An Alaska court allows mentally ill to carry weapons in an already gun-laden society.
Officials in Alaska readily admit there are more guns per capita in their state than in any other in America. Matter of fact, there could be more firearms per family "up there" than there are anywhere else in the world.
The reason is simple enough: Protection. Not from troublesome neighbors and criminals but from animals; most notably, bears. Matter of fact, a good many Alaskans, such as bush pilots who constantly risk being downed in the wilderness, are required to "carry."
It stands to reason that with all those guns and those long winter nights there are bound to be wild west scenarios, even for the sanest of citizens. But now along comes a court ruling that says there should be no restrictions on "concealed carry" even for people known to be mentally ill.
One Anchorage judge took away a man's gun permit after he claimed someone had implanted a computer chip in his head and injected him with deadly chemicals. A state appeals court, however, ruled that the judge was wrong. It said Alaska's concealed-carry law does not allow general concerns about mental illness to play a role in deciding whether someone should have a gun, presumably in bear-laden territory.
Gun control advocates quickly declared that this shows a dangerous accommodation to the gun lobby. Gun owners, predictably, argue that Alaska's law safeguards Second Amendment rights and that the public is adequately protected.
The Department of Public Safety has issued more than 18,000 such permits since 1995 when Alaskans were allowed to carry concealed handguns under restrictions that include an age limit and a gun-safety course. In 1998, the law was amended so that applicants did not have to prove they actually needed to carry a concealed weapon. Also, whether someone is mentally ill or has been treated for mental illness in the preceding five years has been taken off the list of questions applicants are asked.
Alaska law requires applicants to disclose only whether they have ever been committed to a mental hospital or found mentally incompetent. "Yes" answers are supposed to be grounds for denying a permit, but now, even that is in question.
Pro-gun supporters argue that anyone can obtain and carry a weapon regardless of what laws are in force. Those opposed to the new approach say every step should be taken to keep weapons out of the hands of known problem-makers.
Then there is the added defense that even the mentally handicapped should have the right to defend themselves against predators because bears, for instance, make no distinction about mental stability when they are enraged or hungry.
It is, however, not reassuring to many that there are no official barriers.
"They are taking away the discretion of local law enforcement to make these decisions in the best interest of public safety," says Nancy Hwa, a spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
It's understandable that people need to defend themselves in the Alaska wilderness, but unrestricted concealed guns could be an even more serious threat than those posed by Alaskan bears.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.