Sunday, April 8, 2012

Bureau Of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms & Explosives Update

Great Northern Guns in Anchorage, Alaska was asked to give up their “Bound Book” to a BATFE Agent so it could be copied. The Bound Book is a complete record of all firearms transactions by the FFL holder. They are not required by law to do so and they refused. In fact this would be a violation of FOPA. (Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986)

Our concern is that the administration may be trying some type of defacto registration scheme. We have been unable to ascertain who authorized this action and why. The Agent when asked said the orders came from “on high”. We suspect the Seattle office directed this action. We are inquiring from FFL holders in other states to see if this is a national in scope.

We have been told there were other dealers asked to give up the “Bound Book” in Alaska but have been unable to verify any others yet. Generally in Alaska BATFE has a good relationship with the gun community. A call to the local BATFE office did not yield any information. The individual that we spoke with didn’t divulge much except he stated the “Bound Book” is the property of the BATFE and they can pick it up anytime they choose. Read the provisions of FOPA below to learn what the restrictions are. FOPA is contradictory but there are distinct limitations on what government agents can access when and how.

There is a very good paper on FOPA here.

THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

We must ask our legislators to launch an inquiry into why and who authorized the request. Please let every FFL holder you know about this.

Don Young
View Website
Office of Congressman Don Young
2314 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Tel: (202)225-5765
Fax: (202)225-0425

Mark Begich
View Website
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-3004
Fax: (202) 224-2354
Toll-free line: 1(877)501-6275*
*Only toll-free for callers with an Alaska (907) area code.

Lisa Murkowski

View Website
709 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202)224-6665
Fax: (202)224-5301

Below you will find the provisions under FOPA on record keeping and access to FFL records by authorities. The records are not to go to any government agency except under specific circumstances.


Provisions Of The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986:


Inspection and Acquisition of Licensee Records

The Gun Control Act required licensees to maintain records of firearm acquisitions, dispositions, and inventories. Furthermore, it permitted warrantless inspection of these "at all reasonable times," and broadly authorized the Secretary to require submission of reports on the records' content.


FOPA establishes significant restrictions on the two latter powers. In general, administrative inspections of licensee records now require a magistrate's warrant, based on a showing of reasonable cause to believe evidence of a violation may be found.


Three exceptions, however, nearly swallow this rule. Neither warrant nor reasonable cause is needed for (1) a reasonable inquiry in the course of a criminal investigation of a person other than the licensee; (2) an annual inspection for ensuring compliance with record keeping requirements; or (3) tracing a firearm in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation. While these sizably reduce application of the warrant and cause requirement, it remains effective for its primary purpose in any event: to prevent inspections undertaken without immediate law enforcement need, or abused for the purpose of harassment.


FOPA also institutes some measures designed to minimize the harassment potential of an otherwise authorized inspection or search. Only records material to a violation of law may be seized and even as to these, copies must be furnished the licensee within a reasonable time. The unusual appearance of the last protection vanishes upon reflection; because a licensee is legally bound to buy and sell only upon recordation, removal of his records is more than an inconvenience.

The power of the Secretary to acquire licensee records is likewise limited by FOPA.

Requirements to (1) submit records upon going out of business, (2) submit a report upon sale of more than one handgun to the same person during the same week and (3) submit reports of sales when ordered to do so by the Secretary, are enacted into law.


Conversely, the Secretary is forbidden to require submission of reports "except as expressly required by this section." Paralleling this prohibition is the proviso that no future regulation may require that any records required by the Act "be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any state or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established."


This information provided by the Alaska Libertarian Party

Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Evolution of Neighborhood Fascism

Let’s consider traditional property rights and the evolution of a community. Let’s try to be unbiased, objective and non-judgmental.

The first thing that happens is someone acquires title to a block of land usually from the government. It may be a homestead or outright purchase, grant or by whatever method.

More people do the same in the area and you have a diverse group of people living in proximity to one another. Each has their individual lifestyle and customs. If there is sufficient development of resources a town will evolve. A transportation system will help the location evolve into a city.

