Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Alaska Laws

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mat-Su, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    http://www.lcav.org/states/alaska.asp

    Awesome page right here, Has everything you need to know about gun laws, Easy to read and understand, Provides links to the sections where the law itself is in writing.

  2. #2
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/

    Also an excellent resource for all the states and even the territories. Most links are direct to official sources for the states. This site is indispensable for planning your CC permits and for state to state travel.


    http://www.dps.state.ak.us/Statewide...dhandguns.aspx

    Also a good resource for the beginner.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    DokWatson wrote:
    http://www.lcav.org/states/alaska.asp

    Awesome page right here, Has everything you need to know about gun laws, Easy to read and understand, Provides links to the sections where the law itself is in writing.
    I also like this page and refer to it once in a while. Only problem is that it was last updated three years ago. Not that a lot has changed but... I believe we have added a form of castle doctrine and a ban on confiscations during an emergency that they could put up there for the Alaska page.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mat-Su, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    Do you have anywhere I can read up on self defense laws in Alaska, And id like to know more about that confiscation one you mentioned.

  5. #5
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Lemme help...

    http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/stattx08/query=11!2E61!2E220/doc/%7Bt4365%7D?


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mat-Su, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    Thanks guys. The only thing I dont understand is the whole duty to retreat deal. If I'm in a Tesoro getting a rockstar and a snickers, And somebody runs in with a shotgun and jumps over the counter before anyone could even think of calling 911... Am I supposed to run like hell or defend myself and the employees from robbery and or murder?

    If not, I would probably draw my weapon demand from cover they drop their weapon, If I get pointed at or shot at, Or if anyone gets pointed at or shot at, I'm going to fire. That justifies use of deadly force, Correct? If I do end up killing said person... and 911 gets called finally, What happens from there? I obviously did what I could to defuse the situation, I was obviously in danger of being killed as well as everyone else in the area, Clearly self defense right?

    I'm trying to learn all I can, So if the event ever arises I have to defend myself or others with my weapon I can be prepared mentally as well as physically.

    I few people close to me have been in situations where a weapon could have saved them from the emotional and physical pain of what they endured... I refuse to be a victim, But this law makes it so I have to run instead of defend myself as I see fit?

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against
    (1) death;
    (2) serious physical injury;
    (3) kidnapping, except for what is described as custodial interference in the first degree in AS 11.41.320 ;
    (4) sexual assault in the first degree;
    (5) sexual assault in the second degree;
    (6) sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree; or
    (7) robbery in any degree.
    (b) A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others being defended, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by leaving the area of the encounter, except there is no duty to leave the area if the person is
    (1) on premises
    (A) that the person owns or leases;
    (B) where the person resides, temporarily or permanently; or
    (C) as a guest or express or implied agent of the owner, lessor, or resident;
    (2) a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's employment or a person assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380;
    (3) in a building where the person works in the ordinary course of the person's employment; or
    (4) protecting a child or a member of the person's household.


    If you are in the back of the store and the guy with the gun is at the front, your options of retreat just reached nil.

    In this case you "should" be in the clear. You have reason to believe the BG is going to murder or seriously injure the employee.

    The key thing to remember is "would a jury believe I acted reasonably"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mat-Su, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    I see your point, It makes sense... My next concern is, While it is legal for me to own and carry a handgun and ammunition at 18 since I bought it privately from another citizen, No paperwork or background check needed etc... What would a jury think of that? What business does someone under 21 have with a handgun not originally bought by him or a family member (No paperwork filled out etc.) Is what I imagine they would think. Again, I want to be sure of everything when carrying my weapon. This is helping, Thanks guys.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    This should NOT be an issue. you LEGALLY own a firearm. That is what matters. I have gone over this with lots of friends and family, about modifying my XD. They seem to think it will matter. The law does not have a clause in it stating modified firearms are automatically killers.

    As long as you carry within the law, and act within the law. you are within the law


    And no where does it say you have to be the original purchaser of a firearm to use it.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mat-Su, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    Ok, Thanks for the all info brother. Definitely answered a lot of questions, Makes me more comfortable carrying on the civilian side

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mat-Su, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    I'm Alaska National Guard, I don't think that order applies to us. And yes, I open carry... So it wouldn't matter, Thanks though

  12. #12
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    DokWatson wrote:
    I'm Alaska National Guard, I don't think that order applies to us. And yes, I open carry... So it wouldn't matter, Thanks though
    The order doesn't apply to ARMY either. This has been discussed before and has been explained nearly every time that such an order is ILLEGAL AND NOT BINDING!

