Current weather

  • Scattered clouds
  • 55°
    Scattered clouds
  • Comment

A red herring in the gun control debate

Posted: January 14, 2013 - 9:39am

I lived in Alaska for 18 years beginning in 1967. I taught school in a variety of settings, flew airplanes, was in business, and babbled for a while in a column on these pages. There were ups, and downs. Since leaving, I’ve lived for a long time in several countries where guns are vigorously controlled (Australia, France, Ireland, China, and The United Kingdom). I have come to think the following is obviously true.

I have been a gun owner and hunter for over 50 of my 71 years. Hunting moose and caribou for the table, many of my days have been spent in areas of Alaska well populated by brown bear. Doing so, I have never felt I needed more than the five cartridges held in the magazine of my hunting rifle. Only once did I see another hunter bring a military style, assault rifle, to the field, only to be greeted with knowing smiles from more experienced riflemen. We wondered why the hunter didn’t spend time improving his marksmanship, instead of packing all those heavy extra bullets around in an area where one shot should be enough to kill the prey we were after.

There is a red herring being championed by the NRA and other gun fanatics, unscrupulous legislators, gun manufacturers and those in debt to them, and uninformed, inexperienced members of the press. It is the idea that it is too difficult, even impossible, to define the line separating weapons a private citizen has a legitimate need for, and right to have, from those for which there is no Constitutional, hunting, or self-protection justification for owning. That is nonsense.

We need to make a clear distinction between the firepower of law enforcement, and that of the general populace. That distinction protects the law abiding, and threatens those who are not. It will take many years to do the job completely. We have polluted our environment with millions of guns that should not be in private hands. Collecting them will take effort, education, and, from time to time, force. It should be a federal felony for a private citizen to possess any weapon capable of semiautomatic or fully automatic fire after a period of “No questions asked” opportunity to turn them in for disposal.

The Second Amendment was written at a time when the most powerful weapon a person could carry was a muzzle loading, smooth bore, flintlock long gun. Only an expert could fire it as many as four times a minute, and not for very long. Modern semiautomatic and fully automatic weapons are able to fire four to nine times a second. They may be fitted with magazines carrying one hundred or more cartridges available for purchase over the internet. No questions are asked beyond, “Credit card number?” That is a situation the civilized world legitimately calls “insane.”

We have already barred the private possession of fully automatic weapons except under strict registration requirements. They are almost never used in the commission of a crime. Regarding semiautomatic firearms, we have seen schools shot up, people cut down on the streets of our cities and university campuses, gun fights with our police forces that kill and injure public servants, and a broadening opinion among the populace that such weapons should be in their closet or desk drawer as the result of our toleration of their profusion. Many states now permit people to have such weapons hidden on their person. It is time to take a simply defined and politically demanding action to reduce substantially such scenarios, and partially redeem our standing among the civilized countries of the world.

We should immediately outlaw the private possession of any weapon capable of semiautomatic or automatic fire, and magazines for any firearm capable of holding more than six cartridges. Again, barring such weapons is entirely consistent with the citizens right under the Constitution to bear arms. Under such a law, a citizen could still lawfully possess revolvers, single shot weapons, pump action shotguns, and/or bolt, pump, or lever action rifles, even a muzzle loading, smooth bore, flintlock long gun. We would be prevented from being able to cut down trees, or huddled masses in a mall, with a burst from our “hunting rifle.”

We should be.

  • Comment

Comments (233) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/15/13 - 09:30 pm
1
1
Braveheart was just on, what perfect timing!

Braveheart is kind of like the fight we are coming into over the Kings desire to remove our rights to stand and fight against evils spread by removing our 2nd Amendmant as well as our constitutional rights as a free and soveriegn people.
Of course i realize that Hollywood mixes up history with fiction, but, this was in my humble opinion a perfect timing film about where we are as a Free Nation, society as we watch history past unfold into history present and this film helps prove the point or war against tyrants and the spread of evil slavery to all if it's not stood up against.
GR8 film about the tyranny of England and the predominate philosophy of the rule of others globally that England had on Scotland, Ireland or America as well as others past & present.
I enjoyed this movie again and especially the first battle where the crazy scot told Wallace that the Lord told him that he probably could deliver him from the conflict, but, not sure about the rest, i can relate with this. Another part was when Wallace & his Freedom fighters won the Battle at Stirling and there was gr8 celebration of defeating Englands evil desire to control absolutely. Wallace said yes we won, but, England will return. It's the very same thing our Forefathers warned us of for the future of NOW, as well as God himself.
The people of Scotland had one of two choices, submit and surrender their Greedoms to a Tyrant ruler, or fight for their Freedom. Some fought against the tyrants as well as their fellow Free citizens who were affraid and had been promised a wonderful life for their obediance and support for the Tyrants rule.
The neat thing about this movie is the comments of we all must die someday, will we die Free or Slaves and as Wallace was being killed his last words were FREEDOM!
Troubles are coming for your freedoms and liberties and it will not stop until Good stands and defeats it.
May the Lord lead each of you in your fight for Truth & eternal freedom.
God Bless America and Forgive us our sins against him and help us in this OUR fight against Evils spread thats ment to destroy us all no matter who we are or what we believe in or who we elected as ruler with his false hope and fundamental change to believe in instead of God and his anointed one, Jesus the Only true Hope and Fundamental Change to Believe in.
The End of this Era of time is at hand, are you ready for the almost total distruction of all creation to come brought on by the evil prince of this world?
We all should be Watchman on the Wall looking out to see the that Wicked this way comes, and it has no friends, only casualties.
God help us all tomorrow as we see exactly the Devil we chose to rule over us all even if we did not vote for his rule & dominion, we are subject to it, or not.

