Proposed gun laws in Alaska

Pro-gun leaning folks in Alaska breathed a large sigh of relief when Donald Trump was elected President last November. After coming off four years of the Biden Administration, we had had to deal with the most anti-gun President in recent memory, and maybe ever in the history of this country. Had Harris been elected, things would have gone from bad to worse as she was more anti-gun than Biden.

However, it’s too early to relax and think things are going in the right direction for firearms owners. There are several good things happening nationally for gun owners, but there are also several “bad” things also, and one is right here in Alaska.

House Bill 89 was introduced in the Alaska House earlier this session and had a hearing in Juneau earlier this week. According to the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), “HYPERLINK "https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Detail/34?Root=HB%20%2089" \t "_blank"HB 89 would implement ‘Red Flag’ laws in Alaska that permit the government to seize firearms based on weak and nebulous standards of evidence. If passed, this bill would implement ex-parte hearings that would suspend an individual's Second Amendment rights without due process. In addition to violating due process, this bill would also require individuals to petition the court for the return of their property once the order has been vacated.”

I didn’t know what an ex-parte hearing was until I did a little research. An ex-parte hearing order means this hearing/order happens “without written or oral notice to the subject of the order or an opportunity to respond to the allegations.” How are an individual’s due process rights being protected if an order to confiscate his/her firearms based on an unproven allegation without the individual’s knowledge of the allegation?

The NRA-ILA news release continues, “’Red flag’ laws have been presented as a prudent solution to the problem of violent crime, but any benefits they provide come at the expense of individual due process protections, using an inherently speculative process that punishes individuals for harm that may never occur.”

These types of laws are well intended in an effort to protect public safety but are seriously flawed in how they propose to do so. I believe that the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments are all being violated with this approach. In this country, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If the whole process only involves a phone call to the local judge alleging that John Doe presents a danger to society and a warrant is then issued to confiscate his firearms, with no established guilt, doesn’t that strike you as a process ripe for abuse by both authorities and your unfriendly next-door neighbor?

I would suggest you contact your state legislators and let them know your thoughts on this approach to legislation.

Instead of trying to pass more gun legislation, let’s try enforcing the 20,000-gun laws already on the books in this country. Here’s one example that I have knowledge of since I hold a Federal Firearms License and must do background checks before transferring a gun.

According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2017, the NICS background check system denied 112,090 people the right to purchase a firearm. Of those 112,090 denials, only 12,710 were investigated. If over 112,000 people were denied but only 12,710 investigations took place, wouldn’t that be unmistakable evidence that there is a clear failure to enforce an already existing gun law?

It gets worse. That same year, and from that group of 112,090 denials, there were only 12 prosecutions for the crime of attempting to purchase a firearm fraudulently. Now the anti-gun crowd says, “See, we stopped 12 mass shootings!” Well, there are problems with that argument.

How do you know the system stopped that mass shooting activity? It would be more likely that the system prevented a woman from having a firearm to protect herself and her kids from her separated husband stalking and threatening her. Or an older person being threatened by gang activity in the poor neighborhood where he lives.

The background check system is far from complete. Many states fail to report mental health situations to the database. Others are lackadaisical in reporting convicted crimes and/or cases where the charges have been dropped or the person found innocent of the charges.

We’re definitely on the proper path toward correcting some seriously unconstitutional firearms laws in this country, but we are still seeing a bunch of new “gun-grabber” laws being introduced in state legislatures across the land. We must remain vigilant!