    You are prohibited from carrying ON BASE in a concealed manner at all or in an open manner without the written consent of the base commanding officer. BUT they cannot, and I repeat CANNOT prohibit you from a lawful act while off the base. The state will not prosecute you and the army would have a hard time enforcing this type of order (even if it still exists) were you to get in trouble off base.

    The only scenario that this order could possibly come into play would be if you got in trouble for some other unlawful act while off base AND you just happen to be carrying a concealed firearm, AND the concealing of that firearm was involved in some way with the crime you committed. A military court could take this as a factor in such a limited circumstance.

    Let me make this clear. It doesn't matter what General or otherwise says you cant carry a concealed firearm off base because the civil authorities do not enforce command edicts of ANY MILITARY BRANCH. They don't have the authority, they don't care as long as you are not committing a crime, and carrying a concealed firearm in Alaska is specifically NOT a crime in any manner what so ever unless you are otherwise prohibited by state or federal law.

    A command edict is neither.

  13. #13
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    I respectfully disagree. Let me give you one very clear example. Every base has it's off limits list. That is places in town that military personnel are not allowed to be present at. The establishment may be a bar where there are frequent fights. So are you saying that the off limits lists are illegal too?.......

    Or how about this one - how about landlord's that are off limits for military personnel to rent from because they have screwed military members in the past? If I were a civilian I could rent from them. If it wasn't for a military order I could rent from them as a military member. I guess those lists are illegal as well.

    It's easy for you to post, stationed here in Washington, that a General's standing order in Alaska is an illegal order - it's entirely a different matter to be under that General's command and face court martial for disobeying a direct order of an officer appointed over you. If you would like to transfer to the Army in Alaska and try it, go ahead.
    Your not making the distinction between "legality" and "not allowed by military edict".

    All of these rules you are talking about are not punishable by court martial, ONLY by Captains mast/COs NJP because they are specific to the command and NOT covered under UCMJ except for the very general classification of disobeying astanding order, which once again is NOT punishable by court martial when NOT part of a combat deployed command.

    Once again, the civil authority is not obliged to enforce them in any fashion, and I have yet to meet any civil LEA that would not tell the CO, general or otherwise, to go F-off. In a matter of Alaska fact, that is pretty much what the Anchorage PD told the originalMG to do when he made that rule and asked them to inform on the people under his commands.

    Restricting people from going to certain places under strict guidelines is a common and accepted practice in military tradition. Restricting people from carrying firearms in an otherwise legal manner, off post, is quite another and almost unheard of.

    Restricting people from doing business with specific landlords is not unusual either, but such rules are normally considered a "strong suggestion" and at worst the command would simply refuse to help if the member got themselves in a bind with that landlord. I have seen it happen, lots of crying, so sad, they were warned.

    I am in Washington now, but have served 4 years and 2 separate commands in Alaska. I heard all about this BS with the army there and being as pro 2nd amendment as I am, I got involved in the politics and found out first hand it was all so much fluff.

    Not only are cases that this comes up in so rare its not even funny, but I have not heard of a single case where the member stood COs mast or NJP and received anything more than a slap on the wrist for the involvement of a otherwise legally carried handgun, concealed or not. The ACTUAL charge that the person was being judged on always WAY outshines such an afterthought.

    Don't believe me? Go ask the JAG over there how common such a charge is.


    Edited for spelling

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mat-Su, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    lol, Easy guys... There's really no point in arguing over it, I highly doubt I will run into any trouble with the Alaska National Guard over OC. I know almost all of my chain of command anyways, Its almost like a second family

  15. #15
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    DokWatson wrote:
    lol, Easy guys... There's really no point in arguing over it, I highly doubt I will run into any trouble with the Alaska National Guard over OC. I know almost all of my chain of command anyways, Its almost like a second family
    Understood, I am just tired of this stuff flying around about Alaska Army restrictions in regards to firearms. Its all so much hype.