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/15/13 - 10:07 pm
1
1
Interesting quotes from Thomas Jefferson, 1700 & 1800's

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its' own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

"I predict future happyness for America if that can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

The strongest reason for the people to retain the rights to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"To compel a man to subsideze with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrinnical."

Along with all the above and many more words of warnings in 1802 Thomas Jefferson also wrote about bankers.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currancy, first by inflatio, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their CHILDREN wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Sounds about right to me of what we see, what say ye, THE PEOPLE?
We have indeed been warned and rewarned of what was coming and we allowed it's rise, but, to what END, and are you really ready for it's arrival?

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 01/15/13 - 10:18 pm
2
0
Loving what I read here.

It is forums like these that are very informative
Debates. I have learned a great deal from the
Varied opinons. I appreciate all of your comments.
Every person has a right to their opinions.
I agree with some of the content and disagree with some.
I have been reading with an open mind and
Cannot fully agree or disagree with what I read. However
I have read things that I was unaware of and I consider it a challenge
To me to better inform myself.
Kudos to all of you for caring enough to
Post your knowledge here.

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/15/13 - 11:35 pm
1
1
Luvflyfishing

I agrre with you it is good to see and learn from this type of forum and i have learned so much since doing this stuff about 4 yrs ago on Greta Wire.
When i started i could not even spell illiterate, now i is one, thanks to JD Bishops kind observation and ability from being a past teacher to teach others of their disparaging traits.
I of course not being of the proper tutelage rely mainly on things i have heard others say or read about on many points, such as this one.
In order to share my point of view and due to my inability to do so with exceptable gramer, spelling or punctuation or composition for lack of proper schooling from the 13 differant schools i attended. I have decided to type out a few of Jeffersons thoughts as i saw them written out and they align with mine. If only i was smart enough to say what i mean or mean what i say, the untold joy that would fill my heart as i tried to help my fellow humans prepare for what we all see coming our way, even all those that mean to distract or decieve us into believing that what we do see is not reality or any desire to restrict or take away our soveriegn rights afforded us under our constitution as Free people.
If only i knew how to cut & paste others comments or ideas that i have read from books or other sources what a happy man i would be and i would not have to type word for word out taking massive amounts of time and effort.
But, really, i do agree with you and also do appreciate the comments even though some of them are a bunch of bunk and are lies straight from the pit of hell perpatrated by those that mean to decieve or destroy others.
Thanks for your post and keep learning as we go foreward and pray for wisdom for all the wanna be smart people as well, that they might learn what is truth like you and i have, our only Hope in this life and the next as well as theirs.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/16/13 - 12:24 am
1
4
@Obfuscate

“To protect you from idiots that want to parade around with semiautomatic weapons” – Are you lumping ordinary citizens and criminals into the same group? Are you of the mindset that all owners of semiautomatic weapons are guilty? Maybe you have a very personal and irrational fear that prevents you from seeing clearly?"

I have, and have owned, several semiautomatic firearms. There is no 'irrational fear' here. I will be glad to divest myself of such weapons as part of the long process of getting them out of the reach of children, criminals, and the morons among us. I can well defend myself with a revolver, shotgun, and/or my hunting rifle. So can you.

"Shall we also ban all vehicles capable of exceeding the speed limit? That way the police have faster vehicles than ordinary citizens possess. To keep them out of the hands of the idiots that want to parade around with vehicles that can kill others by the carload (literally)."

Yes. No person has a 'right' to take any vehicle on the public roadway that is capable of more than (say) 20 MPH above the speed limit. Any vehicle with the capability should be fitted with a governor that prevents it from speeding above that limitation, or must be hauled on a trailer. Any person who operates a vehicle on the highway that is not so restricted should lose their license, and the vehicle. I would also prevent any person under the age of 22 from driving a car except under specifically controlled circumstances. If I were in charge, no student with reasonable access to a public transportation system would drive to school. Automobiles are a major factor in discipline difficulties at high schools. They also kill many students every year. Also, teachers would be required to ride the school bus as well. They should be in the buses to assist the driver with the management of the students. Schools are for the students, not the convenience of the teachers, administration, or parents.

jlmh
339
Points
jlmh 01/16/13 - 02:04 am
5
1
Seriously?

