Is the Vermont and Alaska 'Model' of Carry the 2A Ultimate?

[Winchester 73]

Is the this farthest we can go to mirror the Framers 1791 intentions?
Only VT and AK consider that firearms carry(open or concealed) is viewed as a right ,not subject to regulation.No licenses are required to carry a firearm.
Any one of age, with no legal or mental issues and with no intention of bodily harm ,from all the 50 states,territories(and as far as I know foreign countries),can strap on a firearm and carry.
There are a few caveats in both states.
Vermont:
Age 16 to carry
Courthouses,all schools K-College off limits
State Institutions off limits(Prisons,Mental Hospitals,etc.)
Pre-emption law preventing municipalities from enacting local regulation is in effect.
No license is avaibable for reciprocity but VT residents are able to apply for ,as an example,a non-res Florida license ,giving them to close to 30 states.

Alaska
Age 21 to carry
Bars,schools,daycare centers off limits.
Pre-emption law as VT preventing local municipal gun regs to be put in effect.
Private businesses cannot prevent possession of firearms in vehicles parked on their premises.
Licenses are available"shall issue" for residents who wish reciprocity to carry outside the Last Frontier.

Do you feel these 2 states have:
1.Not gone far enough to reach the absolutist 2A standard.
2.Reached the near perfect medium.
3.Have gone to far and need to reevaluate who should be able to carry and reguire permits or raise the age limit,require training,etc.

 

[stevelyn]

We need to change the school/daycare restriction. There is no compelling reason to have them in place. All it does is place an unreasonable and inconvenient burden on parents dropping off and picking up their children from these places.

Alaska is about as absolutist as you can get. Even the RKBA clause in the state Constitution was ammended to clarify it as an individual right.

 

[Standing Wolf]

On the principle—loathed by leftist extremists, of course—there are no freedoms without responsibilities, I'd like to see the right to keep and bear arms coupled with severe penalties for using lethal force to commit crimes. No restrictions except against those who violate other's rights, and then massive, painful restrictions.

 

[ilbob]

I would eliminate any restrictions from the law on where a LAC can carry while allowing detention facilities and individual courtrooms to prohibit carrying administratively.

As long as some states require a LTC, it seems appropriate for the state to continue to issue them for the convenience of its citizens for reciprocity reasons, and to avoid the NICS check.

 

[politicalgeek]

This is like Ted Nugent's, "The Second Amendment is my concealed carry permit"

Vermont has that sticky issue with not allowing teachers and college students the right to carry. That is another debate though.

Ohio is attempting Alaska/Vermont style carry without a license, taking away most of the "gun free zone" restrictions, which would allow carry at pretty much all government buildings and universities. It will be interesting to see how the legislature does with that. One of the last veto overrides we had was on CCW reform.

 

[Josh Aston]

As long as some states require a LTC, it seems appropriate for the state to continue to issue them for the convenience of its citizens for reciprocity reasons, and to avoid the NICS check.

I'd rather just get rid of NICS. Remove all restrictions. If I want to carry a 240 around I should be able to. If someone commits a crime with a gun, then death penalty. I should be able to carry any gun I want anywhere I want as long as I'm on public property. Private property owners should still have the right to restrict carry on their property.

 

[TallPine]

Well, if we could get all 50 (or even a majority) of the states to where VT and AK are gun-law wise, then we would have really accomplished something.

MT has had such a law proposed the last two legislative sessions. Last year it passed in State House but was defeated by the democratic controlled Senate. Of course, anywhere outside city limits we already have "VT/AK carry."

 

[xd9fan]

thinkin the 2A states nothing about a paper form from the Govt to have this Right.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Well, I think VT and AK are the closest we have right now to the original intentions. That said, the schools thing needs to be worked on: the law in VT is so vague on the definition of "schools" that it can be read to apply to colleges as well (or not, but a leftist prosecutor would go that way so you're taking a big risk if you carry and get into trouble in a college building, so be careful in your decision). One good thing about VT's law regarding school carry is that it does not prohibit carry on school grounds, only in buildings or school vehicles. So a person waiting to pick up their kid on school grounds is okay if they don't bring their gun in the building. Carrying while at sporting events would be legal too. Some states are worse/more strict than that.