    Thanks for your service DokWatson!

    "Carry on!"

  16. #16
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Just a little history on this....

    It was first enacted by Major General Charles Jacoby in Feb of 2006.
    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/7053

    It was adopted by his replacement, Major General Stephen R. Layfield on 20th of September 2007.
    http://www.usarak.army.mil/policies/...EMENT%2020.pdf

    What disgusts me the most is that neither of these tyrants were put in their place by their superiors for this, but at the same time, no one really supported them either, especially the civil authorities.

    It was a big deal at the time because every military member, army or otherwise, was concerned about this catching on. It was a worry that was unfounded and mostly it has all but been forgotten do to the shear impossibility of enforcing it since no civil authority will report or arrest for it, and no one I have ever talked to in the army or otherwise would rat on their fellow military member on such an idiotic thing.

    Widespread non-compliance and non-support has pretty much made it a moot point, although it is still on the books.

  17. #17
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    I'm sorry but no. The page you linked to is severely out of date. Employers may have rules prohibiting firearms, but they have no right to restrict a firearm in your vehicle. Click the actual link to the section, it links to the 2005 statutes. The whole X feet from the entrances or parking across the entrances, etc. part, there are only from what I can see, definitions and descriptions without enforcement or punishment. Probably repealed in 05-06 legislature.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  18. #18
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Just in case you are still in Alaska when you are 21 and apply for your concealed permit and that stupid order still exists.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but, last I heard, Alaska doesn't have concealed weapons permits. One of only two states allowing concealed carry without a permit.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    Employers can regulate the possession of firearms in your vehicle while on company property.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    j2l3 wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Just in case you are still in Alaska when you are 21 and apply for your concealed permit and that stupid order still exists.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but, last I heard, Alaska doesn't have concealed weapons permits. One of only two states allowing concealed carry without a permit.
    they do have CWP's but they are not "required"

  21. #21
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    Ahhhh I see, that doesn't make much sense, but thanks for the correction.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    they are a good thing to have. You get good training, and you get the reciprocity that comes with the permit.

  23. #23
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    murphyslaw wrote:
    Employers can regulate the possession of firearms in your vehicle while on company property.
    o.0

    http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin...c/%7B@9029%7D?

    Well I found the section, it just wasn't listed under the same ref # in the URL.

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the state, a municipality, or a person may not adopt or enforce a law, ordinance, policy, or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an individual from possessing a firearm while that individual is within a motor vehicle or prohibiting an individual from storing a firearm that is locked in the individual's motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is otherwise legally parked in or on state or municipal property or another person's property. This section applies only to possession of a firearm by an individual who may legally possess a firearm under state and federal law.
    (b) This section does not limit a person's rights or remedies under any other law.
    (c) The state, a municipality, or a person is not liable for any injury or damage resulting from the storage of a firearm in the vehicle of another individual in accordance with this section.
    (d) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, an employer or its agent may prohibit the possession of firearms within a secured restricted access area, as defined in AS 29.35.145 (e)(2), in a vehicle owned, leased, or rented by the employer or its agent or in a parking lot owned or controlled by the employer within 300 feet of the secured restricted access area that does not include common areas of ingress and egress open to the general public. The employer or its agent shall post conspicuous notice of the prohibition against possession of firearms at each entrance to the restricted access area and affected parking area.
    They can create "gun-free zones" up to 300 feet from the "secured" area which can cover the parking lot.
    I know mine only prohibits firearms in the building, I asked if I should walk out right then and there when they started talking about making a policy. I think there was a client related incident at one point and they started talking about the insurance.

    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    At my work they have a big "no firearms" policy, yet for work I must have a firearm. Kinda funny if you ask me. When I check out my weapons system in the armory I check in my POF.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    j2l3 wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Just in case you are still in Alaska when you are 21 and apply for your concealed permit and that stupid order still exists.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but, last I heard, Alaska doesn't have concealed weapons permits. One of only two states allowing concealed carry without a permit.
    You are correct. We do not have concealed "weapons" permits in the state of Alaska, rather we have concealed handgun permits. Florida would be an example of astate that has weapons permits.

    They are essentially useless in our localityother than to gain reciprocity with otherstates.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •