By KEVIN MCCABE
In the pressure cooker of Juneau, the Alaska Legislature is wrestling with two bills that strike at the heart of both U.S. and Alaska constitutional rights:
- House Bill 71, seen by some as a leash on the First Amendment’s guarantee of assembly.
- House Bill 89, a red flag law that many argue violates the Second Amendment.
I’ve received emails from folks who oppose HB 71 but support HB 89 — a contradiction that exposes a deeper, more uncomfortable truth: The debate isn’t just about rights. It’s about whose rights matter more and which is more important.
HB 71 takes aim at those blocking public spaces, restricting protests that interfere with others’ ability to move freely. The core of the debate inside this bill is clear — is the right to protest more important than the right to go about your business unimpeded? Some point out that HB 71 could be abused, suppressing spontaneous protests — a serious concern in a state that values raw, unapologetic free speech. The First Amendment, echoed in Alaska’s Constitution (Article I, Section 6), guarantees the right to “peaceably assemble” without government interference. While the bill may not intend to silence dissent, there is always the fear that it could end up doing just that.
HB 89, on the other hand, proposes gun violence protective orders — allowing courts to seize firearms from individuals deemed a threat, often based on accusations from family or close friends. No arrest, no conviction — just an order. Similar red flag laws in other states have shown questionable results. California had such laws in place before the Monterey Park shooting in 2023, which claimed 11 lives. Illinois has them, too — but that didn’t stop the Highland Park tragedy in 2022, where 7 people died.
Keep in mind that HB 89 isn’t just a Second Amendment issue — it’s a due process issue, cutting into protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It allows firearms (lawful property) to be taken based on rulings made without the accused present to defend themselves. That’s a dangerous precedent, built on subjective judgment of untrained people who may have an agenda.
The Second Amendment exists to safeguard the First Amendment — and the Founders didn’t arrange them in that order by accident. The First Amendment ensures freedom of speech, the press, and assembly. The Second Amendment ensures the government thinks twice about trampling those rights, and in fact all rights. History teaches us that oppressive regimes start by disarming the people — and then they muzzle free expression.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” isn’t poetic fluff — it’s a warning. The Founders, burned by British gun grabs, knew an armed citizenry was the last line of defense against tyranny. James Madison, in Federalist No. 46, wrote that a people with muskets deter despots. In Alaska, where 60% of residents own firearms and Juneau feels like a distant planet to many, the Second Amendment isn’t theoretical — it’s survival. And it’s not just for hunting or self-defense — it ensures the First Amendment doesn’t become nothing more than a powerless suggestion.
Let’s play this out. HB 71 suppresses protests, and HB 89 disarms those labeled “threats” — potentially without a chance to defend themselves. Now imagine an environmental protest against oil leases turns “unlawful” because they didn’t get a permit. Protesters block the Dalton Highway with their bodies, and law enforcement moves in to break it up. But now take it one step further: the Second Amendment has been weakened or stripped away, and the government grows increasingly oppressive. What’s stopping them from just going in and scraping the protestors off the pavement? Without an armed, empowered citizenry, the state no longer fears resistance from the now-defenseless protesters — compliance or jail becomes the only outcome.
The First Amendment is toothless without the Second to back it up. And while most Second Amendment supportersprobably don’t cheer on protesters who glue themselves to highways, especially when they interrupt commerce or impact others’ rights, the bigger picture remains: defending the Second Amendment is, by extension, defending the First — even for those you disagree with. Freedom doesn’t pick sides. I would go so far as to say if you oppose HB71 then you must also oppose HB89
Lexington’s militia didn’t chant their way to freedom in 1775 — they loaded rifles. The Second Amendment wasn’t written for hunters or sports shooters. It was written for citizens facing an oppressive government. Additionally, in Alaska’s vast, unforgiving wilderness, the right to bear arms isn’t just a constitutional principle — it’s a practical necessity.
The tension between HB 71 and HB 89 reveals an uncomfortable paradox. And those advocating for free assembly while supporting disarmament ignore a crucial reality: these rights are interconnected. You can’t claim to defend the First Amendment while tearing apart the Second. Red flag laws have shown limited success in stopping mass shootings — but they’re incredibly effective at stripping law-abiding citizens of their rights without due process. Meanwhile, HB 71, while meant to protect the rights of non-protesters, could — if misapplied and without the Second amendment in place — crush the right to protest altogether. When our most fundamental rights hang in the balance, we can’t afford to play favorites. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak out. The Second Amendment ensures we keep that right, even when the government would rather we didn’t.
Alaska’s lawmakers face a tough job balancing public safety with personal liberty. But in a state defined by independence and self-reliance, protecting both the right to free assembly — without squashing others’ freedoms — and the right to bear arms isn’t just important. It’s essential.
Rep. Kevin McCabe serves District 30 (formerly called District 8), the Big Lake area.