 

[rmarcustrucker]

I don't mind regulationg people with mental disorders, diagonosed and uncontroled for 5 years from not being about to carry out of there home. People with dillusional thinking "he was a pig, then he turned into a human, after I shot him."
Any violent crimes, and most Felons for at least one decade after there crime. I have no problem with case by case rulings. So the question is do you give a license to all who qualify or find a way to label those that don't.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

So the question is do you give a license to all who qualify or find a way to label those that don't.

Federal law already labels those who don't qualify without licensing those who do qualify to own and carry guns. So what's your point?

 

[ilbob]

As long as some states require a LTC, it seems appropriate for the state to continue to issue them for the convenience of its citizens for reciprocity reasons, and to avoid the NICS check.

I'd rather just get rid of NICS. Remove all restrictions. If I want to carry a 240 around I should be able to. If someone commits a crime with a gun, then death penalty. I should be able to carry any gun I want anywhere I want as long as I'm on public property. Private property owners should still have the right to restrict carry on their property.

The OP did not mention getting rid of the NICS check. I am generally in favor of it, since it has not been shown to reduce crime in any measurable way. The states can change their laws all they want, without it affecting federal law one bit.

I am in favor of some means by which non-violent felons can have their rights (including the right to vote) renewed automatically after some period of good behavior. I think violent felons should have to apply for a pardon to get their rights returned.

 

[Werewolf]

Is blood running in the streets of AK and VT? Are citizens running amok threatening each other. What are the violent crime rates in AK and VT compared to places like CA, NY, MD, DC etc?

NUFF SAID...

 

[Roman756]

I believe these 2 states are the nearest in spirit to the Second Amendments guarantee.
But schools,day care centers,courthouses and bars have no place on the areas of off limits carry.
Vermont's age 16 limit sounds very reasonable considering the military's 17 year minimum.Overall these 2 states are exemplary in the way they view the 2nd Amendment.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

I wouldn't mind the NICS is it was handled this way:
"I'd like to purchase this gun."
"Ok one moment. NICS check in progress and done, you are not a criminal. Here is your gun"

Instead of "Well the system is down so you can't have your gun" or "Well we got some false positives" or any of that crap. I'm fine with violent felons losing their right to arms at least temporarily.

But what also needs to change is the list of crimes that can get your guns stripped. In California if you have a pair of nunchuks you are guilty of a misdemeanor that puts you on the prohibited list. And they sell nunchuks openly in many areas. So that's bull.

I like what AK and VT have going on, but the AK limit of 21 is far too high. At the very highest it should be 18 - full rights as a citizen.

 

[Zoogster]

I think the Alaska ability to purchase a license for use in other states is going to bite them big sometime in the future.

It is only a matter of time before a law is placed on the books by some well meaning politician that grants some small additional privelidge to those who went out of thier way to aquire such a license. From there the precedent will exist and it will not longer be "Alaska carry".
It could even be due to some added privelidge granted. An example would be the ability to carry at schools or something similar for those with the license.
The precedent would be set, and free unlicensed carry would be threatened.

Having a license available just for use in another state is playing with fire, and Alaskans are eventualy going to get burned. I would strike that ability from the books.

Vermont seems to restrict quite a few locations. It is a sad thing that people carrying will be unable to defend themselves not just in schools, but at any school or college event, or event that takes place on sucha campus. So school shooting type events can still exist, will not be stopped by someone with a legal firearm quickly, and the great carry laws will therefore not be an example to the rest of the nation in such situations. Teachers/professors and faculty will also be unable to act.

