd.
4. (Usually offensive.) showing mental feebleness or incapacity.
5. (Archaic.) weak or feeble. "
Draping yourself in the flag takes away any validity your words
Draping yourself in the flag takes away, for me, any validity your words might have. Where is your respect for that flag!!?? Why not just stand on it in the rain and keep your shoes dry. Why not wipe your nose with it.
Fools. Anarchists. Seditionists. They deserve all the ridicule heaped upon them. Their nullification ramblings and ignorant states rights blather has been heard for two hundred years yet the strength of America has prevailed.
Ignore them.
Many presidents have no combat experience
Abraham Lincoln had little military experience and no experience in armed combat when he was elected president of the United States.
Here's a list of presidents with absolutely no military experience:
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Franklin Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson, William Taft, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren, John Q. Adams and John Adams
Military experience is less common among Americans these days. Patriots come in all forms and though military experience garners great respect, it's not necessary to lead a country in today's world.
Grendel, I know you like to put yourself on the short list of who can be president of the United States, but judging by your immaturity and lack of respect for those who actually make it that far, you won't be on that list.
Draping yourself in the flag takes away any validity your words
Draping yourself in the flag takes away, for me, any validity your words might have. Where is your respect for that flag!!?? Why not just stand on it in the rain and keep your shoes dry. Why not wipe your nose with it.
Fools. Anarchists. Seditionists. They deserve all the ridicule heaped upon them. Their nullification ramblings and ignorant states rights blather has been heard for two hundred years yet the strength of America has prevailed.
Ignore them.
@JNUKara
Did you even read the NYTimes article?
George Bush Jr. had a chance
George Bush Jr. had a chance at combat experience. However, he passed it up for a few lines of coke.
@JEFUME
Isn't he the guy who 'didn't inhale' and 'didn't have sex with that woman' ? Or was that somebody else?
And another one
Shall not be Infringed
read it very carefully
The American Flag
I find this retoric over the flag a little interesting all you left wing protesters have done more disrespect to the American Flag that i could ever do.
And by the way after serving my country for four years in the military,
I can pretty much do what the heck i choose to do with the flag(with the utmost respect)
Not stepping,wiping,burning or otherwise.
I am really likeing the exposure you folk are showing as to how it is ok for the left to get away with certain types of displays and when someone else uses their amendment rights to free expressin ,they get all butt hurt over it.
And for the spelling police Get over it :-)
@kiki I am well familiar
@kiki
I am well familiar with politics in NY. They are impossibly demented and sick.
The few republicans in the legislature were completely out numbered and had to settle for being given ONE bone - the list of permit owners was made non-public information again.
The few republicans that are in the NY legislature are from rural districts that are easily starved ($) and pressured ($) under the strong arm tactics of the governor.
Even at that they should have protest voted. The governor improperly used an illicit and specialized tactic of a legislative fast tracking process specifically reserved for emergencies.
Hopefully a myriad of court action will just throw the whole law out.
shall not be infringed
I cannot imagine how upset you are that you can't buy an AK-47. I'm assuming you've talked to your local legislatures about it, right?
@Good
"The governor improperly used an illicit and specialized tactic of a legislative fast tracking process specifically reserved for emergencies." Gosh, that sounds sort of like what Parnell is doing in Alaska....just saying. But thanks for the respectful exchange, I appreciate it.
Just wanted to throw this one out there..
NBC news decided to track national gun deaths between Jan 19-21 of this year, this is their findings-
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/09/16912259-death-takes-no-...
The end game with the
The end game with the incremental "executive actions" of this administration is instituting government lists of gun owners and restricting the kind of gun and the type and amount of ammunition the citizen gun owners are allowed to possess.
Kind of like this -
Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
- Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
- All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
- Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
- Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
- The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
- Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
Read In The Garden of Beasts to see how tyranny takes a "gentle" hold over a population. It's frightening.
http://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/dp/030740885X
Relevence?
Superhero,
people die every day from many methods,self inflicked or otherwise.
What is your point,people dieing and getting an ak doesnt make any sence?
Heck untill this bs gun control problem i could buy just about any weapon i would like to own ,short of the cost.
Now we have a bunch of questionable characters attemting to change the requirements for obtaining firearms.
A lot of the changes throughout the last few decades has been a very slow errossion of the 2nd amendment and challenged regularly,only to be circomvented by the corrupt officials and special interest groups whom have no respect for the Constitution as it is written.
From Federalist Paper #29 by Alexander Hamilton
"
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." For those who don't understand the vernacular of the times, what this means is the 2nd is about coming to the aid of the state when it needs it, and being able to put down a domestic tyrant if needed.
Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2013/02/10/2783988/alaska-jumps-into-fight-over-gun.h...
Actually- that's EXACTLY what it means. Germany, Cuba, China, Russia, Phillipines- all used thier registries as thier go-to to confiscate. Other examples- New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.
Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate. They finally gave up on reistration in early 2000's because it was too burdomsome and costly.
1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all firearms.
The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal. They triple our cases of assault, deadly assault, and rape- BTW.
How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s. They now they have more handgun deaths a year than coalition forces in Afghanistan.
California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 8 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. (FYI- SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses during the LA riots).
Background checks? Absolutely- go for it. Universal registration? Over my dead, cold hands.
Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2013/02/10/2783988/alaska-jumps-into-fight-over-gun.h...
Take a look at the pattern!!
I dare ya!!
NRA
Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and other anti-gun Senators are pushing a proposal that would dramatically expand the current instant background check system by criminalizing private firearm transfers. They are using the misleading label of “universal background checks” to create confusion in order to pass this legislation quickly through the U.S. Senate.
Don’t be fooled. Any system that criminalizes private firearms transfers – whether between a grandfather and granddaughter, father-in-law and son-in-law, or two law-abiding gun owners who have known each other for years – is a direct infringement on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Further, criminals will never submit to such a system so it will have no effect on crime – and the only way to enforce “universal background checks” is to create a national registry of gun owners. Please email, write, AND call your U.S. Senators, Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski, and ask them to OPPOSE this gun control scheme in addition to any bill that would reinstate a failed ban on semi-automatic rifles or magazines.
The Second Amendment essentially requires
that Americans accept a certain level of collateral damage from that right. In other words, Newtown is mere collateral damage. So long as this Amendment exists, I think we implicitly are turning a blind eye toward what could also be called a necessary evil.
I see this to be a gargantuan problem in a cosmopolitan society aiming to live by reason, free thought, and tolerance in the 21st century and beyond.
Mike
Gun rights being taken away...
What is the point of having a bill of rights when legislation and progressive laws slowly erode the original bill without actually removing it? Well there would be no point, right? Silly me and I thought all this arguing back and forth was just fear mongering by the extreme left and right.
We already have gun rules and regulations that should be enforced more completely. Yet regardless of whatever rules there are or how well they are enforced, many of the *crimes* that are committed are by...wait for it.... criminals!
crim·i·nal [krim-uh-nl] Show IPA adjective
1. of the nature of or involving crime.
2. guilty of crime. <------ these people *do not* follow rules or regulations. Law abiding citizens are the ones who follow the rules and we are the people who suffer from these stifling, nanny nation, nit-picking, fear inciting congressional 'laws'. It's a good thing our government is looking out for us by not letting this crises go to waste, if they don't take guns away from all those nasty law abiding citizens, who knows what might happen!
im flattered
thats a huge post!
the relevance is just showing gun violence in America. Like I said, just throwing that out there.
With the advancement of the internet and technology
I think it's extremely hard to compare the past with modern times.. Comparing today with the 80's or 90's is pretty ridiculous.
With the advancement of the internet and technology
I think it's extremely hard to compare the past with modern times.. Comparing today with the 80's or 90's is pretty ridiculous.
@lawrence a love
Funny how you think just being liberal disgraces the flag.
It used to be you could disagree with a fellow citizen without the threats, insults, and accusations that are so easily flung these days.
Since we are on a Nazi kick...
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." – Herman Goering
no
never said it nor implied just it is what it is.
You aparently think the shoe fits.
All gun Laws are illegal since 1902 look it up
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
All gun Laws are illegal since 1902 look it up
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
Seriously
People are turning this into something it's not. Nobody is going to come into anyone's homes and take away their guns. Enforcing more stringent laws that will decrease the number of legal gun purchases to people who will turn around and sell them to unfit owners is not an infringement on our second amendment rights. Most illegal gun purchases started off with a legal gun purchase. Since this tragedy in Connecticut happened, I have noticed an increase in guns for sale on Craigslist and even Facebook. What background checks are being done in these private gun sales? I've also noticed that the people selling these guns are the same people preaching about gun rights. If you think selling your assult rifle on Facebook is proving a point, you're an idiot. How about letting the politicians that WE as voters elected let things go through due process? Nothing is going to happen to anyone's guns or gun rights overnight. The only thing that may happen is another tragedy because some far right winged nut insists on making some point about their "rights" and in the process ends up selling a gun to an unfit owner.
suggest
you go up a few sections and read on the post provided,germany,australia,canada.Creep em right in and your falling for it.