"It should be a federal felony for a private citizen to possess any weapon capable of semiautomatic or fully automatic fire after a period of 'No questions asked' opportunity to turn them in for disposal." - Jim Bishop

You expect law-abiding citizens to just hand over a $1,500 item they had every right to purchase? I suppose you'll compensate them for it, then?

Assuming that JDBishop5 is the same Jim Bishop who wrote the article, I think your most recent post is pretty telling. Your position on everything seems to be that individuals are incapable of being responsible and everything from basic defense to transportation has to be meticulously run by the government. There are communes for those who wish to live under that kind of order.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/16/13 - 02:14 am
2
3
@jlmh

Your last is a silly post, just silly. You have no idea what my generalized 'position' is, and you cannot possibly. Most people are sensible and mature enough, even those who are members of the NRA, to obey the law. You take the same attitude toward confiscation of semi and full automatic firearms that the less educated took toward antismoking legislation, gay marriage, and freeing the slaves, 'It's too difficult. It's too soon. It can't happen.' Reactionaries such as yourself are so often proved wrong one would expect them to be more reserved about exposing their ignorance.

If you made the mistake of paying $1,500 for a semiautomatic firearm, education costs money.

bob99507
361
Points
bob99507 01/16/13 - 05:50 am
4
1
jdb

My post was edited out by the Clarion so this is the edited version.Wrong and glad your not here

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/16/13 - 08:07 am
0
4
A good start.

The new gun control law in New York State passed yesterday.

http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-key-provisions-yorks-gun-control-law-02273...

Among the provisions.

Assault weapons ban: The law provides a stricter definition of assault weapons, and implements an immediate ban of defined assault weapons. Under the stricter definitions, semi-automatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one military-style feature will be considered assault weapons. Semi-automatic shotguns with one military-style feature will also be considered assault weapons.

Assault weapons possessed before the effective date must be registered within a year and recertified every five years. Owners of grandfathered assault weapons may only sell out of state or through an in-state federal firearms licensee. Under the legislation, the AR-15-style Bushmaster used in the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting will be illegal.

Obfuscate
233
Points
Obfuscate 01/16/13 - 09:34 am
5
1
Thank you.

Thanks Mr. Bishop. Thanks for finally showing where your true colors are. I now know that any further discussion with you is wasted. You are obviously a close-minded individual that has no problems giving up his freedom or expecting others to give up theirs. As jlmh posted, your post clearly shows this. It is fine if you would be happy to divest yourself of your firearms, but what right do you have to tell others they must do the same? None. You may come up with all the 'silly' excuses in the world and provide them as reasons, but you have no right.

Your comments on vehicles are way beyond silly. You continue to blame the tool instead of the person. With this mindset you will never actually solve a problem.

I can only hope that your original letter was correct, that you do in fact live outside the U.S.A., and that you do not ever return.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/16/13 - 10:07 am
1
4
@Obfuscate

Thanks. Your comment reminded me of this passage in 'Blazing Saddles,' one of my favorite films about rednecks.

Olson Johnson: [after Gabby Johnson's speech] Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to Gabby Johnson for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.

ManInBlack
182
Points
ManInBlack 01/16/13 - 10:09 am
3
1
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy........

History recalls a country where weapons were only allowed to be possessed by government agents.... and criminals ( coincidentally history ALSO shows they were one in the same). Is THAT what you wish to see? Just how long do you think it would take for those scary looking "assault weapons" to filter out of the hands of criminals were they (those scary looking "assault weapons) made illegal TODAY........? Five years? Ten years? Fifty years? Let us take an HONEST look at the countries who have such restriction, and what THEIR criminals use in the committing of crimes.

Understanding that facts confuse and irritate you, lets take a look at what is responsible for more deaths than firearms in ANY country..... if we were to use the "logic of the left" (which is actually emotion based, knee jerk reaction, lacking anything resempling logic), then I guess we would need to ban entirely ALL tobacco products, alcohol, fatty foods, cars, fossil fuels, fertilizers, cleaning products, the list is endless.

Look closely at the communities where heavy restrictions are in place (which limit ONLY the law abiding citizen), and look closely at their intentional firearms related deaths. Then look closely at the states and communities where firearms are abundant (Alaska, for one), and look closely at THEIR intentional firearms related deaths. And yes, I seperate intentional from unintentional, as accidents happen anywhere, with anything (vehicles cause more accidental deaths in a year, than firearms in a decade). If you were to take a close (open minded) look, you would quickly realize that the tool is not the problem, it is the operator.

I understand your concern for human life, as any decent human being loathes to see the death of innocent lives, but placing restictions on those who follow the law in hopes to affect those who DON'T follow the SAME LAWS, is absurd. Just look at prohibition, be it alcohol or drugs, and how well that worked/works.

