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.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
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.
24 Comments
Thanks for the article. Same negative idiots at the same old problem. Making sure no one can have a firearm!
Slight correction: Except for criminals.
Mary Fulp was locked up for exercising Her First Amendment rights. Anyone here remember that?
This bill would be only the first step towards bills like one in California that would take away a right to self defense, according to the Riverside County Sheriff. Especially in Alaska, such laws are completely counter-productive. The article is well written and I hope it gets wide dissemination.
So McCabe, if a red flag law intervention would have prevented Sandy Hook or Uvalde or Columbine, would you have supported it?
That’s a pretty low place to go Manny. If we used every extreme example of mental illness and man’s inhumanity to man as precedent for the curtailment of basic human rights, there’s no end to the inhumanity you could inflict with the logical end result being total enslavement and conformity. .
FreedomAK. At Uvalde, one of the little girls was so eviscerated and disassembled that she had to be identified by the style of her shoes. Imagine that. I mean think if you were EMS or LE coming upon her and 10 other dead children. Wouldn’t you feel overwhelming sadness and a desire to turn the clock to a time when an intervention would have stopped the gunman? A simple red flag law seems like a dang good price for that.
So nonsensical and hilarious!
I’m pretty sure that the average school shooter breaks over a dozen state and federal laws. Serious laws. What is your evidence that another law will help?
The only thing this law will remove is access to rights granted by the Bill of Rights.
Just be honest. Get straight to the point and don’t conceal it. You want those rights reduced or done away with.
Who gets to determine what is the “mental illness” at hand? Is it someone accused of Trump Derangement Syndrome? Or MAGA ? Or a “religious fundamentalist”? How about a parent who is angry because their child is being taught LGBTQ curriculum at their school? The big problem is that whoever gets to define “mental illness” gets the free reign to take away guns. Think about it… a “judicial officer” gets notice from a family member, neighbor, etc., and then has to decide whether that’s a valid complaint or not. That judicial officer doesn’t want to “ignore” that concern, just in case there’s an incident and he/she would be on the hook now that this law would be in place. So their “conservative” decision is to take the guns away.
This whole thing stinks.
Every single state with no gun control has the lowest crime rates. You have no solid ground to speak from, only an emotional response to the evil acts of others. Do you really think someone intent on evil can’t get a gun no matter what? Those kids may be alive today if teachers were trained and armed. Anyways look to history, every country that has given up their right to bear arms has suffered greatly. We will not be one of those countries.
Maybe brave law enforcement that immediately went in after the killer, instead of cowering like the Parkland deputy, would have saved many lives?
That said, freedom has a price: No risk, no freedom.
Our 2nd Amendment will NOT be infringed!!
Exactly
Those who have proposed this need to be reminded that this is Alaska NOT California. If they want that, then they should give instead of imposing their extremist liberal way of life on us.
King George would use this law to disarm George Washington.
I love the political rhetoric of gun control. it only increases sales. Business is booming. No pun intended.
We retired to Alaska, more than happy to leave a Democrat-run anti- 2’d Amendment blue crap-hole in our rear view mirror. And the state we left had been bright red about 10 years before: 1) all mail in ballots and Dominion machines brought in, 2) influx of people from blue crap-hole states voting the exact same way, and 3) Republicans in the state party “crossing the aisle” thinking Democrats liked them/were willing to meet in the middle. The Alaska Republican Party best pay attention if they want AK to stay red.
Same agenda, same puppets thinking they can tweak or change something that is NOT theirs to change.
The living souls of this country have already spoke, you Biden puppets may want to listen. It’s not really a request, or should we enlighten the world about why we need not listen to any of you. Here’s a hint, The Clearfield Doctrine. I didn’t bring my family from California to Alaska only to find the same puppets have infiltrated the great state of Alaska. We stand ready to defend the freedom so many before us died to protect. This is what the constitution demands.
Rep. McCabe, well said.
Gun control advocates, even if well meaning, are mainly seeing the bad that guns can do, while missing or devaluing the positives of gun ownership: protection (from, say, wild animals, human predators, an oppressive state, and hunger – by hunting).
As a society, we need to realize that freedom has risk. No risk, no freedom. So an innocent child who dies from a firearm, due to some depraved maniac, or an accident, has died on the Battlefield Of Freedom, just as surely as any soldier in a just army. Tragic yes, but not meaningless.
The greatest price ever paid for our freedom was when the only truly innocent human who ever lived gave His life so that we could have the freedom to choose eternal life in Him: The Lord Jesus Christ.
At election times, we need to remember any Alaska Representative or Senator who votes for this anti-freedom bill.
There you go again, clinging to guns, religion, and resentments.
This sort of thing really makes me dislike newcomers to Alaska. Why can’t people leave alone what hasn’t hurt them? Try to take my guns and you’ll see what I mean. Follow the law and enforce it and most all of these problems will go away.
Debi. I thought of LBGT opposition when you wrote, “Why can’t people leave alone what hasn’t hurt them? “
Rep. McCabe,
In the last election, the ballot only had you and another Republican. He looked great. But I carefully read each ballot statement, and the other guy looked squishy, like he was avoiding controversy, while you took the hard issues on straight up. The clincher was that you were a commercial airline pilot. I happen to know several old fighter pilots, most of whom became airline pilots, and all but one are very conservative, maybe the most conservative cohort I know.
You are making my vote for you look like a real winner. Keep it up.
Thanks.
Thank you Representative McCabe!!! We definitely need to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. We did not know this was being tried again and again.