House Bill 89 (HB 89), introduced in the 34th Alaska Legislature by Representatives Andy Josephson (D-Anchorage) and Sara Hannan (D-Juneau), is scheduled for review by the House State Affairs Committee on March 13th. This legislation proposes to establish Gun Violence Protective Orders (GVPOs) – commonly known as “red flag” laws, which represent a significant overreach by the state into the constitutional rights of Alaskans, particularly rights protected under the Second Amendment.

The bill seeks to authorize the temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed a potential danger to themselves or others, based on minimal evidence and seriously lacking robust due process that Alaskans expect. While proponents say that such measures enhance public safety, even a cursory critical examination reveals that HB 89 sets a dangerous precedent, prioritizing government control over individual liberties with insufficient justification.

Under HB 89, a trooper, law enforcement officer, or household member may petition a court for a GVPO based on a “reasonable belief” that an individual poses a threat (AS 18.65.815). This standard is inherently subjective, requiring neither a criminal conviction nor even a formal accusation, but rather relying on unverified allegations to completely suspend a fundamental constitutional right. The absence of a high threshold of evidence at the outset undermines the integrity of the process, exposing individuals to arbitrary removal of their firearms. In many states with red-flag laws the firearms descend into an abyss of state bureaucracy never to be seen again.

The further provisions for ex parte and emergency GVPOs (AS 18.65.820) significantly elevate this concern. These provisions allow a judicial officer to issue an order without notifying the affected individual, enabling firearm confiscation prior to any opportunity for defense or even discussion. This mechanism is highly susceptible to abuse and weaponization, where personal disputes, false claims, or political motivations could lead to the unjust loss of Second Amendment rights and property for law-abiding citizens.

Even when a hearing is convened (AS 18.65.815(b)), the “clear and convincing” evidence standard falls short of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold typically required for significant rights infringements, further weakening oversight.

The claimed usefulness of red flag laws, including HB 89, lacks factual data-driven support. Studies often cited by proponents, such as those from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, fail to adequately provide for extenuating factors like changes in policing strategies or mental health interventions. A 2021 RAND Corporation analysis of Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) – the federal analogue to GVPOs – concluded that evidence of their effect on reducing homicides, suicides, or mass shootings is inconclusive. Without credible, long-term data, the assertion that HB 89 will enhance safety in Alaska is completely unsubstantiated.

The bill also imposes unreasonable burdens, particularly on rural Alaskans. The mandate to surrender firearms within 24 hours to law enforcement or a firearms dealer (AS 18.65.830) is unworkable in regions where such entities are hours away and dependent on the vagaries of transportation and weather. The requirement to submit written proof of compliance within 48 hours (AS 18.65.830(b)) assumes access to administrative resources that many lack. Additionally, the potential for law enforcement to confront armed individuals unaware of ex-parte orders increases the risk of dangerous, avoidable escalations.

The establishment of a central registry of protective orders (AS 18.65.540) further compounds these issues, and creates a virtual “pre-crime” database that raises privacy concerns and allows expanded government surveillance over individuals who will likely never face criminal charges.

Constitutionally, HB 89 conflicts with both federal and state protections. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) affirmed the individual right to bear arms, a precedent undermined by red flag laws that permit confiscation without due process or conviction. The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause is similarly violated by the bill’s allowance for property deprivation without fair proceedings. Alaska’s Constitution (Article I, Section 19) explicitly safeguards the right to keep and bear arms, recognizing their critical role in subsistence hunting, self-defense, and rural life – values disregarded by HB 89’s urban-centric approach.

The conditional effect clause (Section 9), requiring a two-thirds legislative vote to amend court rules, signals limited support and underscores concerns regarding the bill’s constitutionality, legality, and practicality. Rather than pursuing this flawed legislation, Alaska should prioritize evidence-based alternatives. Expanding mental health services, particularly in rural areas, would more effectively address suicide and violence rates. Strengthening domestic violence prevention programs and enhancing law enforcement resources to respond to verified threats offer targeted solutions without infringing on constitutional rights.

HB 89 is unnecessary, and violates the constitution with its overreach. By enabling firearm confiscation based on subjective standards, imposing unworkable mandates, and lacking proven effectiveness, the bill fails to enhance public safety while throwing Alaskan liberties down the outhouse hole.

This state does not require Lower-48 gun control policies that ignore our unique realities. As legislators, our obligation is to uphold constitutional protections and pursue practical, proven strategies to ensure community safety.

HB 89 is, quite simply, allowing the camel’s nose under the tent, and I remain steadfastly opposed to any legislation that compromises the constitutional rights of Alaskans.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.