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/16/13 - 10:54 am
0
3
Universal background checks are needed

We need to immediatly impose background checks on everyone that might have sex someday. We need to know if they could be mentally unstable enough to add to the number of 6500+ a day babies deaths, future children, by aborting them due to their being nutjobs and allowed to have sex.
This will probably get deleted, but, it is a fair question i do believe about who really cares for our children and who is killing more of them, Guns, or Abortions?
What a mess and it's all ment to destroy people by disarming them to the point of being like little helpless babies that can't fight for themselves for their lives.
A wise man once said it would be better for a millstone to be hung around their neck and being cast into the sea, rather than face him after hurting a little child for all those that do harm in any way to babies.
As Thomas Jefferson said it, why should those that disagree with and think they are sinful and we abhor them, have to pay for or accept these laws from a Tyrannical govt?

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/16/13 - 10:55 am
1
4
@ManInBlack

See, this how a conversation works. One person listens to, or reads, the comments of another, and then replies in a fashion that stays on the topic. No one here, or anywhere I have been, is suggesting taking away all the guns. I personally now own and have owned many firearms and will resist lawfully any attempt to deprive me of my Second Amendment right to bear arms. We are discussing, that is, those people in the country who try to understand our continually changing current events and problems and help solve them are, moving the line for legal weapons from it now is, including all firearms that are fully automatic except under special conditions, so that it encompasses semiautomatic weapons as well. That sort of regulation, in the way I read the recent 'Heller' Supreme Court decision (And, Justice Scalia is very clear about it.), would be entirely Constitutional. That's what I was clear about in my original posting, and the subject one might expect you to discuss.

ManInBlack
182
Points
ManInBlack 01/16/13 - 11:21 am
4
1
So in other words....

You have yours, and everyone else can go fly a kite. I can see by your postings that you ARE all for only government agents and criminals possessing firearms that are superior to those available to the general, law abiding citizenry..... Doesn't THAT sound grand.......?

Explain for all of us exactly HOW enacting stricter regulations on law abiding citizens will result in a decrease in criminal behavior. Why not enforce and expand the current "gun enhancement" laws that are on the books?

Also, please opine on what should be done about the countless deaths of children as a result of vehicles, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, fatty foods, dogs, swimming pools, cleaning products, etc., which FAR outweigh the numbers caused by firearms.

As a side note, just how do you plan on defending your Constitutional rights from brittain? You don't have your collection of firearms over THERE, do you?

kksalm
227
Points
kksalm 01/16/13 - 11:32 am
1
0
JDBishop5 and previous poster Carver

The style and execution in regards to stirring up the pot in regards to 2nd amendment rights are uncanny. Those two should "get a room", if they don't have one already.
I always thought Carver was in it for more than the discussion. I don't think his opinion ever changed or wavered the tiniest bit. It was stir up the pot and let's see what kind of emotions I can get others to commit to in print.
but that's just my opinion of course.
Have a wonderful day!

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/16/13 - 11:48 am
1
1
OUR Stupid Forefathers

One would think that are Forefathers would have been smart enough to forsee the future advancements in Technology, seeing as how they were inventers of technology.
If only they would have been smart enough to insert the words simi or fully automatic guns, rather than the ALL INCOMPASSING word Arms. The people used the very same guns that governments used then and should have the very same ability to do so now. This is why our SMART forefathers said rightsd to bear ARMS was written, so we would not have to fight governments that had simi or fully automatic weapons with muskets or bayonets, pitchforks or knives and rocks.
WE THE PEOPLE have the rights to bear the very same arms that OUR GOVERNMENT bears and thats the rub coming from this Tyrannical government that our forefathers said would come back someday to reinslave us all if WE THE PEOPLE allowed them to do so.
WE SEE EXACTLY WHAT THEY WARNED WOULD COME BACK IN THIS CHOSEN ONES DREAM FOR A GLOBAL SOCIETY. expounding there not yelling.

Sam Von Pufendorf
1088
Points
Sam Von Pufendorf 01/16/13 - 02:58 pm
0
0
kksalm

I believe, even though Carver and Mr Bishop have a differing opinion than my own, the are in fact provoking thought and most of the time they are trying to have civil debate.
Scalia's majority opinion in Heller vs Washington DC in fact did state " ... the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."
It was a majority opinion. However, the case being heard concerned handguns for personal use and protection. This link has a very condensed version of the 64 page decision.
I am NOT in favor of the proposed ban. However, as I stated before, intelligent, informative, logical and civil debate may result in education for both of our sides ... if we choose to listen (read) what each has to say (write).

Opinion summary:
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/50849/district-columbia-v-hell...

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/16/13 - 05:01 pm
0
1
Slip in unaware for FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE!

