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.
HB 89, a thinly disguised gun grab.
I have not read the full text of HB 71, but I wouldn’t oppose legislation against blocking roadways, railways, or runways. Possibly such a law already exists. The right to protest or assemble does not include purposely blocking the travel or movement of others. In Libertarian speak, those actions violate the Non-Aggression principle. As for HB 89, it is just another deceptive gun grabbing attempt, plain and simple.
The 2A codifies your right to defend yourself against 2A infringement by exercising your codified 2A right against those who would infringe upon it.
I have worked in the mental health field for decades, and I well know the dangers a firearm can present to a mentally ill person. On the other hand, I also know the depths of malevolence to which someone can stoop during custody battles, divorce proceedings, or countless other circumstances that could tempt one to be angry and lash out at another. Red flag laws are unconstitutional and dangerous. They can precipitate an unnecessary and angry confrontation with law enforcement, resulting in avoidable injury or death.
“A state defined by independence and self-reliance?”
You mean the one with with one of the highest balance of federal payments of all the States, the one where you get free money from the State every year, the one where you get basically a free ride by not paying any State income taxes, the one where almost everything you eat, use, and consume, comes from Outside, and the one with the largest per capita State government and budget in the entire country?
Is that the one you’re referring to? Because it sure doesn’t sound like the right description to me.
So you want to talk about links between the First and Second Amendments, do you? Well, everyone will agree that a person’s right to free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, has its limits. Remember that this right stops when shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater?
Well, it follows that similar logic applies for the Second. The right to keep and bear arms, although improperly assured by both Heller and Bruen, must therefore be tempered by the citizen’s obligation to do so responsibly. If one is unwilling or incapable of doing so, then that right must be forfeited. I mean, does the theme of “personal responsibility” ring a bell with any of you?. And of course, no person is going to willfully forfeit their firearms, so it falls upon the State and the judicial system to do so in the interest of public safety.
The powers that shouldn’t be really hate that 2nd Amendment… Once they figure out they can use the court system to seize others property for fun and profit the looting doesn’t end until it’s all gone or destroyed … America would have already plunged into a communist take down when Ohblabla was in but for some odd reason it didn’t happen… We know why but that doesn’t mean they’ve given up… It just means the strategy has shifted from simple gun grabbing tactics to something else entirely and far more insidious… ***
AIPAC / ADL wrote these crap bills. Guarantee it. They need to be registered under FARA or you can kiss constitutional rights good bye. The fight between the Semitic tribes is now a domestic problem and it’s destroying our Anglo legal system. Multiculturalism sucks.
When people intentionally block a public roadway they should be “scraped off”, immediately and without hesitation!
The U.S. needs to have mandatory statewide militia duty. Like jury duty. Not only will it help keep us safe but also will help enhance firearms ownership.
Comments are closed.