Alaska prohibits in bars, daycares and schools? Sounds like the best place to rob people in Alaska is when they go to pickup thier children.
I can understand bars on the surface, not wanting chest thumping drunk people to have access to immediate life and death decisions. However it is also ironic in that such a place is where you would be most likely to have to defend yourself. Upset someone at a bar who carries illegaly, or leaves and goes and gets a weapon and waits to ambush you out in the parking lot? You won't be legaly armed.
Yet bars/taverns/lodges etc in a place below freezing and dark for much of the year in some areas are likely the primary social locations. The main place that people can go to come into contact with multiple people in such conditions. Remember many of these places have low populations and few chain stores. Most of Alaska does not even have paved roads. The local watering hole is often the only place outside of homes that people get together in the winter (in addition to religious services).
So that is in fact a pretty large restriction for rural locations.
I am no fan of bars myself, but in very cold climates or underdeveloped areas they tend to be more than just a bar to the locals. They cater to a larger segment of the population than they do in the most of the lower 48.

So I would not say either is the perfect example. Merely that they are the closest to what is the freedom our nation once enjoyed most places.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Vermont seems to restrict quite a few locations. It is a sad thing that people carrying will be unable to defend themselves not just in schools, but at any school or college event, or event that takes place on sucha campus. So school shooting type events can still exist, will not be stopped by someone with a legal firearm quickly, and the great carry laws will therefore not be an example to the rest of the nation in such situations. Teachers/professors and faculty will also be unable to act.

Slight correction: you can carry on school grounds but not in the buildings themselves, in VT.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

Reciprocity is not granted by one state, but rather as an agreement between states. Its not like you can go to AK, get a permit, and then carry everywhere. You can only carry in those states that have agreed to honor the AK permit.

And it should never bite them. They're the ones upholding the Constitution. Firearms are Federally Protected. The entire nation should be a carry zone. AK is doing the right thing by saying "Hey, you're supposed to be able to carry a gun and if your state is being unfair to you, come here and we'll do right by you"

 

[Cosmoline]

Having a license available just for use in another state is playing with fire, and Alaskans are eventualy going to get burned. I would strike that ability from the books.

I really don't understand your point. We kept the old permit system because other states recognize AK permits. I'm not sure how that's going to "bite" us.

It is only a matter of time before a law is placed on the books by some well meaning politician that grants some small additional privelidge to those who went out of thier way to aquire such a license. From there the precedent will exist and it will not longer be "Alaska carry".

Why is it "only a matter of time"? Even if they do, there will still be Alaskan carry. In that case the permit would be used by, for example, teachers to allow them to carry at schools.

 

[Kentucky]

I recently posted a thread in the Activism forum about this, I would love to see Tennessee's laws amended to match those of Alaska and Vermont. Come on Tennessean's, lets get behind this!

 

[Ultrachimp]

not far enough. there should be provisions for carrying in the "gun-free" zones where there isn't a police presence. and alaska's age is too high; you should be allowed to carry at 18 at the oldest. if you can vote and be drafted and be forced to carry a weapon and kill other people, you should have the right to decide you want to carry a gun.

 

[Soybomb]

I wouldn't say "the" model although they are the best example we have today. The stuff about schools and bars needs to go.

 

[Zedicus]

Is the Vermont and Alaska 'Model' of Carry the 2A Ultimate?

No, but they are the best we Have at the moment.

 

[DENALI]

I like the Alaska setup and I'll like it even more when I move back in 09. Here in WI they actually CHARGE you a fee for the background check just to purchase. I mean it's not very much but did they charge all of our beloved illegal alien's for exercising OUR RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE when they marched all over our cities last summer....Otherwise all ccw is illegal in WI................

 

[outofbattery]

Is blood running in the streets of AK and VT? Are citizens running amok threatening each other. What are the violent crime rates in AK and VT compared to places like CA, NY, MD, DC etc?

It's a faulty arguement that infers that guns themselves are more important than the society that posesses them.If Baltimore or DC were to be transported to VT,the level of violent crime would not change.Urban violence is often linked for good and bad to RKBA by both sides of the fence so you can choose to either blame the guns for causing the violence or attribute the lack of guns to the violence.Neither is a very intelligent POV.

Obviously,some of the safest portions of the country are those that also have a high number of gun owners but looking at gun ownership alone means little when it comes to why Burlington,VT is considerably safer than Baltimore,MD.