Please allow me to share my opinion of what i see world wide of things past and things present.
Our forefathers out of either divine intervention from God or a superior intelect of history past, present and future gave WE THE PEOPLE of America a set of guide lines to govern by all with WARNINGS that if we failed in any way to follow their guide lines what would happen to our nation.
That we would indeed allow evil tyranniacal governments that they escaped from and fought against as a Free people to slip back into control by subverting or side stepping the Constitution with slick words of pretence wanting to help and protect us all against evils spread.
What do we have today? We have a chosen one who wants a global society and claims that he is not an American, but, a global citizen and wants all the world to be as he is in order to save the world from total distruction. In order for America to become such a global union member we must fall from being a soveriegn nation under our own set of rules to live by, being replaced with other rules to live by, as in UN, or EU rules.
We have a person thats in the office of President who says that if Congress will not act, then give him absolute power and he will pass all laws to protect Americans from colapse and evil guns users/owners.
What we saw today was a slipping around the constitution and our rights to bear arms to protect us against self imposed tyrannical rulers by the use of supposed fear tactics to protect our children from a FEW nuts who could care less about any laws and kill our citizens at will. Out of fear he is bypassing the constitution, a fear that is outblown and totally elevated far beyond what it actually is in a very seldom accuring event of people getting shoot in mass shootings, compared to all other killers of our children, citizens daily.
Things we now see as our rights of freedoms or self gratifications, are all becoming legal now and things our forefathers said were our rights that would be targeted by tyrannical governments are not really a good thing any more and should be illegal for our own good.
They are slipping in the back door with New Fundamentals & Changes to replace our Old Fundamentals that we use to have Hope in and believe in, now for their New Hope & Fundamentals to believe in which are actually hopeless. Very slick this Backdoor manuever.
The very same things have happened in the spiritual realm, they have slipped in the backdoor with a new hope and fundamentals to REPLACE our old hope and fundamentals.
Instead of there being only ONE Way to God, there are now Many differant ways and it's an all incompassing have it your way road, what ever you want to believe in way to redemption.
The Old inferior fundamentals that we use to have faith and hope in which our forefathers gave us to protect us is now being replaced with Superior fundamentals to hope and fundamentals to believe in for the Good of all Americans. REALLY?
The thing is we each must decide who to believe in and follow concerning the WARNINGS given us by each, God and forefathers of what was to come at a later date with it's EVIL desire to deceive and lead astray from the TRUTH IN ORDER TO DESTROY.
So can any of you see what this simple minded illiterate whaco nutjob Jesus freak is saying as TRUE? Who are you going to BELIEVE is the question, wise WARNINGS from the past, or slick willy talking tyrannical shisters of today that were predicted to come in the future with their better way FOREWARD due to NEW FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES TO BELIEVE IN?
Many False prophets have come into the world to mislead many and have done so, the question is will you be added to that list and suffer major lose because you would not heed the WARNING SIGNS given then or now to help you all fight and escape what was and is coming and has arrived right on time?
Don't be deceived and believe a LIE.

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 01/16/13 - 05:49 pm
0
0
Guns

I have guns and plenty of ammo and I intend
To keep them. I also have faith in my Lord and saviour
Jesus Christ. Enough for me!!

Sam Von Pufendorf
1088
Points
Sam Von Pufendorf 01/16/13 - 06:46 pm
1
0
Also from the majority decision Heller vs DC

Scalia also wrote:
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

So, unless one is to read the entire opinion of the conservative justices of the USSC (64 pages) and read the prescribed references, one can only hold to the decision made in regards to Heller vs DC and not to the current debate of banning assault rifles or magazine capacity.

In regards to the current proposed assualt weapons ban and magazine capacity; what effect did the 1994 ban have on violent crime? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence,"

The majority opinion in its entirity:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Effects of firearm laws:
http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?q=Study+on+gun+laws&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&sort=...

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/Violence.pdf

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 01/16/13 - 06:37 pm
0
0
Says it all

Thanks Sam!! :-)

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/16/13 - 10:32 pm
0
0
Mike Chenault introduces HB69 on guns

This morning Mike Chenault introduced HB69 a bill outlawing federal agents from inforcing the EO's Obama presented this morning on gun control in hopes of bypassing our constitutional rights to bear arms, all arms.
VERY GOOD Mike and others in the Alaska government that are wanting to protect us against tyrannical kings wishing to reinslave us to a Global society and the first step is the removal of our weapons to defend ourselves against his Dream.
Thanks to our Alaska Reps. who are looking out for our rights in order to protect us against this Dream of a Global society thats not supposed to ever happen.
This article can be read at the bottom the Clarion Home page for all that are interested or care about our rights, even those that want our rights removed under our constitution can enjoy this article.

kenai123
1268
Points
kenai123 01/17/13 - 12:53 am
1
0
Jim Bishop is not thinking to clearly these days.