Traditionally at first people respect each other’s right to live their lives the way they choose. Some will build very nice and expensive homes and others will live in a ramshackle shack. No one really cares how the other person lives. There may be some criticism but they for the most part mind their own business and take care of their own property.

Then the town phase evolves and some of the community leaders take exception to how some people are living. There may be complaints from some residents about another. This is the beginning of intolerance which leads to fascism. Fascism is a condition where property is owned by the individual and but falls under government restriction. The responsibility of the property is assigned to the owner and much of the benefit goes to the government. Under fascism rules and regulations become burdensome and many people will leave the area. Trade suffers and an economic decline ensues.

If the resources and transportation environment is favorable the city phase starts to evolve. A city government is instituted. A developer will purchase a block of land from one of the original owners or their heirs and commence a housing development. He wants this to be an exclusive neighborhood so he creates a set of covenants to protect property values and encourage like-minded people to settle there. The covenants are to insure behavior acceptable within the confines of the development. There is usually an expiration date to the covenants, often about 30 yrs. Covenants are a contractual agreement entered into voluntarily. Covenants help maintain property values and that people living in the area have similar values. Like minded is different than “right minded”.

Growth continues and the city government institutes ordinances. An ordinance implies the force of law. At this point everyone within the boundary of an ordinance is forced to comply. The individual is no longer living under a voluntary system. There are people that argue as covenants expire they no longer have protection for their property values. Therefore it’s necessary to force others to manage their property up to the standards of the community. They will argue one is affecting everyone else’s property by his poor behavior so a new ordinance is needed. There are a multitude of complaints from the grass is too long, the view is blocked or the sun is obstructed. The individual in question is served notice to comply with said ordinance. The classic pragmatic fascist solution is employed without regard for property rights. The individual gets angry and says no and the city then fines him. If the individual refuses to pay the fine he usually he has some type of lien placed on his property. Now said individual can’t sell the property so the neighbors are stuck with a recalcitrant that will usually go out of his way to be a nuisance. No one is happy.

Now let’s consider the city evolution without fascism and ordinances enforcing behavior. Consider a very nice neighborhood. Covenants are expired or were never instituted. One property is allowed to run down or was never up to the standards that others built to. The individual that owns the property is shunned because he is hurting all his neighbor’s property values. He could come under various types of social pressure to leave the area. Another individual likes the area and may make an offer on the property that satisfies the owner. There are no liens preventing the sale. The new owner builds up to the standards of the neighborhood and everyone is happy including the seller. There is an old saying, “Birds of a feather gather together”.

The Axiom here is, “The fewer the laws the better”. Don’t allow yourself to fall into the, ”There ought to be a law” because it’s a trap and you can be the one caught.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Anchorage Equal Rights Initiative Fatally Flawed

After reading the Anchorage Equal Rights Initiative,the changes to Anchorage code seem pretty straight forward.
The initiative adds the language “sexual orientation and transgender identity” to existing municipal code, with a few notable exceptions for public restrooms and employer dress codes.
An objective decision on whether to approve this initiative or not, requires that a few questions be asked and answered.

1. Under State or Federal Law does sexual orientation or transgender identity fit the criteria for admission into protected class status?


The Answer is No. The criteria is, (1) a long history of discrimination, (2) economic disadvantages, and (3) immutable characteristics. Since sexual orientation as defined in the initiative encompasses most if not all of humanity, it cannot fit any of this criteria.

2. If passed who would enforce the code?

The Anchorage Equal Right Commission would enforce the code but non-compliance would wind up in state court.

3. With no corresponding state or federal laws,would penalties be enforceable?

I am not a lawyer but my guess is, probably not. The state court would have no guidance in state or federal law to judge the merits of the case, rendering true enforcement moot.

4. Would their be an objective criteria for measuring a persons sexual orientation?

This would be unnecessary since a majority if not all of humanity fits the category of sexual orientation as defined by the initiative.

5. Since it covers all sexual orientation does it provide protected class status for all orientations including bestiality,necrophilia, pedophilia?

No the initiative defines sexual orientation as homosexual,heterosexual and bisexual. In my opinion it leaves the door open for all other sexual orientations to argue for inclusion.

