The Alaska Legislature passed -- and yesterday Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski signed -- a REAL Right To Carry law.

If not disqualified from owning a gun, 90 days from now an Alaskan can drop one in her purse or tuck one under his jacket and go about their law-abiding business -- just like in Vermont.

The new law does not eliminate the state´s concealed handgun permit program -- which requires training, fees and the like. Nor does it change prohibitions against carrying firearms into courthouses, schoolyards, bars and domestic violence shelters.

The governor´s office told Associated Press that Alaskans could still apply for a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon in other states or to be exempt from background checks when purchasing firearms.

The law´s chief sponsor, Rep. Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, told AP he had gotten tired of continually making minor improvements to Alaska´s gun laws. "I object to the government putting a precondition on that constitutional right (to carry a weapon). I´m presumed to be a responsible citizen until proven otherwise," Croft said.

During yesterday´s signing, Gov. Murkowski praised the legislature for passing the bill, and NRA for protecting Second Amendment rights.

But NRA has never before -- to my knowledge -- pressed for a true Right To Carry law, and, on occasion, has threatened to politically downgrade legislators who supported Vermont-type laws in the states (as now U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave [R-Colo.] can attest).

NRA has refused to back Vermont-style bills on the grounds that such an elimination of most concealed carry prohibitions cannot be passed. They say it´s hard enough, sometimes impossible, to get a bill passed and signed even if it has extensive training, high fees, and broad restrictions on where the license is valid.

That´s usually true, but not always. One house in Alabama passed a Vermont-style carry law a few years back, but NRA State and Local didn´t lift a finger to support it -- other than signing a letter after the bill had passed the Assembly.

In some states -- as in Ohio -- concealed carry has long been stalled by strong opposition from law enforcement and the political establishment while our forces are divided between pro-gun groups willing to accept a "Texas-style" restrictive license and those determined to accept nothing less than a Vermont-style law.

ILA argues internally that if a rural state with a friendly legislature and governor -- like Alaska -- passes a Vermont-style law, pro-gun forces in states with unfriendly legislatures and governors will be even further divided on what kind of law they´ll work to pass.

Amazingly, even with "another Vermont law" already a reality, NRA hasn´t yet mentioned the new Alaska law. I´m embarrassed to admit that I didn´t even know the bill was in the works. The first I heard of it was a call last night from son Jeff, who had talked to ILA Liaison Brian Judy, who works out of the semi-independent Sacramento office.

I verified it by reading this morning´s Anchorage Daily News http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/3280484p-3310005c.html.

Jeff said Brian -- who is married to my former NRA secretary -- is "higher than a kite." I don´t doubt it. And deservedly so.

He and the Alaskans have raised the bar.

Given the total lack of problems with concealed carry licensing laws -- whether or not they require any training, whether or not they have broad restrictions on carry, and whether or not they require big fees -- it´s time to begin pushing for REAL Right To Carry.

Like Vermont. Like Alaska´s.

And if the best we can do is something like Minnesota´s new law -- which is a dandy, as licensing laws go -- then we should pass it. Then, like Alaska Rep. Eric Croft, use the non-problems with licensed citizens to press for the kind of right the Second Amendment was intended to protect.

http://www.nealknox.com/mailman/listinfo/fcalerts-list.