Jim Bishop is not thinking to clearly these days. It is nice that he was allowed to live out his 71 year life within a free nation. Believe it or not someone paid a huge price for Jim to live out his happy little life. Millions of American's have laid down their lives so Jim could have the freedom to live and do the things he desired to do. Believe it or not Jim, the reason you were able to live the way you did, is because the American public had open access to "top line modern firearms" from 1776 to 2013. It is hypocritical and ignorant for Jim to now declare that free and open access to modern firearms had NOTHING to do with him living free the way he did.

With Jim's way of thinking our Minutemen at Concord and Lexington back in 1776 would have reached behind their doors for their modern flintlock rifles and they would not have been there. They would not have been there because Jim decided that there may be some person out there who might illegally use those rifles. So in Jim's world our Minutemen would have thrown rocks and stones at the advancing British armies. The British would have walked over our forefathers and we would not have been the extremely productive nation we were in 1940 when Hitler tried to take over the planet. Being a backward British possession in 1940 would have then no doubt allowed Hitler to take us over like he would have taken the British and Jim's family would have no doubt been wiped off the planet.

So under Jim's fantasy world, Jim wouldn't even have had to think about teaching or flying airplanes or anything else because he probably would have been murdered by Hitler. Who would have thought that removing a mans access to modern firearms in 1776 could have TOTALLY destroyed Jim Bishop's life in 2013 but as you can see, it no doubt would have.

So knowing all this Jim Bishop looks back over time and concludes that it would be a "good thing" to now today remove that access to modern firearms from behind my door. Jim has concluded that there is no connection between our citizenry having access to modern firearms like our military's have and future citizens also teaching or fly airplanes like Jim did. The red herring is Jim claiming that our forefathers did not need modern firearms to fight the British. He is wrong and extremely short-sighted. His story is however an excellent example of living your life and then losing your mind.

Offer a program which gets our teachers to carry modern firearms in our schools, do not tell anyone which teachers have the weapons and you will NEVER see another Newtown or Columbine.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/17/13 - 12:48 am
0
2
@Sam Von Pufendorf

Your comment above, - 'So, unless one is to read the entire opinion of the conservative justices of the USSC (64 pages) and read the prescribed references, one can only hold to the decision made in regards to Heller vs DC and not to the current debate of banning assault rifles or magazine capacity.' -is excellent and pertinent, and broadly ignored on these pages by intent or ignorance.

Of course the Heller V D.C. ruling governs the possession of operable hand guns in the home for personal defense, and establishes our Second Amendment right to have them. It does not establish our right to have any weapon we can afford however. As you have pointed out above, the ruling also states.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation

2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Syllabus
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. 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. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. 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.

The last sentence bears repetition...

'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.'

The debate some of us are having here is whether a semiautomatic rifle loaded with 30 rounds of high velocity rounds is a 'dangerous and unusual weapon,' legally speaking. That will be the question should a new law ban them, as I argue it should, and a challenge gets to the Supreme Court. Should a law banning such weapons be struck down, the proper response for people feeling as I do will be to obey it, and attempt a Constitutional amendment banning such weapons. The suggestion I have made several times, and have been ignored, is that such a change in the Constitution might well ban all firearms, given the growing belief of our fellow citizens that all gun owners are insane, particularly those that insist on parading their military style guns around in pickup truck cabs, and across their shoulders. Failing a supporting judgement of the SCUS, none of the anti semiautomatic weapons partisans I have talked with or read advocates secession from the Union, or armed insurrection, as do many holding on the other side of the question.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/17/13 - 01:45 am
0
1
@kenai123

Well that was as much fun as it was idiotic. The contention that we should be armed with the same weapons our military forces are issued because a flintlock muzzle loader was what the British had in the 18th century, carried to its logical conclusion, would permit ordinary citizens today to have suitcase nukes in their pickup cab.

You argue, when you are not mindlessly characterizing me and my thought processes ad nauseam, that we need modern military weapons to defend ourselves from our own government. That instinct comes to you from the Appalachian Mountains (Is your favorite film 'Deliverance?') and the slave markets of the very primitive southern colonies. (The Second Amendment was insisted upon by southern colonies that wanted to police their black population and insure they didn't have guns. The second Amendment did not grant the right to bear arms to anyone except propertied white men. (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm) Additional informed commentary here - (http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-t...)

Any current tyrannical regime will be coming for you using drones flying so high your M16 will not be threatening, but the drones will certainly threaten you.

Our proper task is to build a society where citizens actually are informed in the way Jefferson argues we must be to govern ourselves. That is, actually studying history, economics, science, political philosophy and the other humanities, and consenting to be governed by those we elect into office.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/17/13 - 03:14 am
0
1
FYI

For those of you actually interested in learning something, here is a salient part of the new New York state anti-semiautomatic and large magazine law.

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/s2230-2013

S 37. Subdivision 22 of section 265.00 of the penal law, as added by
chapter 189 of the laws of 2000, is amended to read as follows:
22. "Assault weapon" means
(A) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE
MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
(II) A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF
THE WEAPON;
(III) A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
(IV) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE
NON-TRIGGER HAND;
(V) A BAYONET MOUNT;
(VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED
BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR
MUZZLE COMPENSATOR;
(VII) A GRENADE LAUNCHER; OR

S. 2230 19 A. 2388
(B) A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN THAT HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
CHARACTERISTICS:
(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
(II) A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
(III) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE
NON-TRIGGER HAND;
(IV) A FIXED MAGAZINE CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF SEVEN ROUNDS;
(V) AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE; OR
(C) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE
MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
(II) A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
(III) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE
NON-TRIGGER HAND;
(IV) CAPACITY TO ACCEPT AN AMMUNITION MAGAZINE THAT ATTACHES TO THE
PISTOL OUTSIDE OF THE PISTOL GRIP;
(V) A THREADED BARREL CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING A BARREL EXTENDER, FLASH
SUPPRESSOR, FORWARD HANDGRIP, OR SILENCER;
(VI) A SHROUD THAT IS ATTACHED TO, OR PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY ENCIR
CLES, THE BARREL AND THAT PERMITS THE SHOOTER TO HOLD THE FIREARM WITH
THE NON-TRIGGER HAND WITHOUT BEING BURNED;
(VII) A MANUFACTURED WEIGHT OF FIFTY OUNCES OR MORE WHEN THE PISTOL IS
UNLOADED; OR
(VIII) A SEMIAUTOMATIC VERSION OF AN AUTOMATIC RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR
FIREARM;
(D) A REVOLVING CYLINDER SHOTGUN;
(E) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE, A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN OR A SEMIAUTOMATIC
PISTOL OR WEAPON DEFINED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (V) OF PARAGRAPH (E) OF SUBDI
VISION TWENTY-TWO OF SECTION 265.00 OF THIS CHAPTER AS ADDED BY CHAPTER
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND AND OTHERWISE
LAWFULLY POSSESSED PURSUANT TO SUCH CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND
PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER FOURTEENTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR;
(F) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE, A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN OR A SEMIAUTOMATIC
PISTOL OR WEAPON DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH (A), (B) OR (C) OF THIS SUBDIVI
SION, POSSESSED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE CHAPTER OF THE
LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH;
(G) PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE:
(I) ANY RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR PISTOL THAT (A) IS MANUALLY OPERATED BY
BOLT, PUMP, LEVER OR SLIDE ACTION; (B) HAS BEEN RENDERED PERMANENTLY
INOPERABLE; OR (C) IS AN ANTIQUE FIREARM AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C.
921(A)(16);
(II) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT CANNOT ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE
THAT HOLDS MORE THAN FIVE ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION;
(III) A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN THAT CANNOT HOLD MORE THAN FIVE ROUNDS
OF AMMUNITION IN A FIXED OR DETACHABLE MAGAZINE; OR
(IV) A RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR PISTOL, OR A REPLICA OR A DUPLICATE THEREOF,
SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX A TO 18 U.S.C. 922 AS SUCH WEAPON WAS MANUFACTURED
ON OCTOBER FIRST, NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-THREE. THE MERE FACT THAT A
WEAPON IS NOT LISTED IN APPENDIX A SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT
SUCH WEAPON IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON;
(V) ANY WEAPON VALIDLY REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIXTEEN-A OF
SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER. SUCH WEAPONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (H) OF THIS SUBDIVISION;
(VI) ANY FIREARM, RIFLE, OR SHOTGUN THAT WAS MANUFACTURED AT LEAST
FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, BUT NOT INCLUDING REPLICAS THERE

S. 2230 20 A. 2388
OF THAT IS VALIDLY REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIXTEEN-A OF
SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER;
(H) ANY WEAPON DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH (E) OR (F) OF THIS SUBDIVISION AND
ANY LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE THAT WAS LEGALLY POSSESSED
BY AN INDIVIDUAL PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH, MAY ONLY BE SOLD TO,
EXCHANGED WITH OR DISPOSED OF TO A PURCHASER AUTHORIZED TO POSSESS SUCH
WEAPONS OR TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE PROVIDED THAT
ANY SUCH TRANSFER TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE MUST
BE REPORTED TO THE ENTITY WHEREIN THE WEAPON IS REGISTERED WITHIN SEVEN
TY-TWO HOURS OF SUCH TRANSFER. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO TRANSFERS ANY SUCH
WEAPON OR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION DEVICE TO AN INDIVIDUAL INSIDE NEW
YORK STATE OR WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH
SHALL BE GUILTY OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR UNLESS SUCH LARGE CAPACITY
AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE, THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS MADE ILLEGAL BY
THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARA
GRAPH, IS TRANSFERRED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAP
TER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH.

S 38. Subdivision 23 of section 265.00 of the penal law, as added by
chapter 189 of the laws of 2000, is amended to read as follows:
23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, that (A) has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds of ammunition, OR (B) CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI
TION, OR (C) IS OBTAINED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE
LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH AMENDED THIS SUBDIVISION AND HAS A
CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION; provided, however, that such term
does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition OR A
FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS A CURIO OR RELIC. A FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS A
CURIO OR RELIC IS DEFINED AS A DEVICE THAT (I) WAS MANUFACTURED AT LEAST
FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, (II) IS ONLY CAPABLE OF BEING
USED EXCLUSIVELY IN A FIREARM, RIFLE, OR SHOTGUN THAT WAS MANUFACTURED
AT LEAST FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, BUT NOT INCLUDING REPLI
CAS THEREOF, (III) IS POSSESSED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT PROHIBITED
BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM AND (IV) IS REGISTERED
WITH THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIXTEEN-A OF
SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT SUCH FEEDING DEVICES TRANSFERRED
INTO THE STATE MAY BE REGISTERED AT ANY TIME, PROVIDED THEY ARE REGIS
TERED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THEIR TRANSFER INTO THE STATE. NOTWITH
STANDING PARAGRAPH (H) OF SUBDIVISION TWENTY-TWO OF THIS SECTION, SUCH
FEEDING DEVICES MAY BE TRANSFERRED PROVIDED THAT SUCH TRANSFER SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 400.03 OF THIS CHAPTER INCLUDING
THE CHECK REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SUCH SECTION.

Raoulduke
2429
Points
Raoulduke 01/17/13 - 04:19 am
0
1
exec. orders

if it was as easy as an executive order,and if it is as important as the media states.Then why wasn't this done 50 years ago.Did the lobbying of the NRA pay the folks in Washington enough?Could the NRA not buy off OBAMA?We shall see

Raoulduke
2429
Points
Raoulduke 01/17/13 - 05:11 am
0
1
New York Gun Laws,are not alone

Every states laws can be changed even Alaska's.I would expect change.No matter what the state constitution say's.It too can be circumvented.The state of Alaska is not immune to gun law changes.You can bet the lobby monies.Will flow like water to the elected official's coffers.Especially the elected who have been on the take for awhile.We have a CORRUPT state government bought by the oil interest if anyone has been watching.The Federal government is NOT denying a person's right to keep and bear arms.They are going to restrict access to certain types.such as assault weapons,and high capacity magazines.The police and military are the ones.Who need these weapons.Why does a normal citizen need an assault rifle?Self defense? A shotgun,rifle,or hand gun works rather well for self defense.Should our law enforcement,and military be less armed than the citizen's they protect?I personally have no need for an assault rifle,and the excuse to use one for hunting.Is a very LAME excuse.These are assault weapons that are used for one thing.ASSAULT.People may get their ego's lifted by owning,and firing one.But that is all it is.A self grandiose ego trip.I feel.There has not been an infringement on my 2nd Amendment.I can still keep,and bear arms for self defense,and hunting.We can still carry a concealed gun.I believe.Background checks should be a federal background check.No FELONS in possession,or close proximity of any,and all firearms.Anyone convicted of domestic violence,or mentally impaired.

kenai123
1268
Points
kenai123 01/17/13 - 07:00 am
1
1
suitcase nuke?

JDBishop5 comparing a suitcase nuke to a flintlock rifle is what is idiotic. You made that idiotic comparison not me. Our second amendment addresses individuals defending themselves with personal firearms which shoot bits of lead, not nukes, not lasers, not tazer, not bombs, not death rays, not anything else. Your assumption that personal defense and bits of lead equals death rays or nukes shows that you are not a thinking person.

Our forefathers really did know what they were doing. They fully knew that the future would bring new amazing weapons. If they would have wanted us to use other kinds of weapons they would have said something like "the right of the people to use any kind of future weapon will not be infringed upon.". They did not do that did they? It is your idiotic illustration which attempts to claim that our forefathers were so dumb that they just didn't think about all the many new weapons which would be created in the future. You have failed to see their true intent. They wanted to make sure our citizens had the same weapons as their government might use to come after them with. It is as simple as that. Now is the time where you must admit the truth, what weapons might our government come after us with? Automatic weapons which shoot bits of lead, not nukes! Are you starting to see the true intent here? These guys were smarter than either you or me and they were worried about the weapons our government might use against us! Are you really going to claim that our government is going to come after us with nukes? No they are not! They would use weapons which shoot bits of lead. Sure you can try arguing tanks, aircraft and even nukes but you are again out of their intent. Your problem is that you just fail to understand their intent to arm the indivigual man on the street with the same general weapons the government might come after them with.

As far as other weapons go, give me 300,000,000 guys with automatic weapons and thirty round clips and I will take out all your stuff, even your nukes.

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321268/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321253/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321248/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321243/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321208/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/320593/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321173/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321163/
My Gallery

CONTACT US

  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING

MORRIS ALASKA NEWS