Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: AK trying to widen self defense bill. (sb 200)

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    dated may 1st.


    (Juneau) - Today the Alaska House voted 33 to 0 in favor of legislation to expand the legal ability of Alaskans to protect children, themselves and their property.
    Sen. Gene Therriault (R - North Pole) sponsored the bill to allow Alaskans to use deadly force under an expanded list of circumstances where they or others face life-threatening situations. "A carjacking is just one example of a situation that may arise that is not covered by our current state law" Therriault said. The bill reflects the new circumstances where Alaskans should be allowed to protect themselves and the lives others.
    SB 200 is patterned after Florida's "Castle Law", a groundbreaking statute that broadened self defense laws to more accurately reflect situations where innocent lives are threatened.
    The bill allows a carjacking victim who is still inside a vehicle to use deadly force. The measure also permits someone outside a vehicle to protect a carjacking victim who is still inside the vehicle.
    Children in danger of being kidnapped, sexually assaulted, injured or killed are circumstances where deadly force would now be allowed. The law also expands the list of residential and business locations where citizens would have a right to use deadly force in self-defense. The measure also offers protection from civil lawsuits when a person rightfully uses the new law to protect themselves and others.
    The protections in the new law are not available to individuals engaged in gang related activity.
    Under no circumstances can force be used against law enforcement officers, firefighters, paramedics, EMTs or those assisting them in their official duties.
    The Senate is expected to concur with amendments made by the House. SB 200 will then go to the governor to be signed into law.
    For more information contact Dave Stancliff at (907) 465.4797.






    now just have to see if the gov will sign it he darn better or I know 1000+people that will vote in out.(one of the good things about a gun association)



  2. #2
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    This is an excellent bill and is long over due for a state like Alaska which nearly sets the standard for American freedom. Is Murkowski expected to sign on the dotted line? He seems to be a shaky Governor to me and has been fairly erratic and unpredictable, which is different than how he conducted himself in the Senate. Frankly, I am a little concerned at this point.



    Murph, what gun club were you referring to? I might be interested in checking it out. Thanks




    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    well were not really a gun club were many offroading clubs that "play" together often on the trail and at the range. between the 5 different clubs there are 2,465 members. must of us carry and or own firearms for defense(home or other). frank did a good job in the senate but has come up short in the gov office. well see what happens as of up todate I have not heard any updates but I check the legislative website weekly. thiss bill was passed on to the gov office after the third reading(still not sure why it took that long).

    my offroad buddies and I have talked about starting an Alaska state gun owners association to push laws like these and other stuff but to be honest its alota work and right when we seem to get something going, things happen and some of us have to back out.(military deployment, family stuff, ext..).

    I and many others are expecting SB 200 to be signed soon, and cant wait.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the information. I plan on becoming a member of the Alaska Outdoor Council, but an Alaska version of GOA or VCDL would be great to hold the line on firearms rights.

    I am actually surprised that one does not already exist be be honest..
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    yes, I am suprised my self. Thats why were trying to get one going. We have been blessed with good bills, with out having to beat down doors to get them.



    If anyone has any tips on jupstarting an organization such as this please let me know.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    One thing I would NOT do islet the NRAco-opt such anorganization. Best to cooperate where you can with them while maintaining independence. You can see what happens with the NRA state organizations. Most are at best lukewarm towards expanding the rights of gun owners, and IMO, the NRA itself is not as big on gun owner rights as you might think if you listened to the hysteria of the far left.

    The NRA is not a bad group, but they have their own agenda, and they do have an array of advice they can dispense that really is worthwhile. What they cannot do for you is to light a fire under your legislators.Politicians only really care about getting (re)elected. Only voters can affect their chances.

    And don't expect much help from the NRA unless it is a near sure thing. They will let you do all the hard work and swoop in after thegroundwork is laid and take credit for it. That is not all bad because the other side has yet to catch on that it is people at the grass roots level that are really responsible for what has happened the last couple of decades. Better they continue to blame the NRA and ignore what really happened to them.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    Tho I suport the NRA, I have not talked to them about help or information. were trying to do this on our own. when we get started we may work with the NRA but dont wanna be controled or directly associated with them and there agenda.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Call me crazy and this may be a bit of a reach, but as I readthe "castle doctrine" bill that was passed and is shown atthe top of this thread, itexempts first responders trying to help you from having this new law used on them.. While that appears to make sense on the outside, the only reason you would need to use this ability would be to protect yourself, a child, or someone else from beingkidnapped, sexually assaulted, injured or killed and not be charged or sued for it. So essentially, the law states that you are not allowed to resist with force topolice, emt's, firefighters, etc.. :shock:who may be trying to harm you..

    What if a first responder commited one of those horribleacts...? I guess we arejust supposed to take it because of their job positions?

    Am I reading this correctly? Am I off-base?
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    128

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    Call me crazy and this may be a bit of a reach, but as I readthe "castle doctrine" bill that was passed and is shown atthe top of this thread, itexempts first responders trying to help you from having this new law used on them.. While that appears to make sense on the outside, the only reason you would need to use this ability would be to protect yourself, a child, or someone else from beingkidnapped, sexually assaulted, injured or killed and not be charged or sued for it. So essentially, the law states that you are not allowed to resist with force topolice, emt's, firefighters, etc.. :shock:who may be trying to harm you..

    What if a first responder commited one of those horribleacts...? I guess we arejust supposed to take it because of their job positions?

    Am I reading this correctly? Am I off-base?
    You're off base. The law should read that you can't resist with force a first responder in performance of his/her duties. Illegal acts wouldn't be in performance of duties... and they aren't likely to even be trying anything like that while on duty on a call. So if a random firefighter comes into your house in a mask to rob you, he isn't exempt because he's a firefighter...

    This law isn't supposed to change how people act in an emergency, just give you added protection.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Baradium wrote:
    So if a random firefighter comes into your house in a mask to rob you, he isn't exempt because he's a firefighter...

    This law isn't supposed to change how people act in an emergency, just give you added protection.
    'Added protection' except from a failed no-knock warrant service when a random cop comes into your house in a mask to assault you, he is exempt because he is a "law enforcement officer."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Baradium wrote:
    So if a random firefighter comes into your house in a mask to rob you, he isn't exempt because he's a firefighter...

    This law isn't supposed to change how people act in an emergency, just give you added protection.
    'Added protection' except from a failed no-knock warrant service when a random cop comes into your house in a mask to assault you, he is exempt because he is a "law enforcement officer."
    Yup. This law seemed too good to be true...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    128

    Post imported post

    The law just says it doesn't specifically exempt you in the case of law enforcement in performance of their duties. It doesn't mean you're automatically guilty of anything. The point is that the law is better than what was in place before. The intent of the exception wasn't to give a way to prosecute, it's to prevent people from shooting police intentionallyand then trying to use the law.

    There is no reason to freak out about that provision, even if you don't like it. This law was put in place specifically for extra protection for the homeowner.


  13. #13
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Baradium wrote:
    The law just says it doesn't specifically exempt you in the case of law enforcement in performance of their duties. It doesn't mean you're automatically guilty of anything. The point is that the law is better than what was in place before. The intent of the exception wasn't to give a way to prosecute, it's to prevent people from shooting police intentionallyand then trying to use the law.

    There is no reason to freak out about that provision, even if you don't like it. This law was put in place specifically for extra protection for the homeowner.
    I don't reallythink anybody was freaking out per sey, I was just looking for furtherclarification on this provision. Thanks for the information Baradium, I wasn't in the state when this was being passed, so I am fine tuning my knowledge of the state and it's laws and policies.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •