Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

What's a "sovereign citizen"?

Fringe libertarians that believe that large swaths of the constitution, and thus many modern laws, don't apply to them. A common calling card is seeing a car with a sign that says "not for hire" as they make a distinction between driving "commercial activity" and "traveling" non-commercial. Many claim the latter doesn't require a drivers license. Youtube is littered with videos of them getting arrested in often violent confrontations with police officers as they refuse to comply with simple orders.

Well, it is the only US state (I think) that requires no permits for concealed gun carry. So they do strive to reduce the trampling of people's rights.

Now, if they legalized pot (or drugs in general), prostitution, and gambling, it would be paradise for anyone who believes that adults should be able to live like adults without a meddling nanny state.

> it would be paradise for anyone who believes that adults should be able to live like adults without a meddling nanny state.

Some of us adults though don't like living with the other adults who indulge in these things. My current "adult" neighbors are legal drug users, and to be honest I don't really find it to be a paradise, especially when their pot smoke leaks into my condo.

I would rather move to a place where people have the same values as me.

Fair enough. I had the same complaint about regular smokers at my last apartment. Smoke from a neighbor would somehow seep into my place a bit, which bugged me. The upstairs neighbor had kids and a dog that irked me with their constant noise.

I solved the problem by buying a house.

Freedom has it's perks and problems for all involved.

So basically your solution is to have more money.

Or have less money

A small clarification that pertains to your comment and several child comments.

Vermont has no requirements for concealed gun carry implicitly. Meaning they have passed no laws (ever) pertaining to carrying guns one way or another apart from

1. not allowing firearms on state owned land or in state buildings (without permission) or schools.

2. laws pertaining to crimes committed with firearms

3. A law specifically disallowing local governments and municipalities from restricting gun carrying beyond what the state government has.

4. Laws pertaining to children using and possessing guns.

Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming

West Virginia, as of May 24, 2016

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/permitless-carry-now-law...

Wow, I didn't realize there were that many.

Alaska makes total sense, given that bears and moose roam populated areas. I'm surprised by the others.

It doesn't make any sense. Rifles like you'd want for large predators or other animals aren't concealable.

Granted. Many states allow open carry, which seems more fitting for such circumstances.

However, hunting large(-ish) game like boar with large caliber handguns is a thing. I don't know how they'd fare against bear and moose. It might be easier to tote something like a .44 magnum handgun to and from work in Alaska than a rifle or shotgun.

Ultimately I was just speculating as to why Alaska might allow permit-free conceal carry. It may have more to do with the self-reliance and history of the population than anything else.

I've never lived in Alaska, never hunted anything larger than jack rabbit, and never fired anything larger than a .44-mag revolver and rifle (they are pretty powerful, though).

All are characterized by free-roaming predators and very low population density. Seems unsurprising.

Because a bear would be able to see a gun if it were not concealed? (I live in Montana and have never heard anyone talk about concealed carry in the context of animals).

Because its not always convenient to carry a firearm openly - under a coat, in a holster for instance.

The same could be said for Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, and New Mexico.

Given that Wyoming has the lowest population density (of the 48 contiguous states, anyway), I sorta understand that one.

But given that a big chunk of the Arizona population is retirees, I'm surprised they haven't changed the carry laws yet.

There's no rhyme or reason or consistency to many US states' laws. I find it a bit bothersome.

Their motto: "Am I being detained?!"

please don't associate them with libertarians who don't condone violence let alone deception and theft.

There are plenty of libertarians who support overthrowing the state's monopoly on use of force with violence. Of course there are plenty that don't as well.

Shorthand for lunatic who believes that rule of law doesn't apply to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

Your characterization might suggest that they hold too to little faith in rule of law, but the opposite is true. What true-believer "sovereign citizens" do not recognize is that there is no rule of law in relations between sovereign entities, only deterrence. Having a Snow Crash-style personal nuke is a lowball estimate of where the barrier to entry lies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com