Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Alaska require a permit/license to CC?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Alaska require a permit/license to CC?

    So according to the site map, Alaska is a gold star state for any type of carry, but, according to several AK police department websites, a permit/license is required to CC now? Is this correct? I am having a hard time finding the statute on it. Any help?! Thanks!

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Could you please give an example of these police web sites you're referencing?
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    Maybe their sites haven't updated in a long time.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    Anchorage PD is a bunch of d**ks.
    Just go by the STATE LAW as to where you can't carry and you should be ok.
    I hardly ever go to anchorage its a cesspool.
    If I have a contact with law enforcement I do not let them touch my handgun,
    I tell them they can secure mine when I can secure theirs. They still need consent,
    I refuse to consent.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    56
    Alaska has "constitutional carry" with optional permits (for Federal GFSZA and reciprocity purposes) if you want them. There is also preemption which is reasonably strong.

    The advice on muni website about signage is decent advice but not legally binding. "No guns" signs in Alaska don't have the force of law. You do need to leave if asked to leave by a responsible adult, or it is criminal trespass. You also need to get permission before entering a person's residence.

    The only thing the muni can do is ban carry in buildings which are posted AND have a security checkpoint at each entrance open to the public, and regulate the discharge of firearms. They dragged their feet on "unposting" some places (like the library) but those signs are down now too. About the only ambiguous place in Anchorage is the campus of UAA, and I believe a lawsuit is still pending there.

    I know Anchorage Muni is one of the less gun-friendly jurisdictions, but I haven't heard of them harassing people over entering gun-free bubbles. For example, you don't read about OC'ers getting harassed over the federal GFSZA, getting within a parking lot of a strip mall that happens to have a day care, etc. They could, though, so perhaps a reason to either do your homework to 100% ensure you're legal and/or to be discreet.

    I think Sitka still has an ordnance on the books that restricts carry in the downtown areas. That is also toothless due to preemption and I doubt it would stand up to the state preemption law.

    Pointing out the verbage/signage/policies which are no longer legit to local authorities may be succesful (seemed to work at Loussac). Lawsuits (or threat thereof) may also work. Finally, I wouldn't be upset at a tougher Florida-style preemption law that holds local officials personally liable for ignoring the preemption statute, but we don't have that today.

  6. #6
    Regular Member FarNorth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    44
    As a current cesspool dweller and daily open carrier I can say that I've never had any problems during encounters with APD. Each time they've been polite and professional. Maybe I've been lucky.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    anchorage alaska
    Posts
    2

    i live in anchorage as well

    i have never ever had a bad exp with ast's or apd when c.c or o.c tho i found something very intresting that i would like someone else to looking into,i found that you can o.c at the the age of 14?? is that true? and iam also looking for a range buddy as well fyi new to site thanks and hope everyone is enjoying this dam snow lol

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    anchorage alaska
    Posts
    2
    there is a state law in alaska...er well i should say i heard about a state law that says otherwise? idk just asking cuase ive never heard of it before

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Statutory Construction

    What about a rifle?
    Last edited by apjonas; 11-21-2011 at 09:38 PM. Reason: typo

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    You Must Be Correct

    Although an FAQ is not the strongest support for statutory interpretation. I have always read USC as using "or" unless there is an explicit "and" but in this case logic must prevail.

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The ATF disagrees with you:

    http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/lice...rage-employees



    Notice how the ATF is interpreting the exceptions in 18 USC 922(x):

    The <18 years of age employee may possess the firearm:

    In the course of employment (working for the FFL which satisfies paragraph (i)) AND
    Prior written consent of the parent or guardian (paragraph (ii)) AND
    Who is not a prohibited person (another paragraph (ii) requirement) AND
    The written consent is in the employees possession at all times (paragraph (iii)) AND
    State law must not prohibit the juvenile from possessing the handgun or ammunition (paragraph iv).

    If all 4 conditions did not have to be met, only "in the course of employment" AND "state law allows it" would be necessary.

    Besides, if only (ii) or (iii) were required, than what would be the point of having paragraph (iii) at all?

Posting Permissions

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