6. Why exceptions for Dress code and public restrooms?

Most likely for public support. These exceptions acknowledge that individuals have the right to set standards of acceptable display of one's sexual orientation on one's property or on the commons, it undermines the principal promoted by the initiative.

As you judge my reasoning, you may properly conclude that I am against the Anchorage Equal Rights Initiative. The measure is just too broad.
Our human rights laws need to be clear and give a compelling reason for a group's entrance into protected class status. We must not tread on an individuals rights without just cause.
In my view One Anchorage has failed to make a clear and compelling case for adding sexual orientation as a protected class.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

For Your consideration

Since the ADN recently quoted snippets of an old post, I thought I would make it easy for folks to find the original by reposting it upfront.I encourage you to read through all my old post,You judge for yourself.

Wayne Ross, fighting the good fight

My support of Wayne Ross for attorney general is based on his strong defense of the second amendment. This issue like the canary in the coal mine it indicates whether a person has a strong knowledge of and is faithful to the rule of law. Clearly this man would support and defend our constitutions.

Three groups seem to be emerging in opposition to Wayne Ross nomination for attorney general.
These are 1. Native leaders 2. Radical Feminist 3.Democrat party operatives.

Lets dissect this opposition.
Native leaders do not like Alaska's constitution pertaining to equal access to fish and game for all Alaskans. They want the state constitution changed. Attempts in the past have failed because a majority of Alaskans do not want hunting and fishing rights to become privileges, reserved only for select groups. Wayne has been outspoken on equal access for all Alaskans hence he has drawn their opposition.

It's a shame their opposition is based solely on Wayne Ross's defense of the Constitution.

Radical Feminist
Are in opposition to Wayne, because of his body of work in family law. Representing his clients interest, Wayne has fought to keep families together.
This is counter to the Radical Feminist agenda of diminishing the role of men in the world. Yes folks, elements of this group actually belief men have no value and through science they can eliminate men from the face of the earth.
Wayne Ross is a double threat to these radical feminist. He is an man and he has worked with the damage these feminist have created in our families.
He know their game plan and stand in opposition to it. If you have an anti-male bias you will probably stand with these nut jobs.

Democrat party operatives
opposition is self evident. Not only does Wayne not share their ideas on guns,god and families but he is a strong defender of our constitutions. These constitutions represent obstacles to their demand for a bigger government with more power. They also do not wish this governor to have effective counsel to defend against their blatant attacks.

I find the opposition of Wayne Ross's nomination for Attorney General as an attack on what is right.
Please join me in calling your legislators,writing letters to the editor and asking you friends to do the same. We have six days before the final vote.

Lets make sure the good folks win this one.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Renewed Interest

The words on this Blog are my own and I take full credit and responsibility for them.
I do not believe the public is best served by anonymous posts.
If it cost me personally so be it.

With My new home completed and a probability of more leisure time coming my way, There is a good chance this Blog will become once again active.
So stay tuned, hope to see you soon.

Mark<><

Monday, January 10, 2011

Arizona Shooting, Perspectives from Alaska

Here is what “the gloves are off” ,” fighting for Alaska “ Lisa Murkowski had to say about this weeks tragic events.

I do hope that as we move forward from this terrible tragedy, that as Americans, we look to those things that are causing the frustration and anger and bitterness and really try to come together to tone down some of the rhetoric that may be fostering some of what we're seeing. --Lisa Murkowski, Jan. 8, 2011


Now here is what a friend,Tea party activist and fellow Joe Miller volunteer ,Greg Stoddard wrote the next day:

Tragic events in Tucson AZ (a perspective)

To place perspective on the tragic events in Tucson, we must first realize a few things.

1. Many people are suffering the loss of a loved one, family member or friend.

2. Survivors endure the pain of their own injuries, at least one of which I know having also lost a loved one, her husband, Dorwan Stoddard.

3. Although tragedy has occurred at a ''Congress on the corner'' held by a duly elected representative of the people, it was not the result of politics, but instead appears to be due to the acts of a deranged single individual.

4. Unfortunately, emotion has led some folks to unjustly place blame for this tragedy on innocent people including those in the ''Tea Party'' movement.

5. I withhold placing blame, which is contrary to that of the vitriolic rhetoric coming from Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County Arizona. He should be ashamed of his comments. He speaks for few.

6. My Father's cousin Dorwan Stoddard was killed as he bravely shielded his wife, Mavy, from the shooter. Dorwan, I am so proud of you for your acts of love, especially of the final act.

7. I watched as Congress Representative Giffords read the first amendment of the US Constitution kicking off the 112th US Congress. She has been a shining example of what she read before the people on that day and so many other days. God bless her, her family and her doctors as she regains her ability to participate in her elected role as well as all else in her personal life.

8. I, as a ''Tea Party'' member will always cherish the US Constitution and those who defend it. A senseless act by a deranged individual will not cause a knee jerk reaction by those who are of sound mind.

9. Truth be told, the shooter will likely prove to lean left not right, although likely confused generally. You won't find me or any other conservative blaming liberals for his actions though.

10. We must remember the brave acts and innocence of loved ones victimized at the tragic event in Tucson Arizona.
Greg Stoddard


No need for me to opine, you can compare for yourself the statements of our Senator and a local Tea Party activist and tell which one is adding fuel to the fire for political gain.

All I can add is, it is a Shame

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Death of a Republic

Although I have been absent from my blogging duties,It is my intent to refocus my efforts and give regular posting on subjects and points of view not well covered elsewhere. The following is such a subject.

The Implications of Miller Vs. Treadwell, is far reaching.
The Alaska supreme court decision in rejecting Joe Miller's arguments gave reasonable responses to his reasonable arguments, with one glaring exception. In it's decision, the court declared, “Voter Intent Is Paramount,” later, in their reasoning, they focus on individual voter intent in stating “ Our prior decisions clearly hold that a voter’s intention is paramount ” but that does not discount there original declaration.
Lets look at the word Paramount as defined;
Paramount- Having the highest rank or jurisdiction; superior to all others; chief; supreme; pre["e]minent; as, a paramount duty.
[1913 Webster]


It seems the court is saying our government is, at it's core,a democracy. In their decision they affirm this sentiment with the following statements.
“ The right to vote “is fundamental to our concept of democratic government””
I suppose we can forgive them for this one since the people do vote for a portion of their government you can say we do have a element of “democratic Government” within our Constitutions, but there is more, the also stated,
“As we have recognized, “a true democracy must seek to make each citizen’s vote as meaningful as every other vote to ensure the equality of all people under the law.”

A “True Democracy”?
How does the above reasoning correspond with the Alaska statehood act that says; “The constitution of the State of Alaska shall always be republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence."” Is not the term “under the Law “ contrary to a true democracy?
So now that the court has affirmed voter intent paramount, meaning it is Superior to the legislature, courts and even the constitution, lets look at some of the implications.

In the Alaska constitution,

Article 2 section 12 “”each (senate and house)is the judge of the election and qualifications of it's members and may expel a member with the concurrence of two thirds of it's members.
If voters intent is paramount, this section cannot be applied since voters elected, only voters could remove an individual.

The same reasoning can be applied to Article 2 section 20, the legislature could not impeach an elected official they could only be recalled. Also Under the Voter Intent being Paramount ruling there could be no restriction on what could be put in an initiative as this limits voter intent Article 11 section 7 is at risk as well.

The most startling impact of this ruling is the effect it would have on the initiative process (Article 11 section 6 in particular).
Since The court has ruled, voter intent is paramount. (Superior to all others) a law passed by voters through the initiative process, could not be modified or deleted by the legislature or courts, only by a vote of the people.

It seems to me in the Alaska Supreme court zeal to dismiss Miller's case the opened the door for litigation on the last vestiges of the Republican form of government in our constitution that we the people created at Statehood.

On the bright side the parental consent law should be upheld in it's entirety as it represents the voters intent as passed.
A hollow victory when you consider the death of the republic and the instigation of mob rule.